Manufacturing holds is not necessarily (and not in the form I support) about bringing routes down to your level. It's about designing quality areas, with good routes in a variety of grades (and available warmups, etc). Or it's about climbing really hard on choss crimpers that would simply break without some reinforcement. Or it's about turning a blank wall into a quality area for outdoor recreation. Chipping is as good (or as bad) as the result. And if the result is bad, I have no problem with the common practice of retro-filling stupid pockets with glue (regardless of whether the FA supports it or not).
MANUFACTURING holds is never acceptable. by manufacturing i mean making holds where there were none beforehand. reinforcing stuff a bit (sometimes necessary) and cleaning dont fall into manufacturing category.
What do you mean by "never acceptable"? Certainly you aren't denying that (for example) pockets are sometimes drilled to make new holds, and they are not always retro-filled with glue by the local communities?
In reply to:
and i have seen quite a lot of routes screwed up by adding holds and i have yet to find a good manufactured route.
I have seen a number of good manufactured routes. (Even if we restrict the term to "adding holds where there were none beforehand".)
One classic 13a at a local crag has a rock glued on right at the beginning to make a new hand-hold. I've done the move without it: it is not very hard for me (maybe V1, and it doesn't "flow" as well), but if you are short, it would be a significant boulder problem (and one of the harder moves on the route). But, it's also immediately followed by a no-hands bat hang, so if the RD had put a hard move there, it would have added no difficulty to the route, but required people to hang upside down and depump right at the beginning of every redpoint attempt. Basically, the route would not have been as classic, in particular for shorter people.
Quality route development is about design. You have to think about what makes good routes good, and bad routes bad, and try to use the rock you have the best way you can. It's engineering, not climbing.
In reply to:
manufactured routes tend to be, well, manufactured to suit the maker and are thus usually a bit less enjoyable for everybody else. and THAT is a form of FA veto.
Yes: I am opposed to bad manufacturing. (Manufacturing holds is as good or bad as the result.)
Putting up a route chipped just to suit you is just as selfish and lame as rap bolting a route and getting the bolts in the wrong places (either because you are trying to make it "bold", or because you didn't think in detail about the various possible sequences people might use, etc).
reinforcing stuff a bit (sometimes necessary) and cleaning dont fall into manufacturing category.
Yet another opinion offered as fact.
In this context, saying something is "necessary" is just another way of saying that it is a prerequisite to attaining some of our wants. (Ya grok him now?)
Hey frack, You are beating a dead debate here. Even posting multiple posts that seem to respond to your own comments. We all get it. You are into glueing, chipping, fixing draws, and retro bolting crags... until they are outdoor versions of your favotite gym! WE GET IT. Please stop posting. You lost the poll big time. 85% of forum members think that you are WRONG. Deal with it!
P.S.- If you hate the current shape of outdoor rock so much, just go to the gym. At least you will be around kindred spirits.
aren't you the guy who was so ardently defending CCH in the alien debacle about 8 months ago?
No, I'm the guy who attempted to keep the conversation objective and focused on the facts of the failures while at the same time working both on-line and off with a group of concerned folks to get them to clearly acknowledge and address specific manufacturing and QC protocol issues. If you actually followed the conversation you'd know I was one of the few folks relentlessly dogging them with the facts while at the same time providing them with concrete suggestion they could use to improve their manufacturing and quality.
After months of work and assistance by myself and and a cadre of other folks from inside and outside the industry, CCH essentially never managed to follow through relative to the requisite consistency of execution to insure bad product did not ship. Every climbing manufacturer derserves an opportunity to resolve a problem - no climbing manufacturer deserves two chances to fix the same problem. Given that is the reality we are now dealing with I have been arguing with the same rigor that they should no longer be in the business and anyone using their product who does not personally test each of their cams is dumber than Fracture.
i just found it so funny that someone who is so eloquent and logical would resort to hate and shouting because someone doesn't agree with them. (rather than refute the point)
i propose your "escape into the mountains" is really an attempt to escape yourself.
Well, what do you suggest? Pull out the nine, start shootin' people?
Feel free to find one post where I advocate violence as a means of conflict resolution. I'm walking away from this one, as it's obvious you're so far off center that there's nothing left to be said. The sad thing is you'll think you've won this discussion when you've driven us all away, shaking our heads.
Manufacturing holds is not necessarily (and not in the form I support) about bringing routes down to your level. It's about designing quality areas, with good routes in a variety of grades (and available warmups, etc). Or it's about climbing really hard on choss crimpers that would simply break without some reinforcement. Or it's about turning a blank wall into a quality area for outdoor recreation. Chipping is as good (or as bad) as the result. And if the result is bad, I have no problem with the common practice of retro-filling stupid pockets with glue (regardless of whether the FA supports it or not).
MANUFACTURING holds is never acceptable. by manufacturing i mean making holds where there were none beforehand. reinforcing stuff a bit (sometimes necessary) and cleaning dont fall into manufacturing category.
What do you mean by "never acceptable"? Certainly you aren't denying that (for example) pockets are sometimes drilled to make new holds, and they are not always retro-filled with glue by the local communities?
In reply to:
and i have seen quite a lot of routes screwed up by adding holds and i have yet to find a good manufactured route.
I have seen a number of good manufactured routes. (Even if we restrict the term to "adding holds where there were none beforehand".)
One classic 13a at a local crag has a rock glued on right at the beginning to make a new hand-hold. I've done the move without it: it is not very hard for me (maybe V1, and it doesn't "flow" as well), but if you are short, it would be a significant boulder problem (and one of the harder moves on the route). But, it's also immediately followed by a no-hands bat hang, so if the RD had put a hard move there, it would have added no difficulty to the route, but required people to hang upside down and depump right at the beginning of every redpoint attempt. Basically, the route would not have been as classic, in particular for shorter people.
Quality route development is about design. You have to think about what makes good routes good, and bad routes bad, and try to use the rock you have the best way you can. It's engineering, not climbing.
In reply to:
manufactured routes tend to be, well, manufactured to suit the maker and are thus usually a bit less enjoyable for everybody else. and THAT is a form of FA veto.
Yes: I am opposed to bad manufacturing. (Manufacturing holds is as good or bad as the result.)
Putting up a route chipped just to suit you is just as selfish and lame as rap bolting a route and getting the bolts in the wrong places (either because you are trying to make it "bold", or because you didn't think in detail about the various possible sequences people might use, etc).
Honestly? Whats wrong with you man. You need to realy take a look at how far off base you are and reign it in a little. You just advicated modifying a route to make it more "convinient" to climb. Thats perversion in a most pure and unadulterated form and reading your last few posts have made me squirm in my seat. I was going to say out of this conversation but you went to far. Do not ever, under any circumstances drill, chip or glue a route.
Edited to add: Please do not try to argue in favor of route modification because there is nothing to discuss. On this issue you are all alone and completely in the wrong.
(This post was edited by notapplicable on May 27, 2007, 1:05 AM)
Yeah man, Keep the manufacturing in the gym, where it is non- permanent. Natural rock is finite. Think about it. If you wanna create a "convenient" route, do it on plywood.
Yeah man, Keep the manufacturing in the gym, where it is non- permanent. Natural rock is finite. Think about it. If you wanna create a "convenient" route, do it on plywood.
Yeah, and stay in Texas. I would hate to see you destroy (you call it climbing) any rock here in Colorado.
i just found it so funny that someone who is so eloquent and logical would resort to hate and shouting because someone doesn't agree with them. (rather than refute the point)
There arrives in every conversation, a point where either two people have at least an understanding of one another's viewpoint or an understanding that the viewpoint of the other is utterly corrupt and irredeemable. Both Fracture and CCH have crossed that threshold for me. Fracture represents an 'it was all put here for us to abuse and consume' perspective I find utterly reprehensible and which he has shown over and over he is nothing if not proud of - as I said at this point - f#ck him, he and folks like him are simply a plague.
In reply to:
i propose your "escape into the mountains" is really an attempt to escape yourself.
You can propose, but you'd find I'm quite happy with myself, my climbing, and my life - but that the life I live is a result of taking chances and managing risk - not avoiding them.
Well, what do you suggest? Pull out the nine, start shootin' people?
Feel free to find one post where I advocate violence as a means of conflict resolution.
The (relevant) context you snipped:
markc wrote:
fracture wrote:
And, if there really were a democratic movement to chip everything down to 5.11, I'd disagree with it but agree that the resource should be managed in a way according to the will of the people.
[...]
Right up there, you said you would disagree with a really bad decision, but that you'd tuck your tail between your legs and go with 'the will of the people'.
You haven't offered a better alternative to going with 'the will of the people' (and sure, while exercising your right to oppose it and try to convince others to join you). So what is your alternative? A chip-and-retro-glue-filling war? (The metaphorical 9mm.)
You cannot make them obey your whims without exercising some sort of force. If you are not advocating any sort of force, how is your position on this point any different from mine?
Well, what do you suggest? Pull out the nine, start shootin' people?
Feel free to find one post where I advocate violence as a means of conflict resolution.
I'll challenge you again. Find one post where I advocate violence as a means of conflict resolution. I don't fuck around about shooting people. Mayhap you shouldn't, either. Aside from that, I'm done discussing anything with you.
(This post was edited by markc on May 27, 2007, 6:55 AM)
What do you mean by "never acceptable"? Certainly you aren't denying that (for example) pockets are sometimes drilled to make new holds, and they are not always retro-filled with glue by the local communities?
offcourse there are manufactured holds out there, but that doesnt make them accptable, even if theyre not removed (filled in with cement, removed if glued on, stuff like that).
most of the time, its just better to leave them alone as removing them can actually cause more problems, but that doesnt mean that theyre acceptable. and in my experience theyre mostly put up by selfish persons who cant climb the route they developed and have to dumb it down to be able to send it, when they couldve just opened the project and let other ppl try for the FA.
and, sometimes, manufactured holds war erupts, which is in the end even more damaging than the actual manufacturing holds, even more reason to just leave them alone. it has happened sometimes that someone manufactured a route, than someone else repeated it without the artifical holds and removed them, only to have them put back up (and usually in a more agressive and damaging manner). the difficulty of removing them howere doesnt make them acceptable, reapearing manufactured holds only speak that the manufacturer is an even bigger @sshole.
fracture wrote:
One classic 13a at a local crag has a rock glued on right at the beginning to make a new hand-hold. I've done the move without it: it is not very hard for me (maybe V1, and it doesn't "flow" as well), but if you are short, it would be a significant boulder problem (and one of the harder moves on the route). But, it's also immediately followed by a no-hands bat hang, so if the RD had put a hard move there, it would have added no difficulty to the route, but required people to hang upside down and depump right at the beginning of every redpoint attempt. Basically, the route would not have been as classic, in particular for shorter people.
so, the hold was added even if its not required? and that makes it GOOD? in my view, that makes it even worse. i can somewhat symphatize with a person that MUST feed hes ego by getting a FA and thus manufacturing holds, but to manufacture one where its not needed is just despicable.
Well, what do you suggest? Pull out the nine, start shootin' people?
Feel free to find one post where I advocate violence as a means of conflict resolution.
I'll challenge you again. Find one post where I advocate violence as a means of conflict resolution. I don't fuck around about shooting people. Mayhap you shouldn't, either. Aside from that, I'm done discussing anything with you.
You don't seem to get it. Advocating violence would be an improvement to your position: as stands, you're not remotely clear about what, if any response you would advocate. (Except that you are against "tucking your tail between your legs".)
(If you don't understand my point still after reading that, I humbly suggest you might have a learning disability.)
What do you mean by "never acceptable"? Certainly you aren't denying that (for example) pockets are sometimes drilled to make new holds, and they are not always retro-filled with glue by the local communities?
offcourse there are manufactured holds out there, but that doesnt make them accptable, even if theyre not removed (filled in with cement, removed if glued on, stuff like that).
Maybe. Again: what do you mean by "acceptable"?
In reply to:
and, sometimes, manufactured holds war erupts, which is in the end even more damaging than the actual manufacturing holds, even more reason to just leave them alone. it has happened sometimes that someone manufactured a route, than someone else repeated it without the artifical holds and removed them, only to have them put back up (and usually in a more agressive and damaging manner).
Just curious: can you name a crag where this has happened? (I know of places where there were controversies, or retro-fillings that some people disagreed with, but I've never heard specific information about a real glue/drill war.)
In reply to:
fracture wrote:
One classic 13a at a local crag has a rock glued on right at the beginning to make a new hand-hold. I've done the move without it: it is not very hard for me (maybe V1, and it doesn't "flow" as well), but if you are short, it would be a significant boulder problem (and one of the harder moves on the route). But, it's also immediately followed by a no-hands bat hang, so if the RD had put a hard move there, it would have added no difficulty to the route, but required people to hang upside down and depump right at the beginning of every redpoint attempt. Basically, the route would not have been as classic, in particular for shorter people.
so, the hold was added even if its not required? and that makes it GOOD? in my view, that makes it even worse. i can somewhat symphatize with a person that MUST feed hes ego by getting a FA and thus manufacturing holds, but to manufacture one where its not needed is just despicable.
The hold was added, but not for the FA party's ego. It was added because it made the route more classic and more fun (without making it easier).
Maybe you climb somewhere where the rock always kicks ass for climbing naturally, and thus have the luxury to take the position you are taking. But I live somewhere where the climbing is only as good as it is because of human-directed improvements. I have to take a pragmatic approach instead of a dogmatic one.
You say you are in favor of sometimes using glue to reinforce loose holds that already exist, but you reject drilled pockets using moralistic language and no real argument. Clearly you understand the reason people use glue, and are at least slightly comfortable with it (if it is done well). So what you have to ask yourself: when people use the same moralistic language and pseudo-arguments to reject the use of glue that you are using to reject drilled pockets, how do you rationally respond to that? What rationale do you have to make a distinction between gluing and drilling pockets, when both are really tools for doing the same thing: manipulating the quantity and quality of holds on the resulting climb?
(This post was edited by fracture on May 27, 2007, 3:51 PM)
I wouldn't retro it...I would toprope it until I felt comfortable enough w/ the climbing to risk leading it. I would lower my style before I lowered the style of the the climb.
by accpetable i mean that is ok in my book. as simple as that.
fracture wrote:
Just curious: can you name a crag where this has happened? (I know of places where there were controversies, or retro-fillings that some people disagreed with, but I've never heard specific information about a real glue/drill war.)
i refrained from mentioning the route, area or persons involved because some of the incidents caused quite a stir in our climbing community and i just dont want to stir it all up again. just to illustrate one instance, it went basicly like this: FA glues holds and says that they can be removed, if the route is repeated without them, someone else repeats withouth the holds (a letter grade or so more difficult), removes the holds, FA bolts new holds.
fracture wrote:
You say you are in favor of sometimes using glue to reinforce loose holds that already exist, but you reject drilled pockets using moralistic language and no real argument. Clearly you understand the reason people use glue, and are at least slightly comfortable with it (if it is done well). So what you have to ask yourself: when people use the same moralistic language and pseudo-arguments to reject the use of glue that you are using to reject drilled pockets, how do you rationally respond to that? What rationale do you have to make a distinction between gluing and drilling pockets, when both are really tools for doing the same thing: manipulating the quantity and quality of holds on the resulting climb?
im in favor of using glue for discreetly reinforcing loose stuff that is already there and you dont want to remove (either because its too dangerous, not loose enough). if you get to, for instance, a loose flake when developing a route, you must ensure that its safe, and that means either removing it or making sure it cant be easily removed by someone who is not aware that its loose. and reinforcing the said flake wont modify the number of holds on a route, maybe you could argue that it would effect the quality of the hold, but thats not necessary the case.
unlike manufacturing new holds, reinforcing them is done to preserve the route, not to create it.
offcourse this is just my opinion, and youre offcourse entitled to your. ill just kind ask you to contain your 'ethics' to your area, and if youre ever in my part of the woods, please, do not manufacture holds
im in favor of using glue for discreetly reinforcing loose stuff that is already there and you dont want to remove (either because its too dangerous, not loose enough). if you get to, for instance, a loose flake when developing a route, you must ensure that its safe, and that means either removing it or making sure it cant be easily removed by someone who is not aware that its loose. and reinforcing the said flake wont modify the number of holds on a route, maybe you could argue that it would effect the quality of the hold, but thats not necessary the case.
Many (if not most) reinforced holds that I have seen are too small for there to be a significant safety issue if they were loose. (We're talking very tiny flakes, and around here, it is often on serious overhangs where there is little risk of a dropped hold hitting the belayer.) Are you against that style of reinforced hold?
(The reason for gluing them is actually that if they break, there often will be either no route left to climb, or a much less fun one.)
In reply to:
unlike manufacturing new holds, reinforcing them is done to preserve the route, not to create it.
This strikes me as word-quibbling. But even if we take it as an admissible argument, you have a problem, because cleaning loose holds is unambiguously done to create a route, not to "preserve" it, and your above attempted rationale for reinforcing holds also endorses cleaning.
In reply to:
offcourse this is just my opinion, and youre offcourse entitled to your. ill just kind ask you to contain your 'ethics' to your area, and if youre ever in my part of the woods, please, do not manufacture holds
If you've been paying attention to this thread, you'll realize I am opposed to vigilante action which ignores the wishes of local communities. (I believe in the ethic of settling disputes through mutual compromise, debate, and democracy, not in so-called "climbing ethics".)
But FYI, in my local area, I would not be very surprised if a poll of the sport climbers would show that most say they are against chipping and even gluing, though probably a smaller percentage of those who climb 5.13 or who have developed their own routes would agree (possibly a majority of our routes harder than 5.12d or so are glued or chipped or otherwise manufactured).
(This post was edited by fracture on May 28, 2007, 2:41 PM)
First, I'm guilty of not reading the whole thread. sorry.
but my solution would be...
Invite the two first ascent folks to talk about the route, best over a few brews at your expense. If they are still climbers, take em out and do a lap on the thing for old time's sake. See if some experience and discussion can forge a consensus where there is now dispute.
It's more effort but sets a good example and makes you a better person. Plus if you or they decide to make a change, it won't get erased immediately
Fracture is on a one man quest to piss of FA's efforts and style. He is all about himself, and himself only. This kind of egocentric viewpoints is what is harming the climbing lifestyle. He really needs to go back to the gym until he learns some respect!
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.
But, as proven during the last 7 years of U.S. history, democracy fails when the majority of voters are slaves to religious delusions.
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.
Does every route-working fall have to be a 4 footer? Do you really demand the convenience that comes with not having to reclimb that extra 10 feet? Aren't you the guy who says there's nothing to be scared of?
So what I say. So what if your working burns result in 20 footers.
What is the advantage of the 20-footer? It saves the developer the cost of an additional bolt? The downside is the energy wasted in having to regain the last bolt between attempts. For a move you can get in a few tries, that's no big, say, 20 times, it is; and there may be several of those on the route.
Now, quality of installation and materials aside - the thinking process that spawns comments like this are exactly why outdoor climbing is fast becoming a sadrad emulation of indoor climbing.
Joseph, I fixed your typo. Next time, use the spell check.
19 /
16%
