Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
|
Sep 21, 2009 - 04:51pm PT
|
Enhancements? We've all moved on and even the meaning and useage of the word has changed.
SEE?
Who can argue against that these days? I'll give this thread another 300 posts at least though...using the old meaning of enhancements of course.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
primordial soup
|
|
|
Sep 21, 2009 - 04:54pm PT
|
i'd wager that the one thing everyone can agree upon is this:
these threads are becoming painful to watch.
therefor i propose the following:
everyone on the planet simply concedes, here and now, that these arguments will eventually be won by attrition, and so all parties (concerned or not concerned) eagerly adopt, right now, what all agree the end result will be: that WoS is a highly respected route, perhaps even THE singular, definitive, all time El Cap classic.
AND..
everyone agrees to not bring it up again, until and unless someone else climbs the route, because in truth, it appears that approach may just bury the issue for all time.
edit- i'm just not at all sure what all the ongoing efforts, thousands upon thousands of "internet postings", are supposed to accomplish, if not that...?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Sep 21, 2009 - 05:09pm PT
|
Clearly more than half of the "internet posings" are about continuing the slander over the removal of about a gram of crystals from the route. Weak.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Sep 21, 2009 - 06:29pm PT
|
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 21, 2009 - 06:32pm PT
|
"You definitely lose me when you start dissing guys like Bridwell and Beyer."
I think I made it completely clear that I was not dissing them, well, not Bridwell anyway. I know what Beyer claimed and what he did on one route; the two came wildly apart. Beyond that I don't know anything about him. But, I'd like you to show me a single post where I "diss" on the Bird. Not gonna find it, unless you build in your own definition of "dissing," which I disavow, which simply acknowledges that his tactics were less "pure" than you would like to fantasize existed.
It's funny to me that a few of you think that acknowledging the truth of what has been done on Bridwell routes counts as "dissing." Somehow my genuine admiration for the man and his routes, calling them things like "magnificent," "visionary," and so forth is still "dissing" if I simply note that the tactics his ascents employed were much more heavy-handed than my own have been. I, for one, don't think that is "dissing," as I don't think that such tactics are "wrong" or "bad," as you do. I simply deny this "continuum of righteousness" that you espouse.
And I'm not alone in noting the tactics. Mayfield also told us about some of the heavy handed tactics on the FA of ZM, so I take that as first-person collaboration of what I have seen myself.
You can try to "blame" (I deny that this is even an appropriate word) other parties for what we found on the Sea, but be careful who you blame. Everybody prior to us was well-respected, and the additional drilling I think you are referring to was on a variation. If you're saying that those teams went up there and "butchered" the route, taking it from some idealized "pristine" state to what it was when we got there, well, I'd sure like to hear those other teams weigh in about how THEY contributed to the hundreds of holes and modifications (that were clearly necessary, like the bat hooks on blank rock on Hook or Book) all over the route.
"It's pretty obvious you really don't have that much experience on the big walls, having only done a few other routes other than your own, to really know what these guys were all about. Climbing one of their routes, then pontificating and defining their style is petty."
Petty? Pontificating? Since when did reporting what is clearly there for anybody to see become "pontificating?" You employ loaded, provocative language to make a point that the facts themselves won't sustain. The Sea was heavily drilled and manufactured. I could give you a dozen examples off the top of my head of drilling and modifications we found that were undeniably necessary to make upward progress. Again, if there is "blame" (which I deny at the outset), then YOU can tell me on a point-by-point basis who is to blame. Instead, perhaps you should rethink your icons and ethics and realize that WHO does what in Yosemite matters FAR more than WHAT they do.
"For you to definitely say that all the drilled holes you saw were Bridwell's team's work can only be conjecture. I highly doubt that 1/3 of the Sea of Dreams was drilled on the FA."
Well, you can doubt whatever you like, and if history is any guide, evidence will not sway you. However, if you like I can provide you incident after incident on the route that was necessary for upward progress, and I'd love an explanation of how progress was made without the drilling and modifications. Have you done the Sea? If so, which ascent (or was it long after anybody was keeping track)?
Furthermore, I'd love to hear the account of who did what. It's a VERY short list of people that were on the route before us! I think your "conjecture" idea is microscopically thin. I've been there, I know what was there, I know who climbed the route before us, and I know what it took to make upward progress.
Guys like you are really disingenuous about your standards, evidenced by the following:
"Bridwell has his own style of climbing, that's for sure, it's not like Grossman's, Shipley's, Cole's, or mine for that matter, but everyone has a different way of doing things, that's the beauty and the art of the activity."
Hmmm... I'm confused! First you say the Bridwell et al did a "pristine" (by YOUR notion of such a term) ascent of the Sea. That's obviously and demonstrably ridiculous. You sense that fact, which is why within one paragraph you are already back-peddling: "Well, Bridwell had a more 'heavy handed' style, but THAT was not the BEST style, like the style of the REAL heros, like Grossman, Shipley, Cole, or MINE. Of course, what we were ALL doing was ART."
So then I simply note that Bridwell's style was more heavy-handed than my own; but that's a problem, since MY style is clearly not "art" by your standards. So, what can be done? Hmmm... well, to say anything like the details of Bridwell's style is to "diss" him! Why "diss?" Well, because to put his style anywhere NEAR that of the Mad Bolters is by definition a "diss!" After all, WHATEVER the Bird did is by definition "art," even if it is a "different" (read: less "pure") style than that of the real heros. So, somehow in the "continuum of righteousness," it just HAS to be the case that the Mad Bolters are the definition of unrighteousness and anti-art, which keeps the Bird above them, although still below the real heros! Hahaha... it is to laugh, and I do.
Or, are you actually ready to recognize that there is a whole range of styles that are legitimate, and that styles fluctuate according to the circumstances? Doubtful, but one can always hope.
"And it appears you are trying to make the claim that your style, the style you imposed on the El Cap slab, is also valid, that the difficulty of WOS makes up for the fact that it has a lot more than the norm in terms of drilled placements."
Well, you haven't made any part of this case. First, you have not demonstrated, and we have demonstrated to the contrary, that WoS had a much lower impact than other respected routes of its time. Your avoidance of that fact is based upon your unsubstantiated claims that routes like the Sea and ZM were somehow "pristine" on the FA, and it is demonstrable that you are living in a dream world about that. Our style was valid by the same standards of such routes of the time. That it is also very difficult is a secondary consideration, and one that we have never, ever used as a "validation" tactic. Show me ONE place where we have even suggested such a thing.
Finally, you use another loaded word: "imposed." What a steaming pile! EVERY first ascentionist IMPOSES a style on the rock. Don't single us out for special condemnation. We did nothing more, and actually much less, "impact" to the stone than many others did during that same time frame. Oh, and I guess that the "machine headwall" was a "variation worth drilling for." Hahaha... it is to laugh, and I do.
"What some are trying to tell you, is that it is not about the actual volume of rock displaced in ascending the stone, and it is not about comparing your route with the testpieces of the major players in the sport, it's about a communal recognition of the art."
Yeah, and that "some" is getting fewer and fewer as you guys spend your time even now, decades later, not having even TOUCHED the route, much less climbed it, telling us how BAAAAAAD we were way back then. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, the threshold of BAAADNESS keeps moving. Once, long ago, it was just obvious to EVERYBODY how baaaad the Mad Bolters were. But that case gets harder and harder to sustain, and you have to try harder and harder to find some ledge to place a smaller and smaller hook from which to hang your baggage.
You have a narrow, self-serving notion of the "art," and you selectively choose from among your "facts," while avoiding confrontation with countless other utterly falsifying FACTS, to maintain your dream world of this fine time in that brief era, when you, Cole, Grossman, and Shipley were doing PURE ART, and everybody else (including, apparently, the Bird) of that time was somehow below you.
Again, a steaming pile. Get over yourselves. Jolly Roger was NOT the hardest hooking of the era, Shipley drilled whenever he felt like it, and it was justified because it was HIM! Your "communal recognition" was a HERD blindly mooing after a few icon "leaders" that were feeding it lies. Imagine if WE would have put up the machine headwall! Hahahaha... it is to laugh, and I do.
"You are doing well to convince the non-cognoscenti that aid climbing in general is just a matter of bashing and drilling your way up a rock, but it's not the truth, is it?"
Well, I guess you'd have to ask people that HAVE "bashed and drilled" their way up a rock. I haven't, so I have no desire to convince anybody about any particular style. YOU are the ones that load this or that style with so much baggage. As I said earlier in this thread, my goal is not to convince the "court of public opinion" how to interpret the facts. My ONLY goal is to be sure that the "court" at least HAS the facts, which your group of icons has spent decades trying to deny them.
So you'd have to talk to those that have employed "heavier" tactics than I to find out whether or not they think that their particular tactics on a particular route counted as art. I, for one, think the Sea was ART, and I'm not "dissing" the tactics employed to make it go, because that it goes is magnificent!
And your "cognoscenti" line is just more elitist BS. You guys have always had an us/them mentality. We came into "your" Valley and did not deign to recognize you as demi-gods, so you spent decades lying about us. Now that the lies are becoming common knowledge, you have to grapple with how that's going to play out for your fantasy view of that wonderful, pristine time (that never existed). Harding had it right when he talked to Corbett (and perhaps even you) about WoS. His summation of the crap the "cognoscenti" dished out: "Dogs pissing on trees." He would know.
Still true.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 21, 2009 - 06:34pm PT
|
Matt, if it's so painful to you, spare us your pain (and cheap sarcasm) and just don't attend. That's the easy fix.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
|
Sep 21, 2009 - 06:58pm PT
|
Will anything ( besides Deuce's insightful questions) be presented on this thread?
Does this cover Any, new ground?
Was there a reason to take up this space on the net?
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
primordial soup
|
|
|
Sep 21, 2009 - 06:59pm PT
|
dude-
did you read your own post, just above?
life is too short for the complex you have.
my earlier point is that if EVERYONE said so today, it still wouldn't be (and couldn't ever be) enough to heal what ails you.
you cannot go back in time.
revel in your happy marriage and let this all go.
|
|
dipper
climber
|
|
|
Sep 21, 2009 - 07:05pm PT
|
madbolter1
You seem to like words, lots of them.
Go here and practice:
http://www.freerice.com/
I think you'll find your efforts on that site will have a more positive impact on the planet than your current word-play.
Then again, maybe not.
|
|
Bullwinkle
Boulder climber
|
|
|
Sep 21, 2009 - 07:08pm PT
|
if you come back to the valley we can have an outhouse at the base of El Cap again. . .
|
|
MSmith
Big Wall climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Sep 21, 2009 - 07:14pm PT
|
Dipper
Words are good. I like them.
Deuce4
Hmupf, I spent some precious time to type a response, but thankfully did a last check of the thread to see that Richard published. Unwilling to throw out my work, here's a condensed version:
I think that you misunderstand Madbolter to think that he is dissing on Bridwell. Knowing Madbolter as I do, he has a great deal of respect for the Bird. (Beyer is a different matter.) Perhaps it seems that Madbolter is pontificating about Bridwell’s style and/or calling his style petty, but such is not the case. Madbolter’s point, if I may attempt to speak on his behalf since he seems to be [edit: was] off-line, is that others like Bridwell have, at least to a degree, climbed as they saw fit and created their own styles. Bridwell’s style is open to its own criticisms, yet for whatever reasons he is not criticized. I wonder, if Bridwell had done WoS in the style in which it was done, would it have been deemed as the great undoing of an otherwise proud climber, or would it have been hailed as the ultimate accomplishment of a visionary. Likewise, if the Mad Bolters had done the FA of the Sea, with the tactics employed, would it have been hailed as the greatest climb of its day, or would have it been slandered as an outrageously modified botch job. That’s what I think Madbolter is getting at. Regarding your comments on the Sea, we did the 5th ascent, I believe. After his ascent (3rd), Slater warned us that we would "need" a pair of taper-point ground down Chouinard Cliffhangers to do the route. On that point he was absolutely right, as the route was full of holes meant for such a tool.
Hey, I thought your diagrams were good and you raised a good and unique question regarding flake modification, the first new and worthwhile input on this topic in a long time. Richard already covered that, but I'll see if I can find data on how many heads we placed. I can't remember if we logged that.
MS
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 21, 2009 - 07:57pm PT
|
Mark -- ".... if Bridwell had done WoS in the style in which it was done,..."
Not even a viable idea/argument .... because it's just pure fantasy.
Stick with reality please ....
|
|
MSmith
Big Wall climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Sep 21, 2009 - 08:13pm PT
|
WBraun
A stronger criticism would be to assert that my questions pose a false dichotomy. My point, though, is that a climb in the Valley is judged as much by who you are as by the merits of the climb itself.
|
|
ricardo
Social climber
San Francisco, CA
|
|
|
Sep 21, 2009 - 08:27pm PT
|
Will someone just give madbolter a hug please.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 21, 2009 - 08:29pm PT
|
This thread was a response to yet more questions of "clarification" on the part of one of the remaining rabid critics. I have clarified. More than a day has passed since I did so, yet, I see no acknowledgment from Steve.
Steve, I await (with bated breath) to hear if you now understand what we mean by "enhanced" and the percentage of "enhanced" hooks. Or, are you now going non-responsive until the next time you accuse us of not being forthcoming and trying to obfuscate?
Also, I await you holding yourself as publicly accountable as you have held us. Still waiting for that count from you.
And to those telling us, in effect, to shut up: you are telling that to the wrong people, and nobody is forcing you to read these threads.
As we continue to be defamed, we will continue to set the record straight. We know that we cannot convince any of the remaining detractors. But we won't again make the mistake of letting time pass with lies as common "knowledge." So, "letting it go" is a function of others at this point, not us.
If our removal of a micro-gram of rock at this point still has a few in an uproar, well, just as soon as they can get over it, we'll be able to quit defending against further defamation.
|
|
deuce4
climber
Hobart, Australia
|
|
|
Sep 21, 2009 - 08:41pm PT
|
Comparing WOS with Sea of Dreams, or any other single route, is a pointless endeavour (though tell the Bird that you think 1/3 of his route was drilled, and I suspect he might consider it a diss). You might as well compare WOS to the Salathe, which only used 13 bolts.
Comparing it to the state of the art as a whole, on the other hand, is appropriate, and that's the point that some on this forum are trying to make--whether the tactics employed for the features encountered on the slab, including the amount of drilled placements required for the ascent, validates the line.
My personal experience and knowledge, and from what I have read on this forum, leads me to believe it required a lot more drilling than other routes of the era, and I don't subscribe to the belief that the end difficulty justifies the means. So therefore I have doubts about the line. But that's just me.
On the other hand, perhaps it might one day be considered a visionary route. If the slab could be climbed with only drilled anchors at the belays, then this would be certainly be true. But with the amount of drilling (and the "non-enhancements", for that matter) that were employed on WOS, is it visionary, or is it a forced and unnatural line? That's the question to me, and would still like to hear more details.
Climbing is not like a structured game like golf, where there is a defined, albeit a bit arcane, set of rules. It's more of an art. And like all art, it is in the eyes of the beholder. El Cap is the greatest canvas of all the big stones in the world. There are some on this forum who fiercely protect that canvas.
One can imagine how silly this will all seem when the Gecko Tape becomes commercially available for climbers. Then it will just be a matter of leapfrogging the gecko pads up the slab, no worries!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 21, 2009 - 08:41pm PT
|
Chief, we got the lifetime of criticisms and second-guessing without doing the defending. Now we're doing the defending, and that has been effective on many levels. You can't convince people that have deep-seated emotional commitments to their perspectives, so that evidence and rational argumentation has no effect. But you CAN convince people that care about evidence and rational argumentation.
I DO like words, because history shows that violence and words are the two primary forces for change in the world. Of the two, words can actually convince people, which makes change lasting.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 21, 2009 - 08:44pm PT
|
madbolter1 -- "If our removal of a micro-gram of rock at this point still has a few in an uproar, well, just as soon as they can get over it, we'll be able to quit defending against further defamation."
That's just plain stupid too. You've defended your case ad nauseam for 25 years. Leave the detractors behind to squirm in their own hell.
You've got nothing to prove to anyone. Leave them in the dust ......
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 21, 2009 - 09:02pm PT
|
All good points (this time), Deuce4. And, as with all genuine art, some will approve and some will disapprove. Some will like what they see, and some will not. I don't care about opinions at that level, nor do I care about who thinks WoS is "visionary" and who thinks it is a POS. As I have said, I don't care about the interpretations. I care that the truth of what's actually there be told, rather than distortions, intentionally misapplied terminology, and outright lies.
Regarding what the Bird would or would not like to be told about the Sea, as I said before, it's a VERY short list of people on the route before us, so I would like to know two things from the Bird and the other people on the route prior to us:
1) On Hook or Book, where there are numerous bat hooks on 45-degree, smooth slopes or on outright blank rock; and these bat hooks are exactly placement-to-placement distance apart, leading you right to two rivets from which you pendulum... to more bat hooks interspersed with natural hooking, WHO drilled the bat hooks, and if not the FA team, exactly how did THEY ascend the otherwise blank rock? (Remember that Mark and I know what the limits of tiny hooking really are, so don't try to foist off on us that the FA team was hooking imaginary things.)
2) I would have to look up which pitch it was, but there is a section of one pitch that ascends a wafer-thin detached flake for 20 feet. The left edge of this flake has manufactured ledges that perfectly accept a Chouinard Cliff Hanger. Again, these ledges are placement-to-placement distance apart. The flake is too friable to take gear IN it, and the surrounding rock is utterly blank. Again, if the FA team did not chip those hooking ledges, then WHO did, and how did the FA team get up that flake without the ledges?
I could ask many more similar questions, but you get the gist of it. I'm just reporting what we found and saying that without the modifications certain sections were clearly not climbable. At least, it is POSITIVE that some well-respected team found those sections unclimbable without the modifications we saw. And, finally, the modifications we saw are entirely consistent with what the Bird has published about his own tactics and what Mayfield has stated about just one tactic on ZM.
So, this isn't an issue of what anybody would like; it's an issue of facts.
"Art" is a slippery word, and it leaves a LOT of open territory for tolerance rather than rabid dogmatism and defamation.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 21, 2009 - 09:10pm PT
|
Actually, Warner, you yourself several years ago accused us of not saying enough to defend ourselves, thus stating that most of the blame for the ongoing defamation was on our own heads. Want me to find that quote from the earlier threads?
We haven't been defending ourselves for 25 years. Actually we've had very little to say for about 23 of the last 27 years. Only when we decided to use our voices on this forum for the last several years has the truth actually been coming out and being known.
So, when our detractors help themselves to a term like "dimple," when that term has exactly zero relevance to the route, we will not just let that slide so that it becomes common currency about what is on the route.
The more THEY try to argue how baaaad we were, the smaller of a corner they paint themselves into. I'm quite happy with how things have been going over the last few years. And, I really don't care who on this forum "likes" me or anything like that. It's basically impossible for people to form really accurate impressions of ME from the tiny window this forum provides.
All that matters to me on these WoS threads is that further defamation does not go unanswered. Simple, really.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!