|
camhead
Apr 11, 2008, 4:49 PM
Post #26 of 132
(5098 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
karlbaba wrote: Actually Paul, there's been no mention of it at all on Rockclimbing.com. I'm curious what different perspectives different crowds have. Whether it's peaceful or not depends on the players. It's an important discussion to have and nobody's worse for the wear so far. Peace Karl
similar to how there has been no mention on this site about Honnold's recent solo of Moonlight Buttress.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Apr 11, 2008, 4:57 PM
Post #27 of 132
(5095 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
I've read every post on the thread. Fascinating stuff, with plenty of good arguments and concepts on all sides of the discussion.
No question at all in my mind: Bad style.
Not only that, but I think it matters a lot more than some believe. I expect that it *will* get a lot of ascents. At least relative to the length of the approach. And people (and as we know, climbers are a lot like people) learn experientially. What I mean by that, is that people learn about climbing by climbing. Someone said on ST that people will learn more from Growing Up than they will from one of the ground-up routes on SFHD. And what they learn will become part of who they are, how they envision climbing and what it means, what the definition of a "great" route is, and what tactics are required to achieve a great route.
In short, I think that every area has an ethic - a feel. What Dingusian might call a tribal sensibility. A culture (with a lower case "c").
I think that Growing Up shifts the culture of Yosemite.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Apr 11, 2008, 5:00 PM
Post #28 of 132
(5091 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
One other thought:
There's no way to know what could be done up there with day-after-tomorrow Gecko-Shoes(TM). The idea that Yosemite "needs" to embrace a more "modern" style to avoid being left behind in a morass of death routes, is, I think, terribly short-sighted. It's perfectly plausible that in 30 years, drilling from a stance on that stretch of rock might be no big deal. But the ethic of doing so may or may not still be around, if the lead climbers of today decide that the slab routes are "all climbed out" by that old fashioned method of ground up.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
altelis
Apr 11, 2008, 5:21 PM
Post #29 of 132
(5070 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168
|
Here's my take. People claim that the Valley has X style, and/or that that style has been challenged so many times because of some route or another.
However the R&I article does a great job of outlining the history of the South Face of Half Dome. That history is of a BOLD ground up ethic. Plain and simple. That is undeniably the ethic of the face and this was the first route to "violate" that ethic.
The FA, by naming the route "Growing Pains", acknowledges this shift in ethic, and the inevitable drama inherent in the shift in style. Pain within the FA party and the rest of the community.
I would argue, however, that due to the myriad places to climb in this world, each with its unique ethic and style, one should comport accordingly. If the FA really wanted to push a line to the top--- even if it meant rap bolting (including all the "pain" associated with that decision) he should've climbed elsewhere. Not necessarily get out of the Valley, just find a different face.
The South Face of Half Dome has a bold history. If the FA couldn't climb within the bounds of that history (not that I blame him, I wouldn't stand a chance at holding up the ethic of that wall!) then he should've look elsewhere.
The SF dictates adventure. There are other places to put up more "assured" safe lines. Some may argue its a tragedy that only the boldest can climb the SF face. So be it. We must live up to the dictum of the face. If I started whining that it was a "tragedy" I can't climb Cobra crack, so I'll rap in and bolt on some holds to make it climbable, the climbing community, rightly, would be outraged. Why is this different?
There are plenty of places where rap-bolting is the accepted style. Thats great. There are other places where that is distinctly NOT the style, and we must preserve these places.
In my mind this is analogous to wilderness areas. There are places where it is fine to off-road, to bike, to use power tools to make trail work easier, where we can put in a road to make access easier. However, we, as a community, have decided that there ought to be a place where these activities ought to be prohibited. Where we ought to preserve both a certain "state" of things and a certain ethic; a place where we live up to the standards of the area and not bring the area "down" for our convenience. These areas, as being antithetical to the nature of a "majority" (that is only a minority are able to access them), require our conscious protection. I love wilderness areas, I also love being able to drive up to a trail head and mountain bike. I REALLY love being able to choose the place according to the experience I want to have. I want crowds I go into Little Cottonwood Canyon or American Fork. I want solitude I drive down to Kolob area of Zion, or out the the Swell, or into the Wind Rivers. I have that choice and I value being able to make it.
This is no different than the climbing style of a "crag" or area. We must consciously protect certain areas as having only the strictest of ethics. It is too easy to be lazy and soon there will no longer be faces with the aura the SF has. We must protect these minority areas from the wishes of the majority of climbers---who are moving more to easy access/good protection. Fine, so be it. Things change. But we must also protect these areas from ourselves.
It is not the ethic itself of this FA that is so hard for me to grasp but rather the face upon which it was put up. There are other faces that much better accommodate this style. The SF of Half Dome is NOT one such face.
|
|
|
|
|
wanderlustmd
Apr 11, 2008, 5:24 PM
Post #30 of 132
(5066 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2006
Posts: 8150
|
I'm still weighing opinions on this and have yet to really establish my own, since it is a complex issue.
I have nothing against rap bolting. If that's how you want to approach a route, fine. I don't exactly advocate it, and I think ground up is indeed better style, but I'm not going to call down a hellfire if that's what you choose to do. However, I think it was Healyje who mostly brought up what I think is a good point of rap bolting something like Half Dome in terms of setting a precedent, as well as the idea of doing a "community service" by making a route "safe." Push come to shove, you can't really claim that rap bolting a 50 foot cliff isn't as bad as and rap bolting Half Dome, since they are one and the same style-wise, but I think this is an important devleopment; look at the speed at which rap bolting smaller cliffs caught on with in the 80s. Who's to say it won't happen again on the walls?
Part of me thinks that it's no big deal; Southern Belle was climbed in a certain style, Growing Up was climbed in a different style. The rules we have are self-imposed to protect the environment, and bolts in stone aren't hurting anything per se. I mean, you avoid them when you can, but it's not like mother earth is screaming in pain when you drill! I personally like how some purists claim that "climbing is about personnal expression...as long as you do it in compliance with my ethics."
Sean seems like a good dude who isn't trying to hurt anyone. He's just doing it his way. It's his route. Fine.
However, the other side of the argument is equally compelling. The long term connotations of this in regard to a precedent is the only reason I'm still thinking about this. Like I said, the idea of establishing routes that are "safe for the community" cracks open a potentially huge can of worms. I think that there is something big to be said for backing down and coming back when you have the ability as the ground up style promotes. This has always made the most sense to me. When you start climbing, you work your way up in stages. Why should FAs be different? Not to say that Sean didn't have the ability; quite certain he did, but chose to it differently. And, by finding the line beforehand, you can definately argue that he minimized bolting versus drilling a huge ladder. Sure, he rap bolted and sacrificed the ground up ethic ... to minimize impact and establishing a non-X rated route in the process, just like he wanted. Can't really argue with the process he used to achieve his goal, if you look at it like that.
Could he have established the same bolt count ground up from stances? A second ascent might tell us. But nothing said he would have "had" to in the first place; it's his route.
Interesting stuff. We'll see if it gets chopped...
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Apr 11, 2008, 5:25 PM
Post #31 of 132
(5064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
GO
In 30 years the idea of drilling anything from a stance will be ludicrous. In 10 it will be so seldom done that it's a novelty. I can't stop the tide.
As far as this route specifically. From what I understand, it was designed as a free route from it's inception. That is why they went ahead and rap bolted it.
It goes againt my style. I would have either drilled from hooks, ran it out, created a bolt ladder, or bailed.
What has happened on many routes before though is that the bolt ladder is not the climbable path. So to rap in and find the climbable path then bolt it does avoid one line of bolts. That has to be worth something. At least this way the only bolts go up the free climbing, there is no "free variation".
So I'm not upset by the route, though if it were mine, it wouldn't have been done this way (it may very well be a worse route had I done it though).
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Apr 11, 2008, 5:44 PM
Post #32 of 132
(5041 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
The core of the issue to locals is that of respect (or a lack thereof).
Plain and simple. The FA party did not adhere to existing style and folks either view that as disrespect or they don't.
These things always seem to come full circle however. One day perhaps Sean will feel dissed by the tactics employed on a route neighboring his, quien sabe?
The entire face is so far beyond capabilities, ever, that I can't summon a personal opinion on it.
Doug wrote a helluva article though.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
gobias
Apr 11, 2008, 5:55 PM
Post #34 of 132
(5030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2007
Posts: 35
|
Curt,
From the bowling analogy, you say if you change the game it's no longer climbing. But it's like religion, there are so many branches, how can you call that style real climbing? Wouldn't the real form of adventure be climbing ground up without a rope?
That was just for argument's sake. I was really just wondering what you think ethics should be. Should there even be bolts?
-Dick
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Apr 11, 2008, 5:55 PM
Post #35 of 132
(5028 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
angry wrote: GO In 30 years the idea of drilling anything from a stance will be ludicrous. In 10 it will be so seldom done that it's a novelty. I can't stop the tide.
I think you may be right, but in a place like Yosemite, that seems to me like a very very big loss.
In reply to: As far as this route specifically. From what I understand, it was designed as a free route from it's inception. That is why they went ahead and rap bolted it.
I think you hit on an absolutely key point. I just don't think it's realistically possible to climb some slabs free, bolting on the lead, while free-climbing, and wind up with runouts that are still in the realm of "safe". So I think they set themselves up for an impossible task (to do a GU free ascent with reasonable runouts), and when confronted with the reality of the situation, they had to make a compromise (or go home without a route that topped out). Whether one can say that they should have known that they couldn't do the route they thought they could is another question.
In reply to: It goes againt my style. I would have either drilled from hooks, ran it out, created a bolt ladder, or bailed.
Kudos to you.
In reply to: What has happened on many routes before though is that the bolt ladder is not the climbable path. So to rap in and find the climbable path then bolt it does avoid one line of bolts. That has to be worth something. At least this way the only bolts go up the free climbing, there is no "free variation". So I'm not upset by the route, though if it were mine, it wouldn't have been done this way (it may very well be a worse route had I done it though).
Absolutely. I think the way Karl phrases the question "fine route or ethics violation" is a false dilemma. (And probably shows his bias). I suspect the route is *both*. The fact that it's probably an excellent route is a very strong and redeeming characteristic about it - and I suspect is part of the reason why it has so many defenders.
But the route being (likely) so excellent is also a bigger nail in the coffin of the ground up ethic.
By the way - anyone else struck by the irony of the climb's name being GU for short?
GO
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Apr 11, 2008, 6:02 PM
Post #36 of 132
(5024 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
dingus wrote: The core of the issue to locals is that of respect (or a lack thereof).
I agree, but Dingus, don't you think there's more to it than that? I mean - in any field, great actions do more than shuffle the egos around in the field - they actually help mold the direction that comes.
In reply to: Doug wrote a helluva article though. DMT
Agreed 100%!
GO
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Apr 11, 2008, 6:06 PM
Post #37 of 132
(5020 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
gobias wrote: Curt, From the bowling analogy, you say if you change the game it's no longer climbing. But it's like religion, there are so many branches, how can you call that style real climbing? Wouldn't the real form of adventure be climbing ground up without a rope?
No. Traditional Climbing in a place like Yosemite *does* have a set of pretty clear concepts. Sure, there are gray areas, like whether drilling from hooks or not is kosher, but Ground Up is absolutely central.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
Apr 11, 2008, 6:14 PM
Post #38 of 132
(5012 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
From what DR has said on that behemoth taco-thread, it sounds like the line they bolted was down the list of directions they would have gone had they done the slab on lead. Does that leave the possibility of some brave soul going up there and doing one of the other lines of weakness on lead?
Which is better, freeing a bolt ladder or rap bolting a slab?
The only pure style is ground up, onsight, free solo, with no chalk or shoes such that nobody knows that someone climbed it before them. The rest is drawing lines in the sand. The moment there are bolts involved there will be an argument.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Apr 11, 2008, 6:36 PM
Post #39 of 132
(4991 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
cracklover wrote: dingus wrote: The core of the issue to locals is that of respect (or a lack thereof). I agree, but Dingus, don't you think there's more to it than that? I mean - in any field, great actions do more than shuffle the egos around in the field - they actually help mold the direction that comes.
There's layer upon layer I reckon, but I still think it comes down to a perception of respect. Now I don't know a lot of the players in that discussion personally, but I do know some of them. And I've been around climbing more than 30 years. Those guys have invested their lives into the sport. Their thinking and methods become hardwired too, I suspect. In some minds its: I would NEVER disrespect my peers by doing x., whatever x might be. So when someone else does x its like a slap in the face to their hardwired circuits.
I get that.
I give the most credence in those discussion to the folks who've actually climbed the wall: chickenskinner, klaus, coz, Sean. But too guys like Ksolem who've lived and climbed by that ground up for 30 years as well, doing 5.12s on lead in wild assed remote areas - I just don't think its reasonable to expect them to just turn of the very essence of how they view the sport.
They come across as talibanish, frankly, yet I inherently understand their fundamentalism.
Most of the spraying in that thread was from those of us who can't and never will climb any of those routes of course. Russ nailed it. Pretty funny, did you see the R&I news blurb about the Taco thread?
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Apr 11, 2008, 7:31 PM
Post #40 of 132
(4965 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
dingus wrote: Most of the spraying in that thread was from those of us who can't and never will climb any of those routes of course. Russ nailed it. Pretty funny, did you see the R&I news blurb about the Taco thread? DMT
Yep, Russ nailed it alright. And despite my obviously strong opinions on the subject I kept my trap very firmly shut because of the point in your post I bolded. I don't hold a candle to those guys like DR and Coz and Sean. Hell, not only am I not that talented, but I'm also not a left coaster, and I'm a relative noobie-dooby
But Karl directly asked what the Peons over here thought. And I *do* think (and care). So I figured I'd spill it.
Cheers,
GO
|
|
|
|
|
CaptainPolution
Apr 11, 2008, 8:13 PM
Post #41 of 132
(4944 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2007
Posts: 330
|
should have left this on super topo. nobody here knows about ethics
|
|
|
|
|
unbreakablesoul
Apr 11, 2008, 9:09 PM
Post #42 of 132
(4916 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2007
Posts: 47
|
In my opinion it's only an ethical dilema for him if he is against rap bolting in the first place. If other people have a different ethic then that's their thing. I think this route has a lot of ego's bumping around on it since it is a big name location and got a ton of publicity.
For me I prefer to go ground up. That's simply the adventure for me. Sometimes I will rap a route to clean it first and end up with all the beta before I even get to climb it. Fortunately in some instances it keeps a route as traditional since noone could bolt it first.
I definitely value other peoples ground up ethic as well. I also however recognize the value of rap bolting stuff.
If noone ever rap bolted things would be a lot different. Either climbing wouldn't be as popular as it is, and you wouldn't be climbing, or it would be crowded as hell at the crag. Bolting on lead doesn't always make the kind of routes that the average climber wants to get on. If we didn't have the crags with gridbolting and all that crap there wouldn't be as many routes and there wouldn't be tons of new climbers throwing their money into the industry which provides us with new great gear.
As far as stressing out about other peoples ethics next time your on the rock leave all your advanced gadgets at home, climb on hexes instead of cams, skip tons of bolts and run it out taking huge falls on old heavy gear. Get rid of all your color coded crap that makes everything easy. At least you will feel like you did the ethically right thing out there.
Or, just go climbing and stop worrying about all this junk. That's definitely my preference.
|
|
|
|
|
socalbolter
Apr 11, 2008, 10:22 PM
Post #43 of 132
(4880 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 27, 2002
Posts: 796
|
From all accounts (so far) it doesn't seem as though the upper faces (rap bolted section of the route) are terribly over-bolted and the climbing there would still be considered runout by most climbers.
I would probably be a bit more upset if the whole upper part sported body-length bolt spacing, but as it is I can't bring myself to be too shook up by it.
I'm far more concerned with the quality and correct positioning of the bolts in relation to the climbing they protect than I am with how they got there.
Can totally see how the manner in which this route was established differs from many other Valley FA's, but it's far from the first time bolts have been placed on rappel (even on the big stones) in the Valley.
Climbing (even more so on the upper end of the scale) is a community full of egos and differing ethical stances. In my opinion, it's far richer due to the passion that brings to the game and its players. Squabbles like this are the unfortunate byproduct of that environment.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Apr 11, 2008, 10:27 PM
Post #44 of 132
(4874 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Hardly even seems a squabble to me, even at the taco. Just an airing of opinions and ideas; with most folk rigidly digging in their heels to stick to their own ground.
I doubt a single punch will be thrown, nor a single bolt chopped.
Life goes on.
Cheers
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
socalbolter
Apr 11, 2008, 10:33 PM
Post #45 of 132
(4867 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 27, 2002
Posts: 796
|
I couldn't agree more Dingus.
Looks like a great line though, doesn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Apr 12, 2008, 2:23 AM
Post #47 of 132
(4814 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
gobias wrote: Curt, From the bowling analogy, you say if you change the game it's no longer climbing. But it's like religion, there are so many branches, how can you call that style real climbing? Wouldn't the real form of adventure be climbing ground up without a rope? That was just for argument's sake. I was really just wondering what you think ethics should be. Should there even be bolts? -Dick
"Ground up without a rope" is no more the standard ethic in Yosemite than rap bolting is. Basically, I agree with Dingus that the prevailing ethics of the area should have been respected--nothing less, nothing more.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Apr 12, 2008, 2:25 AM
Post #48 of 132
(4810 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
CaptainPolution wrote: should have left this on super topo. nobody here knows about ethics
We were all waiting for you to educate us.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Apr 12, 2008, 4:27 AM
Post #49 of 132
(4788 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
Assuming the FA party was experienced enough to make the statement "lead bolting would be impossible" on the given route (and I don't know the folks involved, so I will not judge,) then I've no issue with rap bolting.
I have seen, and experienced, both aspects of bolting: On Lead and On Rap. They both have value and downsides.
|
|
|
|
|
edl
Apr 12, 2008, 7:28 AM
Post #50 of 132
(4765 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2004
Posts: 134
|
I havent read the whole thread on supertopo, so I don't know if anything like this was discussed. If the face truly shuts completely off, it seems to me that establishing a route would require the use of one of the following tactics: a bolt ladder, numerous dead end lines with one final success, or preinspection to determine a climbable line. Given these options, what would anyone think would be the most true to the ethic there? What if they just eyed the line on rappel and then led it ground up?
edited for clarity
(This post was edited by edl on Apr 12, 2008, 7:28 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
