|
|
Forums:
Climbing Disciplines:
Sport Climbing:
Re: [curt] To retro or not?:
Edit Log
|
|
fracture
Jun 5, 2007, 7:37 AM
Views: 3988
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
curt wrote: fracture wrote: curt wrote: Well, trad climbing without any fixed protection is the only style of ascent that does not "steal climbs" from future ascentionists, if you really want to look at it that way. But limiting climbing to only that form of route development steals from ascentionists today, instead... No, I mean any future ascentionist--even someone seeking to do the second ascent of a route 10 minutes after the FA. When a route is bolted (well or badly) that route has been "stolen from future ascentionistst" by your definition because something is fixed in the rock that they must adapt their climbing style to.
As I've said repeatedly, I am against vigilante bolting; if you are suggesting that I condone stealing climbs from people who want to do them in 10 minutes, you are attacking a straw man. But moreover, I've indicated that I have no problem with future retro-chopping, even without FA consent. This means that I don't have a problem with future climbing communities adapting the rock to their desired style(s) instead of vice versa (to the degree it is realistic or possible within the constraints of physical reality, of course).
And before you go in circles and complain that the future ascentionists may not want to have to chop the bolts, or that certain types of RD techniques (cleaning in particular) are not reversible, I'll preempt by pointing you to my previous post: I am more concerned about people who are alive today. We cannot live constantly second-guessing our actions based on unpredictable aspects of the hypothetical desires of future generations. (Especially if you are proposing that we hypothesize, against all available evidence, a return to the ideas of the climbing's past instead of the development and progression toward new ideas that we haven't yet come up with. Aren't you forgetting about the Gecko Skin Climbing Revolution in 2075?)
You are now apparently advocating what we could perhaps call an HFAV: a Hypothetical Future Ascentionist Veto. At least your argument has comedic value, I guess.
[ Edit to add: it is also worth mentioning that even ascents of rock without fixed gear cause gradual changes. After thousands of ascents, footholds and handholds become polished and break or change shape. If you really think that we are not justified in making any sort of changes to routes based on hypothetical future generations, you cannot even condone the practice of ascending climbs without fixed gear. ]
In reply to: Only trad climbs with no fixed gear allow each and every ascentionist to do the route as they please.
Did you really just type that, Curt?
(The rebuttal is so obvious it hurts: not if they want to sport climb them.)
(This post was edited by fracture on Jun 6, 2007, 1:45 AM)
|
|
|
Edit Log:
|
|
Post edited by fracture
() on Jun 5, 2007, 7:44 AM
|
|
Post edited by fracture
() on Jun 5, 2007, 7:52 AM
|
|
Post edited by fracture
() on Jun 5, 2007, 8:39 AM
|
|
Post edited by fracture
() on Jun 5, 2007, 8:42 AM
|
|
Post edited by fracture
() on Jun 5, 2007, 8:43 AM
|
|
Post edited by fracture
() on Jun 5, 2007, 8:44 AM
|
|
Post edited by fracture
() on Jun 5, 2007, 8:44 AM
|
|
Post edited by fracture
() on Jun 6, 2007, 1:43 AM
|
|
Post edited by fracture
() on Jun 6, 2007, 1:45 AM: grammar
|
|
|
|
|
|
