Changing things by"consensus"is bullshit too.There is no such thing in climbing.Mr.Fracture hangs out with his retrobolt buddies and thinks he has a consensus,you don't.I hang with Traddies,we don't either.You can obviously find support for even the most asinine actions on the internet,as this thread proves.Not everything with bolts is a sport route.
Climbing is not about"the moves".Bouldering and break dancing are.If you are too scared to lead the route,go put up your own,and stop fucking up the sport.Public service bolting....what a crock!!Get some sack.
Changing things by"consensus"is bullshit too.There is no such thing in climbing.Mr.Fracture hangs out with his retrobolt buddies and thinks he has a consensus,you don't.I hang with Traddies,we don't either.You can obviously find support for even the most asinine actions on the internet,as this thread proves.Not everything with bolts is a sport route.
Climbing is not about"the moves".Bouldering and break dancing are.If you are too scared to lead the route,go put up your own,and stop fucking up the sport.Public service bolting....what a crock!!Get some sack.
WHOA WHOA WHOA.....I completely disagree.... I lived in, what I consider, to be a real climbing community with serious history and true climbing ethics...for about 7 years.... Tucson...
If the FA was not around ( that means dead) his ethics were upheld as best as possible. Which in 99.9% of the cases that means leave it alone. Local badasses who moved...i.e. steve grossman.... someone who was friends with him would call and talk to about it. I believe that at least once he agreed that maybe a bolt should be added at this one spot. So the consensus is strictly for climbers that are dead. And that ethic should be upheld by the climbing elders in the community. If "they" don't exist it should be left as is.
that is the way it is in the true climbing communnities that I have been involved with....
Baiscally TOMCAT.... you misunderstoo what I meant by consensus.. I was referring to a group of climbing "elders" who had been in the community forever who were responsible for the cartaking of the mountain and the crags.
(This post was edited by azrockclimber on May 23, 2007, 11:57 AM)
Most Reimer's locals claim that the FAVD applies there, too. You are making an empirical claim about how most retrobolting is done, and I suspect you are probably wrong. But it is a question of fact, which we cannot settle by pure debate.
True, it is. And until you actually have some experience outside your current local area, you will likely continue to believe that the way things happen there represent the norm countrywide. You're busy arguing for change in places where FAV not only has a long history, it has a long history working pretty damned well from most climbers' points of view.
Please don't twist what I'm saying to mean that I'm anti-democracy. Until the majority out there disagrees with me, democracy and FAV are right in line with each other.
Poll says 45-7 in favor of leaving the route as is. Democracy at work, eh? Here's a fact: you're losing this debate.
wow... some of these replays are just idiotic. They go against everything that I was taught and eveything that I believe in....
Yes, it does threaten your religious beliefs.
In reply to:
If you don't have the permission of the FA....DON"T YOU TOUCH THAT F"ING LINE.....Whether or not you think it is safe..... Damnit this pisses me off....
A statement of your position is not an argument in its favor. Even if you do it in caps and a threatening tone.
I know you're feeling emotional. Yes, it is hard to deal with having your unquestioned beliefs challenged. But just maybe that emotional response should indicate something to you: just maybe it should indicate that you haven't really thought about this issue in a rational way, yet. You've just accepted what other climbers have fed you without thinking about whether it makes any sense.
"Some people would sooner die than think. In fact they do." -- Bertrand Russell (Excellently relevant, if we are talking about so-called "bold climbing".)
In reply to:
You have to have permission man. If the FA is not around any longer than it should be a consensus with the local climbers. talk to everyone you can.... It is a sensitive issue
But what rationale do you have to not skip the single-handed dictatorship and go straight to the consensus-based rule in the first place?
Your brain is infected by a mind-virus. I'm sorry, man; I understand it can be tough. But I hope for your sake that some day you will recover.
Most Reimer's locals claim that the FAVD applies there, too. You are making an empirical claim about how most retrobolting is done, and I suspect you are probably wrong. But it is a question of fact, which we cannot settle by pure debate.
True, it is. And until you actually have some experience outside your current local area, you will likely continue to believe that the way things happen there represent the norm countrywide.
Again, I have climbed outside of my local area. (I even spent a month climbing in Thailand earlier this year.) I have redpointed over 100 5.12's; in three countries and several US states.
But why am I being asked to defend myself like this instead of being asked to refute an argument? Why are you attacking my credibility instead of my position?
In reply to:
You're busy arguing for change in places where FAV not only has a long history, it has a long history working pretty damned well from most climbers' points of view.
"Long history" is not an argument.
Being perceived as working well is not an argument. For that matter, neither is actually working well, if there are alternatives which work better.
In reply to:
Please don't twist what I'm saying to mean that I'm anti-democracy. Until the majority out there disagrees with me, democracy and FAV are right in line with each other.
The majority where? Are you or are you not telling me how retro-bolting should happen (re FA-vetos) at my crags?
If you aren't: WTF are we even debating? I have never claimed that every crag should be run according to the standards that climbers in my locale desire. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Like said earlier: even though he can't seem to get it through his respect-obsessed skull, I'm actually arguing for the position DMT usually takes in these threads. Let local so-called "ethics" decide. (De facto democracy, instituted by anarchistic mob rule, or real representative democracy, in cases where either land-managers ask for it or where it will operate more efficiently than the former.)
In reply to:
Poll says 45-7 in favor of leaving the route as is. Democracy at work, eh? Here's a fact: you're losing this debate.
The poll is not isolated to any locale. What's it got to do with this discussion?
(This post was edited by fracture on May 24, 2007, 6:01 AM)
But what rationale do you have to not skip the single-handed dictatorship and go straight to the consensus-based rule in the first place?
Are we still talking about retrobolting this line? If so, you need only scroll to the top of this page to see democracy in action as it votes to leave the route alone.
You have your democracy and it hates your opinion that this route should be retrobolted. It wants that FA to have some measure of veto power. I don't understand what else you want.
If so, you need only scroll to the top of this page to see democracy in action as it votes to leave the route alone.
Yep. Votes from people who don't even climb there. Sure sounds democratic to me.
(But at least it isn't single-handed veto-power from people don't even climb there, which is something the FAVD often requires.)
So you want to put this to a vote in the specific area with only local climbers voting? Who's stopping you?
No, I really don't care what they do to that route (it's really not an interesting part of this discussion, j_ung).
I obviously think bold climbing is stupid. But I also think climbers have a right to be stupid, so long as they don't get in each other's way excessively or unfairly monopolize limited resources. At most pure sport crags I have visited, these issues are never a real problem. At crags where the different climbing cultures collide, they can be, and I am advocating using a democratic process to resolve those disputes in those situations, instead of dictatorship or fisticuffs.
Now what the hell is so controversial about that???
I obviously think bold climbing is stupid. But I also think climbers have a right to be stupid, so long as they don't get in each other's way excessively or unfairly monopolize limited resources.
Do you think bold climbing monopolizes terrain that could otherwise be used for sport routes? Personally, I think the reverse is more often true these days.
In reply to:
Now what the hell is so controversial about that???
If so, you need only scroll to the top of this page to see democracy in action as it votes to leave the route alone.
Yep. Votes from people who don't even climb there. Sure sounds democratic to me.
(But at least it isn't single-handed veto-power from people don't even climb there, which is something the FAVD often requires.)
So you want to put this to a vote in the specific area with only local climbers voting? Who's stopping you?
No, I really don't care what they do to that route (it's really not an interesting part of this discussion, j_ung).
I obviously think bold climbing is stupid. But I also think climbers have a right to be stupid, so long as they don't get in each other's way excessively or unfairly monopolize limited resources. At most pure sport crags I have visited, these issues are never a real problem. At crags where the different climbing cultures collide, they can be, and I am advocating using a democratic process to resolve those disputes in those situations, instead of dictatorship or fisticuffs.
Now what the hell is so controversial about that???
First, let me apologize if you thought I was being a dick earlier. I guess I am a little incredulous because I don't see this issue being a huge one where I live. Every now and then I hear about a little dust up, but it's usually just a couple climbers.
It seems to me (based on my experience and the places that I climb) that your complaints aren't even really legitimate, because of the kinds of rock involved. Are you saying that there are a lot of steep to overhanging face climbs with no gear that are R where you live? Because there certainly aren't that many here. The R routes tend to be slabs, or in some cases vertical. I don't think I have seen too many R routes that would make for good sport climbs.
The steep stuff tends to get bolted, and bolted well. SOme of it still goes up ground up on lead, and you see the odd runout.
Are you advocating for more well bolted slabs? Would you even climb those well bolted slabs if they were retroed to your liking?
You mentioned thailand. I was in Tonsai in february. Awesome climbing. weird bolting, but that's the nature of disintegrating bolts. Too bad they didn't chop the old mank though, because it looks like shit. Not much in the way of runouts there either.
Hmm. I kind of lost track where I was going with this, because I'm not sure of the kind of climbs you're complaining about. You're trying to use logical arguments why every route should be completely safe, so I lost interest in what you were saying. You make no allowances, and you think that bold climbing is stupid. There are plenty of people (not me) who think that working routes with bolts every 8 feet is stupid.
Maybe if you ever move out of texas to near a crag which has good trad climbing, you'll take an interest in it and respect it more. And be bummed if everything gets retroed.
Now what the hell is so controversial about that???
Your insistance on categorizing 'respect of the FA' as a dictatorship.
Ah, I think I know what's going on here. DMT was raised by the type of family which equates "respect" with submission to authority. Just stop thinking and obey?
I'm sorry, Dingus. Truly sorry. You're welcome to PM me if you need someone to talk to about it.
I obviously think bold climbing is stupid. But I also think climbers have a right to be stupid, so long as they don't get in each other's way excessively or unfairly monopolize limited resources. At most pure sport crags I have visited, these issues are never a real problem. At crags where the different climbing cultures collide, they can be, and I am advocating using a democratic process to resolve those disputes in those situations, instead of dictatorship or fisticuffs.
Where are they colliding now? Other than E-Rock I mean? Where is the FVD creating problems? Give me an example, please.
As to suggesting a method that works better, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. That's not an opinion based out of laziness. Its that the overhead to switch to a better system will be more trouble now than the minimal problems that the current system produce. Bringing a lot of people over to your view of how retrobolting should work will create a lot more zealots than just letting time run its course. And as FAs die, the community takes over anyway.
I obviously think bold climbing is stupid. But I also think climbers have a right to be stupid, so long as they don't get in each other's way excessively or unfairly monopolize limited resources.
Do you think bold climbing monopolizes terrain that could otherwise be used for sport routes?
On occasion, yes.
For example, at Reimer's, a few people back in the day thought making "spicy" routes was cool. Most of these have been fixed, but no one climbs the runout routes that remain. I'd say "anymore", but really no one ever did.
I'm talking rap-bolted runout jobs at an otherwise sport-only crag where there is probably at least a 2/3rds majority of the actually active local resident climbers who would prefer it be retroed, and the original bolter has moved to another state but says we can't change it. Are you really telling me that we should apply your VD-religion to that?
In reply to:
Personally, I think the reverse is more often true these days.
Quite so. But there has to be enough of a local population of people who would want to use the resource for bold climbing before that is really a negative. (Like I was suggesting to DMT, at really "hot" controversial crags with decent-sized populations from a variety of climbing disciplines, a type of proportional representation (in terms of how many walls get developed in which style) might be a more egalitarian solution than a simple plurality-based rule.)
(This post was edited by fracture on May 23, 2007, 3:50 PM)
Placing bolts in the climbing resource (rock) to produce a route and promote a style that is commonly referred to as sport climbing is essentially public service. Make the route safe in terms of protection and allow the climber to focus on the movement. Its pretty easy to determine what is 'safe'. Occasionally there is hair-splitting.....but usually the is some common sense analysis that prevails. But contrary to traditional climbing, the 'style' of the ascent is not the issue. If you are going to inflict the level of impact to the resource that is typical of sport climbing, make it safe. If someone before you has created something that is, in common sense terms, dangerously risky....unnecessarily so, then retro.......they have no claim to adherance of 'style' as such in the traditional way of thinking.
Make it safe........that's what the drill and the bolts are for
I'm talking rap-bolted runout jobs at an otherwise sport-only crag
Fracture,
Everyone knows that those are totally lame. Anyone who rap bolts a runout has a huge advantage, because they can preview the R section while they are dangling, so it's cheating. Hence, I wouldn't say those are worthy of respect. (not going to use some of your catchy terminology, because it doesn't accurately reflect reality.) Anything rap bolted should be fair game for reasonable fixes.
OK, I've been lurking on this thread for a while and there have been several good issues and stances raised (on both sides).
Fracture seems to be advocating a universal standard to be applied at sport climbing areas, yet also denounces the opinions of those that don't climb in the areas in question (his local crags?). Throughout his most recent posts he alternates from one position to another. Please clarify this, if for no other reason than to allow us to know exactly where you stand.
I've been climbing for better than 30 years and sport climbing for at least the last 20 years of that time. I've traveled and climbed around the country and the world and the FAV standard seems to be accepted and respected at most areas domestically and many of the areas internationally that I've visited.
Also, have had the experience of bolting many hundreds of new sport routes (again in many areas), including establishing and developing a handful of pure sport climbing areas that could be described as "grid-bolted" by non sport climbers.
My personal opinion is that the FAV should be respected. I have retro bolted routes before, but always with the FA's permission. A few times this has been denied and I did not add bolts to those routes. Going even further back in my personal climbing history I can think of routes that I bolted, ground-up by hand-drilling, that I would be bummed to hear had been retro bolted. I don't think that everything has to be 100% safe to be a valid or acceptable route. Nor do I think that all walls (regardless or size, steepness, or quality) should be bolted in whatever way would make them attainable by the largest number of users.
The bottom line (IMO) would be that this should be discussed on a situational and local level. The FAV should be the universal standard unless the consensus of a local community decides otherwise. I would hate to see the FAV abandoned, but unless it's at an area I frequent I will be the first to suggest that my opinion should not carry as much weight as that of the locals.
My fundamental question was: does changing the nature of a route (retrobolting or otherwise) require the agreement of all members of a FA? The majority opinion here is that it does. I'm greatful for everyone's input and contributions, and the opportunity to bounce a question off of a group for consideration. Thanks again.
First, let me apologize if you thought I was being a dick earlier.
Nah; not a dick, just a tad irrational. (And certainly no apology necessary.)
In reply to:
I guess I am a little incredulous because I don't see this issue being a huge one where I live. Every now and then I hear about a little dust up, but it's usually just a couple climbers.
Actually, I agree. Most of the time, it is not an issue. (Yet people on the other side of this thread are describing retroing as leading to "inevitable" access problems, and things of that nature.) In the cases that is an issue, though, I think climbers should cut loose the semi-religious nonsense and start making sense about it.
I mean, I do wish every crag had enough good rock for everyone to just do what they want and ignore the stuff they don't like. But that's not the reality in some places.
In reply to:
It seems to me (based on my experience and the places that I climb) that your complaints aren't even really legitimate, because of the kinds of rock involved. Are you saying that there are a lot of steep to overhanging face climbs with no gear that are R where you live?
Not a lot, but there are a couple left. (Most formerly dangerous ones have already been retro'd, usually without FA permission.)
An issue more likely than R-ratings (this isn't about safety!) at real-world sport crags is the addition of dogging bolts (intended to be skipped on redpoint). A lot of older sport routes do not have them (even in relatively obvious places), because they were less popular in sport-climbing's early days.
In reply to:
Are you advocating for more well bolted slabs? Would you even climb those well bolted slabs if they were retroed to your liking?
Only if the locals at whatever area would like them. I would like more well-bolted slabs at E-Rock, but in point of fact, local climbers already have made a lot of the backside routes significantly better than the FA's did. But I am probably in a minority regarding E-Rock (and haven't climbed there in a while), so I don't expect it to happen.
But slab climbing is a great rest day activity. And setting top-ropes on the E-Rock backside is way less convenient than leading.
In reply to:
You mentioned thailand. I was in Tonsai in february. Awesome climbing. weird bolting, but that's the nature of disintegrating bolts. Too bad they didn't chop the old mank though, because it looks like shit. Not much in the way of runouts there either.
I thought the mank was endearing. Also, I loved the way they just put up semi-permanent rope thread-throughs since they are more reliable than the pre-titatium bolts (do I need FA permission to move those, by the way?). It really improves the aesthetic at, say, Ton Sai Roof or Dum's Kitchen.
There's something truly beautiful about a hyper-overhanging chunk of limestone, sparkling in the sun with uncounted bolts, and dripping with quickdraws and tat.
In reply to:
Hmm. I kind of lost track where I was going with this, because I'm not sure of the kind of climbs you're complaining about. You're trying to use logical arguments why every route should be completely safe, so I lost interest in what you were saying.
No: you didn't understand what I was saying.
In reply to:
Maybe if you ever move out of texas to near a crag which has good trad climbing, you'll take an interest in it and respect it more. And be bummed if everything gets retroed.
FA party says NO. Why is this even up for discussion?
I hope at least one local has the vision to go chop the retro job the minute it appears.
DMT
DMT, Actually, the FA party said YES/NO. That's why I asked the question, and it sounds like, to me, that the NO overweighs the YES. Thanks for contributing to the discussion. Chris
I just read your other post about moving to the bay area...... so is your intention to bolt and run?
If you aren't going to be vested in that climbing area, you have no right to make changes to it.
Leave the decisions to the locals.
Wow. SP, you're assuming way too much. You don't know where my local area is, or how much time I spend anywhere. I have no intention of "bolt and run"-ing anywhere. I asked a simple question for the rc.com community to discuss. P.S. I appreciated your earlier post, but not this.
19 /
16%
