|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 23, 2007, 7:44 PM
Post #26 of 78
(2958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
climb_eng wrote: Some of the comments here are fucking ridiculous. Forget about the 'spiritual experience', leave-no-trace ethics, ground-up climbing or any other such bullshit. 'Spiritual experience' - Whatever turns your crank I suppose... but you can also have spiritual experiences while masturbating, watching porn and eating a bag of cheetos. Different strokes! Either way, it's not what defines the activity Leave-no-trace ethics - If trampled plants, chalk on the wall, remains of fires and beer cans lieing around are experesions of leave-no-trace then you might be on to something. Ground-up climbing - The only true ground-up climbers are the ones that show up with no beta, and just climb a line cause it looks good. This may be what trad climbing was 25 or 50 years ago, however today the vast majority of trad climbers are burning up existing routes, loaded with beta. Furthermore, if ground-up is the definition, a sport climber could just as easily climb a route ground-up... I've certainly hopped on sport routes with no information about the route, other then seeing a couple of bolts in the rock. It's not about gear, gear is what facilitates the process. At the end of the day it all comes down to commitment and risk. Trad climbing requires a higher commitment and more risk than does sport climbing.
You were doing really well until that last sentence.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Jul 23, 2007, 7:55 PM
Post #27 of 78
(2950 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
climb_eng wrote: Some of the comments here are fucking ridiculous. Forget about the 'spiritual experience', leave-no-trace ethics, ground-up climbing or any other such bullshit. 'Spiritual experience' - Whatever turns your crank I suppose... but you can also have spiritual experiences while masturbating, watching porn and eating a bag of cheetos. Different strokes! Either way, it's not what defines the activity Leave-no-trace ethics - If trampled plants, chalk on the wall, remains of fires and beer cans lieing around are experesions of leave-no-trace then you might be on to something. Ground-up climbing - The only true ground-up climbers are the ones that show up with no beta, and just climb a line cause it looks good. This may be what trad climbing was 25 or 50 years ago, however today the vast majority of trad climbers are burning up existing routes, loaded with beta. Furthermore, if ground-up is the definition, a sport climber could just as easily climb a route ground-up... I've certainly hopped on sport routes with no information about the route, other then seeing a couple of bolts in the rock. It's not about gear, gear is what facilitates the process. At the end of the day it all comes down to commitment and risk. Trad climbing requires a higher commitment and more risk than does sport climbing. The reward is the means to climb up a lot more things than you could/would sport climbing.
I'll second that by saying that it's a well known fact that the size of guy's rack is directly proportional to the size of his girl...oh, nevermind.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 23, 2007, 7:55 PM
Post #28 of 78
(2950 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
climb_eng wrote: The only true ground-up climbers are the ones that show up with no beta, and just climb a line cause it looks good.
Yes that's what we do. But he asked about trad CLIMBING, not trad CLIMBERS.
In reply to: a sport climber could just as easily climb a route ground-up...
Sure... if they learn trad first. Otherwise, no, its a top down enterprise and the subsequent clippers are relagated to following the herd and staying on the designated trails. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
dynamo_
Jul 23, 2007, 7:59 PM
Post #29 of 78
(2945 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 13, 2005
Posts: 275
|
climb_eng wrote: ...'Spiritual experience' - Whatever turns your crank I suppose... but you can also have spiritual experiences while masturbating, watching porn and eating a bag of cheetos. Different strokes!
You, sir, must be an idiot.
climb_eng wrote: Leave-no-trace ethics - If trampled plants, chalk on the wall, remains of fires and beer cans lieing around are experesions of leave-no-trace then you might be on to something.
Beer cans, eh? Not the cheetos bags you leave behind at crowded, dirty, sport crags?
climb_eng wrote: ...Furthermore, if ground-up is the definition, a sport climber could just as easily climb a route ground-up... I've certainly hopped on sport routes with no information about the route, other then seeing a couple of bolts in the rock.
Wrong.
climb_eng wrote: It's not about gear, gear is what facilitates the process. At the end of the day it all comes down to commitment and risk. Trad climbing requires a higher commitment and more risk than does sport climbing. .
Getting warmer.
climb_eng wrote: The reward is the means to climb up a lot more things than you could/would sport climbing.
Especially if you want to avoid Cheetos eating, Manpri wearing, sport climbers...gawd.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Jul 23, 2007, 10:11 PM
Post #30 of 78
(2905 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
jt512 wrote: climb_eng wrote: Some of the comments here are fucking ridiculous. Forget about the 'spiritual experience', leave-no-trace ethics, ground-up climbing or any other such bullshit. 'Spiritual experience' - Whatever turns your crank I suppose... but you can also have spiritual experiences while masturbating, watching porn and eating a bag of cheetos. Different strokes! Either way, it's not what defines the activity Leave-no-trace ethics - If trampled plants, chalk on the wall, remains of fires and beer cans lieing around are experesions of leave-no-trace then you might be on to something. Ground-up climbing - The only true ground-up climbers are the ones that show up with no beta, and just climb a line cause it looks good. This may be what trad climbing was 25 or 50 years ago, however today the vast majority of trad climbers are burning up existing routes, loaded with beta. Furthermore, if ground-up is the definition, a sport climber could just as easily climb a route ground-up... I've certainly hopped on sport routes with no information about the route, other then seeing a couple of bolts in the rock. It's not about gear, gear is what facilitates the process. At the end of the day it all comes down to commitment and risk. Trad climbing requires a higher commitment and more risk than does sport climbing. You were doing really well until that last sentence. Jay
?...
|
|
|
|
|
jcrew
Jul 23, 2007, 10:41 PM
Post #31 of 78
(2881 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 11, 2006
Posts: 673
|
trad. is about fear, not gear.
|
|
|
|
|
hiyapokey
Jul 23, 2007, 10:42 PM
Post #32 of 78
(2881 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2006
Posts: 315
|
So according to this wiki definition "Traditional and sport climbing (currently the two main categories of rock climbing styles)", what is bouldering sport or trad.
|
|
|
|
|
Galen
Jul 24, 2007, 12:24 AM
Post #33 of 78
(2843 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 7, 2007
Posts: 7
|
I thought bouldering was nonurban parkour.
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Jul 24, 2007, 12:51 AM
Post #34 of 78
(2831 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
dpurf wrote: Sport Climbing is defined by its gear more than Traditional or Aid climbing. Think about it and the limitation sport climbing has. 95% are 90 or less. You never top out on a climb and always get lowered or you have to rap down. Bolts are mandatory.
And even at Jacks Canyon, the much-maligned sport crag, I have had to "top out" (bonus junk moves up to a pebble ledge) just to finish some 40-foot 5.8s.
And wait, sport climbing defined by its gear MORE than aid? Ex-squeeze me?
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Jul 24, 2007, 1:12 AM
Post #35 of 78
(2813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
The simplest answer to you question may be no, it is not about the gear which is simply a means to and end, that end being access to the vertical world.
But in truth the gear is an integral part of safely exploring unknown vertical terrain and is a craft (some may also argue, art) unto it's self.
In the world of trad (AKA gear routes) you will soon notice that success often hinges on confidence and a level head which allows you to work difficult or unknown moves often well above your last piece. IMO this is most easily achieved through a complete understanding of how your gear is supposed to and actually does function and the most proficient use of that gear to achieve your desired end (presumably safety). Simply put, knowing the art of gear allows you to shrug the weight of worry and focus on the climbing. Even more simply, knowing how to use gear well can up your redpoint and onsite level!
|
|
|
|
|
dpurf
Jul 24, 2007, 2:07 AM
Post #36 of 78
(2783 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2003
Posts: 160
|
climbsomething wrote: Not in my experience, though perhaps in yours. But I know of plenty of long or multi-pitch sport routes. And as for not topping out- well, you don't usually top out at the Creek, do you? Chains a-dangle on the wall. (interestingly, some of the strongdudes I know call the Creek sport climbing with cams)
I would like you to fill a, lets says guide book the size of Shelf Road with the Multi-pitch sport climbs the US has. Like I said 95% of the sport climbs out there are 90 ft or less.
Oh and i love the way you defend your statement by the uses of 'some of the strongdudes I know'. Oh and by the way Super Crack of the Desert goes to the top. It is just to bad no one does it, including me.
In reply to: And even at Jacks Canyon, the much-maligned sport crag, I have had to "top out" (bonus junk moves up to a pebble ledge) just to finish some 40-foot 5.8s.
Maybe I should not have said, 'Never top out'. But again 95% of sport climbs out there you are getting lowered off and not walking off.
In reply to: And wait, sport climbing defined by its gear MORE than aid? Ex-squeeze me?
Maybe I went a little too far including aid climb, but I stand by my statement that Sport Climb is more dependent on gear. Example: you make a road trip to Southern California for some climbing. You want to hit Josh, Tahquitz, Suicide, Williamson (when it re-opens) and the Needles. If you have quickdraws and a rope, how well are you going to do in these areas? Williamson no problem, But the others very limited. But if I have a standard trad rack, I could get on almost all the climbs each area has to offer. I may get some funny looks at Williamson, but i could still climb.
(This post was edited by dpurf on Jul 24, 2007, 2:09 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 24, 2007, 3:18 AM
Post #37 of 78
(2750 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
dpurf wrote: climbsomething wrote: Not in my experience, though perhaps in yours. But I know of plenty of long or multi-pitch sport routes. And as for not topping out- well, you don't usually top out at the Creek, do you? Chains a-dangle on the wall. (interestingly, some of the strongdudes I know call the Creek sport climbing with cams) I would like you to fill a, lets says guide book the size of Shelf Road with the Multi-pitch sport climbs the US has. Like I said 95% of the sport climbs out there are 90 ft or less.
But that has nothing to do with which style is "more defined by" gear.
In reply to: In reply to: And even at Jacks Canyon, the much-maligned sport crag, I have had to "top out" (bonus junk moves up to a pebble ledge) just to finish some 40-foot 5.8s. Maybe I should not have said, 'Never top out'. But again 95% of sport climbs out there you are getting lowered off and not walking off.
Actually, you shouldn't even have brought up the issue, because it, too, has nothing to do with your main claim.
In reply to: In reply to: And wait, sport climbing defined by its gear MORE than aid? Ex-squeeze me? Maybe I went a little too far including aid climb, but I stand by my statement that Sport Climb is more dependent on gear. Example: you make a road trip to Southern California for some climbing. You want to hit Josh, Tahquitz, Suicide, Williamson (when it re-opens) and the Needles. If you have quickdraws and a rope, how well are you going to do in these areas? Williamson no problem, But the others very limited. But if I have a standard trad rack, I could get on almost all the climbs each area has to offer. I may get some funny looks at Williamson, but i could still climb.
You make the claim that sport climbing is more dependent on gear [more than trad climbing appears to be what you mean], and then, by example, demonstrate the very opposite. The reason you can climb at sport areas with a trad rack, but can't climb at trad areas with a sport rack, is because the trad areas are more dependent on gear. The sport rack does not contain the gear that traditional climbing depends on.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Jul 24, 2007, 3:20 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
chalkfree
Jul 24, 2007, 4:31 AM
Post #38 of 78
(2730 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 27, 2004
Posts: 512
|
What's your deal? Trad climbing really is about getting to the top and leaving little or nothing to mark your passage. I don't know about you, but that's one of the nice things about it in my mind.
If you don't agree with me fine, but making light of peoples' opinions is almost never a good way to get them to concede.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 24, 2007, 4:56 AM
Post #39 of 78
(2724 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
chalkfree wrote: What's your deal? Trad climbing really is about getting to the top and leaving little or nothing to mark your passage.
If you want to make just make stuff up, be my guest; but don't expect me to agree with you, or not to point out what you're doing.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
wmfork
Jul 24, 2007, 5:13 AM
Post #40 of 78
(2714 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 4, 2006
Posts: 348
|
dpurf wrote: climbsomething wrote: (interestingly, some of the strongdudes I know call the Creek sport climbing with cams) Oh and i love the way you defend your statement by the uses of ' some of the strongdudes I know'. Oh and by the way Super Crack of the Desert goes to the top. It is just to bad no one does it, including me.
Whether you think I pull hard or not, I'll also state that over 90% of established routes in the Creek are sport climbing with cams.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Jul 24, 2007, 6:02 AM
Post #41 of 78
(2702 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
For me, trad climbing is about:
* Options: trad gives one a lot more options. You can climb anywhere, including local sport crags (just use your alpine draws if you hafta) or burly, day long-approachesque multi-pitch in true wilderness--or anything in between. Additionally, mixed routes beckon where Quickdraw McGraws fear to tread.
* Mental Aspects: I agree with OP here. I have never had to deal with the same kind of mental aspects (i.e. especially intensity of sketch factor) when sport climbing, and I never had to develop the same kind of focused clarity of mind and commitment knowing I really CANNOT fall at certain junctures. (Disclaimer: I also do not climb the R/X sport routes in Tuolumne or the slightly runout, quarter incher bolted routes in the Buttermilks, so take that as you will.)
* Partner Connection: although I have many great sport climber friends (many of whom are more verbally supportive than my trad climber friends during the belay), I never developed the kind of intense bond with my sport partner(s) that comes with living through an epic or getting through a long sketch route or, simply, climbing and descending a route safely with no injuries, no accidents, and no real losses to either partner (always an ever-present possibility on most trad routes of more than one pitch).
* Warm, Fuzzy Mother Earth: I'm not saying trad climbers have no impact (that is a joke), but I gotta be honest--one gets a bigger dose of semi-remote to remote wilderness more frequently with trad than with sport. This is important to me as I was brought up camping and hiking all over the U.S.
|
|
|
|
|
scotchie
Jul 24, 2007, 6:09 AM
Post #42 of 78
(2700 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 31, 2004
Posts: 261
|
chalkfree wrote: Trad is the leave no trace ethic expressed vertically.
Trad climbing allows bolts when required for safety.
The no bolts whatsoever ethic is called clean climbing - if you can't climb it safely with gear, either toprope, risk your life, or don't climb. There are very few crags with a clean climbing ethic.
Trad is a compromise between the clean-climbing ideal and the real-world situation that many good climbs do need some bolts for safety.
|
|
|
|
|
gramps
Jul 24, 2007, 6:18 AM
Post #43 of 78
(2694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 22, 2004
Posts: 40
|
This is hilarious. I like trad because you're more in control of the experience and you get to climb stuff that you're not able to if all you do is sport. What's the mystery? The leave no trace thing isn't a main reason why I climb trad lines, but if someone likes that about it, what's the big deal? Climbing a huge cliff without leaving anything besides (maybe) some chalk is pretty cool. You also get to explore your head more, and get to feel more bold and comfortable on the rock because falling becomes a more serious proposition, at least on lines where you're not placing gear every 10 feet.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 24, 2007, 6:33 AM
Post #44 of 78
(2687 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
scotchie wrote: The no bolts whatsoever ethic is called clean climbing - if you can't climb it safely with gear, either toprope, risk your life, or don't climb. There are very few crags with a clean climbing ethic.
I disagree. My understanding of "clean climbing" is that it specifically refers to the use of removable pro in lieu of pitons. Bolts don't violate the clean climbing ethic, as I understand it, when there is no reasonable clean alternative.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Jul 24, 2007, 6:33 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 24, 2007, 7:20 AM
Post #47 of 78
(2674 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
How can you take that article seriously when its second sentence contradicts its first: In reply to: Clean climbing is a style of rock climbing that avoids damage to the rock by eschewing the drilling of bolts and the hammering of pitons. The style became practical with the invention of clean protection: nuts in the 1930s and spring loaded camming devices in the 1970s
Nuts and cams obviate the need for most pitons, but clearly do not obviate the need for bolts. Clean climbing simply refers to the use of clean crack protection over destructive crack protection (ie, pitons) whenever possible.
Consider:
1. Bolt ladders are given C-ratings.
2. This article about clean-climbing pioneer Doug Robinson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Robinson
wikipedia wrote: Doug Robinson is a guide and instructor in the Sierra Mountains. He is the author of A Night on the Ground - A Day in the Open and the much translated article "The Climber as Visionary". He also created of one of the first videos on rock climbing, Moving Over Stone. One of his first ascents in the Sierras included the central Lee Vining Icefall in 1970 with Yvon Chouinard. Along with Chouinard, he was a pioneer of "clean climbing," which foresake the use of rock-destructive pitons for climbing chocks.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Jul 24, 2007, 4:09 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
scotchie
Jul 24, 2007, 8:00 AM
Post #48 of 78
(2668 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 31, 2004
Posts: 261
|
Sport climbing didn't exist in the 1970's, so it wasn't as much of an issue as it is today.
The question is one of enviornmentalism vs safety. The extreme side of an environmental ethic would be no bolts at all. It asks the question, are you prepared to forgo a climb (or risk injury) to protect the rock?
I'm thinking of areas like Paradise Forks, where there are simply no bolts whatsoever. If you place a bolt, someone will chop it.
I'm not saying I agree with that ethic all the time. It's great in areas where climbs can be developed completely clean. But in the Supes, the AZ climbing community has had clean climbing forced upon us by the forest service, and there has been almost no route development since.
|
|
|
|
|
Depr
Jul 24, 2007, 10:02 PM
Post #49 of 78
(2588 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2007
Posts: 29
|
i like how this post is trying to incorporate sport climbing as a ground-up affair. I would agree with this notion only if the route was bolted on lead.
Once a person trusts their gear, I think trad climbing is more about fighting inner doubts and overcoming personal anxieties while on the rock.
I can understand why people might feel trad climbing is initially about gear because that is the 'big unknown factor' at the beginning (i.e. will it hold me and will i not get seriously hurt).
Climbing near your limit on gear is about putting good gear in and pushing onward to the next positive hold/ gear placement/ stance. If you pause/ take because you are afraid, then this is clearly not real trad climbing in my opinion and you might as well be a sport climber.
Trad climbing= confidence in your abilities and fluidity of movement.
-Depr
|
|
|
|
|
skinner
Jul 25, 2007, 2:11 AM
Post #50 of 78
(2557 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 1, 2004
Posts: 1747
|
dingus wrote: The essence of trad is 'ground up.' On sight free solo is the ultimate trad expression, so no.... trad is not really *just* about the gear. You start at the bottom and climb to the top, THAT'S trad. DMT
Bottom-to-Top, I agree, and Traditionally.. the "top" actually meant the TOP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
