The Age Old/New Discussion

[NateD]

So it would seem that a route TD done in harmony with the features and texture of the climb could yield good artwork. A well produced canvas and backdrop to practice the artistic movement on top of?

Yes, just my opinion. And if the original dance was done GU, no doubt it is certainly more respected - as it's unrehearsed, like improvisation. But for those who later climb a good route, the beauty of the movement working with the rock, rather than fighting it's natural features (contrivance?), can be appreciated regardless of TD or GU.

I also like susan's thought about respecting the extent of the effort put into the climb, regardless of style. That said, some new climbs come quick and easy, like a brilliant pure crack just waiting to be ascended. And others might take many falls over numerous days, and lots of drilling, and ultimately yield a route others have little interest in climbing. The Sistine Chapel took tremendous effort, and is no doubt a masterpiece. But there are other "process art" works by contemporary artists, which take countless hours to execute, but are ultimately seen as kinda lackluster by many. Andy Goldsworthy, on the other hand, is in artist who takes great effort over many hours or days to execute work with pretty broad appeal. (Excuse me for comparing this stuff to art again, but of course it's hard to resist, being both an artist and a climber.) 

Ultimately, regardless of process, for the majority of folks out there (the audience, if you will), the final product still has to have some merit.

I must say I also really like the Higgin's quote you inserted, Susan. I remembered those words. By all means, lets maintain respectful discourse and a variety of climbs.

[mungeclimber]

I feel I'm repeating myself.

Principle = noun... a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning:

Awesome = adjective... extremely impressive or daunting; inspiring great admiration, apprehension, or fear.

That difference is what drives the question. Behind the description of awesome has to be something that is driving the valuation. You've mentioned some, I'm going to keep asking. If you don't want to respond, no problem.

what is it that we admire?  We admire the GU approach because it forces us to be better. Better than what? Better than we were when we started up the route. That pursuit of being better than ourselves is the pursuit of excellence. Excellence, it turns out, is a adherence to a set of standards.  We like GU because it has certain standards.

The TD advocate would counter by saying something like "TD has standards too!"  They are just different standards.

Carry on...

[mungeclimber]

So it would seem that a route TD done in harmony with the features and texture of the climb could yield good artwork. A well produced canvas and backdrop to practice the artistic movement on top of?

Yes, just my opinion. And if the original dance was done GU, no doubt it is certainly more respected - as it's unrehearsed, like improvisation. But for those who later climb a good route, the beauty of the movement working with the rock, rather than fighting it's natural features (contrivance?), can be appreciated regardless of TD or GU.

I also like susan's thought about respecting the extent of the effort put into the climb, regardless of style. That said, some new climbs come quick and easy, like a brilliant pure crack just waiting to be ascended. And others might take many falls over numerous days, and lots of drilling, and ultimately yield a route others have little interest in climbing. The Sistine Chapel took tremendous effort, and is no doubt a masterpiece. But there are other "process art" works by contemporary artists, which take countless hours to execute, but are ultimately seen as kinda lackluster by many. Andy Goldsworthy, on the other hand, is in artist who takes great effort over many hours or days to execute work with pretty broad appeal. (Excuse me for comparing this stuff to art again, but of course it's hard to resist, being both an artist and a climber.) 

Ultimately, regardless of process, for the majority of folks out there (the audience, if you will), the final product still has to have some merit.

I must say I also really like the Higgin's quote you inserted, Susan. I remembered those words. By all means, lets maintain respectful discourse and a variety of climbs.

Ah, good language there! The Process Art as analog to the process of establishing the route GU, and Art as a result for the TD (the end result justifying the means).

The Goldsworthy example seems to show there is value in both. Which to invest time, if e.g. there is a shortage of Goldsworthy rocks and once set up cannot be torn down? 

[susan]

I keep thinking of that devil picture of you Munge... I'd like to post it again.   Too busy to respond to your questions for now, Devil Munginator.

[mungeclimber]

I'm not evil, I just argue that way.

[DaveyTree]

I prefer the GU but my point is that it really only matters to the FA party because if done right the end result should be the same route for all who follow.

[SoYo Climber]

I prefer the GU but my point is that it really only matters to the FA party because if done right the end result should be the same route for all who follow.

While that may be true in a large percentage of cases, does it hold up if runouts are part of the equation?  GU is more susceptible to runouts occurring due to the difficulty of drilling for example.  TD says runouts are bad due to prior knowledge - and it's easy to drill, even expected.

How would the styles arrive at the same end result in that case?  Restrict GU runouts to the bounds defined by TD?  Incorporate runouts into the TD?  Is there another way, or a more exact interpretation of 'done right' or 'same'?

It's just that the B/Y came to mind.  The GU runouts are what define it.  A TD version of those exact same knobs would look far, far different I reckon.

Is there a missing runout caveat?

Perhaps this quandary is an American thing.  In Europe there are areas that seem inclined to more sparsely bolt TD, while in the U.S. there tends to be criticism leveled at those who 'manufacture' runouts.

[NateD]

I'm in agreement here. Perhaps DT meant a similar quality route, and not the "same route".
 
Although not always the case, and sometimes subtle, the GU approach yields routes that are inherently different than TD due to the increased risk undertaken by the FA party - namely producing occasional runouts, as stated.

I'm sure we would all agree this is important for the rising generation of climbers to understand, and to embrace as part of the climbing game. That its not one size fits all, and there are quality routes on both ends of the spectrum (and that, arguably, routes done GU are quickly being outnumbered or sometimes modified by the TD approach and need to be preserved to maintain the spectrum for all climbers).

Is the old conversation getting boring yet? 

[John]

I think in most cases what is most important to look at each experience for what it is and act accordingly.

gear readily available......GU and NO bolts

needs considerable cleaning to be safe....TD unless GU is totally possible

lots of edges to hold a hook etc...... GU all the way

gear and funky gear to make progress...... grey area. only bolt where natural pro is not adequate.

I think my point is that for the passer-by(climber) the FA style matters less than a safe climbing experience.  I do think it leaves considerable responsibility on the first acentionist to make the right decision for each situation. Generally i think power drilling takes the time to think out of the equation. I try to think of every bolt as if i were to drill by hand. If you have to work for 30-45 min. at the hole you will want to make sure it is really needed. The power drill can miss that step and quickly drilling gets out of control.

I appreciate this perspective, nice and simple (not that reality falls so neatly into obvious answers, right?). I understand that you never completely know what you are getting into looking up from the ground but with experience you kinda do. I often look at a line and can envision the most likely way it will eventually get climbed and am perfectly fine with it not being myself or in my own preferred styles. When I see big shortcuts, in other words, when a potential GU adventure get TD'd into another boring safe clip-up in an afternoon, I do get bummed. I don't believe in climbers "rights" to be safe all of the time....anyone get into rock climbing because they heard it was so safe?

I will admit it, it turns out I do care very much how a route was put up, mostly due to how I look around and don't agree that there is ever "endless" amounts of new rock so I appreciate a style that slows the development process. Makes you chew your food and enjoy it so to speak. I also recognize that this is an inconvenient view that sets me up for more disappointment than someone who can shrug it all of. It just feels right.

When I started climbing, I used to wonder where bolts came from. I assumed that there was some sort of expert old guy who would come in, scratch his white beard and then direct a team of younger workers who would apply their bolting training from bolting school to the rock. In my vision they all wear matching overalls and helmets of course, like the official-type guys scrambling around in the old Japanese Godzilla movies. Some have clipboards. So when I eventually learned that any knucklehead who knew how to drill a hole could place a bolt, I was horrified. I can't walk through the woods of Yosemite without getting a ticket but anyone can drill a permanent hole in the rock. What the hell?  Back then I also remember thinking why the hell don't they put it more bolts, this shit is terrifying?!

Years later, I find myself interested in putting up routes of my own and I am exposed to the discussion as to why you would put in a bolt or not. Any inquiry into that discussion sends you back into our history which is mostly rooted in two categories, mountaineering and plain-old being outdoors. As I learn more about our history I appreciate more and more why the old man with the white beard didn't give the younger me the bolts I wanted so badly....

[NateD]

When I started climbing, I used to wonder where bolts came from. I assumed that there was some sort of expert old guy who would come in, scratch his white beard and then direct a team of younger workers who would apply their bolting training from bolting school to the rock. In my vision they all wear matching overalls and helmets of course, like the official-type guys scrambling around in the old Japanese Godzilla movies. Some have clipboards. So when I eventually learned that any knucklehead who knew how to drill a hole could place a bolt, I was horrified. I can't walk through the woods of Yosemite without getting a ticket but anyone can drill a permanent hole in the rock. What the hell?  Back then I also remember thinking why the hell don't they put it more bolts, this shit is terrifying?!

Years later, I find myself interested in putting up routes of my own and I am exposed to the discussion as to why you would put in a bolt or not. Any inquiry into that discussion sends you back into our history which is mostly rooted in two categories, mountaineering and plain-old being outdoors. As I learn more about our history I appreciate more and more why the old man with the white beard didn't give the younger me the bolts I wanted so badly....

This is great, John. I don't recall really thinking at all about how the bolts got there when I first started climbing, strangely enough. And upon climbing runout bolted slabs in Little Cottonwood canyon in UT, it was like, wow - gotta really go for it this time. But I just figured that was the way it was on those climbs - just don't fall. (Routes with names like "Intensive Care" and "Tingey's Terror" give you a little hint as to what you are up against.) Don't recall ever being angry at the jerk who installed those bolts. And when I climbed with a few guys once who were stronger climbers, but come to find out were more from a sport background, and they completely wigged out and backed off a 40' runout on a 5.8 slab, I was pretty surprised.

I will admit it, it turns out I do care very much how a route was put up, mostly due to how I look around and don't agree that there is ever "endless" amounts of new rock so I appreciate a style that slows the development process.

While I agree that there is no longer an "endless" supply of virgin stone to climb, I still sometimes question this notion of GU being a slower development process. While there are definitely crags that get developed in a day or two with TD tactics, GU can also be quite fast, and an ambitious FAist can cover a lot of ground, esp. multi-pitch with plentiful trad terrain. Skilled GU climbers with power drills can do a fair number of pitches/routes in a weekend, as you know. Maybe it's the power drills...

[John]

In response to your last comment about the rate of development, I suppose the method of drilling has everything to do with it. In the National Parks there are tons of lines that would be bolted if they were anywhere else but few people are willing to hand drill them. That or the lines are in plain enough view to get you busted for power drilling. Keep in mind, power drilling was legal for a relatively short time in Yosemite, hence the lack of as many "sport" climbs as what other areas would have. Plenty of bolt protected face climbing in Tuolumne under the same drilling rules though.

[SoYo Climber]

Keep in mind, power drilling was legal for a relatively short time in Yosemite, hence the lack of as many "sport" climbs as what other areas would have. Plenty of bolt protected face climbing in Tuolumne under the same drilling rules though.

There's also plenty of bolt protected face in the Valley: Apron, Middle, Arches, base of the Captain, and so on...   Most all of it done without power.   Maybe I'm not following clearly.

A semantics question: what is the definition of sport?  I ask because the definition seems to have morphed over time.  At present, to many people "sport" means anything with bolts, and "trad" is reserved for gear only.  It no longer has much to do with the style of climbing.  It used to be more about style, trad typically meant GU and sport TD.  It was more about what experience was being sought, and the methods used to get to that experience, rather than simply if there were bolts.  Bolts have historically always been acceptable, long before there was even a notion of sport - regardless of it's definition.

[SoYo Climber]

To further elaborate, because I may not have said that well;

When it came to sport/trad and bolts, something wasn't sport because it had bolts, rather it was how the bolts got there and how many there were.

Under this definition a crack with pre-placed pro would also be sport, because, well, wouldn't it be?  All objective difficulties, like how to get protection in along  with commitment, would have been eliminated in the pure pursuit of difficulty.

Funny, because when someone says let's go sport climb the image that immediately comes to mind is clipping bolts.  But something seems to get lost with sport meaning simply it has bolts. 

OK, enough of my tangent.

[YETI]

Awesome discussion, sitting here with the popcorn and a big grin!





Carry on.

[NateD]

Funny, because when someone says let's go sport climb the image that immediately comes to mind is clipping bolts.  But something seems to get lost with sport meaning simply it has bolts. 

Indeed, this is an issue, and another thing that I find myself having to explain to newer climbers. Not much of a tangent.

Personally, I sometimes dig routes that blur the boundaries - the steep sporty trad routes with bolts between intermittent gear placements, or the generously bolted slab route. (Even if done TD, can a moderate, bolts only, well-protected slab route be called sport, for instance?) Ger and I have been known to call these types of climbs "spad" routes, which sounds much better than "trort".


What kind of popcorn, YETI? Plain, Cheese, Caramel?