Southern Yosemite Climbing Discussions
Southern Yosemite Categories => General Discussion => Topic started by: DaveyTree on October 09, 2014, 07:59:07 am
-
VM
Sunlit face in Susan's photo a bit higher on this page is sweet. Are there many routes on that side, or all the routes are indicated in Clint's annotated photo in the beginning?
Sean Jones ticked off some incredible long FAs in CA. Awesome climbs. Even obvious stuff that was taken from under the noses is good. Flying in the Mountains on Parkline Slab and Gates of Delirium in Ribbon Falls Amphitheater were VERY good. Not many new routes turn out to be 'classic' lines, those are quality. Even though his route on HD got a lot of feelings hurt, it seems like another masterpiece. And the natural wide line next to it seems very worthy. I wonder if that wide thing was repeated...seems like a long ways to haul the wide gear for many. Anyway, CA is awesome.
VM
"I'm curious Vitaly, what specific value does that route add to that particular face that qualifies it as a masterpiece? I could have humped the ropes up there and placed the bolts top down."
As I understand majority of the route has gone ground up and he resorted to top down tactics when he realized he will drill into no where if he continued. He wanted to limit number of useless bolts (which limits the impact) and create a good free climb.
Look at Tommy Caldwell. He fixed up the whole Dawn Wall and looked for any possible variation to make it go free. Added bolts to it. I am sure a few will criticize him, but huge majority will only praise the effort because he is TC.
Route I did on Bubbs Creek Wall all went ground up. But I wanted to have a good free climb, not just a line. So on one of the pitches I used a few holes and a bolt to pendulum to pass a blank section. When I finished the pitch I swong around trying to connect different ways to free climb the pitch and bolted it, on rappell (I do not think it will add to my personal experience to re-bolt a pitch I top roped from the bottom. If I have to TR the pitch to find a free-climbable way, I am more concerned about doing a good job bolting). It took me about 5 different tries on 5 different days to figure out where is the logical way and where I should place the bolts to make reasonable clips. This was a very sequency section with a section that is likely 11d followed by a tough mantel and an 11c ish dead point move. I am bringing it up as a way to show that at times even when you try to go GU you can fuck up and make un-necessary holes. I think SJ wanted to limit the number of those higher on the route.
As far as I heard Sallamizer from ST (a VERY strong climber) tried the line and was very impressed by how sustained the line is and by quality of climbing. Katie Lambert tried it too, and had similar praise. Also bailed due to toughness of the line. So it seems that his line already proved itself as a big TESTPIECE free-climb for the next generation. Tried by some STRONG people and still unrepeated. It may not hold any value to you, some other people may find value in it. It is very subjective right? All I know is that SJ knows what he is doing and Doug Robinson was there to see it and was ok with what was going on. Those two have much more experience climbing new lines than me and I am not gonna be one of the people to judge them (personally).
PS: since I brought out my own example, I have to confess, I was a little sad, and was wondering if someone with more experience would do a much better job onsighting the line. When I did Ronin (put up by Brandon Thau and Nettle and later free climbed by a slightly different variation by Croft and Nettle) I was shocked by bolting on some pitches. Low 5.11 would literally have bolts less than 3 feet apart in places, and 5.9 one of the 5.9 pitches had 3 in like 90 feet of climbing. No big deal, but pretty ridiculous my partner and I thought. So than I stopped feeling bad and was fairly happy about job I have done.
Yeti
V-
Sean has had quite a bit of controversy surround many of his lines, in particular the Growing up route. The upper slab DID go ground up by another, more fit and experienced team...Southern Bell FA'sts.
Using the excuse "don't want a line of bolts to nowhere" does not hold water. > .11 all the way to the summit on growing up, or rather all the way down.
Forget about him leaving all of his shit up there, abandoned and left to rot? Classic would not be my first descriptor of a route with no repeats. Further Chad (Salamanizer) thought the section leading into the slab was poorly constructed and that the lower section was good crack climbing. Classic was not his opinion. Burly? YES.
That route is a blemish on Half domes canvas, and having mr clean climbing (DR) back the decision in a magazine is all the more proof that they knew they were giving up, err growing up. They were in such a rush to get the story to the mags they forgot to clean up.
Unrepeated. Seems the apparent fanfair has not drawn the ranks of climbers that could actually repeat the route.
I don't believe it has ever been redpointed either, so the actual FFA is still up for grabs.
Lot of heavy history surrounding seans exploits around the sierra. Much of which does not sit well with climbers who cherish adventure or general respect for the rock.
Either way, they found a cheap way to manufacture a (currently) unrepeatable line.
You want a classic line? The definition of Classic must be reinvented, chopped up and spit out on the way down during "installation". Nothing could be further from classic than growing up.
Well it is an opinion, and others can have their own. Southern Bell is not "classic" mostly due to the fact that only a handful of people could even approach the route. So having a rap-bolted route, in the same area, that is unrepeatable by heavy hitters in YOS makes it classic?
Hard sell, very hard indeed.
Good job on your route, sounds like it went the way you wanted it too, and you are going to redpoint the route before you release it to the public, which is the first step in creating a classic.
Susun
Well, I appreciate these posts, but do feel badly on the level that this is a drag...
John is working and not able to intercede, and I don't know if he even would or not. I would think at least this could be split to a different thread, or layered into a members only discussion.
There's more to the story I'm sure, it would be good to hear from those involved directly about their point of view but don't imagine that would happen here. In any case just want to say for various reasons I've had a lot of faith in DR though he is not someone I know personally really, and give him the benefit of the doubt, and too have been upset by the obloquy and personal attacks on ST on the subject. I don't see that as happening here by either of these posts, though, I understand feeling sick of it over a friend you care about involved.
I think too that VM is probably climbing. He did say he has Tuesdays off.
Merrick
I have talked to DR about Balloon Dome and he thought Bob and my adventures out there were interesting but he hasn't been there. I've also asked him about SoYo in general and he doesn't recall much detail. He says that Robbins would send him off with clients to climb things but nobody really kept track of where or what they climbed. I doubt DR can shed much light on anything that we don't already know.
Susan
Time and again I think of Thanksgiving, as whose extended family and friends that bring along varying friends who are strangers to you... are aligned on politics and religion around that table? Climbing discussions like politics and religion erupt with the same sort of passion. Even if there is general agreement on a topic, there are more nuances than people.
I think of those who have been climbing most their lives, living through changes in climbing as people who may just be open-minded and experimental enough to try exploring newly considered possibilities, so it bothers me when someone gets blasted for believing one thing one way and then trying something different at some point without first having realized the potential impact and with no benefit of hindsight.
We all get sick of these discussions at times, but dialogue has to carry-on in part because there will always be new ground to throw a wrench in the works. We all know what's heard through the grapevine or read online isn't gospel and probably referenced out of context, and maybe giving the benefit of the doubt should be knee-jerk. For instance, I think if Thau & Nettle really put bolts 3 feet apart in some spot, then there’s probably some understandable explanation for it. Maybe there's a different take on some slight protrusion in the rock face below, or the bolt was actually bad for some reason not apparent, or they didn't have the means and meant to get back to it and life, kids, whatever, hasn't allowed it. I don't mean to skim over the point VM made regarding perhaps in general noting easier territory has few protection points when difficult terrain has more than enough. But that doesn't make bad sense to me that a climb may be so constructed. And there are plenty of 'finished' routes out there that have no bolts and hardly any gear in entire pitches. Definitely don't want FAs handled by committee changing that landscape. I love that we are to tolerate if not honor differences. Those contrasts may serve to stretch and teach us with open dialogue a basic building block.
Merrick
Thanks Susan,
I too think that discussion and sharing are important in the climbing community. In fact the people are more important to me than the climbing. I also think that online forums and the internet in general, are poor places to discuss emotional issues. My theory is that so much of communication is subtle tone, expression and visual. I've noticed that Supertopo posters who battle viciously online will have pleasant conversations at the facelift when face to face. I think it is a lot like the person who willfully and aggressively cuts you on the freeway but wouldn't do the same thing in the checkout line at the supermarket because he would have to face you and others present. Face and personal feedback are important.
Bearing that in mind, I'd be happy to talk about the Robinson/Jones Half Dome route around the campfire sometime. I could probably tell you a few few things about Doug that would be interesting and relevant which I wouldn't post on a forum because it is a public place and it isn't polite to do so. What I think may not be what you expect.
I've always been very careful about judging what people do when I wasn't there. It's hard to second guess the man on the spot. This is true even about myself when looking back on what I have and haven't done. I think of peaks and routes that I have backed off of and in hindsight I think it was pretty wimpy of me but when I was there, in that place, at that time, it was the right choice. Opinions are cheap and plentiful but truth is a very hard thing to find and even harder to recognize.
Like my grandmother used to tell me, it never hurts to be nice.
-
Perrsonally I don't judge others unless bolts are placed where natural pro is avail. I just like to climb and while being a purist in some ways will rap bolt at times. Ground up FA's are bold in their own right and who am I to judge how sketched out the party was on a project and felt a bolt was needed. I have done a few ground up FA's that I have gone back and climbed and thought WTF was I thinking puting a bolt here. At the time though it felt like put in the bolt or injury or death was going to happen.
On my rap bolted routes this has never happened because I TR'd it as well as my partner and we discissed the best place for bolts if needed. Those routes were always bolted correctly 'in my opinion'.
In the end, I just love to climb and however the day went I always have fun. I can see how a 5.12 climber might shake his/her head at a bolt placed 'in need' by a 5.10 climber on a 5.10 FA.
-
Thanks for transferring this discussion to a new thread DaveyTree. It is too bad Munge deleted his post, it would make more sense to someone reading this later on. Regardless, thanks for doing your best to be respectful, Munge.
It is funny how revisiting a route can give you the "what the hell was I thinking" feeling, right? I notice routes done earlier in the climbing season to be more bolty, when we are working our winter fat off. Some end of season routes when you have your shit together are downright scary to revisit!
I recently put a bolt near a thin crack behind a flake that gives me nightmares. I spent 10 minutes on lead trying to convince myself that a thin nut or micro-cam might not blow out the entire flake in a fall but the bolt won. The thing is, it looks really incriminating from far away but if you knock on it, it tells a different story. Just giving one of my own examples of potential pre-judging and not knowing the whole story.
On the other hand, I have known people that aren't convinced that cams can be trusted at all and believe that bolts are the only reliable means of protection in rock climbing. Even in granite. Those people should not be putting up routes. I don't want to climb in a world where that mindset rules the land.
-
I agree with Dave. For me personally, it is about pushing my skills, controlling my fear, having fun with friends, exploring (very important) and hopefully doing a route I and others will enjoy. So far there were no new routes that I have done that I did not enjoy putting up.
When it comes to bolting I try to place bolts where they would make sense, I avoid bolting next to cracks obviously. Use common sense. If I aid a pitch, top rope the shit out of it and get it wired, I know I can get by with less bolts than someone trying to onsight it, so I tend to add more bolts than i need because I think it is lame to create artificial runouts. If I run something out on lead than I judge if the bolt is required or if the runout is mild enough to add a bit of spice without adding much danger. John, I have added a bolt next to a hollow flake before and a few bolts next to a possible placement on a sustained 5.11c pitch that I bolted on rappell after aiding and top roping a bunch. Those placements however are hidden inside of a flare that makes up a layback and would have to be rehearsed before leading. Rehearsing to me is basically sport climbing. Others who climbed the pitch found the bolts to be very appropriate. I just go with common sense and the reason why I do not critique Sean Jones about growing up, is because I respect his resume/dedication to climbing (fucker does 5.13s) and think he likely has enough experience and skills to make better decisions than I would make in similar situation. Leaving trash behind is not ok in my book. But rap bolting 60 ft to avoid a bolt ladder into no where MAYBE wad not a bad idea. I don't know. I won't judge him because in comparison I am a complete f king noob.
Usually I go for natural lines on peaks, this climb on Bubbs is first time that I actually rehearsed pitches more than once with intention to red point them.
-
Not to worry, I'm quoted in V's transferred post.
The OP question is about the qualifications of a masterpiece. Offthread discusssions indicate that may not have been the best descriptor for Growing Up. The context that this raised was the direction Yosemite has already taken over the last 10-15 years. Lots more top down, more moto drilling, drilled holes. So what Sean's route sparked was those previously unnecessary voices that want to preserver a few ground up areas.
Point to consider is James Lucas article where he becomes the apologist for that ethical approach in Yosemite. has everyone read this? it assumes too much.
Does Yosemite need guardians against new routes that go top down on the limited resource that is long routes in Yosemite?
Are the tactics of AROCA appropriate?
posted from 30k feet...
-
Perrsonally I don't judge others unless bolts are placed where natural pro is avail. I just like to climb and while being a purist in some ways will rap bolt at times. Ground up FA's are bold in their own right and who am I to judge how sketched out the party was on a project and felt a bolt was needed. I have done a few ground up FA's that I have gone back and climbed and thought WTF was I thinking puting a bolt here. At the time though it felt like put in the bolt or injury or death was going to happen.
On my rap bolted routes this has never happened because I TR'd it as well as my partner and we discissed the best place for bolts if needed. Those routes were always bolted correctly 'in my opinion'.
In the end, I just love to climb and however the day went I always have fun. I can see how a 5.12 climber might shake his/her head at a bolt placed 'in need' by a 5.10 climber on a 5.10 FA.
like many of us. each with its place, but with the idea that top down is fast, easy to f up, and doesn't need to be done everywhere.
-
Thanks for transferring this discussion to a new thread DaveyTree. It is too bad Munge deleted his post, it would make more sense to someone reading this later on. Regardless, thanks for doing your best to be respectful, Munge.
It is funny how revisiting a route can give you the "what the hell was I thinking" feeling, right? I notice routes done earlier in the climbing season to be more bolty, when we are working our winter fat off. Some end of season routes when you have your shit together are downright scary to revisit!
I recently put a bolt near a thin crack behind a flake that gives me nightmares. I spent 10 minutes on lead trying to convince myself that a thin nut or micro-cam might not blow out the entire flake in a fall but the bolt won. The thing is, it looks really incriminating from far away but if you knock on it, it tells a different story. Just giving one of my own examples of potential pre-judging and not knowing the whole story.
On the other hand, I have known people that aren't convinced that cams can be trusted at all and believe that bolts are the only reliable means of protection in rock climbing. Even in granite. Those people should not be putting up routes. I don't want to climb in a world where that mindset rules the land.
in re bolting next to cracks, thats why i usually ask what the condition of the crack is before judging.
agree on your last point
-
To me masterpiece is a very general term. It depends how you want to judge it. Are you judging the quality of climbing? Style of ascent? How aesthetic is the line? How difficult it is? Etc. I can't say the nose is a masterpiece because it was put up in less than perfect style for it's era. It was literary chiseled to go free. But how can anyone argue that the line is a masterpiece as far as the climbing goes and aesthetic nature of it. I think different people have different criteria and that's ok with me. I can call growing up a masterpiece because it is a giant, aesthetic line that is continuously difficult and if I had the skills I'd climb it. It doesn't bother me he rap bolted supposedly 60 ft because I see other things that are much more lame, IMO, even in the valley.
-
Will reply to this here
We all get sick of these discussions at times, but dialogue has to carry-on in part because there will always be new ground to throw a wrench in the works. We all know what's heard through the grapevine or read online isn't gospel and probably referenced out of context, and maybe giving the benefit of the doubt should be knee-jerk. For instance, I think if Thau & Nettle really put bolts 3 feet apart in some spot, then there’s probably some understandable explanation for it. Maybe there's a different take on some slight protrusion in the rock face below, or the bolt was actually bad for some reason not apparent, or they didn't have the means and meant to get back to it and life, kids, whatever, hasn't allowed it. I don't mean to skim over the point VM made regarding perhaps in general noting easier territory has few protection points when difficult terrain has more than enough. But that doesn't make bad sense to me that a climb may be so constructed. And there are plenty of 'finished' routes out there that have no bolts and hardly any gear in entire pitches. Definitely don't want FAs handled by committee changing that landscape. I love that we are to tolerate if not honor differences. Those contrasts may serve to stretch and teach us with open dialogue a basic building block.
See, this is one of the subjective traits an individual can use to judge if a line is a masterpiece, to him/her. When you have overbolting on some hard sections and some other spots are well underbolted, it takes away from the experience. Maybe word masterpiece is not something that should be used to describe rock climbs, because things are rarely perfect. It is usually up to those who put up the line to feel good/bad about their ascent and for those who come after to judge the quality and the job that those who did the FA put in. And HAVE FUN, of some sort. :)
PS: I treat this thread as a discussion, not an argument! I do not want to come off as if I am defending rap bolting in Yosemite, I do not. My point is I do not like to judge random people that I can't relate to, since I was not in their shoes. Maybe if I/we were we would think of things differently.
-
Point taken Munge. Take the Pinnacles. A few rap bolted routes went up and then it was decided that the area should be ground up only. The standard was set and all routes after were ground up. No need to rap bolt............................even though the rock at Pinnacles sketches me out when you reach for a hold and there is a hole next to it where a rock 'used' to be and the rock is creaking under your foot as you transfer weight.
Seems like we all have opinions. For me it is about the climbing. If I climb a sick line with cool features and great exposure and views; THAT IS AN AWESOME DAY FOR ME. I really do not ask myself if it was ground up or not.
-
I think I haven't used the term masterpiece for climbs because i focus alot on the beauty of a climb's naturalness, which the most I usually do with it is try to climb rather than bolt or do anything other than puzzle a way up. Not that i dont bolt bc i have but it isnt a favorite thing to do... Masterpiece implies engineering or fabrication. It is also used to describe if not the work of genius such as DaVinci or Beethoven, God in act of creation or nature. So I might say Gripper is one awesome freaking masterpiece of nature. I just haven't been in awe of bolting unless it was done ground up in dicey or commital situations. Performance art masterpieces such as soloing or climbing something that is like an amazing choreograph... again... it is the natural line that is to credit to me and or the climber adapting the body to it. And if no one has been able to quite adapt themselves to a climb it isn't something I'd call a masterpiece until it was done and there's some corroboration or if by some miracle I ever could... find out for myself.
-
I so enjoy Daveytrree your description of climbing at pinns... love pinns but yeah...agreed.
-
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.
-
Point taken Munge. Take the Pinnacles. A few rap bolted routes went up and then it was decided that the area should be ground up only. The standard was set and all routes after were ground up. No need to rap bolt............................even though the rock at Pinnacles sketches me out when you reach for a hold and there is a hole next to it where a rock 'used' to be and the rock is creaking under your foot as you transfer weight.
Seems like we all have opinions. For me it is about the climbing. If I climb a sick line with cool features and great exposure and views; THAT IS AN AWESOME DAY FOR ME. I really do not ask myself if it was ground up or not.
Aye, some attempt at consensus was reached. There have been subsequent ethical lapses, but most have been addressed.
-
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.
Hook vs. Stance is refinement of ethical approaches to their nth logics conclusion. If free routing is the absolute goal, then stance I always required at all times. If developing is the goal, anything works. But if a middle ground is needed, then an approach based on principles can hang its hat on one that preserves adventure. GU ethics approaches do that in large part.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
Aw geez, now I'm gonna have wonder who SoYo Climber is.
Anyway, welcome aboard.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Subjective with lots of things to consider.
Yes, intersubjective!
-
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.
-
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.
;) :)
-
Hahaha. I will pm
pm sent
-
...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.
-
...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.
-
I thought you were probably more a GUer, SoYo Climber. I've never done TD except in a gym but have enjoyed climbing sport routes. It gets personal talking about all this stuff for sure. We've all loved climbs into existence. I don't imagine any of us want anyone getting hurt. Personally, I don't want to trounce other methods as much as honor especially hard won climbing efforts.
Just found this by Tom Higgins (http://www.tomhiggins.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=68&Itemid=22) from a ST post but on his own website.
Do Higher Level Climbers Create Scary or Dangerous Climbs for the Rest of us?
Karl, I think your points about 5.13 climbers running way out and creating dangerous routes for 5.9 and 5.10 climbers would be helped with some examples of specific routes and people. Not sure where I fit in your assessment, but your point is pretty general without examples of people and places. Just what 5.13 climbers have created what routes in support of your point?
As for myself, I was a 5.12 climber (no 5.13s) in the day (not a lot of those, but several) and always tried to do new 5.9 and 5.10 climbs with reasonable protection for anyone climbing at that ability. I have admitted to running it on 5.8 and 5.9 sometimes to get moving before dark, or due to breaking drills or trying to avoid still more tedious drilling in the middle of a 5.8 section when it looked like easier ground was coming. But where I felt the resulting route was not reasonably protected, I either gave permission to others to add a bolt (e.g. Fairest of All) or went back and added a bolt myself (e.g. Jonah). I think my longtime partner Bob Kamps was of the same mentality and I can name others who, I think, were responsible on the point of placing protection with subsequent parties in mind.
Where to Focus the Retrobolt Debate
Generally, I think painting the creators of run or X routes as flawed (ego driven, lazy, bolt poor or thoughtless of subsequent ascent parties) muddies the waters on the retro bolting issue. In my mind, the issue of whether to retro bolt or not needs to be distinguished from the character or motive of the FA party. Why? I don’t think we can decide on whether or not to retro bolt by making character judgments case by case by route, especially as time goes on and history fades. For example, because of Bachar’s high esteem in the climbing community, no one now will seriously debate retro bolting the very run out BY. But as time goes on and the memory of Bachar fades, what then? And do we retro bolt, say, the very run Burning Down the House because some may not see the route creators as having quite the same esteem as Bachar or because, by their own admission on Supertopo, they were determined to create a very run route out of anger over a slight by an influential climber of the day? Talk about a slippery slope or muddy waters!
Nope, the focus should be away from character and motive of the FA party and on retro bolting itself. The nub of the issue is how we cope with multiple and conflicting preferences among climbers about how we create new bolted routes. I think we need to understand climbing never was and never will be a purely harmonious enterprise with all agreeing on climbing styles generally and protection styles in particular. Instead, we need to accept both the stellar and horrible routes around us, and our great hodgepodge of saints and sinners, however we define them. We can and should argue about better and poorer ways of climbing and resulting routes, but we need to let multiple styles have their place and day as long as they don’t imping on one another. So, sport away on your sport cliff. Trad away on your trad cliff. Curse and pass on an old R or X route, fair enough, but leave it untouched for those who want the quirky pleasure of doing it. Scold and pass on the sport route bolted every 10 feet, but leave it for those who like it.
The Way Out
While not easy, the way I suggest through tiffs like on this thread about bolting style is to agree area by area just how protection style preferences can play out without curtailing the options of anyone. Argue to the death (keeping as civil as possible) about what styles are superior as a climbing experience, but don’t chop the sport routes and don’t retro bolt the trad routes. Preferably, stake out cliffs to provide opportunities for each style and enjoy. If both styles have to play on the same cliff, go with caution when crossing old trad routes with new sport routes to avoid effectively retro bolting the old lines (the new Southern Sierra guidebook will make just this point). I think this is the way (and maybe only way) to insure maximum climbing satisfaction and minimum harm to camaraderie of the game. Seem reasonable?
Supertopo Post, June 8, 2012
-
Can't agree more with SoYo Climber. What me and my friends talk about at times, you express very well.
When it comes to style, it is nice to point out that there are differences from superior style we seek for a particular ascent vs superior style we want to see. What I learned by throwing myself at things that are more challenging to me, that style could be less pure than one might desire, but I would get A LOT more satisfaction, a lot more challenge, many more learned lessons and a much better product in the end.
This summer I have done multiple GU onsight FAs. On one, I hiked in 7 miles and put up a new route with about 500 ft of sustained 5.10 to 5.10+ climbing, sketchy pro, crumbly rock and another thousand feet to the summit on easier terrain. Next day woke up and did the onsight FFA of Et Tu Brutus (V 5.9+ A2), with two alternative SICK pitches, and I had 0 beta from the FA party of where the route goes or how hard the pitches are. It became Brutus of Wyde Memorial Route (V 5.11a). Summited and hiked out that day. Funky rock on that one too in places, especially the last pitch that was aided. Did onsight a new 1100ft 5.10 line on Castle Dome, 16 miles from the trailhead and 2000ft new route on the Sphinx, as a day hike. Sketchy runouts, interesting route finding, climbing to 5.11, dehydration, the whole adventure experience. Topped out as the sun went down. Placed no bolts on any of them, with partner placing one bolt for a belay anchor on the Sphinx. Seems like great style. But FUCK, I had so much more personal satisfaction from the ass kicking I received, lessons I learned, progress I made on Bubbs Creek wall, where I would use a hook, stand on a previous bolt, aid the pitch and top rope the shit out of it to than place the bolts in the right spot so it could be free climbed. So the point I am making, the style of your ascent, at times will not appear pure and judging others is much easier than running it out into unknown on 5.10 and finding that precious hook placement to drill from. While climbing Et Tu Brutus I literary had no idea why I found head placements next to protectable cracks or bolted anchors next to cracks where cams could make an anchor. And again, it is important to remember you were not on the FA of that intimidating wall, and if those are there, there must be reasons. As someone who came after, I was happy to use them and had nothing negative to say. But I guess it is human nature to look down on other people and come up with reasons why WE personally are more superior, have superior style etc. That's why we pick ratings that glorify our abilities and label them as hard or lame. Using a hook on 5.6 is lame, but if it is on a 5.9, it is ok. The Warbler's list of requirement's for a REAL CLIMBER demonstrates this very well. Hmmmm maybe I should reply and say that to be a real climber one has to solo at least one grade VI 5.9 alpine ridge car to car, solo at least 2 peaks that are above 6000M by technical routes, have done at least one alpine route rated ED and have at least 5 onsights of 5.11 within the last months.
Seems like online climbing communities have a lot of ego driven individuals that want to feel good about themselves 20 years after they last tied into a rope.
Like Mike A. usually says - HAPPY CLIMBING! This is a great attitude. Go out, challenge yourself, have fun, use common sense, don't get injured, be self sufficient. Those are core 'rules' for me when I climb. I realized style could change from climb to climb and be very satisfying even if it does not alighn with purity I would like to usually achieve.
-
Ok, I'll play TD advocate, having done a few TD routes, I feel I at least have some experience that might speak to the value of TD.
First, if done right, TD is a slow process and is not sterile by any means. It's an art form deserving of the right amount of experience before bolting. Because TD is viewed disdainfully it prevents people from talking about it and learning it as an art form.
Second, TD permits good holes and perfect clips. Runout TD is anathema. Climbing should be fun. There's no reason other than narcissistic ego to create runout climbs going ground up either.
Third, bolt ladders, or heads to just establish a route GU that will get bolts anyways to protect cruxes for a leader at the grade is just artifice to go GU and is selfish to use the limited resource in a way that very few will enjoy.
-
Art form? I don't know if logically placed bolts even counts as a skill less so an art form.
-
There's no reason other than narcissistic ego to create runout climbs going ground up either.
Whoa, really? Or do I sense a hint of sarcasm?
But thanks for playing TD advocate. We need a few more 'round here to balance things out. I have done a few as well, munge. Invested WAY more time than if I'd done 'em ground up, and they weren't even bolts-only pure sport routes. Different form of art for sure.
Age Old discussion indeed...
but always so hard not to read every word. :)
-
It's never a clear cut (logical) decision on where to place a bolt. Thought and judgment are required, especially to the untrained eye and inexperienced TD FA'ist.
Clips can't be too high for shorter people.
Clips can't be too low to protect moves.
Clips should be from holds that permit hanging from your skeleton where possible, utilizing a good hold so the other can come off.
No clips in the middle of crux moves.
Bolts should be placed where the quickdraw will not otherwise cross load or come unclipped or bind up.
If a bolt can go anywhere in a section, then it should be placed where the climbing is both interesting and creates a good flow of moves.
Zig zag placements should be avoided.
And this list goes on including, most importantly, proper type, spec, torque and PLACEMENT in good rock. A shitty bolt top down deserves ridicule.
Anchors and route endings are an extension of this art.
-
well there you go. if you can summarize all there is to know about top down bolting in one post then it's not an art
-
Really Munge, don't you believe what you've posted there or are you really 'playing' devil's advocate? Or else how would you counter those statements?
"First, if done right, TD is.... an art form deserving of the right amount of experience before bolting. Because TD is viewed disdainfully it prevents people from talking about it and learning it as an art form." Calling it an art form seems aggrandizing to me. Seems a few good common sense tips could be made rather than a class or study on the practice for a reason.
"There's no reason other than narcissistic ego to create runout climbs going ground up either." This is one of those ad hominem fallacies that is like name calling and results in people just retorting back, 'no your td routes are narcisitic ego driven blahbateeblah....'
-
Calling it an art form seems aggrandizing to me. Seems a few good common sense tips could be made rather than a class or study on the practice for a reason.
This is one of those ad hominem fallacies that is like name calling and results in people just retorting back, 'no your td routes are narcisitic ego driven blahbateeblah....'
Yes, it should be aggrandized. There are bad TD routes, and the climbing community is only getting bigger. We want routes out there so that more climbers get outside to preserve access. If they never go outside and have a fun experience they'll be turned off to climbing at the crags and will not vote or write letters to keep those crags when access issues arise, like from private property issues.
If it's not a narcissistic endeavor to preserve a route indefinitely at your behest, then what is it? Why not let someone else add bolts to it? What if they are painted pink?
How am I doing?
-
We want routes out there so that more climbers get outside to preserve access. If they never go outside and have a fun experience they'll be turned off to climbing at the crags and will not vote or write letters to keep those crags when access issues arise, like from private property issues.
Sorry brother but I totally disagree with this.
It is like saying we should build parking garages at crags to accommodate enough new climbers to petition against things like parking garages.
-
No. Aggrandizing seems false. What would the Pinnacles climber in you say?
Let it be... what it is on its own merits, but calling it an artform doesn't make it so.
Again as to narcissism... however you want to discuss that and we can, but that is still going to result in pointing out how TD is narcissistic as well... and I don't think it a very productive discussion.
-
I am soo going to use my new talon on my next 5.6 FA and will name it "I got your Lame right here"
Then next to it I will do another without the hook and call it "Lame is without style".
Buahahaha
-
Is there a case for promoting more dangerous or intimidating routes to keep the numbers of climbers down? Have any of you ever been attracted to an area or even a climb because it has an intimidating reputation that keeps the masses away? There is never a pile of corpses at the base of those areas like some would assume.
Aren't there are enough safe and moderate climbs in this world to keep newer climbers happy for a hundred lifetimes? When you factor in retrobolting it feels like there is a growing movement to eventually sanitize every existing route for the masses. Sometimes it feels like defending drinking, smoking and guns...people clearly want them but they are all hard to explain why we should still have them.
-
Whoa, things warmed up.
First, if done right, TD is a slow process and is not sterile by any means.
My use of the word sterile was intended to capture what seems to me to be the one dimensional aspect of TD/sport climbing. The pursuit of physical difficulty. Take protection for example, it is a given. It's already everywhere you want it and there is no effort involved. All you need to do is get there, with immediate relief once you do. With GU it may well be that the epic is only on the verge of beginning when you get into that stance - once you're willing to commit to what will come. Sometimes you decide to pull the trigger and go higher. Real time adaptation so to speak. Just one aspect of what is typically sacrificed when going TD. I spent a block of years doing nothing but sport routes. Had a blast doing it, still enjoy doing it. But after a while it started to get kind of same old same old. Was I strong enough to deal with the technical aspect? If so, done deal. With GU it seems there is a far larger set of demands required to be successful. If one isn't afraid to fall (remember, runouts are anathema to TD) it becomes one dimensional, hence, somewhat sterile. This is primarily in the context of FAs - however, TD established routes may still require you to commit to that extra last move that takes you to the stance where it was possible to drill. TD, you can't stop to drill, so what? You can probably stop to clip, so put that bolt in. What this does assume is that these things matter to the FA'ist because they are perceived as a desirable aspect of the FA experience. If pure safe difficulty is the goal they may sound like gibberish. As we've been saying, different strokes...
There's no reason other than narcissistic ego to create runout climbs going ground up either.
It may A reason, but it isn't the only reason. One of the most satisfying routes I put up involved multiple 40'+ falls (from moves only marginally below my limit) before I could finish it. It wasn't rewarding because I was Joe Smoe and I made a statement by running it, it was because the route had demanded it and I finally managed to line my ducks up. Some people seek that particular challenge. What a loss if people who when they wanted that challenge, couldn't find it. Seriously, I don't think it's always about ego.
Third, bolt ladders, or heads to just establish a route GU that will get bolts anyways to protect cruxes for a leader at the grade is just artifice to go GU and is selfish to use the limited resource in a way that very few will enjoy.
This is an interesting one. For it to require a bolt ladder it would need to be mighty thin. If so, then the runout is anathema to TD would apply, no? So wouldn't it end up essentially as a bolt ladder even if done TD? Not to mention that doing GU bolt ladders and then freeing them is a somewhat bogus approach that ought to be avoided. That's a great way to end up with protection that can't be clipped because it goes where the line doesn't (think Hall of Mirrors.) Yes, TD could possibly remedy that, but a concerted effort using hooks and the likes can also achieve it. There are people out there that can drill on mind blowing poor stances. I've seen it.
This runout discussion has a tendency to always want to come back to "every route should be for everybody." Nonsense. The old clip it or skip it argument is also fundamentally flawed. Sigh. Those who want runout routes should have the right to find them, as well as those who want well protected routes should have the right to find them. My way or no way isn't the way.
edit: btw, Higgins tends to be quite eloquent, doesn't he.
-
How am I doing?
Not too shabby.
But in terms of the reference to climbs as art (or not), keep in mind that artists have proven over time that the definition of art is truly in the eye of the beholder. There is a tremendously wide variety of art out there, from minimalist blank canvases to skirted islands to welded junkyard metal to jelly bean portraits. It's all art, and opinions vary wildly on what is superior, more valuable, or simply looks best above the couch. There can be no objectivity in art - it's all open to interpretation.
TD and GU routes are different forms of art for sure. I can appreciate both, and in some cases, feel some routes done in either style are flawed, and simply not as good as others done in the same style.
But then there is the point of view, which I really like, that the real art is in the rock faces before us - the beautiful splitter crack, the vertical sea of knobs, the roof with only one weakness, the golden sweep of slab with just enough super subtle edges to make it go. It could be said the best routes respect these features - what lies before us - working in harmony with them, regardless of the style of the FA. That passage is an art I can really appreciate.
-
Sorry brother but I totally disagree with this.
It is like saying we should build parking garages at crags to accommodate enough new climbers to petition against things like parking garages.
To extend your metaphor, it is like building parking garages at crags to accommodate [parkers] to petition against Skyscrapers from being built on top of the parking garages. If you want to park without hassle of a skyscraper, then yeah, more voters makes more sense. Remember when climbing was fringe and land never used to be bought to preserve climbing, it just got closed off and made climbers trespassers?
-
No. Aggrandizing seems false. What would the Pinnacles climber in you say?
Let it be... what it is on its own merits, but calling it an artform doesn't make it so.
Again as to narcissism... however you want to discuss that and we can, but that is still going to result in pointing out how TD is narcissistic as well... and I don't think it a very productive discussion.
Please describe how aggrandizing is false?
Why am I central to the argument? [advocate based argument is at play here]
what does "own merits" mean? what are the conditions of satisfaction for meritorious?
Why is narcissism as a topic not amenable to a productive discussion? It wasn't meant as name calling. Narcissism, not in the clinical sense, but in the self centered at the expense of others. There's no way we can all say that climbing isn't narcissistic? It's completely self absorbed.
-
How am I doing?
Not too shabby.
Thx. :)
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?
-
Sometimes it feels like defending drinking, smoking and guns...people clearly want them but they are all hard to explain why we should still have them.
LOL. No, there are very clear reasons for those!! :)
-
I tried to hit the 'like' button for your response Nate. Hahaha.
Agreed that regardless of of GU, TD, or a combo of both; all routes should try and glorify the rock features that draw us to new climbs. Being able to sling or do some cool pro using the rock features is the true art and where we should all seek to bring out in our lines.
-
Please describe how aggrandizing is false?
Why am I central to the argument? [advocate based argument is at play here]
what does "own merits" mean? what are the conditions of satisfaction for meritorious?
Why is narcissism as a topic not amenable to a productive discussion? It wasn't meant as name calling. Narcissism, not in the clinical sense, but in the self centered at the expense of others. There's no way we can all say that climbing isn't narcissistic? It's completely self absorbed.
Calling TD an art form seems over the top to me. I feel it's a bit like Yeti wrote in his last post... a hard sell. Yet I also think it has merit without having to make it sound like it's all that. I think you've just answered your own question about narcissism... by indicating an admission that climbing is self-absorbed. I said we could talk about that, but what I mean is talking about that usually seems to devolve into parties accusing each other of being narcissistic. I didn't mean to make you central in any way, I was just interested in your personal opinions.
Now I have to read what everyone else posted - I saw yours first, Munge, and had to respond. Anyway, it's great seeing so much interaction.
-
Calling TD an art form seems over the top to me. I feel it's a bit like Yeti wrote in his last post... a hard sell. Yet I also think it has merit without having to make it sound like it's all that.
But why do you have these opinions? what values does TD not meet such that it can't be seen as a way of doing art? You may end up at Nate's view eventually, but I'm trying to get past the bare opinions and get at comparisons and rationales for those opinions.
I think you've just answered your own question about narcissism... by indicating an admission that climbing is self-absorbed.
Admitting that climbing is narcissistic isn't a knock against TD as an ethical and artful approach to development. It's just being honest.
If you follow the discussion I'm pushing the arguments, not reflecting my personal views. :)
-
Well, I want to hear your personal views so sue me. :P
"But why do you have these opinions? what values does TD not meet such that it can't be seen as a way of doing art? You may end up at Nate's view eventually, but I'm trying to get past the bare opinions and get at comparisons and rationales for those opinions."
I've heard it described as factory work before, perhaps that turned me off. Made me think it was more like paint by numbers. Now, I've heard another TD developer talk about it in such a way that they described with loving detail and passion. I vibed on that. And someone can use the metaphor of art, and talk about a need for experience in the craft of TD, but it just doesn't move me - the TD equipping of the route. The climbing of it, hell yeah. Whereas the GU equipping of a route gets my attention.
I am interested in knowing how a climb is put up but don't spit on it and say phooey or anything however it was done. I have not infrequently enjoyed imagining what it was like on the FA of climbs if GU, and also not infrequently wondered if a climb was established GU when I wasn't sure.
Anyways, sure enjoying everyone's input.
One more thing tonight before I go to bed, I do like the notion of getting a good ass kicking trying to put up a route whether GU or TD. That sounds like where it's at to me... someone really trying to push their own limits.
-
Susan, you bring up painting and I think it is a good analogy. For years the custom painter used a hand brush to do entire homes. As technology changed there were those that started using rollers for bigger areas and walls. Soon the sprayer came into the picture and it changed the industry. To this day you have painters who use particular methods that suit their style and the job at hand. Some claim the hand brush covers better and allows for better coverage of the surface painted and claim their work is truly custom. Other claim the sprayer gets a more even coverage and hides the brush steaks. I have painted with all and see the benefits of each.in the industry. There are masters of each style that when done properly it is difficult to impossible to tell which was used.
-
That makes the point that it doesn't matter the style because she done well the end product is what matters.
Which is great if the subjective experience I want to have ends up being perceived well upon completion. If it doesn't and I go ground up, shouldn't I be subject to moral condemnation for a bad end result?
-
That is a fine analogy DT. Downright poetic. And so was Munge's dancer analogy. Now imagine the painter or dancer making it happen ground up. Even if failing, getting up and trying again, even if trying at a lower grade, it is awesome, since they are actually climbing on the sharp end into the unknown.
-
Deep in it here...
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.
ps
Did GU route in Chipmunk Flat weeks ago and a TD route this past weekend in Shutteye.
Ground up is more respectable.....
-
awesome
why is it awesome? What value is it tapping into?
-
I feel I'm repeating myself.
-
Deep in it here...
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.
ps
Did GU route in Chipmunk Flat weeks ago and a TD route this past weekend in Shutteye.
Ground up is more respectable.....
ah, a programmatic approach based on conditions! The appeal is to pragmatism in that approach (and likely rooted in historical reasons for the specifics, e.g. low impact of not bolting where removable gear can be placed reliably.)
But doesn't pragmatism equally require that if only a rack of draws is required except one piece, that a bolt can be used next to a crack to avoid carrying the extraneous gear? Or does a pragmatic approach require taking history into account and principles around 'precedent' setting. Does pragmatism give a standard or just an ok to argue the refined points of when is something excessive or not enough?
again, being the advocate here...
-
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.) ;D
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.
-
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...
-
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.) ;D
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?
-
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.
(http://i956.photobucket.com/albums/ae47/setageus/devil.jpg)
-
I'm not evil, I just argue that way. :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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? :)
-
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....
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Awesome discussion, sitting here with the popcorn and a big grin!
Carry on.
-
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?
-
Even if done TD, can a moderate, bolts only, well-protected slab route be called sport, for instance?)
Depends on the context, whether talking FA or subsequent ascents.
Within the context of the FA it was established in the style of "sport", and was a sport FA. Change the wording a little to "Even if done GU, can a moderate..." and the answer changes, it was done in the style of "trad", and was a trad FA.
Within the context of subsequent ascents, the route climbs to all as if it is a sport route. High safety factor, little commitment, ...
Seems to me that there are a whole lot of trad routes that climb exactly like sport. Can't tell the difference in how it was established, and technical ability is the only thing required. Not that there is anything wrong with that kind of route.
This harkens back to some of the previous points regarding "done well" and the context of who the discussion is for.
Haha, around in circles and chasing own tails...
I guess this is why the age old questions never seem to get settled. Too many subtleties, tangents, caveats, and complexities. Still fun to talk about.
-
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.
Those people that use 'trad' for gear only are ignorant and need to be hung, drawn and quartered. Pinnacles, Yosemite slabs, Elbsandstein, Meteora are good examples of face protected bolt climbs that are traditional.
Sport means well protected fixed protection climbs.
Agree that bolts have been historically acceptable to protect otherwise unprotectable features, e.g. slabs.
-
Agree that bolts have been historically acceptable to protect otherwise unprotectable features, e.g. slabs.
"otherwise unprotectable features" qualifies the historical perspective better than I did, and is worth noting.
Something that has seemed to change relative to the historical perspective is the quantity of bolts involved when a route does meet the above criteria. It used to be, yes, you can use bolts but since they aren't natural do what you can to minimize their use - yet another reason runouts occurred. Not so much anymore. The "quality" (subjective) of the climbing experience now often trumps the "quantity" of bolts actually required (subjective). No clear cut answer on that one, imo. It's a good ideal, but if it's good climbers putting up routes under their limit it can lead to all kinds of exclusion problems for those of lesser ability. It's possible to even exclude yourself from repeating your own route because it's a different day.
-
Soyo, yeah, on sheer bolt counts there are two schools of thought that [self regulate placements as opposed to TD grid bolting walls] I've seen. The first, is reduce bolts as much as humanly possible. The second, is don't place when there is an otherwise usable feature for removable gear (and leaves lots of room for leveraging fixed gear).
The first theory is consistent with the 'leave minimal trace' ethic.
The second is consistent with the ground up ethic that preserves adventure in the process, but not necessarily the product.
I'm more of the later (Susan, that's for you :)). In other words, I like to go ground up when I can. I go ground up when I'm in an area that is a ground up area. But I'm not afraid of adding steel. I won't avoid steel just to maintain a moving target of what is 'minimal.' The process and experience of how I experience it is paramount, compared to an arbitrary rule of what is a minimum distance between bolts (vertically, but also to some extent horizontally too). But if I do elect to do a 'product' route (sometimes started GU sometimes TD, and rare in any case), then I don't mind targeting the goal of being a fun, well equipped, good clips, well engineered route. It doesn't seem to make sense to have an arbitrary push to minimize bolts either GU or TD, since in any event we are talking about the colloquial "whore's ethics" (setting aside any gender bias the phrase has unto itself).
The self regulatory aspect derives from the approach, not in the bolt count itself. The counter argument is that it's the bolt counts are what drives the crowds and thus more impact.
Without question, reduce moto drill usage and new bolt counts per anum will plummet. New route development would grind to a slow trickle. And those of us with elbow problems would not be able to continue doing FAs, or FAs GU at or near our free climbing limit.
-
Good post mungeclimber.
FA's are where its at, and I see runouts as a desirable aspect of the game. But I don't have a preconceived set of rules that are adhered to. So what happens, happens. And if I do run it, it doesn't really bother me because I subscribe to the not every route has to be for everybody theory as well. I'm almost exclusively GU, but within that framework there's enough wiggle room to find a balance.
-
Munge, "Whore's ethics?" Don't know what you mean here and would like to.
-
No, I meant same route. TD can be runout where the climbing is easier than the grade. I guess that's my style tho if I happen to to TD.instead of GU. And a GU could be grid bolted :( if using a Edrill and tough grade for the FA party. To me it only matters that day to the FA party. If you told.me about a new route, I would want to know about the cool hole for tricams or the undercling on the 2ND pitch. I would not care or ask, honestly if it was TD or GU.
-
We were trying to bolt at a minimum when we first came to Shuteye, to a point that seemed part of the game. John was especially concerned if we might not have been on an FA. [Heard several times that decades of previous climbers in the area hoped to keep the place adventurous and natural as possible, and we admired that spirit.] One time in particular I remember facing another long walk back around at the end of the day, all to avoid being too quick to install rap anchors anywhere but the best spots [which could take some time to get clear on], and keep from inadvertently altering lines that others may have climbed naturally. After all, there really is beauty to an all natural or mostly natural line that climbs like a first ascent. Now, a few years rolled by and forum chatter seems to focus so much more on the value of well-protected routes than ever. Even so, I can't help wondering, won't the pendulum swing?
There is something great about climbing routes you know you can handle, but something greater when climbing routes that seemed improbable. As several here keep pointing out, the trajectory is more and more that TD routes outnumber GU. Even if a majority seems to express that run-out routes are a waste of climbable space, if we don't respect the ethic of not messing with routes others established, then GU routes are endangered. If so, some of the best experiences we value in climbing will suffer. If we have to move to answering to everyone's fussbudgety differences [not referring to this discussion at all, just garden variety conversations on varying opinions about bolt placement, risk factors, etc., which are impasses], it will impinge on our freedom and potential for originality. Routes could begin to look too much alike. Instead of fueling excitement, we'll get bored. Since we all see that there are different strokes for different folks, and no controlling what is valued most for all time, seems to me the possibilities are endless for what climbs established in the ‘right way’ could be. And the one nice thing about thinking that the possibilities are endless is maybe we could be surprised.
-
Munge, "Whore's ethics?" Don't know what you mean here and would like to.
At first I was thinking only of one definition. But there are two if we take off the possessive apostrophe and or change it to prostitution ethics. One, is that if we're doing the dirty deed and taking the benefit from it, we really don't have justification to prevent others from doing the same or wanting to make it more normal and ok.
Two, is that as climbers, once we accept bolts, we're not haggling over whether we are taking advantage of the rock, we're haggling over how many bolts. Is 20 worse than 2?
In the broader context of that post, the idea was to show the futility of the refined argument since we're all paying customers or giving it up in the metaphorical sense.
-
Ho-k. Thanks for explaining, Munge.
Here are a few more straggling things I wanted to say but have been trying to work and gotta get back to it, so just throwing them out here.
-Great treatment on the definitions of sport and trad in these recent posts.
-Yes, Higgins is eloquent. In that quote where he writes:
"If both styles have to play on the same cliff, go with caution when crossing old trad routes with new sport routes to avoid effectively retro bolting the old lines (the new Southern Sierra guidebook will make just this point). I think this is the way (and maybe only way) to insure maximum climbing satisfaction and minimum harm to camaraderie of the game." Does the new Southern Sierra guidebook make that point as indicated?
-Even if routes are going up that I won't see fit to ever leading because they are beyond my wrapping my head around, to see folks pushing their own limits beyond comprehension is inspiring. Maybe only awe inspiring, but I'll take it. Again, no problem with saying to them, 'ahh, geesh, I wouldn't do that but would love to if there were more bolts.' Maybe they'll even add some just because they themselves might not want to climb the route again without them.
-I do relate to the art analogy some. For instance, we would have been bummed to have dotted someone else's "i" or put an x on their blank canvas if we have ever... and would have offered removal. I wouldn't necessarily see the worth of people getting blasted for that, though, esp. when they honestly didn't freaking know in a land where routes were barely or not at all reported.
-Getting back round to Dan's proposal for an ethics grading system, seems the main problem is a lot of people wouldn't care to report on it. Maybe we owe ourselves and future climbers the opportunity for keeping these records for the sake of the limited resource. If the chief aim of it is preservation of limited resources, then just as he proposed it with hand drilling at the top sounds about like it.
-
Does the new Southern Sierra guidebook make that point as indicated?
There is a new So Sierra guidebook?
I do relate to the art analogy some. For instance, we would have been bummed to have dotted someone else's "i" or put an x on their blank canvas if we have ever... and would have offered removal. I wouldn't necessarily see the worth of people getting blasted for that, though, esp. when they honestly didn't freaking know in a land where routes were barely or not at all reported.
Without question. And if removal is not offered, it seems removal is warranted if the FA'ist is inclined. Should the FA'ist pass, and a sufficient period of time past, then community input is warranted.
With regard to an ethical rating system. The Pinnacles guides have often called out the style of ascent. Clipping a pin for a 'clean ascent' of an FFA being called out since it used a hammer for the old pin to be placed originally.
It's not unheard of, just hardly anyone cares. But I think it's worth capturing the history on everything. In particular, that's why I actually like detailed topos that are substantiated by research on where the line actually goes. Without getting it right early, years later no one remembers.
-
I think this is referring to Grahm's guide even though he writes Southern Sierra.
-
I think this is referring to Grahm's guide even though he writes Southern Sierra.
Yes, this came about in regards to Sahib on Chiquito. Read the Sahib desc. in the Shuteye guide - an unfortunate case of a clearly documented bold route getting bolted over.
-
Good that he put that in there.
-
grahmy did it on aug nights as well, good thing he did do the colored hanger thing he was think he was thinking of doing on chiquito dome so climbers knew what climb was what, that was a super bad idea :-(!
-
Outta here for some climbing.. Have fun all... whatever ya do! Whoop!
-
Sport means well protected fixed protection climbs.
To me it seems there is a lot of climbing on gear that pretty much becomes not much different than sport. Especially when it comes to hard stuff. Almost all hard valley big wall FFAs are rehearsed on mini trax over and over and over and over. I don't really think this is same as trad climbing. Especially sad when FFAist creates artificial runouts by adding bolts based on his need after getting the pitch wired.
In any case, there is a load of rock out there, everyone can have it their way.
-
Sport means well protected fixed protection climbs.
To me it seems there is a lot of climbing on gear that pretty much becomes not much different than sport. Especially when it comes to hard stuff. Almost all hard valley big wall FFAs are rehearsed on mini trax over and over and over and over. I don't really think this is same as trad climbing. Especially sad when FFAist creates artificial runouts by adding bolts based on his need after getting the pitch wired.
In any case, there is a load of rock out there, everyone can have it their way.
"gear" for "not much different than sport" is removable. My definition refers to fixed protection with an impact to the rock (primarily bolts, but fixed pins could be seen in the same light).
Like I keep trying to reinforce, ethics and ethical approaches are not the same as style of ascent. Ethics are discussions around impacts on others. One can sport hang dog and yo yo all they want, but it's only when drill or pin touches stone that the approach really becomes a topic of concern regarding the approach to establishing.
-
Why is it much of a concern to you as an individual? North face of Middle cathedral, apron, Schultz ridge to name a few, are showered with bolts. Ton of bolts. Bolt ladders for pitches on bigger cliffs. Why does it matter that people place those bolts or chisel on lead? Still a ton of impact. Humans make trails, roads and put up large artificial via ferretas to top of peaks in the wilderness. Fighting over a few extra bolts seems so minor.
Friend and I were discussing the new guideline to replacing (!!!) and placing bolts in SEKI, which labels bolts as unethical. On top of Moro rock. With freaking steps cut into it and rails to guard tourists to the top. That is a perfect way to keep things wild, but replacing a bolt on a cliff that people won't even bother to hike to is wrong. Doesn't make sense.
-
which argument would you like me to pursue in response? TD or GU approach? :)
Probably the key point around which either approach could make arguments is that it is not just an 'individual' experience in placement of fixed gear.
New guidelines for SEKI?
By who?
-
Haha, any argument. Seems like all of it is silly. If humans are ok with roads, large trails, structures and cutting steps into the rock, they should be ok with a few bolts for rock climbing (td or gu) in reasonable amount (oh so subjective lol).
There is a thread on it on supertopo. New park service rules. If you want to place or Re place a bolt you apply for it. Each application is 20$. :)
-
Don't you think that the folks that cut steps in the rocks, built via ferratas, tunnels, roads, etc. were people from a very different time? There was a pride in "conquering" the wild at the beginning of the last century up until perhaps the last quarter century. It is pretty unpopular to even suggest building roads through the forests any more with the exception of for logging. Look at when they built dams, the interstate highways, and the such, mostly in the 30's through the 50's. I like to believe that people are much more conscious about how limited our resources are in the outdoors and hope to preserve it.
-
Have we covered all the topics?
-
Maybe, but I think this is a somewhat valuable thread for this forum, as there is a great diversity of climbing styles in SoYo (Higgin's notion of coexistence), which isn't necesarily as prevalent in other regions (though I'm far from an authority on that matter, just speculating a bit.)
FWIW, this was a nice articulation of the different approaches to climbing by Rich Goldstone from a thread on MP. Thought it might want to dwell here as well:
"I guessing I'm an even older and fartier fart than Crackhack. One has to remember that climbing has evolved, and with that evolution come people whose interests and goals are not quite the same as the interests and goals of earlier generations. One way of viewing the evolution is from the perspective of the trad/sport dichotomy, and there is little doubt that sport climbing has driven most of the changes in climbing in, say, the last thirty years. But whatever the original sources of ferment, I think one might understand modern rock climbing better using a different framework.
What I have in mind might be called the tension between adventure climbing and performance climbing. The fundamental ingredient in adventure climbing is uncertainty---that's where the adventure comes from. The fundamental ingredient in performance climbing is...performance. These are different perspectives on what can often be the same activity, and the way climbers treat their goals and projects (and evaluate others' successes and failures) depends on which genre they are embracing at the moment, (It is important to understand that the terms describe approaches to climbing and not climbers, who may or may not embrace just one approach.)
If climbing is a sport, then I think the adventure genre is something of an anomaly, belonging to the vanishing realm of exploration as much or more than performance. The performance genre of climbing is much closer to other sporting endeavors; gymnastics especially seems to be an appropriate analogy. The gymnast tries to learn routines of great difficulty (for the person in question) on various apparatuses. In doing so, they employ every possible resource: hand spotting, overhead mechanics, videotaping, breaking the routine into small bits, all the beta available from experienced coaches, etc, and even with all this the outcome in a meet is far from guaranteed, because the difficulty level is high.
I see performance climbing in the same light. The rock is, for the performance climber, an apparatus supplying a routine to be mastered, and it would be bizarre and counterproductive to deny oneself important information as part of the mastery process.
Gym climbing is performance climbing. Most sport climbing is performance climbing. Trad climbing can really be treated either as adventure or performance climbing, so I think it is in the trad realm that adventure vs. performance emerges most clearly.
To the extent that adventure and performance climbing are simply different individual perspectives, it would seem to me that everyone ought to be able to keep their undies untwisted. Live and let live. When real problems occur is when folks embracing one genre want to physically alter the "apparatus" in order to conform to their view of the activity, with the presence and use of bolts being one of the issues around which the controversies crystallize.
For me, beta is a non-issue, because it doesn't involve physical alterations. If you are a climber in performance mode, then you want all the beta you can possible acquire. If you are in adventure mode, you want only some minimal amount to point you in the right direction, and maybe none.
Mountain Project's raison d’ętre is beta. That's what it is here for, but no one reading the forums is obliged to consult the performance threads if it is adventure they are after."
SoYo has certainly delivered much in the way of adventure for me over the years.
-
That sounds like the subject this post was referring to was the "too much beta is bad" discussion. AKA the flash ascent versus onsite ascent. Both sport and trad climbers seem to appreciate the difference.
-
The best place for performance climbing is the gym.
-
I just remembered a funny comment a non climbing person who works at the ironworks gym in Berkeley said. She nicknamed the gym Ironicworks, referring to how all of the activities in the gym are imitating something we'd rather be doing in the real outdoors like rowing, hiking, rock climbing etc. I thought that was really funny.
-
That is perceptive, John. When my wife first went to a climbing gym (and I think it was her last time as well), she compared it to a Habitrail - which if you ever had a pet hamster or gerbil, you'd understand.
-
Habitrail is a model of a Peruvians intestines. Ha!
-
Google Cuy and that will sound less random....
-
Google Cuy and that will sound less random....
HA! Got it...
-
The Climbing Life – published in Alpinist by Chris Kalman, Seattle, Washington
In Defense of Soloing
“But we little know until tried how much of the uncontrollable there is in us, urging across glaciers and torrents, and up dangerous heights, let the judgment forbid as it may.“—John Muir
October in the High Sierra, California: a man stands alone in the middle of a wave of granite. The rock goes on forever. It is far older than he is, as old as time. The rock is time, and it stretches on forever. It is cold, indifferent, and not in the least reassuring to a man who has been “suddenly brought to a dead stop, with arms outspread, clinging close to the face of the rock, unable to move hand or foot either up or down.” He is breathing hard. “My doom [is] fixed,” he thinks. “I must fall. There would be a moment of bewilderment, and then a lifeless rumble down the one general precipice to the glacier below.” Thoughts of death loop through his head, growing louder. A faint breeze blows up the wall, and the thoughts stop. He feels as if he has acquired a “new sense. The other self, bygone experiences, Instinct, or Guardian Angel—call it what you will—came forward and assumed control. Then my trembling muscles became firm again, every rift and flaw in the rock was seen as through a microscope, and my limbs moved with a positiveness and precision with which I seemed to have nothing at all to do. Had I been borne aloft upon wings, my deliverance could not have been more complete” (The Mountains of California, John Muir, 1894, also cited in Early Days in the Range of Light, Daniel Arnold, 2011).
It’s 1872. On top of the 13,157-foot Mt. Ritter, the “king of the mountains of the middle portion of the High Sierra,” John Muir stands alone. The air chills. He is tired. He has no climbing gear, no jacket, no source of light except the setting sun and rising moon. He carries only the clothes he is wearing, the boots on his feet, and the “hard, durable crust” of bread he tied into his belt that morning. Back at the pine tree where he’d slept the night before, there’s a small satchel with a cup, a notebook and more bread. No blanket, no tent and no stove. He is in the midst of a three-day journey across rugged terrain. And now he has to find his way down that same mountain by some other route than the harrowing one he just scrambled up. Whether such a route even exists, he does not know.
When I started climbing in 2000, the pursuit meant little more to me than following taped hand- and footholds up an artificial wall. I remember lying on a blue mat at a Northern Virginia gym, looking up at the black and white paint splatters on a grey overhang, trying to imagine the beginnings of the sport. The idea of doing anything difficult with the antiquated equipment that must have been around “back in the day” seemed terrifying. I imagined that the early climbers were much less intrepid than we are now. I assumed that free soloing was a modern aberration—some sort of next-level “extreme” that only a few nutjobs engaged in for publicity and attention.
Eight years later, looking down at death beneath my shaking legs, I realized I must be one of those nutjobs. Ropeless, halfway up the flared cracks of Osiris, on Colorado’s Lumpy Ridge, I couldn’t help smiling at the absurd intensity of my situation. I’d been trad climbing for a year, and I barely knew how to jam. I slapped up the twin cracks as if they formed a double, sloping aręte. When I pulled up onto the ledge at the top, I felt about as big as the small pink crystals of decomposing granite around me. As the fear slowly subsided, I was overwhelmed by what I can only describe as a sensation of utter connectedness.
Free soloing, I realized, wasn’t ego affirming at all. It was ego shattering. High on the rock, everything dissolved except pure, unencumbered movement. If I couldn’t enter that clean, clear state of being, I would have to down climb or else risk a probably fatal fall. Even on known terrain, the experience took on all the nuance and mystery of exploration—long, meditative periods of pure, spontaneous, wordless motion. No companions except stone and peregrine, pine and stream. I moved over waves of rock as if in a dream, and at the dream’s end, when I came back down, something sweet remained in my memory. It felt like a day spent with a loved one.
I became less interested in reading about hard boulder problems and sport routes and more curious about tales of alpine adventures in the present and the past. As I finally started to learn the history of climbing, I understood that free soloing was essentially the norm for early American alpinists. Daniel Arnold notes of the Sierra Nevada pioneers: “This early lot of mountaineers had no ropes or pitons or special training. They had only their fingers, their boots, and an immoderate excess of boldness” (Early Days in the Range of Light).
In the days before nylon ropes, climbers knew that their fragile hemp or manila cords had little chance of stopping a lead fall. One individual’s slip could pull an entire team off the mountain. An awareness of possible consequences was an intrinsic part of all their endeavors. For some, this awareness also became a catalyst for self-transformation and transcendence.
At the beginning of the nineteenth century, before Muir’s daring ascent of Mt. Ritter, the British poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge developed a habit of what he termed “a new sort of gambling.” After scrambling up a randomly selected peak, he would down climb, “where it is first possible to descend... [relying] upon fortune for how far down this possibility will continue.”
In 1802 he reached the top of Mt. Scafell, in England’s Lake District, in an oncoming storm. This time, his descent technique led him to a wide perch above a twelve-foot wall. Beneath it, the next ledge was so tiny “that if I dropt down upon it I must of necessity have fallen backwards and of course killed myself.”
Instead of despairing, Coleridge lay down to take in the beauty of the view: “The sight of the Crags above me on each side, and the impetuous Clouds just over them, posting so luridly and so rapidly northward overawed me. I lay in a state of almost prophetic Trance and Delight—and blessed God aloud for the powers of Reason and Will, which remaining no Danger can overpower us! Oh God, I exclaimed aloud—how calm, how blessed am I now—I know not how to proceed, how to return, but I am calm and fearless and confident” (The Collected Letters of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, 1956–71, also cited in Mountains of the Mind, Robert Macfarlane, 2003). Upon closer inspection, he saw a small opening at the end of his ledge that he could chimney down to safety.
Perhaps Coleridge needed to lose himself in an experience of the sublime in order to discover his way. I found this paradox of losing yourself to find yourself to be common among the soloists I knew. It resonated through my first experiences in the mountains, and it still echoes loudly in my mind today.
During the decades after Coleridge’s unroped descent of Mt. Scaffel, some influential climbers rejected the technological aids that eventually became part of standard use. “Every change aroused resistance,” Joseph Taylor explains. “Pitons, carabiners, crampons, tennis shoes, bottled oxygen, bolts, chocks, cams and sticky shoes triggered heated debates about fair play. Every clash revealed an intense desire to preserve risk” (Pilgrims of the Vertical, 2010).
The early twentieth-century New England mountaineer Miriam Underhill (1898–1976), editor of Appalachia, claimed that using lead protection diminished opportunities to build “reserves of strength, skill and control” by lessening “the penalty for failure” (Yankee Rock & Ice, Laura and Guy Waterman, 2002). Austrian soloist Paul Preuss (1886–1913) renounced both pitons and ropes. By relying on any “artificial aids,” he argued, we fail to cultivate those internal “reserves that even in immediate danger conduct us safely back into the valley again” (Mauerhakenstreit, 1911).
In its nascence, I realized, climbing was not so much about mastering a section of stone or a physical ability, but about fathoming the depths of the wild and the soul. Nylon ropes, cams, bolts, modern belay devices and harnesses all greatly minimize the chance of death or injury from a fall. After all, Preuss died in the midst of one of his free solos. But these tools can also create a new danger, one that would make the progenitors of our sport wary. Despite the advantages that come from modern technology (I certainly use it myself ), it can shift climbers’ focus from experiencing the sublime to conquering it. Reinhold Messner described the results as the “Murder of the Impossible”: “Now anyone can work on a rock face, using tools to bend it to his own idea of possibility,” drilling bolts to impose a vision of human dominance on a mountain wall, rather than learning to harmonize our movements with the natural features of the rock (Mountain 15, 1971).
What has happened to the custom of going into the mountains not to feel big, but to remember how small we are? Today, many of us inhabit a world of climbing gyms and competitions, superlight equipment, aggressive downturned shoes and multimedia coverage of everything from the most ordinary to the most daring ascents. Climbing now seems to have so much to do with being strong—and often with being stronger than someone else. In the process of redefining the possible, we may have lost some of the early soloists’ bravado; and worse, their joy. Alone, on top of Mt. Ritter, Muir saw not the inscription of his own new line, his ego or his personal fame, but something much greater: “Nature’s poems carved on tables of stone.” Amid the fading light and the utter solitude, these were his thoughts:
The deep, brooding silence [in which] all the wilderness seems motionless, as if the work of creation were done. But in the midst of this outer steadfastness we know there is incessant motion and change. Ever and anon, avalanches are falling from yonder peaks. These cliff-bound glaciers, seemingly wedged and immovable, are flowing like water and grinding the rocks beneath them. The lakes are lapping their granite shores and wearing them away, and every one of these rills and young rivers is fretting the air into music, and carrying the mountains to the plains. Here are the roots of all the life of the valleys, and here more simply than elsewhere is the eternal flux of nature manifested (The Mountains of California ).
To me, John Muir is saying that mountains are the cradle of life, and I love this idea. Maybe this is why we are drawn to them: from up high, we’re afforded an uncommon view of the whole, creative works. We get the divine opportunity to look at all that lies below us, and contemplate where we come from. This is as good a defense of not just soloing, but climbing as a whole, as I have ever discovered. That we have Muir’s story today is testament to his survival of that brave journey in 1872. That his love of the mountains still resonates deeply in his words—and in the reader’s soul—is testament to something else.
It is the distinct privilege of all of us who follow in Muir’s footsteps to figure out what that something else is on our own.
Chris Kalman, Seattle, Washington
-
Here are some stand out bits from the article relating to the age old discussion, but a brightest highlight for me circles the notion, not to be advocating suicide by any stretch of the imagination, but ironically that risk could be perceptibly removed from climbing and in so doing, kill climbing, or the joy in it.
- As the fear slowly subsided, I was overwhelmed by what I can only describe as a sensation of utter connectedness.
- Free soloing, I realized, wasn’t ego affirming at all. It was ego shattering.
- ...awareness of possible consequences was an intrinsic part...
- “Every change aroused resistance,” … “Pitons, carabiners, crampons, tennis shoes, bottled oxygen, bolts, chocks, cams and sticky shoes triggered heated debates about fair play. Every clash revealed an intense desire to preserve risk.”
- In its nascence, I realized, climbing was not so much about mastering a section of stone or a physical ability, but about fathoming the depths of the wild and the soul.
- Despite the advantages that come from modern technology (I certainly use it myself ), it can shift climbers’ focus from experiencing the sublime to conquering it.
- Reinhold Messner described the results as the “Murder of the Impossible”: “Now anyone can work on a rock face, using tools to bend it to his own idea of possibility,” drilling bolts to impose a vision of human dominance on a mountain wall, rather than learning to harmonize our movements with the natural features of the rock.
- What has happened to the custom of going into the mountains not to feel big, but to remember how small we are?
- Climbing now seems to have so much to do with being strong—and often with being stronger than someone else. In the process of redefining the possible, we may have lost some of the early soloists’ bravado; and worse, their joy.
- Alone, on top of Mt. Ritter, Muir saw not the inscription of his own new line, his ego or his personal fame, but something much greater… from up high, we’re afforded an uncommon view of the whole, creative works. We get the divine opportunity to look at all that lies below us, and contemplate where we come from.
- It is the distinct privilege of all of us who follow in Muir’s footsteps to figure out what that something else is on our own.
-
I was thinking, if one end of the style/ethical purity/environmental impact spectrum would be free soloing (preferably naked and without chalk or climbing shoes of course) what is the other end? Aid? Sport? Helicopter?
-
Is the concept of Leave No Trace as applied to rock climbing and mountaineering dead? More often than not, the same person who would stop to pick up a gum wrapper on a trail would have no problem with leaving or clipping a row of bolts.
-
what is the other end? Aid? Sport? Helicopter?
Bring the mountain to Mohammad. I bet if we lopped the top off Everest and plunked down in Long Beach by the Queen Mary, people would pay to stand on it.
-
Is the concept of Leave No Trace as applied to rock climbing and mountaineering dead? More often than not, the same person who would stop to pick up a gum wrapper on a trail would have no problem with leaving or clipping a row of bolts.
Repasting from a ST thread where I wrote very briefly about leave no trace ethic relative to a sandstone area in china that had bolted man made cracks. All that while keeping in mind that leave no trace really should be read as leave minimal trace since no trace is not physical possible:
Argument from 'leave no trace' principles is a principle of least interference. A sort of Kantian principle that if we universalize everyone's behavior to the same degree, does it permit some acceptable balance for the most user's to enjoy.
The above often begs the question of what is aesthetic vs. ugly. Often this appeals to a principle of the naturalistic fallacy. That which is natural is elevated in value. The converse can be argued as well. That which is man made or cultured has a higher value.
That often devolves into a subjective appreciation and we're trying to target an objective set of principles (i.e. no one single view can be right, but a view that still takes consensus into account).
There is also the argument from maximum utility. 'that most people will have the most fun from more bolts, rather than cams.' I think this draws from the view that bolts are generally safer than cams. There are lot of things to consider there. I guess the sandstone argument comes back. The use of specialized carabiners for ease of locking and unlocking to truly gain the value of a safer bolt. More training on how to bolt properly comes up.
Cams are expensive and are a barrier to entry. Argument from egalitarian principles, that everyone should have equality of opportunity. Some gear is required. Bouldering or soloing seems the only truly egalitarian form of climbing.
What are the additional arguments in either direction?
-
There is also the argument from maximum utility. 'that most people will have the most fun from more bolts, rather than cams.' I think this draws from the view that bolts are generally safer than cams. There are lot of things to consider there. I guess the sandstone argument comes back.
Aaaaah, what a double-edged sword. When not talking specifically about bolted Chinese sandstone cracks, the maximum utility argument is a dangerous reason to abandon the "minimalist" ethics or at least its intent. Why cater to a minority of people, in this case gear poor and/or beginner climbers if the final product doesn't necessarily appeal to the majority in the long run? Or does it? This isn't feeding the poor so they can have a better chance at happiness this is using a limited resource so people would most likely climb with some friends and never go back.
Frankly I would prefer some sort of lower and more sustained number of people climbing at all. The fact that climbing has a legitimate reputation as dangerous activity probably kept the numbers down for most of its existence and may be benificial. Gyms sell a safer image of climbing and surely increase the number of new climbers.
-
Argument from 'leave no trace' principles is a principle of least interference. A sort of Kantian principle that if we universalize everyone's behavior to the same degree, does it permit some acceptable balance for the most user's to enjoy.
See here we have two types of climbing, sport and trad, deserving of unique treatment from each other. They offer unique value that may not translate well to each discipline. Preservation of routes as they were intended is more respectful acknowledging their different value. Coexistence of both disciplines is more likely successful if the unique values are understood even if not agreed upon.
LNT and the max utility argument are diametrically opposed, with trad favoring the former and sport the latter, and regardless of talking about any of this, we know route development including even our own collectively in Soyo is destined to carry on at a rate of speed our discussion can't keep up with regardless. Routes continue to be accepted into the fold, as it is way less common for whistle blowing and chopping and far more common to live and let live. The exponential growth of new routes period is setting standards even if only in a kind of monkey-see/monkey-do way. So many climbers want to get in FAs in an age of FA fever, and everyone can because it has become far more accessible to do. Yet at the end of the day, we are left to decide what are the worthiest routes - among the many that get established without regard for how, which may have some appeal and/or come recommended, hopefully at least as much if not more value could still be held for those that are hard earned and push varying climbing limits and yet with respect for how in terms of traditional style.
-
I'm out of breath after re-reading that, and not even out loud. ;D
-
See here we have two types of climbing, sport and trad, deserving of unique treatment from each other. They offer unique value that may not translate well to each discipline. Preservation of routes as they were intended is more respectful acknowledging their different value. Coexistence of both disciplines is more likely successful if the unique values are understood even if not agreed upon.
What does "preservation of routes" mean in your proposal? Preservation of routes means 'of existing routes'.
Agreed on the last sentence regarding coexistence.
-
LNT and the max utility argument are diametrically opposed, with trad favoring the former and sport the latter, and regardless of talking about any of this, we know route development including even our own collectively in Soyo is destined to carry on at a rate of speed our discussion can't keep up with regardless. Routes continue to be accepted into the fold, as it is way less common for whistle blowing and chopping and far more common to live and let live. The exponential growth of new routes period is setting standards even if only in a kind of monkey-see/monkey-do way. So many climbers want to get in FAs in an age of FA fever, and everyone can because it has become far more accessible to do. Yet at the end of the day, we are left to decide what are the worthiest routes - among the many that get established without regard for how, which may have some appeal and/or come recommended, hopefully at least as much if not more value could still be held for those that are hard earned and push varying limits done with regard for how.
Smacks of an appeal to elitism. Why not leave garbage chunky mossy loose and completely unworthy lines behind (and yet hard earned, or not?)? The "how" becomes important (regardless of direction top or GU), else the end result is all that matters. Is your argument that the quality of the line should be a determining factor in the effort to curb those of us with "FA Fever"?
:)
The worth or value of the route after the fact is an appeal to an objective value/appreciation. My experience is paramount, and is governed by rules of ethics (regardless of direction of approach).
-
What does "preservation of routes" mean in your proposal? Preservation of routes means 'of existing routes'.
I hope ground up routes remain exempt from growing protection bolts in general, as these tend to be accomplishments earned on lead, where leaders pushed themselves through difficulties on the sharp end and making an effort at minimal impact. Routes established TD have quite different aims and their future preservation may depend on an entirely different criteria, such as maximizing accessibility and to be safe for everyone.
-
What does "preservation of routes" mean in your proposal? Preservation of routes means 'of existing routes'.
I hope ground up routes remain exempt from growing protection bolts in general, as these tend to be accomplishments earned on lead, where leaders pushed themselves through difficulties on the sharp end and making an effort at minimal impact. Routes established TD have quite different aims and their future preservation may depend on an entirely different criteria, such as maximizing accessibility and to be safe for everyone.
Interesting. It's not an area I'm too concerned for overall, but I understand.
-
Smacks of an appeal to elitism. Why not leave garbage chunky mossy loose and completely unworthy lines behind (and yet hard earned, or not?)? The "how" becomes important (regardless of direction top or GU), else the end result is all that matters. Is your argument that the quality of the line should be a determining factor in the effort to curb those of us with "FA Fever"?
(http://southernyosemiteclimbing.com/SMF/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
Hmmm, well, glad you are trying to help me clarify...
I do believe that what is earned authentically is most worthy. Just because I myself might not feel like leading something that seems too dangerous for me or for whatever reason doesn't mean that it shouldn't exist. I think it would be elitist for anyone to over proscribe for anyone else. This is partly why I prefer variety. How climbs are established is significant even if it is not significant to some, in respecting variety. I'm not at all advocating that there be one exclusive style practiced in climbing.
Still, let's say an FA party establishes a free route without any protection bolts, calls it 11+, it's cracks and some face, and the route gets a name and rating in a guide. What's to stop another party from adding bolts if that is their preference on their ascent? Hopefully a sound sense of climbing ethics and regard for the original ground up accomplishment and perhaps desire to achieve climbing this route on its terms.
Of course there is sound argument for climbs remaining as they were originally established even if only a few can or would attempt them if the routes were earned free on the sharp end. Not saying anything earth shattering here.... Not to suggest that routes in general should be established for only a few climbers to do or that if some FA parties prefer to add some protection bolts after their initial GU climb, that they categorically shouldn't, though I could agree that some popular routes that went for many years without additional hardware might also best be upheld without retro'ing.
-
I only add pink hangers to my route's retros.
:)
Almost did some on SPH last weekend. A big sheet of choss rock had come off a year or so after the FA. We stood on a big stance on that sheet to place the bolt that was above it in good rock. Now I'm thinking of backfilling a bolt in there.
It's some of the best choss eVAR.
With that sheet having broken off, subsequent bolts are more closely spaced now on the latest proj. WOOT!
-
Is your argument that the quality of the line should be a determining factor in the effort to curb those of us with "FA Fever"?
I am not trying to curb FA fever, just noting it exists. I've experienced the delirium. Though that's a good question and all Munge. Maybe these are just good questions we ask ourselves. Kind of hate to rain on anyone's parade and do get amped witnessing people getting stoked on new routing. So, no, not meaning to argue that.