Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Roger Breedlove
Trad climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
Hi Karl:
I agree completely with what I think is your view on hammering, if you mean pins instead of clean. After reading your post, I felt compelled to re-read the entire thread--yea, yea, I don't have a life (it is a very slow Sunday in Neurtingen).
I think that on free routes bolts should replace pins and, on rappels, bush or tree anchors. As I stated earlier, I debated this with guys like Royal, TM, Galen, Jim Erickson, Kamps, Higgins, Couch, Robinson…and concluded that pin scaring was not consistent with ‘leave no trace behind.’ For sure, over using bolts can destroy the one element of climbing. But bolts can be controlled: they can be removed and the holes filled; pin scarring cannot.
Earlier in the thread someone raised the issue of the 5/8 baby angle that I placed 33 years ago on Hoodwink on the first ascent--at least I have been told it is the same one. I left all my protection pins fixed in those days, on the basis that the pins would not be removed for booty. This took a heavy toll on my rack. I would leave it to someone like Greg to decide, but I certainly have no objection to it being replaced with a bolt, since it will be an ugly mess if the one there breaks. Worse yet, if the flake breaks off, the climb will be much harder without any good reason. I don't think that my being part of the first ascent is the reason to do it; I think that preserving the rock, and the climb, is a good enough reason.
I am not sure what you are proposing in your comments about old routes that have limited protection. Personally I do not think that any protection bolts should be added to any of the routes on Middle--mine, Ron's, John's, Ray's, Georges's...anyone's. I do think that all protection bolts should be replaced. (NB: added belay bolts and rap stations are a different topic.)
I have only heard of Space Babble; I have not done it or studied it. Without regard to Ron's comments to you, it is a lasting testament to Ron's style and skill at that time. In my opinion, there will be a time when a Valley climbers will say let's go do all the 'old school' routes on Middle. In the early 70’s everyone pretty much did. The climbing was great, the routes were long, the route finding was tricky, the all clean standard was tricky and ever one loved it. When this happens again, climbers will want to find Space Babble as it was conceived.
I get the point that Ron may have second thoughts about the long-term effects of his leads on Space Babble. I think that most of us do not feel like we have the right to limit the accessibility of a climb because of the way we did it. Personally, I have asked Greg to tell me if bolts should be added to the first pitch lead on a short and not-test-piece on Fairview dome that I did. Apparently no one does the route because it looks like it has unprotected 5.9 climbing. It is a nice route that should be accessible to wide range of climbers; in my opinion it is not a climb for the history books. And I would have no objection to someone fixing the first pitch if indeed it has unprotected 5.9. (Greg didn't mind considering replacing the bolts that were there, but was pretty firm that he wasn't interested in adding bolts.)
Nevertheless, whether Ron likes it or not, he made a statement with Space Babble that should be preserved. I looked at that section of rock on Middle and stated publicly that a route should be put there--but I didn't have the gumption to do it. Ron did. And he did it in the style of a very long history of Middle free climbing. He cannot take it back, and neither should anyone else.
Ron's climb should be rebolted, with solid belays, and publicized. If there really are 'ground mission' falls (to quote Werner, I think), then they should be noted. (However, I have read here on ST that there are no ground falls.) If the climbing is as good as you say it should have lots of ascents--who, with any sense of history and a claim to skills--would not be proud to give it a go.
All the best, Roger
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Thanks for your excellent remarks Roger.
I'm not proposing anything for Cathedral and I won't bolt Space Babble. I wouldn't object if someone did.
Now the fact is that you haven't done the route and nobody else has in the past 20 years (post up if you have) I think it's dubious to think that a route like that should sit idle for the safe of hypothetical climbers in some future generation when it would get ascents every week if it were only as scary as Stoners. When are these future climbers going to be born? Why should you be able to suggest that your route on Fairview get a new bolt or two, but Ron can't suggest the same for his route? How will the future know that there is a historical difference between these routes? Is it really so bold and remarkable that somebody like Ron Kauk could walk up and climb 5.9/10a- without any pro?
The future will decide the future.
This thread is getting hard to load. If I've opened up a whole can of worms with my recent remark, we should start a new thread about it, but perhaps it's better to let it go. It won't lead to anything that anybody wants to grapple with in these times
peace
karl
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
I've done Space Babble and the anchors back then, 80's, were terrible. What to speak of now. If those anchor bolts haven't been replaced yet they should. Knowing Kauk as well as I do he would definitely would want them replaced.
And Karl; Time to sign up for DSL, or is that service not available to you in your area?
|
|
akclimber
Trad climber
Eagle River, AK
|
|
I just got off the phone with John Gill. He said that unless you have a guardrail under you to stop your fall, you are not much of a climber anyway so the where/when/how many bolt question is irrelevant.
|
|
HalHammer
Trad climber
CA
|
|
Ak climber that was old the first time yah did it..
If anyone has a right to rebolt a climb with additional bolts it should be the first ascent. If they originally intended to have it one way or another I don't see the harm in them fixing things. This could be carried to extremes either way. Have to ask sometimes what good do rated X moderate routes do for anyone? Making some rated X classics rated R classics wouldn't be the end of the world in my book either.
|
|
golsen
Social climber
kennewick, wa
|
|
In the 1984 guide book to the Wasatch (SLC) the authors wrote something like:
"Who can judge the boldness of future climbers?" Karl, I respect your opinions but who are we to judge what people will be doing in 30 years. The old arguments that we heard about sport climbing was that the resource would be used up at a much faster rate with sport climbing (dont get me wrong I like sport climbing). I think that is true. Are we so selfish that we should make things available to us now? Why can't we leave some adventures for future generations?
About 15 years ago I made it to the Needles of South Dakota. I had read for years about the poorly protected routes and it took a lot of gumption for me but I did Superpin about 5.10 R/X. There was a summit register and all Summer long the route had been done only 4 times. Should it be opened to the masses? I am so glad that those challenges are still out there. To me, opening things like this up to the masses by bolting is a similar thing to making more roads through the wilderness so that more people can enjoy it (different scale but same idea). IMHO I do not think that mankind should use all of its technological advances to make things safe. I aspire to do certain climbs and some of those aspirations are all fantasy. I doubt I will ever have the requisite skill for the Bachar-Yerian. But I am damn glad that there is something like that there to aspire to....
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
You talk like these run-out testpieces are rare and well protected moderates are the norm, but, at least in Yosemite, that's far from the case. There are many, many multi-pitch face routes under 5.11 in Yosemite. I have done a many, many of them. They are almost all R or X rated. The only ones that get regular traffic at all are Crest Jewel, Stoners, and the DNB. (and those last two will get your blood going!)
I sent my friend, who's freed El Cap and climbed over 100 5.13s, up one of the better protected ones (the Rambler, pre-rebolting) and he backed off!
My hat is off to the pioneers of climbing that founded so many environmental organizations, founded socially and environmentally responsible companies, and made the switch to clean protection from pins.
But they were human too and I'm afraid many are guilty of snagging most of the moderate face climbing potential in the valley with little or no regard for future generations of climbers. They were in a macho, one-upmanship contest to climb all the lines as boldly as possible with no consideration for the poor smucks whos limit was 5.9-10c.
Many of them regret it now, and would actually rue the day when cranking x rated slab routes became some kind of popular activity, eventually putting some loser in an iron lung in his attempt to measure up to the big boys. Few people who have grown up want to see folks permanently injured on their routes.
I don't think we owe these future bold climbers much, as they always have the option to solo. It's the average climber who has been shortchanged by the elite in Yosemite, which now has lots of closely bolted routes in the 5.12+ league but none at 5.9.
I've actually climbed Lucifer's to the Oasis twice now, once free/rope solo. It's only 5.9 but there are whole pitches with zero pro and one angle pin for an anchor. Is it really so much to ask that one or two of these routes be made only slightly insane for the other 5.9 climbers who can only handle 25 foot leadouts instead of 120 if the FA party thinks it's a good idea?
I understand that retro-bolting is out of line according to today's standard. I know it's a slipperly slope, like using embreyos that are going to be thrown away for stem cell research. But I'm tired of hearing the same canned excuses from those who don't actually do these routes, about why they must remain testaments to the egos and balls of the studs of yesteryear. Do they ALL have to remain testaments?
I actually do those routes and so I don't "need" them bolted down to size so that I can do them, and it's good for me that I never have to worry about others being on them. I just think it's important to put in a word for the 85% of the regular climbers that come to Yosemite and wait for long periods for the limited Supertopo routes where a crack made it impossible for the pioneers to create an X rated route.
Tons of you climb way harder than 5.10c (sometimes easier) Why are you so busy defending these routes but not climbing them? I understand that I'm bucking the popular climbing culture by discussing this. We certainly have to keep some kind of lid on rampant change. To me, the opinion of the guys who put up the routes, even 20 years ago, is a good place to place serious weight. It just kinda rubs me the wrong way when folks are willing to discount the older, wiser, opinions of those FA parties who don't wish to stand by their reckless actions in the past, but are alway willing to assume that the FA style was a bold enduring statement rather than a consequence of limited time, money, or common sense.
I apologize for bringing up the subject of retro-bolting, even by the first ascent party on their own route, on this thread, since it clouds the easier, clearer discussion of rebolting anchors by the ASCA. It really should be discussed (or not discussed) on another thread so better clarity can be acheived on the subject of anchors.
and to be clear, I'm never going to retro-bolt anything. (as much as anyone can ever say never)
Peace
karl
|
|
akclimber
Trad climber
Eagle River, AK
|
|
Hey Hal, I wasn't the first. Minerals was.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Well Karl some bad ass routes must remain that way unless you can climb them. It’s quite simple if you can’t do it then you will have to back off. I have had to back off some leads that were to dangerous for me. So what! That’s a good thing. I have no problem with that. Some routes I will not lead. I’ll either find a partner who can or top rope or just not go there. That is also very good.
I can’t be thinking that “I” will make it safer for me!
That’s stupid and selfish.
And reckless actions? Now I’ve climbed many routes with both Kauk and Bachar, believe it or not they were very conservative actually. They trained like psychos just so they could do some of those routes in the style they did. These became the higher standards and not by force or recklessness but by natural level headed climbing styles.
Even in the world there are high class men/women and everything in between to the low class. Not that everyone can be high class or everyone is materialistically rich and no poor man/woman.
Not everyone can dive to the deepest to retrieve the finest pearls.
It must be earned ……..
|
|
golsen
Social climber
kennewick, wa
|
|
Karl,
yes the thread has diverged and yes, it probably should be discussed. I believe that the slippery slope is deciding what should be retrobolted, who is going to do it, and how close the bolts are together. A tradition of following in the steps of the FA is straightforward and easy to live by. Deciding what should be retroed and how it is to be done is something else altogether.
I cannot have any useful thing to say about the Valley routes but this topic is happening at many climbing areas throghout the country. Back at my old stomping grounds someone wants to add a bolt on a 5.10 that has a groundfall. IMHO the route should stay since it has been done probably a thousand times. The one arguing about it says that the FAist took away the guys right to climb the route safely and therefore the route should be retroed to make it safe. To me, I see this as a decline in the sport. There are plenty of routes that are safe and doable.
The Yosemite climbers of the early 80's (ie: Bachar) had a huge influence on my climbing at the time. FYI in the early 80's I on-site soloed a couple new routes that went at 5.10. These routes were later retrobolted because another party didnt know they were routes. I did not make an issue out of it for many of the same reasons that you mentioned. I knew nobody would do them the way I did. Denote a forked tongue? I think sometimes it is easier for the FAist to give in than it is for them to just say no...
The problem as I see it is that people do not want to accept risk. I can climb 5.10 in the GYM why is this runout 5.9 shutting me down. Some climbers then take this to the extreme and say it is their right to make it safe. But to some people safe means bolts every 8 feet. The problem of retrobolting some of those routes is where would it stop? I have no doubt that there are climbers who could retro some of those routes and do it in a good way. But suppose I am up there and the route has been retroed and I am still scared becasue of a 20 runout? What "rule" could be imposed to protect the climb? If someone retroed this route then why can't I retro it to make me happy? It is a slippery slope for sure and it should be discussed. Personally, I would rather have the routes stay the way they are, painting the story of a bold climb as opposed to making climbing safe. There aint much rock left, bolting it down for the masses is like paving the rocky trail...I didnt think climbing was supposed to be easy nor risk free.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Actually, I think things are as OK as they're ever going to get right now. We have a general level of consensus with folks at either extreme a bit unhappy, but with no knock down drag out wars since awhile. We tend to work things out and that's good enough.
If circumstances change in the future, and the consensus shifts, we'll be right where we are, where most folks are OK with things and both extremes wishing for more of their own way.
I'm fine with that. I think that's as good as it gets. While the discussion about "What ifs' is stimulating, it also pisses folks off and just makes my peaceful life harder. Since I don't alter any routes one way or another, I'm bowing out of this conversation now with regards and respect to folks who feel either way.
Peace
karl
|
|
golsen
Social climber
kennewick, wa
|
|
Sorry Karl, I was not directing this at you. Just seems like this topic is ripe at many areas....Seemed like a good place and time to state my case.
Peace,
Gary
|
|
MAD BOLTER
Trad climber
CARLSBAD,NM
|
|
I think I am being accused of some poor bolt work-I don't remember ever pulling out 5 piece bolts! Why does ASCA speciry that anchors be set up with 2 bolts placed at the same level and not connected? Someone removed my original rappel anchors between grey bands and Dolt tower, replacing them with the 2 bolt same level and not connected: these were for rappel stations and not for belaying.
Concerning the 5 piece anchors- I checked some that were supposidly stainless and the nut end was not SS. Check with a magnet. SS doesn't pull toward a magnet. see you this Aug-Sept.
|
|
Clint Cummins
Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
|
|
Cool, Tom - it will be good to see you n the Valley this summer!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!