|
|
Forums:
Climbing Disciplines:
Sport Climbing:
Re: [j_ung] To retro or not?:
Edit Log
|
|
fracture
May 22, 2007, 2:20 PM
Views: 5769
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
j_ung wrote: fracture wrote: ...I was asking j_ung how a community service model for sport FA's is compatible with the FA Veto Doctrine. The first describes how I view my own actions when I bolt a sport route and the second describes the ethic the community observes in may of the areas where I climb.
So you are fine with other people putting up sport routes that do not serve the community?
In reply to: Said ethic is also a form of community service. It's not uncommon at the New to see sport routes and trad routes living happily side by side. Some of the sport routes could have gone on gear. Some of the trad routes could be justifiable as sport routes. Our ethic of respect for the FA has left us with a region that allows us to pick our style of climbing by the climb, rather than the cliff. It's not uncommon for me to climb several pitches of both sport and trad in a single day on a single wall. Were it not for this quality, IMO, the New would lose some of its luster.
And again, I am advocating democracy, which means that locals at the New can structure things however they want. However, if you want to allow sport and trad to coexist, the FA Veto Doctrine is not the only (or most democratic) way to accomplish it. Sport and trad (and some weird rap-bolted runout joke-routes) manage to co-exist at E-Rock, where several of the last few retro-bolts were placed without the FA's permission or knowledge.
But moreover, I should mention that my concern here is really about sport crags. I don't give a shit about E-Rock (as I think someone once quipped about J-Tree, it's "too easy to matter"). However, when confused climbers think that the E-Rock backside consists of "runout sport climbs" (heh), and accordingly apply the FAVD to true sport crags like Reimer's (where a significant majority of retros I am aware of were done without FA permission or knowledge), I get annoyed.
In reply to: Respect for FA style -- nothing more, nothing less -- is responsible for this variety that I enjoy so much.
No: RD's deliberately engineering different types of routes is responsible for the variety that you enjoy.
In reply to: Questions for you: 1. How do you mitigate the inevitable conflicts between retrobolters and choppers?
I think the anarchistic mob rule usually handles everything fine. Bolting conflicts are generally not a real problem for me unless access becomes an issue or they cannot be resolved in a few iterations, in which case the best course is probably to have a democratically elected representative body that makes the decisions (this only works if they are backed by the land owner/manager). (Do you have a better solution?)
And, far from "inevitable", at many areas (in particular limestone choss sport areas with little or no opportunity for gear routes) these conflicts never arise.
In reply to: 2. Do you enjoy bold climbing at all? Or is your opinion guided somewhat by your desire to have more more more safe routes to climb?
I think bold climbing is neither.
In reply to: 3. Do you believe that bold lines have any place in climbing? Or are they all obsolete?
If the locals want them, they should get them, and the opposite. (Regardless of any disembodied fiat from past climbers who no longer live there.)
In reply to: 4. You understand that no style of climbing is actually safe and that a well-bolted route only creates the illusion of safety, right? No matter how well protected the climbing is, you'll still face objective hazards and various dangerous circumstances involved with the belay, the descent, operator error, etc.
Correct. And I listed some of the hazards in bolted sport climbing, earlier. (Skin injury being the most commonly occuring one.)
I am not risk adverse. Driving my car to the crag is risky also. I also regularly trade more risk in order to make routes easier by stick-clipping (sometimes up to 4 bolts) on severe (50-60 degree) overhangs where the rope will not protect me at the beginning. The difference is that I take risks solely in order to climb, while many climbers only climb in order to take risks.
A 5.9 X slab is not really a rock climb; it is a circus trick. Slap a toprope on it and literally any human being can do it with minimal practice: 5.9 hasn't ever been hard. (Not even when it was the "hardest grade".) "Bold climbing" involves a lot of self-deception and pretending.
(This post was edited by fracture on May 23, 2007, 8:34 AM)
|
|
|
Edit Log:
|
|
Post edited by fracture
() on May 22, 2007, 2:23 PM
|
|
Post edited by fracture
() on May 23, 2007, 8:34 AM: make it make sense
|
|
|
|
|
|
