The Age Old/New Discussion

[mungeclimber]

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.

In the feeling robbed case, that indicates a feeling of entitlement that it should be reserved for the style wanted. What would you appeal to, or what argument from principle, would you make for one style over the other? Only the argument from "limited resources" (your 'valve' control notion)?  What other principles are there that suggest FA'ist should be entitled to their style?

One is an appeal to history. This is the way it has been done here and no changes are accepted (or very few). This is sort of the Pinnacles example. Pinnacles is rare because it is one of the few places where expansion bolts are the predominant form of protection, and it has a rich history, AND it has a very limited resource.

It almost seems like it takes all three things for that ethical approach to take root. I'd be curious how it has stayed that way in the Elbsandstein for so long.

[John]

To answer this question Munge:

In the feeling robbed case, that indicates a feeling of entitlement that it should be reserved for the style wanted. What would you appeal to, or what argument from principle, would you make for one style over the other? Only the argument from "limited resources" (your 'valve' control notion)?  What other principles are there that suggest FA'ist should be entitled to their style?

It is 100% about preservation to me. I appreciate the,"if you want to put up a climb, earn it" sort of mentality. Let the rock have a chance at being left alone. I don't want to sound like an ignorant staunch ground-up type, I totally see that there are some routes that are simply silly to do ground up.

There used to be a tradition of, if you can't do it leave it for someone else who can. That ship seems to have sailed. This idea really only worked when most climbers were working from the same page as to how a climb was done.

[SoYo Climber]

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?

What other principles are there that suggest FA'ist should be entitled to their style?

While not a direct answer to the questions in the context asked, it seems there needs to be an agreement to leave routes alone even if the style of the FA is one that goes against one's ideal or preference.  Without that there could be chaos.  If it was acceptable to modify to personal taste, why wouldn't/shouldn't removal be as valid as addition?   To any route at any time, based on what I feel I need, or want, right here, right now.  I think the resource would suffer from such an anything goes approach.

Don't like runout routes?  Don't do them.  Don't like rap/sport routes?  Don't do them.  Just leave the resource out of it as much as possible by respecting what has already been established.

There used to be a tradition of, if you can't do it leave it for someone else who can. That ship seems to have sailed.

I'm not so sure that ship has made it out to sea yet, as I saw something get 'left for the future' just recently.  Still depends on who and where to an extent.

[mungeclimber]

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?

What other principles are there that suggest FA'ist should be entitled to their style?

While not a direct answer to the questions in the context asked, it seems there needs to be an agreement to leave routes alone even if the style of the FA is one that goes against one's ideal or preference.  Without that there could be chaos.  If it was acceptable to modify to personal taste, why wouldn't/shouldn't removal be as valid as addition?   To any route at any time, based on what I feel I need, or want, right here, right now.  I think the resource would suffer from such an anything goes approach.

Don't like runout routes?  Don't do them.  Don't like rap/sport routes?  Don't do them.  Just leave the resource out of it as much as possible by respecting what has already been established.

There used to be a tradition of, if you can't do it leave it for someone else who can. That ship seems to have sailed.

I'm not so sure that ship has made it out to sea yet, as I saw something get 'left for the future' just recently.  Still depends on who and where to an extent.

Aye, the bare principle is that once in, leave it in place. And if a route requires no fixed gear, does that also mean one must add fixed gear to preserve it? No, of course not. But it begs the question what principle are we appealing to. Utilitarianism? Kantianism?

[DaveyTree]

So many good points to ponder. I feel the FA has the call. Granted we have all climbed routes that seemed crammed into an area that didn't seen to add anything new. I don't have an issue with runout but have gone back and added a bolt.or two on a few routes after the FA. It was my call and was happy with it.

I to have had lines done before I could get to it but looked back and thought I should have taken that extra day off. We all love to FA new routes and look forward to more. There is no shortage of rock, that I know.

[mungeclimber]

I think there is a shortage of good rock. Slightly the byproduct of not being born for Yosemite's Golden Age. But if yer a cragger, then there is a lot of rock to develop with friends.

[VM]

Hooks are great. When I am climbing something really hard where I can't find a stance, or the stance is so marginal that I can't bolt, I would use anything that would help. As long as it is challenging, I feel fine with using these dirty methods. Don't think it would be lame on a 5.6 or a 5.13. Every climber has his definition of 'hard.' For someone 5.6 is a free solo, for someone 5.12 is a free solo. I think we can all agree that it comes down to being challenged and not getting mangled, and the line we draw is very subjective.

[susan]

Yes, welcome Soyoclimber! Appreciating what you're saying.All of it.

A first ascent gu is a different beast than an fa td and shouldn't be vulnerable to retro'ing bc it takes the climb down a notch when it was already an established success at a higher degree of difficulty.  It is like saying no need to try harder lets just add some equipment... tho I've totally enjoyed some additions in this way no doubt.

[SoYo Climber]

A first ascent gu is a different beast than an fa td and shouldn't be vulnerable to retro'ing bc it takes the climb down a notch when it was already an established success at a higher degree of difficulty.  It is like saying no need to try harder lets just add some equipment... tho I've totally enjoyed some additions in this way no doubt.

Not to disagree, but isn't there a bit of value judgment embedded in that?  Higher degree in what respect, commitment?  I have a feeling that some who are after pure technical difficulty might argue the point, as the absence of protection 'robbed' them of the opportunity to do the route when they weren't willing to step up to the commitment required.  So they would see it as lower rather than higher.  Some consider the B/Y a complete waste of the resource, others see it as a lofty example.   It's certainly not the technical difficulty that makes the B/Y an undertaking, it's the other things it demands of you.  Depends on what you're looking for, or think is important.  GU and TD are definitely different animals.  One requires you to bring more tools to the table, and if you're looking for a full value experience then that's a desirable thing.  But there I go, injecting my own value judgment into it...

Every climber has his definition of 'hard.' For someone 5.6 is a free solo, for someone 5.12 is a free solo. I think we can all agree that it comes down to being challenged and not getting mangled, and the line we draw is very subjective.

True. 

On somewhat of a tangent - if one is putting up FA's I think it's worth considering what the afterlife of the FA is going to be, and who is really targeted.  If I happen to be a .12/.13 climber is making that .10 route challenging by running it silly really the right thing to do?  If I did, then the route will probably rarely be repeated, and it likely won't be done by people whose limit is the grade.  And what would I have really proved?  In a way all I would have done is rob people.   What's not hard for me may be hard for them.  I think we sometimes do a disservice if we don't look at the overall picture, there are trade offs and balances worth factoring in.  On the other hand, running that .10 pitch in the middle of that .12 route is a different story - bop till ya drop if you want.  New routing can get complex, can't it?  There should be runout routes at all grades for those who are seeking that aspect of the experience,  but it is usually the experienced climbers doing the new routes.  So where to draw the lines?  Subjective with lots of things to consider.

[mungeclimber]

Subjective with lots of things to consider.

Yes, intersubjective!

[DaveyTree]

You guys explain it all so well from all perspectives.

Munge, there is deffinitely a lot of crags but so many big multi-pitch walls that still have yet to see an ascent.

[mungeclimber]

You guys explain it all so well from all perspectives.

Munge, there is deffinitely a lot of crags but so many big multi-pitch walls that still have yet to see an ascent.

nah, I don't believe you. Send me the GPS coordinates and high res pictures. Let's just start with the ones close to the road and work from there.

[DaveyTree]

Hahaha. I will pm



pm sent

[susan]

...Isn't there a bit of value judgment embedded in that?  Higher degree in what respect, commitment?  I have a feeling that some who are after pure technical difficulty might argue the point, as the absence of protection 'robbed' them of the opportunity to do the route when they weren't willing to step up to the commitment required.  So they would see it as lower rather than higher. 

If climbers are after pure technical difficulty without risk, they should climb well bolted routes or TR above their pay grade, and know that perceived technical difficulty goes up with risk.

A GU FA earns its keep as an adventure inside and out, and what is left is not only a way lit, but a standard set, a proof of possibility. Some might call it a challenge, another a dare or any number of other things. The important thing is that in general we do not go changing GU routes unless the GU FA says please do. It just seems the best system so far even though it's totally imperfect. It does seem the process of establishing TD routes makes them more amenable to retrobolting than GU and that's fine if so, but not vice versa. Seems part of the problem is that TD route setting superimposes its values on GU, yet both have great distinct value. 

[SoYo Climber]

...and know that perceived technical difficulty goes up with risk.

That's a fact, isn't it.  When the pro isn't right there the technical difficulty doesn't change, but our perception of it often does.  That's one of the things that makes more sparsely protected routes rewarding (imo), keeping it together under duress.

It is interesting how it seems to almost always be the GU side that is trying to defend their style.  To be expected I guess, TD tends to already be pretty sterile, so no big deal.  The same can't be said for GU, alteration of the route to eliminate risk tends to destroy some of the essence of the style.

I do have a preference to style in case it isn't obvious - GU.  So I understand where that camp is coming from, and why people can be passionate about it.  If counterpoints are raised it's not to argue for everyone converting to a TD mentality.  It just seems desirable to coexist and understand each other in spite of differences.  Which is not to say the people on this forum are doing otherwise.  But somebody has to look out for the sport and TD interests...   

Seems part of the problem is that TD route setting superimposes its values on GU, yet both have great distinct value.

Yeap.