This is not about the FA 'team.' This is about the history of our sport and respect for the past, for elders, and for the traditions that led to, well, all this.
Respect for the style of first ascent is a bedrock layer of American climbing tradition. There are lots of us who still subscribe to this school of thought. You must forgive us when some relative noob comes along and tries to murder our sport.
You needn't shit on all who came before you as you stand upon their shoulders to reach the next plateau. Show some respect!
Why? Because new routes are not a commodity. They are a gift. Maybe you don't care. Maybe you don't even know what's involved in new routing, save what you've read.
Or maybe not. Maybe you just don't give a flying fuck about the elders of this sport, or what they did.
But a lot of us do. And like it or not, respecting the style of the first ascent has been important heretofore.
Now the noobs of today are going to be the old dogs of tomorrow and what they choose to do along the way is up to them of course.
But if they trample on the works of those who preceeded them, rest assured those who follow in their subsequent footsteps will obliterate their works in turn.
Its a simple matter of respect.
Now to the action side of the issue - you 8flood8 are perfectly within your rights as an individual to go retro the route in question. No one requires you to check with anyone (presuming you don't have to kowtow to the State of Texas,).
Go bolt it right now. I would only ask that you have the courage to take responsibility for it.
Anyway, you have that right and you need no one's permission.
However, I too have the right, and so too do your local peers, to go chop the fuck out of those bolts, in broad daylight, right in your face.
That's what a lack of respect can lead to, HAS led to. Fine if you want that sort of confrontation. Go for it.
JUust remember the Alamo when you're old and your projects are paved over in the name of progress. Sip a karma milkshake while you're at it.
. Presently, it is an X-route. The first bolt is high above a boulder field, and if you fall before clipping it, or when you're near the second bolt, you will deck and it will hurt (or worse, it won't hurt at all). I backed off of it the first time I tried, even though it was a full number grade below my onsight level. I have lead it since then, several times.
I think you should leave the route alone. Alot of the focus in this sport has gone towards the physical and thats fine but there is still something very rewarding and challenging about working and sending a heady route.
You had the opportunity to work this route and although some people will never have the head for it and others will hike it in work boots they should all have the opportunity to get on it and have an adventure.
As far as safety is concerned, if someone is sketching they can back down (smart move) or stick clip the first bolt (weak but safe) and as long as there belayer knows what he is doing they should be safe above the first and second bolt under all but extreme circumstances. If the leaders gonna run it out the belayer better learn how to run his damn self.
Heady routes may not present the same kind of challenge that alot of climbers have gotten used to and they are not for everyone but the fact that people want to do away with them does show that the heart of this sport is changeing. Self reliance, risk management and commitment used to be the foundation of a climbers skill set but that aspect of climbing is fading fast.
Hey don't put that on sport climbers.. i agree with not adding a bolt. If he wants to go bolt something then go find a new line and do it the way you think is right.. if the FA says no then it's done. Have your gf TR it til she can do it.. tell her to go watch Lisa Rands on Gaia a few times and see that things are possible.
8flood.. your thinking is why there is a major bolt war every couple years in N. Conway, NH from people thinking a route needs a bolt or needs a bolted anchor.. then does it without consensus.. then the folks who disagree go yank it out.. then there is a huge argument and it stops for a little while until the next time.
N/A -"stick clip the first bolt (weak but safe)" - lame.. but common view from those who climb with pristine landings
You know Dingus, I gotta ask. Why so liberal in politics and not in climbing. I read a post like the one above and I think to my self, "we're not so different he and I" but then I think back to gun law, death penalty and war related discussions and it realy makes me scratch my head.
Either way I'm glad we agree where it counts. Please continue with your culling of the NOOB's and defense of climbings core.
N/A -"stick clip the first bolt (weak but safe)" - lame.. but common view from those who climb with pristine landings
I have no problem with folks useing stick clips in a sport climbing venue but there are perticular cases (slab climbing and heady minimalistic routes) where I think they are out of sorts with the style of the route. If you want to SK at the Red River I got no beef but I think its in poor style at under some circumstances. It wasnt a shot a sport climbers, not my intention to offend.
As far as the landings go, 80% of the climbing I do is on gear and often above henious landings (ever been to Seneca or Old Rag) so you got no ammo there.
Nah i agree with that after you qualified it.. blanket no stick statements just aggravates me (i have some routes for them to try).. but i get what you meant for this thread. s'all good
You know Dingus, I gotta ask. Why so liberal in politics and not in climbing. I read a post like the one above and I think to my self, "we're not so different he and I" but then I think back to gun law, death penalty and war related discussions and it realy makes me scratch my head.
Either way I'm glad we agree where it counts. Please continue with your culling of the NOOB's and defense of climbings core.
I see you place value in consistency. Personally I think consistency doesn't really exist and driving toward it is a waste of time. Greater minds than mine have summarized it better, but I'll leave that for you to discover.
Recognizing that consistency = illusion is a liberation. You come to realize you don't have to do B because of A. You don't have to believe D simply because you believe C.
And you certainly don't have to follow the proscriptions of demonstrated idiots, incompetents and hot air talk show hosts that never even broke a sweat once in their lives, much less served their country in any way that counts.
And yet that is precisely what consistency would have us do...
FUCK THAT.
What turned me away was the sellout of the neocons. They rode a Gingrich/Limbaugh train into the white house preaching the republican gospel.... smaller government, lower taxes, individualism.
INDIVIDUALISM! Hahahahahahahaha!
Stray but an inch from the party line and that pack of sonsabitches will gut you faster than they did war hero McCain.
They have the scruples of jackels. Wait, no, actually I saw a show on PBS (thank god herself for PBS), jackels behave far better than the republican party. Jackels don't eat their own.
They sold out the environment and attacked, wholesale, 30 years of enviro progress. They tried to sell national land to pay for war debts. They dirty cheated at every chance and they lied through their goddamn teeth about Iraq and most thinking people know it.
The gig is up. Those of you who need this elusive sense of consistency have one helluva lot of explaining to do.
I put it back on you... after all that has occurred over the past 8 years, how can you have your head so far in the sand?
Thank you for your response. So, if i have it correctly, it is wrong simply because of tradition. I wish i could pick the brains of some of these people who have established our "tradition." I think that accepting a reality because of tradition has nothing to do with logic or reason.
I'm not going to go starting any bolt wars and i certainly see the argument from both sides. Honestly tho, if i did a shitty job bolting a route, i would want someone to correct it for me, or show me the error of my ways. I certainly wouldn't bolt a route in a "style" that would get other people hurt. imho the point of bolts is placing "protection" in an otherwise unprotectable location.
I realize that a bolt war just ends up destroying the rock, but poor bolting jobs destroys the rock just the same.
I love climbing and i don't want to "ruin" the sport for anyone. Anyway, thanks again for the "reasons" behind your stance; however it still doesn't make sense to intentionally make dangerous routes. Sure, i probably will never climb some of these routes again, done them once, they weren't fun, but hell... i hate slab climbing anyway
it still makes me wonder... why bolt if you are not going to adequately protect the line?
however it still doesn't make sense to intentionally make dangerous routes.
Huh? Are you SURE you're a climber????
It doesn't make sense? Seriously?
I'm not sure I can explain this properly but let me try.
Photo from summitpost.com user besucher01
Gasherbrum IV. In '85 Schauer and Kurtyka climbed the central part of that face. They wore everything they had for the climbs on their backs, started at the bottom and over the period of several days climbed to the top, unsupported and with no hope of rescue.
22 years later that route still stands as one of the mightiest, one of the boldest and one of the most daring first ascents of all time.
Maybe they could have rap bolted it?????
Anyway, I can think of no finer answer to your question.
i think i understand the point you are making, but i think mine is a bit misunderstood.
I'm talking about bolting a line at a wall and intentionally (or maybe mistakenly) leaving a ground/deathfall unprotected.
more to say -- if you are going to put a bolt in the rock, you should damn sure put it in the right place, not 20' above a place that needs protection. If you are going to ruin the rock by drilling it, you should have those in mind who will come after you.
if you are intentionally leaving a new route with an X rating, then you shouldn't bolt it at all and just boulder it.
i hope that makes sense. I'm not for grid-bolting. I clip bolts and i place gear and i definitely am the manager of my safety. Should the event arise that i find a line and bolt it, there will be some major thought put into the placement of the protection. Sure, run it out over easy climbing, but don't run it out so much that R becomes X.
The picture you posted... climbing a mountain from top to bottom... as someone posted earlier musicman i believe ---- that is meeting the rock on its own terms, i quite agree with that.
But see i'm picky about the things i like to climb... i like hands to fists and bomber bolts!
So please don't worry i'm not trying to ruin the sport i promise~!!
and i sincerely hope i'm not one of the 'noobs' that needs to be culled... although that statement reminds me of the kids in high school who told me i wasn't "punk" enough. heh
i think i understand the point you are making, but i think mine is a bit misunderstood.
I'm talking about bolting a line at a wall and intentionally (or maybe mistakenly) leaving a ground/deathfall unprotected.
more to say -- if you are going to put a bolt in the rock, you should damn sure put it in the right place, not 20' above a place that needs protection. If you are going to ruin the rock by drilling it, you should have those in mind who will come after you.
if you are intentionally leaving a new route with an X rating, then you shouldn't bolt it at all and just boulder it.
i hope that makes sense. I'm not for grid-bolting. I clip bolts and i place gear and i definitely am the manager of my safety. Should the event arise that i find a line and bolt it, there will be some major thought put into the placement of the protection. Sure, run it out over easy climbing, but don't run it out so much that R becomes X.
I think there is a difference here between bolts placed on lead to protect the climb at the time it was put up, vs rap bolted (or possibly on lead) sport routes that are bolted to make the climb safe. The former takes bolts wherever the FA can get them in, whether that makes the route safe or not. The latter places them where they are most convenient to clip and generally allows for better route safety. I think that if the route is intended to be the latter, then there is no reason for an unsafe route. But if the bolts were placed on lead, then that's the way it goes and you should just be thankful that you are not having to drill on lead. Sounds like we're dealing with the former, not the latter?
I'm talking about bolting a line at a wall and intentionally (or maybe mistakenly) leaving a ground/deathfall unprotected.
Look, used to be ALL climbing was dangerous. Then as we all got collectively smarter and our tech got better, things began to get comparatively safer.
Then sport climbing rolled around and things got safer still. Now we have folks who assure us that climbing IS safe.
We went from 'definitely dangerous' to 'relatively safe' in a little more than a generation, maybe 2.
But there are a lot of climbers and more importantly a lot of climbing styles. Some styles embrace risk, others shy away from it.
I encourage you to open your heart to these other styles. You don't have to do em to appreciate them. You don't have to pave over every last route at a crag either.
Doug Robinson's A Day in the Open, a Night on the Ground - I recommend this book if you haven't read it. Robinson had some dealings with Oklahoma climbing when all those stout runnout slab routes were established. I think he does a good job of examining the motivations and skills of those climbers (some of whom expressed later regret for the runnouts, others who remain proud to this day).
All of the cools things we do today we do so perched on the shoulders of all the climbers who came before us. The choice is simple... respect or don't.
Respect is easy when you're in agreement with the subject. A true test of respect is holding it true when when you personally think the results suck.
I love how people can just "own" the rock and because they happen to have been there first it is off limits to everyone else who, by the way, have as much right to enjoy that little section of rock that someone carelessly bolted.
Of course, you're right that people don't necessarily "own" the route they create. And viewed from that perspective, "ethics" do seem a bit arbitrary. But they are not. Ethics, such as no retrobolting, exist to protect the community from anarchy. We may disagree, as we are now, about the best way to do things, but we can default to a set of guidelines to keep us from entering into a back-and-forth of drilling and chopping in which there is no winner. One such guideline is respect for first-ascent style. It's been that way for a long, long time and I see every reason to keep it like that. Without guidelines -- ethics -- we all lose.
I think this issue sucks both ways. First of all, you should never add new bolts to an established climbable route-period! If it was put up by climbers that didn't need the extra pro in order to put up the route, you should respect that. They were there first, it was their form of expression.
On the other hand, I hate to see awesome lines that are off limits from being climbed by anyone that does not have a death wish. It's a paradox really... Don't go messing with anyone else's climb, but man doesn't it suck when a quality line gets shut down to anyone else that does not have a death wish!... Just because the FA party were cheap (not bold) bastards! If you are going to do FA's, please have the correct gear needed, so you won't end up shutting it down for eternity!
I'm talking about bolting a line at a wall and intentionally (or maybe mistakenly) leaving a ground/deathfall unprotected.
The crucial point your missing is that these climbs were put up (and bolted) when being able to climb 5.10 meant more than just being able to do the moves. Furthermore, when these routes were put up, if you rap bolted, the route would get chopped. Which meant you drilled from aiders (or free stances, depending on the local ethic) or you didn't drill at all. Today's world has gotten a bit more homogenized, but I've always believed that if you're going to rap bolt something then (and only then) do you have an obligation to bolt it in such a way that it is safe enough for future parties. If you bolt on lead, you only have to make it safe enough for yourself. The latter forces future parties to rise to the level of the first ascensionist. The former forces the first ascensionist to descend to the level of future parties. Which is better, for the few to work for the better of the many, or for the many to work to be the equals of the few? I leave that to you to decide.
The only people that should be placing new bolts or pitons are the ones that are putting up first ascents! If you ever feel so compelled to bolt something, go find a NEW line. It's not your duty to make someone else's route "safer." It's not your call. That's my two cents...
more to say -- if you are going to put a bolt in the rock, you should damn sure put it in the right place, not 20' above a place that needs protection. If you are going to ruin the rock by drilling it, you should have those in mind who will come after you.
if you are intentionally leaving a new route with an X rating, then you shouldn't bolt it at all and just boulder it.
Your argument is very clear and well stated but I think your over looking one key element to this whole equation.
For some climbers working a route that flirts with or climbs into the 'no fall zone' can be a very rewarding and purely fun experience. The route may only be a 5.8 and the whole challenge is understanding your true ability as a climber, managing risk and dealing with fear but those elements often can be enough to make the experience. Some of the hardest routes I have ever climbed were 2 or 3 number grades below redpoint ability because the nature of the pro demanded alot of climbing up then down to feel out moves, evaluate fall potential and milk rests. I have had great experiences on routes I never finished. Have you ever had the supress a deep belly laugh because you looked down half way through a shaky 30 ft. down climb to see that your partners eyes are as big as diner plates and realise that he/she is more terrified than you are? If you havent, I recommend it you will remember that much more then your partner congradulating you on having finished a well protected route.
There is nothing wrong with well protected relaxed routes, the bulk of climbing in this country does and probably should fall in that category but there is definently a place and need for climbing that requires a strong head and not just big 'guns'.
Concerning X rated routes. The route in question hasnt been revealed so I dont know for certian but it is starting to sound like a slab climb and if it is true friction slab and the bolts are 20 ft. apart then it doesnt realy warrent a X rateing to start with. In fact when Im on slab Im thankful for anything under 35-40 appart.
Also if the run outs are below the route grade then the person leading should be comfortable on easier ground and get over it. or don't lead the route if they can't full pitch.. no pro.. there are many routes like this out there
(This post was edited by jakedatc on May 18, 2007, 8:51 PM)
i think i understand the point you are making, but i think mine is a bit misunderstood.
no, i don't think you do. nor do i think yours is misunderstood either. If you can't do a ground-up route on lead, you've got no business getting on it. Period.
In reply to:
Sure, run it out over easy climbing, but don't run it out so much that R becomes X.
easy is relative. 5.10 runouts might be unthinkably "X" to a 5.8 leader such as yourself, but to someone who is comfortable on 5.12 slab they may not even warrant an "R" rating.
sounds like you need to sack up a bit and work on your techinque.
Personally? There is a ground-up slab route here in LCC put up just over 20 years ago which I aspire to climb in it's original state.
You'd think with a name like "Intensive Care" that those not up to the task would be warned away. Sadly, this seems not to be the case, as someone recently took it upon themsleves to rebolt & retro-bolt the line, or so I have heard.
Perhaps it's time to change the name to "Clinic Visit" or something like that, in order to better reflect the "kinder, gentler," safer nation that we seem to have become.
Fucking retro-bolting tards have stolen my (and everyone elses) opportunity to experience the closest thing possible to what the FA'ers did, minus the sheer terror of bolting on lead. In doing so, the retro-bolter has dishonored and disrespected the efforts and achievements of those who did put up the FA, as well as the aspirations of those who will inevitably attempt to follow their betters from days of yore.
Your only option here is to discuss the situation with the FAer. Clearly, you both disagree -- do you understand his reasoning? He might not understand your motivations. You may stay at an impasse; you may reach an understanding. It may take some time.
Without his understanding, you just can't retro-bolt. Doing so would ostracize you from many in the community (and for a while, you'd be known as that dude that retro-bolted X's route).
Climbing is inherently dangerous. Just because a route is "sport" doesn't mean that it's right for everyone.
Lots of people like to climb dangerously -- it's fun. As a climber, it's your responsibility to understand the implications of every decision that you make: is your belayer competent? Are you capable of attempting a given route safely? Are you prepared in case something goes wrong while on-route?
The climbing community is just that: a community. All communities have rules and conventions so that they can self-regulate. If there were no unwritten rules regarding retro-bolting, inevitably a war would break out between trad and sport climbers -- placing removable protection is (arguably) more dangerous than clipping permanent bolts. If we were acting only in the interests of everyone's safety, we would be obligated to bolt every route.
Who is to say what's safe? How many of us have climbed an R or X sport route that's essentially a high-ball followed by a section of bolted protection? What about climbing above a ledge, or on a positively-sloped face -- should the bolts be placed more closely together just in case?
The convention that the climbing community has agreed upon is that the FA party makes these decisions for a route. Maybe this convention will change as time passes -- this sport is still relatively young. Many setters are still around and climbing actively, and are quite vocal (understandably and rightly) about routes that they developed.
Most importantly, this convention exists because developing a route can be a difficult, time-consuming and thankless task. This is our community's way of saying THANK YOU to those that are more committed to climbing than we are, and who enable the rest of us to enjoy the sport that we find so rewarding.
If someone develops a route and doesn't think that it should be changed, there's a reason. They may like its aesthetics, they may find it safe enough, or one of any number of other reasons.
In this case, maybe the disagreeable FAer likes the story behind the route. Maybe he likes sweating on a route that would otherwise be "easy" for him. Maybe he simply disagrees that more bolts are necessary -- the unprotected moves may be significantly easier than the rest of the route. Maybe he's just got balls of steel and wants everyone to know. Regardless, the route is obviously climbable as is, and many of us climbers think that the decision of whether to change the route should be his.
This is something that can be difficult for people to understand. Typically, by the time one is ready to start developing routes (or retro-bolting existing ones!), it's more intuitive. Note that the question only came up due to the extreme nature of the route and the fact that members of the FA party disagree -- if that weren't the case, it never would have been asked.
19 /
16%
