Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
rgold
Trad climber
Poughkeepsie, NY
|
|
Without getting into any of the specifics, I think it critical to recognize that climbing, from its beginning as a sport (as opposed to its even older roots in exploration), has always involved, in some very essential way, the voluntary renunciation of available means of progress. It has always been understood that simply getting up is neither of interest nor the point; how you do it matters, and how you do it is defined, if not completely, then to a large extent, by what methods and technology you do not use. From this it follows inevitably that the end cannot possibly justify the means, rather the opposite is true: the means define the end.
At different times in in different aspects of the sport, climbers have allowed themselves either more or less support from equipment and have given themselves more or less latitude in terms of practices. These variations have in the past and will certainly continue in the future to be the subject of heated debate. Typically, a generation gets as far as it can get with the rules and equipment it has, and then a new generation, armed with better equipment, also decides to suspend the old rules as a way to make further progress, which is inevitably attacked as unjustified by the previous generation. I think this has been characteristic of the "micro" aspects of the sport like rock-climbing.
There is, however, a counter trend in which a younger generation decides to do the same or better with less, rather than more. This has been more characteristic of the "macro" aspects of the sport like mountaineering.
Most of the debates, no matter how passionately argued at the time, seem, once you've been around long enough, like tempests in a teapot. Sometimes, however, there are what Robbins called "outrages," an enduring example of which is Maestri's Cerro Torre ascent. Not only were the rules changed in a way offensive to almost the entire world of climbing, but the travesty was inflicted in a permanently scarring way. These two ingredients, ignoring universal cultural norms and permanently altering the climb make this a monument to climbing sociopathology, one that is, thankfully, so far rare in its scale.
I think it is an error and an injustice to lump Hillary together with Maestri, and in saying this I suppose I am arguing that the context of the times matters in an essential way. Hillary's ascent used techniques and methods deemed essential at the time; I think it is fair to say that only later did it emerge that certain perhaps genetically gifted individuals who were able to train appropriately could operate above 8000 meters without oxygen. On the other side of the accomplishment spectrum, we had John Gill climbing a solid two grades beyond his best contemporaries, a feat that today would require someone to be performing at the 5.17 level as the rest of the best are laboring to break into 5.15. To mention Gill's actual difficulty accomplishment without the context of the times would be to completely miss the almost incomprehensible magnitude of his achievements.
I have a really bad cold too, Jim.
|
|
hooblie
climber
|
|
jim, i thought i knew from blue collar on the ak pipeline till i spent a couple years as a derrickhand in wyoming. biggest bunch of jerks i ever immersed myself in, each one human with several redeeming features. wish i hadn't stayed around so long and found that out. i had a byline that i used often, i felt it had more meanings than two. "don't get any on ya".
next time you're under that thing, sneer a bit, hunch your shoulders, hock up a big loogie, and let it go. repeat step two and walk away. you can dial in the whole sheebang in the next couple of days.
meanwhile, great thread topic. should have had the world wide web and worked all this out decades ago. but we didn't. imagine global condemnation in real time. if maestri could live with the truth, i can live with the balance of uncertainty. such is a dollop of mystery
|
|
'Pass the Pitons' Pete
Big Wall climber
like Ontario, Canada, eh?
|
|
What did you guys think of Frost/Nixon? Should I rent it?
|
|
SteveW
Trad climber
The state of confusion
|
|
I saw the original TV show, and probably won't try to get the
flick--How could it be any better dramatized????
(ptp, go to the library and check it out--then you don't pay)!!!!
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Great topic, Jim. I think Richie's comments are pretty close to my own feelings. The only thing I would add is this: climbing needs a few monuments to virginity. Maestri's Compressor Route outraged me precisely because it used a technique we would consider cheating anywhere else (or really, just plain everywhere) to get almost to the top. To me, he'd stolen a prize that belonged to a future generation of mountaineers.
Everest, for example, doesn't seem the same (though I was all of three years old when it happened, so I can't claim to be in the middle of the climbing community for it). Hillary and Tenzing used conventional post-war Himalayan techniques.
I have problems generalizing about "cheating", however, without giving a Justice Potter Stewart definition of pornography ("I know it when I see it.") Nylon rope, the Salathe piton, Stoppers, Hexcentrics, Friends, EB's sticky rubber, etc. all seemed legitimate means. Nailing Cenotaph Corner or rap bolting on the South Face of Half Dome do not.
Hope your thrad is better. You've just given my mind lots of exercise.
John
|
|
Patrick Sawyer
climber
Originally California now Ireland
|
|
It's all relative.
|
|
Prod
Trad climber
A place w/o Avitars apparently
|
|
Trotsky said....
“The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end.”
In the case of Everst, I would say that yes the end did justify the means. Not so much so on the compressor route.
Just my $.02
Prod.
PS. Most people here accuse me of being conserative, and I just pulled a Trotsky quote out of my ass.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 3, 2009 - 09:01pm PT
|
Really good comments. I put Everest and the Compressor Route down as examples not because they were similar but because they are so different- or are they?
|
|
GDavis
Trad climber
|
|
Now that impossible is no longer in the lexicon of climbing vocabulary, no, the end should never justify the means. I say should, of course, because to some this is subjective. Faces are too blank to accept pro, poor conditions will not allow an alpine ascent, a ten foot blank section needs to be enhanced so the other 3000 feet can go free...
Then a Jeff Lowe or Henry Barber or Tommy Caldwell comes along and proves to us that we can't see into the future.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
when I was a novice climber, my first time at Tahquitz, I was suprised that on finishing our route we were headed down instead of for the summit.
It took a while to soak in that the,
Means
were the end.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 3, 2009 - 09:48pm PT
|
GDavis- in the early 70's in Yosemite holds were chipped on climbs now rated 5.10.
|
|
GDavis
Trad climber
|
|
Its an amazing thing, isn't it? Then again, for some of us 5.10 is still hard...
|
|
Jerry Dodrill
climber
Sebastopol, CA
|
|
Someone always has to be the first, and when you're first, you don't always know what is possible or what you will encounter. So you bring your bag of tricks. The more tricks you have, the more you are likely to use.
The Nose wasn't done free in a day on the first ascent. In fact it is still awaiting its first flash. I'd argue that it will never see a real onsight, given all the knowledge, beta, media, videos etc, that would negate anyone from really getting a textbook "Onsight," unless they were one of those baboons in Tanzania.
Style increases as knowledge/experience increases. Its important for the FA'ist to establish climbs in the best possible style that they are capable of while respecting the resource and local traditions, knowing that others will later up the ante. If they can't do this and instead choose to desecrate the mountain, they are in the end only disrespecting themselves.
Ed didn't desecrate Everest. Maestri? Warbler makes a good point above (re: hand-drilling). But the lie is a bigger offense than the drill.
|
|
rgold
Trad climber
Poughkeepsie, NY
|
|
A few random responses. One of the problems with these discussions is that some people are being ironic and do not mean to be taken seriously. If I have made the mistake of taking you seriously, I apologize in advance.
1. I think I disagree with just about everything Warbler says in his first post. I think that "the first rule in climbing is that there are no rules" is simply false. Well, perhaps it is true if by "rules" one means some written-down code. Climbing rules are social constructs, not legal documents, and there is local variation and little or no hard means of enforcement, but the existence of a complicated but very real set of expectations about climbing behavior is, I think, beyond contention.
Precisely because these rules are communal, I also think it is impossible to maintain Warbler's strictly personal interpretation of the question. "only that climber can know if the means he used to top out made that topout a positive experience." is certainly true, but it is also beside the point. The communal revulsion about the Compressor Route, for example, is quite independent of how Maestri felt about then or feels about it now.
2. Prod quotes Trotsky, “The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end.” Catchy as this is, it seems to me not to apply to climbing at all. what "justifies" reaching a summit, much less climbing a cliff or adding a sit start to a boulder problem? The activity has personal value, and it has communal value to the extent that it is performed within the current framework of behavior held by the community, but as an end in itself is has virtually no justification.
3. Warbler's later comments made me rethink my almost reflexive condemnation of the compressor route. Had Maestri done what he did and then free-climbed the bolt ladders, he would have simply been doing the kind of equipped big-wall free-climbing that now is becoming commonplace. People are bolting big virgin walls all over the world. What may have been sociopathic then is far more acceptable now. Such changes are a feature of the continual "rule-breaking" that I've suggested is one of the hallmarks of generational progress, and this makes it even more clear to me that activities have to be judged in the context of their times.
|
|
Evel
Trad climber
the cliffs of insanity
|
|
"The Needs of the Many outweigh the Needs of the Few." Spock, I think.....
And Yes, Free Soloing does use Aid.... Mind Aid
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
What is the end?
Where are you going?
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
Another thing to consider is whether it is reasonable to lump all first ascents together. It seems to me that for the puspose of this discussion we need to break first ascents into two broad groups – those that constitute prizes, and those that are just more of the same. Clearly, Everest and Cerro Torre are ultimate prizes. Anything that pushes the envelope in terms of difficulty, scale, remoteness, etc is a big prize. And for these I agree with everybody else that going for them in anything less than the best style of the day is to spit in the face of the climbing community. If whoever ultimately gets to the top of the North Ridge of Latok I doesn’t do it in the absolute purest style, they should never have left basecamp.
On the other hand, what about spotting a nice-looking 5.10 line in an area that has quite a few already? I’m not talking about cramming yet another variation onto an already-crowded cliff. Rather, just something which will be worth climbing, but isn’t a particular prize. Do the same rules apply?
Think about it this way: suppose you’ve climbed pretty much everything within your ability at an area, and someone says, “Hey, I heard there’s a new 3-pitch 10 over on Crag Z. Let’s go give it a try.” So, off you go, and at the end of a fun afternoon you’re at the top of this new climb, getting ready to rap, watching the sun go down, thinking about the cold ones in the cooler in your van. So you start rapping, and as you descend, you think…
What?
Seriously, what do you think after a climb like that?
Do you think: “I wonder if they cleaned this on rappel?”
Or do you think: “Damn, that was fun.”
Now, I’m not saying that on non-cutting-edge routes anything goes. Chipping is definitely grounds for castration. And overbolting is grounds for public humiliation. Etc, etc, et bloody cetera. But be honest: If someone can provide another good moderate route in an area that could use one, do you really care whether it was done ground up? Top down? Stance drilled? Whether any vegetables were harmed?
D
|
|
ß Î Ø T Ç H
Boulder climber
the greasewood ghetto
|
|
Kohl and Harding seem to walk well the fine line - not presuming anybody wants to follow thier footsteps in the first place .
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
More Trotsky, though I am not a fan of situational ethics.
|
|
Pierre
Big Wall climber
Sweden
|
|
Dingus said "Which ends are we aiming for - that is the question".
Well said!
I am not so sure I approve on what is going on at bigwalls everywhere in the world - in the name of freeclimbing...
I am talking about; Fixed lines for weeks, days on end hangdogging, tick marks everywhere, rapping in from the top for rehearsal on some pitches, spending months on a wall that is done frequently in a week (using aid), more garbage, more piss on ledges, pre-placed gear, adding more bolts, etc etc, breaking every "rule" there is just to do it in "better" style - all in the glorious name of freeclimbing...
Just me thinking...
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!