He is talking about Bill Ramsey's assay in Rock and Ice (December issue?). I cannot post the link, but it was a well-written assay, and an educational read.

And I think all black-and-white purists should read it.

You know I'm no black-and-white purist, but...

I tried to read that article on a long flight. I was fully prepared to give him good consideration. But I thought his argument was crap, his writing terrible, and his conclusion foregone before he started writing.

Sorry, I thought it was awful.

GO

I don't remember the writing striking me as bad, but I did think his premise was flawed. He made some assertions that turned into the foundation of his argument that I just didn't think were true.

I can't be more specific though as I've basically already forgotten it.

Why should any of us have a say, its not like any of us own the rocks we climb. I say the party who befriends the landowner gets to make the rules, although it is usually the party that cries and complains the most that ends up making the rules.

It blows my mind that most climbers think climbing a chunk of rock means you own it. It's like a dog pissing on a tree.

I don't think the writing was terrible, ceretainly not in comparison to other material in the magazine.

The concliusion being foregone-- yeah, I suppose. It was clear from the beginning that this was an article in defence of the practice, and not a story that presented both sides equally.

To me it was interesting b/c I didn't realize the extent of the practice. Around here, in RRG sandstone, manufactured holds usually equals sandy mess, so it is not a popular option, and "comfortizing" is unnecessary. Some glue is used for key hold reinforcement, but it is really a minority of routes.

Well the whole premise of the article was to create such a broad and squishy definition of "modification" as to make it apply to almost everything everywhere, and then pick out an infinitesimally tiny fraction of truly chipped routes and conflate the two issues together. Also, he seemed to entirely ignore the issue of intent. Clearly a smart guy, but a totally specious argument.

Based on his implications, especially if you're not widely traveled, you might think that the issue is far more widespread than it really is. Sure, there are places where the line between chipping and cleaning is not so simple, but in those cases why not look at the true individual situations (such as comfortized limestone pockets, upward-cleaned pin scars, or your glue-reinforced holds) and admit that there are some pretty major hurdles to cross before throwing them all into the same category as drilled pockets.

He also ignores all kinds of historical, geological, and stylistic contexts that make much more sense than to pull the supposed practice of modification completely out of those contexts and put "it" into some kind of artificial ethical structure.

GO

I think the point of the article was that it isn't a black/white issue. if you climb on routes that have been modified in any form, you don't have the right to condone the practice. I , for one, am glad the issue is being addressed realistically.

There is a lot that goes on in route development that makes routes possible that no one talks about because it is considered sooooo taboo to say you comfortized, enhanced, or even eliminated holds to make the route more consistent, safer, skin friendlier, pleasant, or aesthetic.

Route develpers spend lots of their own money and time developing while others are working on projects (often that the developer put up with the above practices), and then they get criticism from people that never developed a route themselves? lame sauce.

Intereating that we read it so differently. I guess I should go back and re-read it b/c I skimmed over it in a gym a couple of months back, and was speaking from memory.

I actually thought that the above part (bolded) WAS the take-home message from reading this essay. E.i. in some cases the modifications are as drastic as drilled pockets, but in the majority of cases it is more subtle, but still significant, and there is a continuum between "climb the rock as is, only brushing off the dirt with fingertips, as needed", and "drill pockets as you'd like for a ladder route", with majority of routes that exist actually being in the middle somewhere, and instead of blindly saying that things should be this way, or that, it should be determined based on individual routes, rock, etc..

There it is, the heart and core of ethics.

So here am I, reading rc.com, thinking, "I'm so smart, I can improve on this comment". But no.
Well there it is, everybody, that's what ethics on the rocks is really all about

the dog doesn't put in time, money and effort to piss on the tree.

I think the point of the article was that it isn't a black/white issue. if you climb on routes that have been modified in any form, you don't have the right to condone the practice. I , for one, am glad the issue is being addressed realistically.

There is a lot that goes on in route development that makes routes possible that no one talks about because it is considered sooooo taboo to say you comfortized, enhanced, or even eliminated holds to make the route more consistent, safer, skin friendlier, pleasant, or aesthetic.

Route develpers spend lots of their own money and time developing while others are working on projects (often that the developer put up with the above practices), and then they get criticism from people that never developed a route themselves? lame sauce.

The problem is that the author tried to group many different things into one basket and say that "well if you think this is OK then you must think THAT is ok too."

Well that's not the way it works. When I am up on the wall I'm trying to figure out how to make the route as good as possible. Clipping, rope drag, good movement, natural line... keep the moves consistent throughout.

If there is something that is going to fall off the wall in the next 20 attempts then I'll knock it off. Otherwise I'm leaving it for the next climber to worry about.

I bolt on limestone a lot so I have even comfortized holds a bit. There not crimpers than I'm making better, just jugs that I'm making less sharp so you don't slice your fingers.

I've even reinforced holds with glue, even though I thought long and hard about it and in the end I should have just knocked it off.

All of this might be a grey area that we could all debate. But what is NOT in the grey area is chipping holds or adding them to make a route go. The author tries to claim that this practice is the same as everything I listed above when in fact it is not the same at all. When we clean a route or make it more comfortable, it is FINDING the rock climb that already exists. When someone adds holds to the wall, it is CREATING a rock climb that otherwise wouldn't exist. This is what happened on "The Nose" and "Just Do It." I wasn't around, but I think everyone was pissed off about those routes being modified.

Chipping holds sucks, and it shouldn't be done. It's in a league of it's own and to try and put it in a league with all other practices we use as route developers is just plain stupid.

Have you ever climbed limestone in Asia? Have you ever bolted a route?

That response was typical of someone clueless about route development.

Have you ever climbed limestone in Asia? Have you ever bolted a route?

Please explain... because I really don't think I'm clueless.

pretty sure he was referring to the canadian as clueless.

call me clueless but generally quote the post they are responding to

Um. He did quote the post to which he was responding. He would have said "this" post if he was responding to you, he wasn't, so he didn't. Got it?

you got really good grammar, sir

Please explain... because I really don't think I'm clueless.

The problem is that the author tried to group many different things into one basket and say that "well if you think this is OK then you must think THAT is ok too."

Well that's not the way it works. When I am up on the wall I'm trying to figure out how to make the route as good as possible. Clipping, rope drag, good movement, natural line... keep the moves consistent throughout.

If there is something that is going to fall off the wall in the next 20 attempts then I'll knock it off. Otherwise I'm leaving it for the next climber to worry about.

I bolt on limestone a lot so I have even comfortized holds a bit. There not crimpers than I'm making better, just jugs that I'm making less sharp so you don't slice your fingers.

I've even reinforced holds with glue, even though I thought long and hard about it and in the end I should have just knocked it off.

All of this might be a grey area that we could all debate. But what is NOT in the grey area is chipping holds or adding them to make a route go. The author tries to claim that this practice is the same as everything I listed above when in fact it is not the same at all. When we clean a route or make it more comfortable, it is FINDING the rock climb that already exists. When someone adds holds to the wall, it is CREATING a rock climb that otherwise wouldn't exist. This is what happened on "The Nose" and "Just Do It." I wasn't around, but I think everyone was pissed off about those routes being modified.

Chipping holds sucks, and it shouldn't be done. It's in a league of it's own and to try and put it in a league with all other practices we use as route developers is just plain stupid.

I've never comfortized a hold, but a few people I respect have. To a man, they all cite Wild Iris. They have explained to me that it really was a case of rock being sharp enough to slice people open. I've never been to Wild Iris, so I don't know first hand, but if it's true and that's acceptable to the local community, I can't imagine having a problem with it. Not really my business.

I've never comfortized a hold, but a few people I respect have. To a man, they all cite Wild Iris. They have explained to me that it really was a case of rock being sharp enough to slice people open. I've never been to Wild Iris, so I don't know first hand, but if it's true and that's acceptable to the local community, I can't imagine having a problem with it. Not really my business.

Here's the wikipedia definition of ethics:

"Ethics, also known as moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that addresses questions about morality—that is, concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice, etc."

In my opinion putting holes in rocks is not a question of morality.

Does it hurt the rock if you chip a crimp into it or drill a pocket? Does it hurt anyone else? Does it hurt the environment?

It is, however, an aesthetic issue because in general it does make the climb uglier, and less entertaining.

Ethics make sense when people discuss their approach to an ascent, i.e. did they lie or obfuscate how they achieved the ascent, did they pull on gear, etc.

Does it hurt the rock if you chip a crimp into it or drill a pocket? Does it hurt anyone else? Does it hurt the environment?

It directly interferes with someone's ability to do a line in a style that they want.

My biggest issue is that he tried to make it into an "ethical" discussion, when it actually has nothing to do with ethics, even though climbers constantly use the term.

In reality, it's an aesthetic argument, and the aesthetics of manufacturing routes, are (in my experience) almost uniformly horrible.

I agree with you in general, but I wanted to comment on this last part, because I feel that this is at the heart of what this article is about, and the part that most people have a problem with.

From purely phylosophical point of view, there is no difference between "comfortizing" a sharp edge and chipping. Comfortizing is the same chipping-- only on the smaller scale and done on the edge of a pre-existing hold. And trundling off loose blocks, while done for the sake of safety, can often create new holds where there weren't any, to begin with. And drilling is drilling, whether making a hole to place a bolt in, or making a hole for fingers. I don't think a non-climber would see a distinction and understand why modifying rock in one way is O.K. and modifying it in another way is taboo.

As climbers, we make a distinction between different kinds of rock modification and consider some acceptable, but others-- not so much. But even the climbing community changes opinions about what is an acceptable practice over time. Hammering in pitons used to be commonplace, and now it's use is much more limited to only certain types of situations. Installing bolts used to be very rare, and became commonplace over time.

I don't think Bill Ramsey is saying that everyone should head out there and start drilling routes because drilling is the best way to make new routes, and it should become a wide-spread and standard practice.

But overall, it looks like people's opinions depend very heavily on the type of rock they usually climb, and also it looks like people who have established multiple FAs are much more nuanced in their views, knowing that the decisions should be based on each potential new route individually, while people who have never worked on establishing new routes don't realize the extent to which the rock was changed from what Mother nature had there in the first place, by the time they walk up to the rock and start clipping their way up it.

I view this right now as a theoretical discussion and something to think about, since I have not myself done any route development.