Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2019 - 12:12pm PT
|
how do we define climbing logically in a way that it makes sense
Not gonna happen. It only "makes sense" on an individual level, and we're all in it for (often wildly) different things.
IMO, when you retrobolt a route SO that you "can" free-climb it, you're already off the rails stylistically. So, ANY talk of "sense" after that is a hopeless proposition. Tommy's done that, and he has the right to do so, imo. But there's no talk of "sense" after that.
And that goes for ALL "climbing." It's all a game, and the "rules" are entirely arbitrary. There's a certain "norm" that's emerged over many decades, but it's very fuzzy around the edges. Yet, the "edges" (and far off the map) are often where greatness lies.
It's fun to talk about, to be sure. And if you need "making sense of it" to drive the discussion, that's all the more fun. :-)
But it's a fools game!
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2019 - 12:21pm PT
|
I am old, like most here, and originally thought that modern sport methods were bad.
I look back and see that I was a lemming. Jardine was using these methods long ago, and put up great routes. He did do some rock carving, though.
The best climbers work routes for long periods now, and the goal is a red point. As long as they don’t hack the rock, I think all of the other things are no big deal. The end result is what matters.
Redpoints are better than yo-yo ascents, and yo-yo’ing was common in the old days. Pushing a top rope higher.
We used to be irrational. I recall catching Shute for doing the first solo.of a route because I had done it before with a rope. We were like a bunch of nannies.
Tommy’s style on the Dawn wall was good. Both leader and follower did every pitch without falling. The only improvement could be removing any hanging belays, but there are few stances on that route. They don’t make ropes long enough!
Anyway, sport climbing has totally changed the sport for the better.
I have done many of those Dawn Wall pitches and can’t even conceive that they go free. It is mind boggling.
A red point is good style. The only thing better is a flash with no beta. I like the modern rules.
That includes adding bolts to create a free climb.
|
|
aldude
climber
Monument Manor
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2019 - 01:18pm PT
|
I'd say an onsight free solo is better style....and adding bolts for free climbing is a step backwards stylistically
|
|
donald perry
Trad climber
kearny, NJ
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 21, 2019 - 03:50pm PT
|
BASE104 "A red point is good style."
I will have to disagree, I don't think it's really necessary. Although I will admit that it will save time in doing this or that climb. I have spent years hang-dogging and recently I spent a lot of time working climbs over my limits in 5.13, for almost 2 years on the same climb every weekend. Knowing the next move or not never made any difference to me. What mattered is how fast and how strong I was after I got to the next move. And for that I think the climbing gym is the answer that is pushing the grades up. Back in the day I once overheard Sandy Stewart talking about doing pull ups on his door lintel, not much went on in the way of what we now call the climbing gym.
|
|
Fossil climber
Trad climber
Atlin, B. C.
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2019 - 05:33pm PT
|
Fascinating discussion. I could never even have imagined it sixty years ago!
Wayne
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2019 - 05:44pm PT
|
Wayne is on of the orginal nicest, most sincere guys ever. And a great climber. As such you should take his post at face value (how many of us could claim something as grand as the first ascent of The Nose.) However if I had posted Wayne's comment it would rightly be considered as a massive poke in the eye directed at self absorbed navel gazing absent any sense of how difficult and how transcendently human it is to do something new.
|
|
nah000
climber
now/here
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2019 - 07:21pm PT
|
this is, for me, one of the stranger climbing focused threads in a while...
it’s obvious the o.p. has a long personal history with the games/arts/endeavours, yet so much of what is written is so apparently lacking in reference to the greater history of climbing.
rather than pick apart every statement and to keep this relatively short, it seems to me that climbing ethics and style have changed throughout time, in large part due to technological introductions... ie. whether it was natural fiber ropes and the original ice axes a few hundred years ago; pitons a hundredish years ago; modern bolts and synthetic ropes eightyish years ago; curved ice picks and the ubiquitous use of chalk sixtyish years ago; cams, sticky rubber and battery powered hammer drills fourtyish years ago; the popularization of climbing gyms and more scientific methods of training in the past thirtyish; or the embracing of offset handled leashless styled ice tools and information sharing and its resultant intensive and instantaneous beta in the last twentyish, climbing has always had a non-linear and sometimes quixotic relationship with change... [with apologies if, in my haste, i am off by a decade or two here or there]
sometimes new technological developments and/or the resultant stylistic changes that they engender have been immediately embraced... and sometimes not.
and so to break this whole varied history in to only two camps where one is represented by the tactics used on the free dawn wall, seems very, very odd. [and that conceptual breakdown seems strange even before one considers, in north america at least, the efforts of skinner and piana in their day...]
anyway, still not really sure exactly what the o.p.’s thesis is, but i do appreciate the thought being put into this, so i’ll throw out three of my own:
1. every climbing generation, as a whole, considers the technology and therefore ethics and styles of their generation as the highest form, with everything that comes after at least a small bastardization.
2. if you aren’t climbing on sight, free solo, and with no climbing shoes and no chalk, then you are a participant in a weird cultural game that lives in a grey continuum between cultural contrivance and perfect purity of non-technologically based human exploration.
3. there’s beauty in the embracing of technology to a point where falling and the initial directions of travel becomes irrelevant, at the same time that there is also beauty in perfect luddite-like avoidance of any non human body based technology and the constraints that that avoidance provides... and so in general personal exploration and therefore sweetness can be found in pretty much every combination between those two poles [outside of completely modifying every piece of rock to meet current systems of stylistic fashion]...
anyway, honesty and not being greedy with regards to the modification of rock surfaces seems to me to be the only things worth discussing with any degree of seriousness...
everything after that is akin to discussing what your favourite band/musical epoch/instrument is... aka it’s just good ole fashioned fun.
which is why what is particularly weird about this discussion, for me, is its emphasis on “defining” and “logic”... especially when the attempts seem to be grounded, to large degree, in exactly the opposite of both of those goals.
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2019 - 08:53am PT
|
...define climbing logically in a way that it makes sense.....
Grown men and women climbing huge rocks or ice makes no logical sense. It's like trying to grade Mozart or Picasso....
|
|
Don Lauria
Trad climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2019 - 10:29am PT
|
As I recall the only "free" move I made on the second ascent was stepping out of my etriers after the last pitch - on the summit.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2019 - 11:18am PT
|
You're on a roll, DMT.
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2019 - 12:29pm PT
|
Donald, long shot here, are you related to the Don Perry that was the champion rope climber in the 1950s? Think he attended the Naval Academy.
|
|
mouse from merced
Trad climber
The finger of fate, my friends, is fickle.
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2019 - 01:10pm PT
|
Or was it the Navel Academy?
|
|
donald perry
Trad climber
kearny, NJ
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 22, 2019 - 08:12pm PT
|
Roger Breedlove you wrote: "Since sometime in the 1970's the hardest free climbing has had some sort of previewing to work out the moves. Before that the rule was closer to climbing continuously, without previewing or practicing."
I think you got that backwards.
|
|
donald perry
Trad climber
kearny, NJ
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 24, 2019 - 02:43pm PT
|
BASE104 You wrote: "I was a lemming." because I believed in the ground up ethic.
From Don: I don't think you can say we were all lemmings. I never thought I was a lemming. But I think you can say that today of many of these who think they are climbing in good style.
I think that it is true that you may need to do some hanging around if you are 20 pitches off the ground and the climb is eating the skin off your finger every time you attempt the next pitch. That the climb is impossible without some compromises and the resources are limited. But I do not think it is true, that you have to hangdog on climbs that you can do given enough time when they are one or two pitches long.
And furthermore, on some of these climbs hangdoging is not going to make any difference for the following reasons:
1.) You are just too weak to do that climb now.
2.) You are simply lacking in the climbing skills that you should have developed on easier climbs.
3.) You would be flashing but instead you are suffering from a hangdog philosophy.
I don't want that kind of unnecessary style to predominate my philosophy of climbing, where when I am on lead:
1.) I am always debating on if I should fall and do some more hangdoging or
2.) thinking that my climbing can be dependent on my belayer to help me up the climb. That the belayer can be equally to blame for my not making the climb.
Hanging on the pins resting while your partner is hanging on the other end. It's a struggle just to keep the tension right, yanking pulling jumping, it appears to be some kind of a yin yang seesaw struggle. Maybe someday climbers will invent a crank to take to the cliff so they can ratchet their leader up to their high point. The second is doing more work than the leader, are they going to be strong enough to go when the turn is theirs? The stronger the belayer the better the climbing. I don't want to have to belay these guys, they need to come down so other people can climb and finish it. Unless you are seconding it, I don't see the point.
When it came to this bit of style, I think Tommy Caldwell and Kevin Jorgenson would agree. It appears that they did not even consider hangdogg the crux pitch as an option.
The Dawn Wall 1:04:30 K.J. "Every fall you go back to the start of the pitch."
The Dawn Wall 1:24:20 T.C. "I think your gonna have to try and front step more." K.J. "When it comes time to like step on that middle foot, I can't do front step or any step because my foot's in the way. T.C. A couple of your falls last time were just because you couldn't find that middle foot. So even if it's a little bit harder ..."
I always believed climbing is something that should flow, to be in my mind as something natural every time I give it a try, nothing holding me back, and only something that has to do with me and the rock.
|
|
perswig
climber
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2019 - 03:27pm PT
|
Arne, you wrote "...he benefited greatly from shared key beta, which came from the FA members."
From Donald: Well then that's aid too,
and
Knowing the next move or not never made any difference to me. -also Donald
Dale
|
|
donald perry
Trad climber
kearny, NJ
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 24, 2019 - 03:41pm PT
|
Answering Perswig:
I meant that not having beta makes no difference if you have time. On the other hand if you are on the Dawn Wall and need to summit with skin enough to make it and have no beta, then the climb should prove to be impossible.
|
|
Gnome Ofthe Diabase
climber
Out Of Bed
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2019 - 02:47pm PT
|
Tut, I'm sure you are being facetious, about asking who Donald is.
Your ability to judge character has not let you down in this case.
(Donald, why don't you respond to John Gills Question? Are the son of the Navy rope Climber?)
but in case someone else is curious:
Here on the Taco you can gain some insight from this Link
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=2055633&tn=140
I could spend 20 minutes or 2 hours trying to explain,
there are some redeeming characteristics to Donald,
but Right now
I have to get on cooking dinner.
Its a real Boondoggle over at the Mnt Reject: somewhere there was a long thread? 2015? I really do not remember...
search, Northeast, Gunks, Millbrook - Rederectionalism (?)
or his name & Top rope 1st ascents(FAs)
|
|
donald perry
Trad climber
kearny, NJ
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 3, 2019 - 10:59pm PT
|
To Gnome Ofthe Diabase: why don't you call me? I want to talk about Lyme. And, no I am not that old, and I do not climb ropes.
|
|
donald perry
Trad climber
kearny, NJ
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 3, 2019 - 11:24pm PT
|
Kingtut wrote "I just don't get why someone thinks he has something to contribute about style for others, let alone on rock climbs he will never touch? … none of us are in any position to criticize other's climbing unless … they ask ....”
From Don: Dear King Tut,
First of all, your augment is not with me. You have misunderstood my idea. I am kind of doing a climb of my own here right now. I am trying to figure out what is aid climbing and what is free climbing while you watch. And you are criticizing my climbing.
You are arguing about my arguing, that I should stop arguing and let you argue. So, rather than stop arguing…. I agree with you, let’s keep arguing. But do we really want to argue about arguing while we are both arguing? Let’s talk about something important, which is, “What are we arguing about?”. Or what is climbing?
You are arguing with a straw-man. I don’t really care about any particular people here per say, rather my question is: "What is good style?", because it matters to me. I want to know what climbing is and what it's not. If it does not matter to you, then fine. But I have a right to know, like you have argued. Should it be private? The route is a public spectacle, it is public information. There is a movie. So, I should be able to give a public opinion. People should be able to think and say whatever they want. But I believe that climbing and good style does have a good definition. That is what I am now perusing, not your Tom, Dick and Harry that you suppose I am.
If being out there alone is what is really desired then everyone has their right to keep their routes and ideas to themselves as well as keep their climbs out of the guidebooks or not read into ideas about people observing their ideas or comment on them. People have that option, but that is not what most climbers do.
Some of us tried that for a while back in the 70’s btw, it did not seem to be very interesting, it was kind of a boring idea. One time there was even a party that tried to climb El Capitan in better style and not use a topo. They thought the idea or guidebooks was too much about things that had nothing to do with what climbing should be all about, that it should just be about you and the rock. What happened was that they got lost up there on the dead-ends and ran out of supplies.
We are all connected here to some extent for better or worse, but if you don’t like it leave, one always has that option. I choose to go the other direction, and it seems you have too.
You are saying to each his own. Nevertheless, regardless, we all try to adhere to standards and ratings anyway. Everyone knows the difference between aid and free climbing. When someone does a free climb they want to do it free. My question is what is pure free climbing when it comes to beta and hangdogging or pulling the rope through before each try? What is the logical and honest answer here, what are we doing? Does it make any sense? You are saying to each his own, that’s fine too. However, when people bring their ideas of accomplishment up publicly, then in essence they are looking for how and what they did in the world of mountaineering fits in with the climbing community. Not the other way around, except if your goal is to please a newbie mentality ... and I think that is what soloing is all about. So, I think I came up with some good ideas about how to define what we do, don’t you appreciate them? Well … you don’t have to study math to enjoy it, but I like to know the score. If you don’t your argument is appreciated, that is why I posting my junk here. So you could bash it. If I did not want you to comment on it, it would not be in a thread, it would be alone on a bookshelf. I don't think you can call me a hypocrite.
From my perceptive there is free climbing and there is aid climbing. I don’t think these rules should be set in stone, but I think that they are, and I want to know what they are. And I think now that there is better aid climbing and there is better free climbing. And doing a better ascent counts, even if you or others think it is irrelevant. I think it matters, and I think it matters to most of us. (that appears to be your argument to some extent, that style is a personal thing, and it is meant to be that way)
The way I see it, when you and your partner have to fail miserably, and you are already mixing aid and free climbing together, beta and hangdogging mixed up with some ground up ethic at the same time for the grand mop-up, then having the wrong mix makes for poor style. In other words, if you fail, or if you die, or if you will soon die in the style, then that's poor style. And I think that these rules change somewhat at the brink of human abilities, that is that you do not need beta and hangdogging just before the end of what is humanly possible. Someone else can do it, you can do something easier, or you can it be done without beta and hangdogging? If not then it needs to be part of the equation, in this case only.
I suppose it could be argued that the good style would be never to complete the climbs at the level of these difficulties, and if you did the climb then that would be bad style. But, I don't think we have go that far because we are all using aid to a degree that makes free climbing reasonable. For example, we all wear shoes, man was made to wear clothing, that's where we're at. We do not have fur on our backs or pads on our feet like other creatures. Man was made to wear climbing shoes and use chalk, and since we can't fly and make mistakes use a rope.
Therefore, on these really hard climbs skipping over these sections with less aid and more ground-up ethics is good style, but that does not have anything to do with climbing without clothing, shoes, chalk or a rope. If you fail because you don't use good climbing shoes, chalk, or a rope it just means you were confused, unreasonable and illogical. You failed to realize what naturally makes for good style and what makes for bad style.
Some would take it a step further. If we are not all products of evolution, if we did not self create, if we are someone else's creation, which I think is a no brainier considering what we now understand as infinite complexities of random chance which make evolution impossible----to put oneself at risk unnecessarily while climbing is breaking a natural law found in the Ten Commandments concerning idolatry. Granted, risk is unavoidable, learning how to deal with risk is good. This is what work is all about. But people do not need to lead trad with a blindfold or do those other similar things in what has proven to be bad style for not consistently finishing what you started or set a trend for the definition of sin and irresponsible foolishness.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!