The Age Old/New Discussion

[DaveyTree]

Funny you mention hooks Merrick. I just bought a talon thinking to use on stuff above my normal grade on FAs. Never even thought about ethics of it. If it comes up I would use it. Still GU IMHO.

[daniel banquo merrick]

It seems to me that as you go up the grades, at some point it is impossible to hand drill on stance. I doubt there are many ground up, hand drilled, sustained 5.13 routes. (My knowledge of 5.13 routes is only what I have read since I've never climbed one) I don't think anybody can stand no hands on 5.13. So, perhaps there is a place for hook drilling between stance and rap.

I think hand drilling 5.6 ground up on hooks would be a lame thing to do but not as lame as power and/or rap drilling.

We should start a ranking of styles, top style is ground up hand drilling on stance. Lowest is power drilling on rappel. Some sort of ethics rating. Maybe E1 to E6

Hand/power drilling: HD, PD
Stance, hook, rappel: S, H, R

E1 = HD.S
E2 = HD.H
E3 = PD.S
E4 = PD.H
E5 = HD.R
E6 = PD.R

This doesn't cover the really low like retro bolting by persons other than the FA. Retro bolts might change the rating of the climb. If I add a bolt to my route while hanging from a higher bolt, the rating might go from 5.8 R E1 to 5.8 PG E5.think it would be cool and have an impact if guide books had an ethic rating for routes.

[mungeclimber]

Dan,

What principle are you appealing to when you say a 5.6 climber can't use a hook to bolt?

When I have no juice left I fully intend to use hooks when I can't climb 5.7 anymore?

[daniel banquo merrick]

What principle are you appealing to when you say a 5.6 climber can't use a hook to bolt?

I said it would be lame - so when you and I are old and lame it will be a fine thing to do.

[DaveyTree]

What if I am not old but just lame? Is it ok?

Partly I think all the ratings have taken away from the adventure. I always liked when I emailed Berry for beta on something he would always say, It's like 5.9 or .10a , regardless of how hard.

Like many routes that Becky or Robbins put up were just climbed. The ratng was just an afterthought but today when you talk about a climb the rating question always comes up instead of the quAlity of rock or cool features.

[mungeclimber]

What principle are you appealing to when you say a 5.6 climber can't use a hook to bolt?

I said it would be lame - so when you and I are old and lame it will be a fine thing to do.

Buahahjaja

[John]

So, are there any opinions about drilling from hooks? I have never done it but it sure seems tempting at times although I don't even have any hooks having given the ones I had to Bob. (that's an ugly sentence) Stance drilling is different than hook drilling.

Dan-
A comment about your E-chart of styles:
You don't think that any use of a hook would be a lower style than stance of either types? Hooking is aid climbing.

If you factor in the potential to onsight a climb on the FA, stance of either forms of drilling would both be above hooking. Any climb where hooks are involved would need to be re-led to be considered free-climbed.

[mungeclimber]

Any climb where hooks are involved would need to be re-led to be considered free-climbed

Yes, unless the hook was only a back up to the stance (i.e. not weighted) and perhaps the climber first free climbed past the hook move then back down to the stance and continued on with weighting it? 

Even if weighted, the "First Ascent" would have been done already, just not clean. So in a manner we're talking about how to report information about the FA and subsequent free ascents. 5.5 A0 and then update it the following weekend (a good use of online space) with 5.5 FFA, if we want to be technical. Most happen close in time, but many don't.

[daniel banquo merrick]

There probably isn't a functional way to rank such things but I think it would be nice to have such a ranking as a history of good style might encourage future route developers to use the best style possible.

You don't think that any use of a hook would be a lower style than stance of either types?

I suppose it depends on the hook. If it is an A0 hook and there is a stance available I suppose that would be poor style. A very poor hook and a poor stance might be different. That's part of why it probably wouldn't work as there are too many variables.

I got to thinking about this at Courtright last weekend when it seemed that some bolts I saw were drilled from hooks as there was a nice hook at chest level but the feet were not so good. Roger Brown has plenty of time to observe the bolts he replaces and thinks he can tell how tall a climber was, whether the climber was right handed or not, etc. I'm sure I'm not always right but I think I can often tell the style used to place the bolt.

[mungeclimber]

developers to use the best style possible.

I was thinking about this earlier; to leverage the phrase 'best style' presupposes that the ranking can be achieved at all. Which I think is part of what you refer to regarding too many variables. The other part is a normative valuation. A morally valuated assessment.

I'm not at all sure that one can gain consensus on morally praiseworthy or blameworthy approaches without appealing to other principles around what are the characteristics of a good or a bad route or a good or bad experience establishing the route. The ethical approach dictates the values? Or the values the approach?

I'm of course assuming that true moral relativism with regard to FA principles is anathema unless on private property and maybe not even then. Not everything is permissible, both because there are many participants with a vast set of moral predispositions, but also because of the externality of land management. E.g. in the extreme, NPS won't permit spray painting on all routes the names and ratings, or chiseling Mungeclimber's good looks into the side of El Cap. And even on private property using harsh chemical solvents to defoliate can still be illegal to prevent ground water contamination.

This always brings me back to climber's who say "I'm attracted to climbing because it has no rules." - That strikes me as being ignorant or deliberately uncaring of others in the world. The former can be educated, the later go to jail eventually.

So back to the "best style" - I prefer to distinguish 'style' as those actions which have no direct impact on other climbers. Whereas ethics and 'ethical approaches' deal with things that have an impact on other climbers, namely fixed protection.

So the question might be better phrased as 'what are the characteristics of the best ethical approach to establishing fixed protection'?

This depends on goals of the route.

If my goal is a great personal experience, then whatever makes that experience great will satisfy the standard.

If the goal is a great route for the community of climbers, then whatever makes that route great will satisfy the standard.

...more later...

[SoYo Climber]

It seems to me that as you go up the grades, at some point it is impossible to hand drill on stance. I doubt there are many ground up, hand drilled, sustained 5.13 routes.

This is spot on.  Unless we're willing to resort (hopefully only occasionally) to other than the purest (always a somewhat subjective definition) means of drilling for bolt protected routes there comes a point of difficulty where routes cease to be possible.  We can free climb harder than we can drill free.  This is true not only of steep sport routes but also of slab/face climbs.  There are lower angle slabs where even a hook is impossible, an example would be extreme GPA friction.  Unfortunately a side affect to this is that the crux can become clipping the bolts rather than just doing the moves, but that's a tangent of discussion. 

For those who are also after extreme technical difficulty the occasional use of hooks may be necessary for establishing GU 'free' routes.  Is it a compromise?  No doubt.  Aid is aid, and any pitch where they are used has to be re-led to be considered free - at least that's my take on it.

Does it matter if a hook was used?  Who does it matter to?  The FA party may care if they had a level of style they were trying to achieve, but once past the finer points of debating pureness of FA style it probably doesn't matter much to others.  A bolt that is hard to clip is simply that, hard to clip regardless of how it got there.  We may marvel that someone was able to epic a bolt in totally free vs. using a hook but it doesn't seem that for users of the finished product it's really much more than that.  Although, if style completely trumps difficulty then I guess it is possible that it could matter to some to the point where they wouldn't do a route.

Ideally (imo) hooks would be a last resort.  But judicious use seems just another tool to facilitate pushing difficulty while preserving the spirit of GU.   It can be darn spicy getting on a hook when the consequence of failure is flight time.   Much different than doing something top down (not meant as an attack on TD.)

One could just rapp the thing in right off and hooks would be a mute point.  But if one is trying to preserve as much of the GU style as possible combined with difficulty that doesn't work.  It seems to come back around to style.   Style that matters more (again, imo) to the FA/FFA party than to subsequent parties.

Not to disagree with the point of reporting a route as aid followed by a subsequent free rating, but to me it's not terribly important.  As long as the route has been legitimately freed.  Although, what typically does get lost with only the final free rating is the knowledge about details that we would use to judge 'style'.  Which it seems we all like to engage in to some extent or another.

Just a few rambling thoughts.

[DaveyTree]

Agreed Soyo. No one but FAers care about the style IMO. They usually look at the topo and climb what looks good. I usually don't think about it when visiting a wall or area I had no part in developing but am impressed with stiff GU FAs. I think with me it is personal style of ethics whatever it may be.

[daniel banquo merrick]

Aw geez, now I'm gonna have wonder who SoYo Climber is.

Anyway, welcome aboard.

[John]

I don't think that there are as many people focusing on the style of ascent when we are talking about climbs above a certain difficulty, like severely overhanging face climbs. I think there is a huge range of difficulty that can be put up in a better style than top-down and still get the same results. When people rap bolt moderates like 5.8's, they are ripping off themselves and others of a rare adventure. I don't think any 5.8 needs to be rap bolted and no climb has to be climbed.

I see entire crags get developed in a weekend and the developers don't even really look forward to going back, they simply wanted to make sure that they were the ones to put up the climbs. I don't like it when there are lines that I have passed by dozens of times and thought, "one day I might get my head dialed to climb that ground up" and then somebody comes along, raps in, bolts it and climbs it in an hour and never thinks about the line again. I feel robbed in that situation. Now keep in mind that if someone came in and did that same line in a "good" style, I would feel much more like congratulating the party that did it than disappointed if it were done in a....well...lack of any style.

For me, I think of the focus on style as about the only thing keeping every inch of rock being developed immediately. It is a "valve" on development. If we all woke up one day and everyone was suddenly accepting of every method of putting up routes, the rock world would be grid bolted beyond comprehension.

[mungeclimber]

What would we say to someone that asserts "It is ridiculous and anathema to have any runout on any 'moderate' rated climb. As a result, whatever the FA's first experience, they should be required to make safe a climb for the community."  The personal experience of a runout is preserved for the FA'ist. The community at large is made happy with a 'fun' climb.

The idea they are asserting is there is no 'statement to be made' by a runout 5.6.  Does a statement have to be made for others, or can it be made... AND be required to be left as is indefinitely... for the individual only? I think the 'someone' in this case, let's call him "Josh" for the time being. In this case, Josh would be asserting this perspective on the assumption that routes are for subsequent ascents. Whereas, the FA'ist of a runout moderate is saying, 'no, this is my experience and I'll leave it how I want it.'

But if the experience is so personal, and subjective, on what grounds does the FA'ist stand when they want their route preserved as is? They want a personal experience, but an objective artifact left behind?