If I only wanted to focus on the movement, I'd take up gymnastics. Climbing involves more than physical movement, otherwise that which separates it from more domestic fare is lost. Even the minimal risk of sport climbing is not entirely destroyed because to do so would be to eliminate most of the mental game of it.
Sure, fine, bolt all the world's hairy leads. Hell, while we're at it, why not bolt all the cracks. I mean, we're just up here for the movement right? People shouldn't have to worry about their placements if they're just here for the movement.
(if you're wondering why I'm being so melodramatic, its because I'm trying to mock what you make of climbing because you have chosen to mock what I make of climbing. I'm not so sheltered as to believe that what you enjoy in climbing has anything to do with what I enjoy in climbing and to try to force my opinions on you is the height of arrogance. Do you know how much unclimbed and undeveloped rock there is in this country alone? God forbid you get off your butt and find it and develop it by whatever ethic you see fit! I know of miles and miles of awesome stone just begging for somebody to rap in and drill bolts. Why in the world would anyone modify what's already there? Its just lazy. And there is so much untouched stone, even in such "wastelands" as Texas that there's not a single reason why anyone should have to retro bolt any route just to make it more "accessible".)
Irrelevant. No one has to climb anything. (And furthermore, giving the community something they won't climb isn't much of a service.)
...
The glory (or proudness) you see in so-called "bold climbing" is a cognitive illusion created by a virulent meme-infection that, in addition to many other negative side-effects, is capable of destroying the host if left untreated. If you find the idea of risking your life for climbing to be attractive, I suggest you consult a mental health professional.
First, you're absolutely right! Nobody has to climb anything. You're also right that putting up a route in ground up style is not a community service. Nor is it meant to be. If you want to do a community service, you put up a route that will be appreciated by the community. Simple as that.
Exactly. And if you were paying attention to the post you were replying to, you'd probably have noticed that I was asking j_ung how a community service model for sport FA's is compatible with the FA Veto Doctrine.
(Ground up has nothing to do with this sub-topic, and neither does a model where putting up routes is not community service (but instead an accomplishment or "ascent", or some other make-believe bullshit).)
The glory (or proudness) you see in so-called "bold climbing" is a cognitive illusion created by a virulent meme-infection that, in addition to many other negative side-effects, is capable of destroying the host if left untreated. If you find the idea of risking your life for climbing to be attractive, I suggest you consult a mental health professional.
Ah the Urban Climber makes his entrance. Doesn't give a shit about the past, doesn't give a shit about the future either. This is a consumption sport for some folks apparently.
No, mustn't incur risk Buffy, or we'll have you doing analysis on the couch with Dr. Bumsnatch for your 10 AM on Tuesday.
If I only wanted to focus on the movement, I'd take up gymnastics. Climbing involves more than physical movement, otherwise that which separates it from more domestic fare is lost. Even the minimal risk of sport climbing is not entirely destroyed because to do so would be to eliminate most of the mental game of it.
The biggest objective risks in sport climbing include: skin injury, tendon or elbow injury, being slammed into the wall by an incompetent belayer, falling with clipping-slack within the first 10 meters or so, and decking due to grigri misuse.
Personally, my mental game is generally not related to any of those. And I would hypothesize that the mental game (and levels of risk) in gymnastics can be very similar to sport climbing.
In reply to:
Sure, fine, bolt all the world's hairy leads. Hell, while we're at it, why not bolt all the cracks.
What I am advocating here is democratic control over public climbing resources, which is de facto rule anyway, internet protestations notwithstanding.
So, why not bolt all the cracks? Because some crags are frequented by a majority of climbers who do not want them bolted. Similarly, why bolt any cracks? Some crags (Potrero comes to mind) are frequented by a majority of climbers who want them bolted.
Sadly, the most reliable internet proponents of rule by so-called "local ethics" (such as our DMT), are apparently so infected with the toxic FA Veto Doctrine, that they apparently require this one universal as an exception. This One Holy Universal Law Which We All Must Abide.
In reply to:
Do you know how much unclimbed and undeveloped rock there is in this country alone? God forbid you get off your butt and find it and develop it by whatever ethic you see fit! I know of miles and miles of awesome stone just begging for somebody to rap in and drill bolts. Why in the world would anyone modify what's already there? Its just lazy. And there is so much untouched stone, even in such "wastelands" as Texas that there's not a single reason why anyone should have to retro bolt any route just to make it more "accessible".)
Either you have a very different concept of "miles and miles of awesome stone" than I do, or you have never been to Texas, or you have a lot of money to put into real estate, or you are willing to break the law and bolt without permission.
(This post was edited by fracture on May 22, 2007, 12:49 AM)
If I only wanted to focus on the movement, I'd take up gymnastics. Climbing involves more than physical movement, otherwise that which separates it from more domestic fare is lost. Even the minimal risk of sport climbing is not entirely destroyed because to do so would be to eliminate most of the mental game of it.
The biggest objective risks in sport climbing include: skin injury, tendon or elbow injury, being slammed into the wall by an incompetent belayer, falling with clipping-slack within the first 10 meters or so, and decking due to grigri misuse.
Personally, my mental game is generally not related to any of those. And I would hypothesize that the mental game (and levels of risk) in gymnastics can be very similar to sport climbing.
In reply to:
Sure, fine, bolt all the world's hairy leads. Hell, while we're at it, why not bolt all the cracks.
What I am advocating here is democratic control over public climbing resources, which is de facto rule anyway, internet protestations notwithstanding.
So, why not bolt all the cracks? Because some crags are frequented by a majority of climbers who do not want them bolted. Similarly, why bolt any cracks? Some crags (Potrero comes to mind) are frequented by a majority of climbers who want them bolted.
Sadly, the most reliable internet proponents of rule by so-called "local ethics" (such as our DMT), are apparently so infected with the toxic FA Veto Doctrine, that they apparently require this one universal as an exception. This One Holy Universal Law Which We All Must Abide.
In reply to:
Do you know how much unclimbed and undeveloped rock there is in this country alone? God forbid you get off your butt and find it and develop it by whatever ethic you see fit! I know of miles and miles of awesome stone just begging for somebody to rap in and drill bolts. Why in the world would anyone modify what's already there? Its just lazy. And there is so much untouched stone, even in such "wastelands" as Texas that there's not a single reason why anyone should have to retro bolt any route just to make it more "accessible".)
Either you have a very different concept of "miles and miles of awesome stone" than I do, or you have never been to Texas, or you have a lot of money to put into real estate, or you are willing to break the law and bolt without permission.
I take it that El Capitan is off limits to bolting, or at least to far to travel for climbing? It strikes me that the other granite domes near E-rock were turned into quarries. Ironical, that.
Upon further review, I'm beginning to understand what you're saying here. However, in every case I can think of where the community can overrule the FA Veto Doctrine (as we've formalized it) without risk of the new bolt getting chopped, the standards that such a suggestion has to overcome are so high that the FVD applies anyway, if not in spirit then at least in execution.
Have there been bolt wars at E-rock or Reimers? Have areas been closed to new route development because of bolt wars in Texas? No? Then I can't really feel sorry for you. Look into the Flatirons bolting ban. The FVD exists to prevent the events that led to that.
What I am advocating here is democratic control over public climbing resources, which is de facto rule anyway, internet protestations notwithstanding.
Defacto rule? You're high. The rule is, you want to bolt something, go bolt it. The other rule is, if someone else doesn't like your bullshit, they can chop it.
In reply to:
So, why not bolt all the cracks? Because some crags are frequented by a majority of climbers who do not want them bolted. Similarly, why bolt any cracks? Some crags (Potrero comes to mind) are frequented by a majority of climbers who want them bolted.
Nice sleight of hand trick. In your search for this elusive ONE RULE TO BIND THEM ALL you've overlooked the obvious... we have more than one tradition.
In reply to:
Sadly, the most reliable internet proponents of rule by so-called "local ethics" (such as our DMT), are apparently so infected with the toxic FA Veto Doctrine, that they apparently require this one universal as an exception. This One Holy Universal Law Which We All Must Abide.
Actually I don't get all caught up in it. I suggest respect is the way for differing styles to coexist. You dream of a democratic utopia.
I won't hold my breath waiting for your defacto revolution to take hold haha. And when it does if will be the Secretary of the Interior who dictates democracy.
Tilll then only 2 people matter - the person who retros a route and the other person who chops it.
Pretty fucking democratic don't you think????
I'd go with respect personally. Over your utopia. Over a government wanker dictating democracy.
DMT
(This post was edited by dingus on May 22, 2007, 1:57 AM)
I take it that El Capitan is off limits to bolting, or at least to far to travel for climbing?
Well, El Cap is certainly not in Texas. I am sure of that much.
In reply to:
It strikes me that the other granite domes near E-rock were turned into quarries. Ironical, that.
Not sure what's ironic about it. (It is true, and it only supports my position.) Most potential crags in Texas are private, too. We have far less climbing resources than you seem to think.
In reply to:
Upon further review, I'm beginning to understand what you're saying here.
Now this is ironic, because ...
In reply to:
However, in every case I can think of where the community can overrule the FA Veto Doctrine (as we've formalized it) without risk of the new bolt getting chopped, the standards that such a suggestion has to overcome are so high that the FVD applies anyway, if not in spirit then at least in execution.
... I don't understand what this means.
In reply to:
Have there been bolt wars at E-rock or Reimers? Have areas been closed to new route development because of bolt wars in Texas? No? Then I can't really feel sorry for you. Look into the Flatirons bolting ban. The FVD exists to prevent the events that led to that.
If you are arguing that the Doctrine should apply in sport climbing because it can mitigate potential loss of access, you are shooting yourself in the foot. If you go that way, you're not providing any rationale for application of the doctrine on private land, or, more broadly, in any situation where there is no access concern due to adding bolts to existing routes. (Which is most situations.)
First, click the link. There are remarkably 2 big walls in the US that go by the name El Capitan. One is in Texas. I'm as surprised as you are.
Second, I'm referring to the Eldorado Canyon (and now Flatirons) Fixed Hardware Review Committee. Boulder climbers were given the option of stop the bolt wars or stop climbing. They obviously chose the former. Without a formal committee to control the chopping-rebolting cycle that results from "democracy", you end up losing access. FVD is a grass roots effort to avoid that issue. The FHRC is a more organized effort to do the same, and the results are the same either way. The hoops you have to jump through to get a new route put up in Eldo are manifold and complex.
What I am advocating here is democratic control over public climbing resources, which is de facto rule anyway, internet protestations notwithstanding.
Defacto rule? You're high. The rule is, you want to bolt something, go bolt it. The other rule is, if someone else doesn't like your bullshit, they can chop it.
And the result of those two rules, coupled with human behavior in small social communities with their own culture and moral standards, results in something roughly approximating democracy.
There's a reason that established routes across the country are changing, often without FA permission, and in the vast majority of cases it isn't that single-handed bandit retroers (or choppers) are taking matters into their own hands without asking community members for input. There's been a change in zeitgeist, and those who feel strongly can get support from sufficient community members to feel justified with certain types of formerly-taboo route modification.
Of course there are rare (and sometimes loud) vigilantes, but both retroing and chopping are much more likely to be done with the support of the majority of the community than without. And no, it is not "only two people" that matter: the threat of a chopping (from any number of people) is just as relevant as an actual bolt being chopped.
A true democratic system is an improvement at many crags, but at others, it is actually worse than the de facto anarchistic mob rule that often works pretty damn well.
In reply to:
In reply to:
So, why not bolt all the cracks? Because some crags are frequented by a majority of climbers who do not want them bolted. Similarly, why bolt any cracks? Some crags (Potrero comes to mind) are frequented by a majority of climbers who want them bolted.
Nice sleight of hand trick. In your search for this elusive ONE RULE TO BIND THEM ALL you've overlooked the obvious... we have more than one tradition.
???
You should know by now that I don't really value traditions; regardless of how many of them you have. (And what does that have to do with what I wrote, anyway?)
In reply to:
In reply to:
Sadly, the most reliable internet proponents of rule by so-called "local ethics" (such as our DMT), are apparently so infected with the toxic FA Veto Doctrine, that they apparently require this one universal as an exception. This One Holy Universal Law Which We All Must Abide.
Actually I don't get all caught up in it. I suggest respect is the way for differing styles to coexist. You dream of a democratic utopia.
You suggest "respect", but the problem is that participants of differing styles often do not respect other styles, or compete with their participants for the same limited climbing resources. That's a fact, and it isn't going to change.
Democracy (maybe a kind of proportional representation or something) is probably in your interest, if you want to reserve some rock for the stupid routes.
(This post was edited by fracture on May 22, 2007, 3:14 AM)
You suggest "respect", but the problem is that participants of differing styles often do not respect other styles, or compete with their participants for the same limited climbing resources. That's a fact, and it isn't going to change.
I would disagree strongly with this. Maybe in your neck of the woods this is true.
First, click the link. There are remarkably 2 big walls in the US that go by the name El Capitan. One is in Texas. I'm as surprised as you are.
Bleh.
"El Capitan is guarded by cliffs on three sides, and those faces are rarely climbed due to the unstable condition of the rock and the sheer nature of the peak. Hikers can scramble up to the summit by first climbing to near the summit of Guadalupe Peak and scrambling down to the south to the Guadalupe Peak-El Capitan saddle, then up the backside of El Cap."
Sounds like a sport climber's dream approach, eh?
(Plus, you do realize that that is further from Austin than Potrero, right?)
In reply to:
Second, I'm referring to the Eldorado Canyon (and now Flatirons) Fixed Hardware Review Committee. Boulder climbers were given the option of stop the bolt wars or stop climbing. They obviously chose the former. Without a formal committee to control the chopping-rebolting cycle that results from "democracy", you end up losing access.
A formal elected committee == (representative) democracy.
No committee == anarchistic mob-rule, which often manages to approximate democracy or even outperform it (less bureaucratic delays). (Yes, there are exceptions.)
In reply to:
FVD is a grass roots effort to avoid that issue.
You've probably got it backwards.
The FVD has been around for longer than that, so it is much more likely that it was an contributory cause of the Eldorado conflict. I don't feel like researching it further right now, but in other conflicts it certainly has been one. (Cf. the incident regarding the E-Rock backside which I mentioned earlier.)
There is probably as good of an Argument from Access against the FA Veto Doctrine as there is for it. But Arguments from Access are so likely to contain errors that they should practically be considered a new type of climbing-discussion-specific fallacy. Most of the time, it is a hidden non sequitur, because there is a large variance in what is an actual threat to access at different crags. (And the fact that I climbed almost exclusively on private land up until recently (when our crag was purchased by the county) makes me pretty sensitive to this error.)
The biggest objective risks in sport climbing include: skin injury, tendon or elbow injury, being slammed into the wall by an incompetent belayer, falling with clipping-slack within the first 10 meters or so, and decking due to grigri misuse.
You opted to ignore groundfall potential when clipping the second bolt. This is a fairly common "objective risk" on many sport routes. You also opted to ignore rock-fall, bolt failure, and a host of other hazards. I call bullshit.
In reply to:
Personally, my mental game is generally not related to any of those. And I would hypothesize that the mental game (and levels of risk) in gymnastics can be very similar to sport climbing.
If that's the case you might consider examining your ability to identify and manage risk.
In reply to:
In reply to:
Sure, fine, bolt all the world's hairy leads. Hell, while we're at it, why not bolt all the cracks.
What I am advocating here is democratic control over public climbing resources, which is de facto rule anyway, internet protestations notwithstanding.
Democratic control is generally the quickest way available to ensure mediocrity. Nothing worth a fuck is ever accomplished by committee. Or to put it another way, while in theory democracy is a wonderful concept (on paper Marxism doesn't look too shabby either), in the field it's generally a guarantee that those least qualified to make decisions are in charge. You want to empower the proletariat? Go join a fucking union and spare us the sophmoric Pol-Sci babble. The issue reduces nicely as follows:
When you have a problem with the plumbing you don't call a neighborhood meeting to vote on the best way to address the issue, you call a plumber. Expertise cannot be derived from mass input of uninformed opinion, thus an expert has to be consulted before expertise is brought to bear. I leave it as an excercise for the student to figure out how this relates to FAs and route changes.
In reply to:
Sadly, the most reliable internet proponents of rule by so-called "local ethics" (such as our DMT), are apparently so infected with the toxic FA Veto Doctrine, that they apparently require this one universal as an exception. This One Holy Universal Law Which We All Must Abide.
It's been clearly stated in several places in this thread and others that you're free to disregard any aspect of the body of commonly accepted ethics that you choose to. Likewise you're free to walk into your neighbor's livingroom and take a piss on the coffee table. In either event it's advisable to be prepared for concequences of your decision.
In reply to:
In reply to:
Do you know how much unclimbed and undeveloped rock there is in this country alone? God forbid you get off your butt and find it and develop it by whatever ethic you see fit! I know of miles and miles of awesome stone just begging for somebody to rap in and drill bolts. Why in the world would anyone modify what's already there? Its just lazy. And there is so much untouched stone, even in such "wastelands" as Texas that there's not a single reason why anyone should have to retro bolt any route just to make it more "accessible".)
Either you have a very different concept of "miles and miles of awesome stone" than I do, or you have never been to Texas, or you have a lot of money to put into real estate, or you are willing to break the law and bolt without permission.
Why not just inform the landowner that by dint of popular vote the crag on his/her land is now under control of the local bureaucracy?
M'kay, say ol' mountainfreak or whomever goes out and is like, "wha'eva I do what I want!", and retrobolts a classic, then senor FA, or some other local comes along an is like, "WTF i'm gonna chop them mofo's!" DO everyone a favor and do a good effin job! I have seen too many crappy stinkin' chop jobs i my short climbing "career". Everything from the lame ass stolen hangers, the protruding bolt bend over hammer down flat technique, the COLD CHISEL OFF, and the ever popular just beat the crap out of it with a damn ten pound sledge. If an odd bolt pisses you off so much why don't you take the time to show how much you care and do a GOOD job! All it takes is a little elbow gease crushed rock powder and epoxy! It's not rocket science a little extra effort goes a long way. I would rather see a envirocoloredpowdercoatedwellplaced bolt than some mutilated bentmetal pancake fused with the granite anyday. TAKE SOME PRIDE PPFFHTTHT!
"edited to say I voted not to retrobolt"
(This post was edited by codhands on May 22, 2007, 5:31 AM)
The biggest objective risks in sport climbing include: skin injury, tendon or elbow injury, being slammed into the wall by an incompetent belayer, falling with clipping-slack within the first 10 meters or so, and decking due to grigri misuse.
You opted to ignore groundfall potential when clipping the second bolt. This is a fairly common "objective risk" on many sport routes.
Can you read? Second bolts tend to be within the first 10 meters.... and I pretty clearly indicated that the list was not intented to be exhaustive.
In reply to:
You also opted to ignore rock-fall, bolt failure, and a host of other hazards. I call bullshit.
Bolt failure? Hah!
Ok, I call bullshit: you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
In reply to:
Democratic control is generally the quickest way available to ensure mediocrity. Nothing worth a fuck is ever accomplished by committee. Or to put it another way, while in theory democracy is a wonderful concept (on paper Marxism doesn't look too shabby either), in the field it's generally a guarantee that those least qualified to make decisions are in charge.
Here we are. Finally someone is honest enough to openly take the anti-democratic stand that the FAVD represents.
Good for you. (But I don't feel like arguing democracy's case right now.)
In reply to:
When you have a problem with the plumbing you don't call a neighborhood meeting to vote on the best way to address the issue, you call a plumber. Expertise cannot be derived from mass input of uninformed opinion, thus an expert has to be consulted before expertise is brought to bear. I leave it as an excercise for the student to figure out how this relates to FAs and route changes.
I sure do love it when people leave the entire content of their "argument" to be inferred from a completely nonsensical analogy.
I guess I'll spell it out more than that, since you'll probably need help: (i) you are implying that all FA's are experts, which is false, (ii) the plumbing analogy is dishonestly used to suggest an urgency that is not relevant to this discussion, (iii) you are assuming that committees must consist of uninformed opinion (in practice, people who run tend to be the ones who are informed enough to care), and (iv) "consultation" and "veto" are different.
(This post was edited by fracture on May 22, 2007, 5:48 AM)
I take it that El Capitan is off limits to bolting, or at least to far to travel for climbing? It strikes me that the other granite domes near E-rock were turned into quarries. Ironical, that.
Upon further review, I'm beginning to understand what you're saying here. However, in every case I can think of where the community can overrule the FA Veto Doctrine (as we've formalized it) without risk of the new bolt getting chopped, the standards that such a suggestion has to overcome are so high that the FVD applies anyway, if not in spirit then at least in execution.
Have there been bolt wars at E-rock or Reimers? Have areas been closed to new route development because of bolt wars in Texas? No? Then I can't really feel sorry for you. Look into the Flatirons bolting ban. The FVD exists to prevent the events that led to that.
paternalism--
of course we love facetiousness. and no it wasn't a troll, but merely another way of looking at things. As i tried to say from the start i just want an honest discussion of an issue that affects now. turn an X into an R? yes, bolt it.
In reply to:
(This post was edited by 8flood8 on May 22, 2007, 6:54 AM)
I take it that El Capitan is off limits to bolting, or at least to far to travel for climbing? It strikes me that the other granite domes near E-rock were turned into quarries. Ironical, that.
Upon further review, I'm beginning to understand what you're saying here. However, in every case I can think of where the community can overrule the FA Veto Doctrine (as we've formalized it) without risk of the new bolt getting chopped, the standards that such a suggestion has to overcome are so high that the FVD applies anyway, if not in spirit then at least in execution.
Have there been bolt wars at E-rock or Reimers? Have areas been closed to new route development because of bolt wars in Texas? No? Then I can't really feel sorry for you. Look into the Flatirons bolting ban. The FVD exists to prevent the events that led to that.
paternalism--
of course we love facetiousness. and no it wasn't a troll, but merely another way of looking at things. As i tried to say from the start i just want an honest discussion of an issue that affects now. turn an X into an R? yes, bolt it.
In reply to:
No... this is a troll:
Want to turn a Sport "X" into an "R"? LEARN HOW TO USE GEAR!
(the hook has been baited)
(This post was edited by svilnit on May 22, 2007, 12:00 PM)
...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.
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.
Respect for FA style -- nothing more, nothing less -- is responsible for this variety that I enjoy so much.
Questions for you: 1. How do you mitigate the inevitable conflicts between retrobolters and choppers? 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? 3. Do you believe that bold lines have any place in climbing? Or are they all obsolete? 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.
You suggest "respect", but the problem is that participants of differing styles often do not respect other styles, or compete with their participants for the same limited climbing resources. That's a fact, and it isn't going to change.
I would disagree strongly with this. Maybe in your neck of the woods this is true.
As would I. In my neck of the woods, the opposite is true -- and obvious to most who climb here.
(This post was edited by j_ung on May 22, 2007, 1:35 PM)
You suggest "respect", but the problem is that participants of differing styles often do not respect other styles,
Yes you've demonstrated this tude ad infinitum. Its why I don't give your POV the time of day, it is born of disrespect.
Sure. You don't have to give my "tude" the time of day (and I don't care if you do). The problem with that approach, for you, though, is that you're probably going to die before I am.
If the older generations expect newer climbers to do anything other than what appears to be the obvious course of action to most normal, rational human beings that have not been infected with the bold-climbing memeplex (and trust me, it is a memeplex: ask a non-climber how impressive they find deliberately runout bolted routes, or whether they think FA-veto-power makes sense), they need to engage us and convince us.
You think noobs are killing your sport. And yes, your sport probably is dying (and I don't mind!). But it's not the noobs: it's the failure of the Old Farts to effectively proselytize and spread some strain of the old "rock cult" approach to climbing.
...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)
I agree that sport routes should be a form of community service, [..]
How do you reconcile this with your support of the FA Veto Doctrine? Do you think the FA knows what the community wants better than the community itself?
Simple, if the community doesn't like it, they don't have to climb it.
Irrelevant. No one has to climb anything. (And furthermore, giving the community something they won't climb isn't much of a service.)
In reply to:
The strict no-retro ethic has kept a lot of really proud lines just that: proud. I think the most telling argument I've ever heard against bolting is on Mountain Projects description of Perilous Journey. Some routes just shouldn't be made boring, no matter how dangerous you think it'd be.
The glory (or proudness) you see in so-called "bold climbing" is a cognitive illusion created by a virulent meme-infection that, in addition to many other negative side-effects, is capable of destroying the host if left untreated. If you find the idea of risking your life for climbing to be attractive, I suggest you consult a mental health professional.
I can certainly understand why you as a sport climber value movement/difficulty over all else (especially risk). I don't think it is all that much to ask that you understand that not all climbers think this way, and may not want their areas to reflect that line of thought. Some of us do value trying to overcome/manage risk while climbing.
19 /
16%
