|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Apr 23, 2008, 7:26 PM
Post #51 of 160
(3277 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
cracklover wrote: Gmburns, I agree completely, but there's one additional factor: The 5.12 climber may not get to warm up on their favorite 5.10, but there will be dozens of others to choose from. The group-leader and the new climbers have fewer choices, though. That's why, personally, I don't think I'd like to lead a group to Rumney. And if I did, I'd pore over the guidebook to try to find the most out-of-the-way crag that still met my needs. GO
Yeah, I was kind of saying that at the end, but in a different way. It sounds like the OP didn't realize what a nest Rumney is. Group leaders could make it easier on themselves to find more obsure places to go.
Still, I don't think crags should be exclusive to partners as opposed to groups. I admit, I get annoyed when a place is crowded, but I never assume that groups don't have a right to be there, too (unless explicitly noted in the crags rules / regulations). Just because someone is a newbie or in a group, that doesn't mean they have to be relegated crappy routes (assuming that obscure routes tend to be obscure for a reason). And, let's face it, we're all newbies to the next grade above us.
I don't, however, dismiss the point that stronger climbers have greater access to routes in general, and are, thus, less inconvenienced by newbie groups. This is absolutely accurate and on-point. I do dismiss, however, that that point should play a part in access for weaker climbers or groups. We all deserve some sort access, and, like I said, I've seen plenty of harder climbers hogging harder routes while they work the moves. Granted, fewer people are going to want that route, but hogging is hogging regardless. I think that understanding that 10 people climbing the same grade is 10 people regardless of how they are formed is key, because that's still 10 people looking at the same route. And let's face it, GO, have you ever had a girlfriend whom you introduced to climbing who hung on a easy route forever? How willing were you to tell her to hurry up so others could climb? I think we're on the same page there - we're sitting until she decides she's done.
PS - nice use of the hyphen. It is a waning art.
|
|
|
|
|
tomcat
Apr 23, 2008, 7:42 PM
Post #52 of 160
(3258 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2006
Posts: 325
|
Corson...way to brag about Urban whatever.This has been a timely reminder why never to visit the hell that is Rumney.
|
|
|
|
|
throb
Apr 23, 2008, 8:06 PM
Post #53 of 160
(3221 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2005
Posts: 63
|
socalclimber wrote: First off, I don't know anything about Rumney, so take this with a grain of salt if you like. Here in Josh, the guide school owners and guides are very aware of the high traffic areas and avoid them like the plague. They pick areas which are appropriate for the group their guiding. The only exception to this is when there are large groups camping in Indian Cove. Then all bets are off. I'd really try to pick more obscure areas for groups, this way you can avoid the hassle. I've guided small groups and had people come up and ask to hop on a route or use my setup, I've always said yes. Just my .02 worth.
Maybe some of your J Tree guides could talk to North Carolina guides (especially Fox Mountain) about how they should find obscure areas to take there clients to. They will not know the difference. The extremely popular routes on Looking Glass frequently have their first pitches clogged with clients from guiding services as well as summer camps.
|
|
|
|
|
deschamps1000
Apr 23, 2008, 8:11 PM
Post #54 of 160
(3213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 29, 2004
Posts: 343
|
corson wrote: As far as banging my MOM, I saw you guys climbing and all I can say is , My MOM would be banging you.
Oh my god. That's one of the funniest things I've ever read online.
|
|
|
|
|
nika
Apr 23, 2008, 8:15 PM
Post #56 of 160
(3206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2003
Posts: 71
|
Two random points:
1. I definitely see just as much siege-style climbing going on at Waimea as I do at, say, the parking lot wall. The mechanics are different, but it's not like good climbers are immune from flailing all over the place.
2. There is a difference between a 10-person group and 5 2-person pairs. Let's do this like a math problem. Say you've got 5 routes and 5 2-person pairs who have no affiliation with each other. Each pair is on a route. You get to the crag and want to do one of these 5 routes. You get in line behind the pair on the climb and you're up next. Now, say you've got a 10-person group. You want to climb on route A, but you get in line only to find out that the climbers on route A are switching with the climbers on route B. If they're on the first of 5 rotations, you have to wait for all 10 people, rather than just the one pair in the first example, before you get to get on ANY of the 5 routes.
This is a real difference in practice, not just in theory, which is where all the group-hatred comes from.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Apr 23, 2008, 8:32 PM
Post #57 of 160
(3188 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
nika wrote: 2. There is a difference between a 10-person group and 5 2-person pairs. Let's do this like a math problem. Say you've got 5 routes and 5 2-person pairs who have no affiliation with each other. Each pair is on a route. You get to the crag and want to do one of these 5 routes. You get in line behind the pair on the climb and you're up next. Now, say you've got a 10-person group. You want to climb on route A, but you get in line only to find out that the climbers on route A are switching with the climbers on route B. If they're on the first of 5 rotations, you have to wait for all 10 people, rather than just the one pair in the first example, before you get to get on ANY of the 5 routes. This is a real difference in practice, not just in theory, which is where all the group-hatred comes from.
You make a good point, as it is easier for 5 2-person teams to dissipate than it is for a group, which is normally on a single route(s). But having said that, you still have to wait for one of the routes in the 5-pair example (and may still have to wait for all five pairs if your timing is off). In the group example, four routes are completely open while one route is hogged. Of course, now were talking about specificity if that one hogged route is the classic and the other four are choss.
Sorry, I don't mean to drag this on, but I get annoyed when people spout about others hogging routes. I also think it is annoying, but only because I want to climb the route. If I didn't want to climb the route, then I wouldn't care. So the whole group-complaint thing comes down how it inconveniences the complainer, which, not so oddly, is just as selfish as the route-hogging group.
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Apr 23, 2008, 8:45 PM
Post #58 of 160
(3168 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
socalclimber wrote: First off, I don't know anything about Rumney, so take this with a grain of salt if you like. Here in Josh, the guide school owners and guides are very aware of the high traffic areas and avoid them like the plague. They pick areas which are appropriate for the group their guiding.
You know, I noticed this at jtree. There were multiple clinics this past weekend, but the guides took pains to spread things out and go to different areas. I was in a group that Kate Robertson was teaching at Jtree. Small group-- 5 people. She had two topropes and a fixed line set up, but we were spending a lot of time on the ground learning about gear placement and such..
Anyway, she was very pro-active about it -- as soon as there was anyone coming to the wall, she would go up to them and tell them that it was O.K. to climb the cracks where the ropes were set up, that people were welcome to toprope on those ropes, etc.
She did that even BEFORE anyone had a chance to ask if it was O.K. to jump on the routes... She just told people what the time-line was, and that she would give them a 15-min warning before her group needed to use the ropes. I think people really appreciated this, somehow everything fitted in very well, time-wise, and there was no ill will whatsoever.
I think if every group leader was as aware of other people and as considerate as she was, there wouldn't be all this group-hate being spread around.
|
|
|
|
|
nika
Apr 23, 2008, 8:53 PM
Post #59 of 160
(3155 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2003
Posts: 71
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: nika wrote: 2. There is a difference between a 10-person group and 5 2-person pairs. Let's do this like a math problem. Say you've got 5 routes and 5 2-person pairs who have no affiliation with each other. Each pair is on a route. You get to the crag and want to do one of these 5 routes. You get in line behind the pair on the climb and you're up next. Now, say you've got a 10-person group. You want to climb on route A, but you get in line only to find out that the climbers on route A are switching with the climbers on route B. If they're on the first of 5 rotations, you have to wait for all 10 people, rather than just the one pair in the first example, before you get to get on ANY of the 5 routes. This is a real difference in practice, not just in theory, which is where all the group-hatred comes from. You make a good point, as it is easier for 5 2-person teams to dissipate than it is for a group, which is normally on a single route(s). But having said that, you still have to wait for one of the routes in the 5-pair example (and may still have to wait for all five pairs if your timing is off). In the group example, four routes are completely open while one route is hogged. Of course, now were talking about specificity if that one hogged route is the classic and the other four are choss. Sorry, I don't mean to drag this on, but I get annoyed when people spout about others hogging routes. I also think it is annoying, but only because I want to climb the route. If I didn't want to climb the route, then I wouldn't care. So the whole group-complaint thing comes down how it inconveniences the complainer, which, not so oddly, is just as selfish as the route-hogging group.
But that's the thing though -- even in the group example, there is definitely more than one rope up in real life. There's at least 3 or 4. You have to wait for all 10 people to do all 3 or 4 of those climbs before you get a turn on any one of them.
|
|
|
|
|
photoguy190
Apr 23, 2008, 9:16 PM
Post #60 of 160
(3133 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 30, 2006
Posts: 191
|
nika wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: nika wrote: 2. There is a difference between a 10-person group and 5 2-person pairs. Let's do this like a math problem. Say you've got 5 routes and 5 2-person pairs who have no affiliation with each other. Each pair is on a route. You get to the crag and want to do one of these 5 routes. You get in line behind the pair on the climb and you're up next. Now, say you've got a 10-person group. You want to climb on route A, but you get in line only to find out that the climbers on route A are switching with the climbers on route B. If they're on the first of 5 rotations, you have to wait for all 10 people, rather than just the one pair in the first example, before you get to get on ANY of the 5 routes. This is a real difference in practice, not just in theory, which is where all the group-hatred comes from. You make a good point, as it is easier for 5 2-person teams to dissipate than it is for a group, which is normally on a single route(s). But having said that, you still have to wait for one of the routes in the 5-pair example (and may still have to wait for all five pairs if your timing is off). In the group example, four routes are completely open while one route is hogged. Of course, now were talking about specificity if that one hogged route is the classic and the other four are choss. Sorry, I don't mean to drag this on, but I get annoyed when people spout about others hogging routes. I also think it is annoying, but only because I want to climb the route. If I didn't want to climb the route, then I wouldn't care. So the whole group-complaint thing comes down how it inconveniences the complainer, which, not so oddly, is just as selfish as the route-hogging group. But that's the thing though -- even in the group example, there is definitely more than one rope up in real life. There's at least 3 or 4. You have to wait for all 10 people to do all 3 or 4 of those climbs before you get a turn on any one of them.
At least then they will most likely be on those 3 or 4 routes all day long. It would be annoying for me to see a group with two lines up, move on. In an hour the set up next to me, I move to were they were and its full now. Groups just need to be thoughtful when they set up. Lets say a you go to a popular wall with 5 climbs and find a group of 40 with the whole wall used up, thats a little much. But say you go to another wall that has 20 5.8 and many other routes and a group of 15 has three ropes up that they are using, that seems more reasonable. No one should hog a wall. However we need to think is it really fair, or maybe even safe to ask a group to always be on the choss. Its easy to think oh they could be do that over there and then I could climb. Well just think you could climb over there too...
|
|
|
|
|
edge
Apr 23, 2008, 9:33 PM
Post #61 of 160
(3135 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120
|
I admit, I spent last school year teaching outdoor education to students whose school districts didn't want them, so they are bussed on those short little yellow transports to my school. Basically, for most of these kids, if they fail here then their next stop is YDC (Youth Detention Center). For the sake of adding background info, I would guess that half of the students we receive have some sort of learning disability, and the other half are severe behavioral problems. The final 50% can't do the math, so I will leave them out of this equation.
Anyway, as a climber, I realize the amazing benefits of introducing these kids to rock. You can basically take your meanest son of a brisket and knock him back to a humble level in front of his peers. Routinely, the ADHD kid who is binging off walls finally realizes the advantage of total focus when he is roped up and vertical. Weak looking semi-nerds often kick ass. Anyway you look at it, the trials and tribulations involved in rock climbing are an amazingly potent tool to have in our repertoire.
Having said that, I only took my guys to Rumney on weekdays. I have been climbing there off and on for 30 years, and know enough now to just plain avoid it like the plague on weekends. This is a sad truth, but not terribly sad. Sport is not my preferred climbing practice.
On the weekdays that we were there, I was approached twice by teams of two wishing to warm up on the very route that I had established a top rope on. Both times I pulled our line immediately and used the opportunity to rally my troops, discuss proper climbing etiquette, feed them some granola bars, and teach technique by having them observe the intruding climbers. It is amazing how efficient a team becomes when a grey haired old fool in a Grateful Dead t-shirt is critiquing each individual move in front of his students.
Even though we were there first, I cannot in good conscience hold a route hostage. I always offer alternative suggestions, pleasant conversation, and an aura of cooperation to anyone who approaches us. This is not only good for relations with fellow climbers, but sets a great example for my kids. Some of my students cannot understand my acquiescence, but in all of last year I was able to talk them out of shanking anyone.
On a side note, I think that the current slate of warm ups at Rumney is lacking; everyone and their frere heads to the same handful of routes. I think there is alot of opportunity to provide routes of a stature appropriate for beginners and warming up, but what qualified climber wants to limit them self to that endeavor? Team Tough has done an amazing job, but perhaps some of the organizations wishing to use Rumney for commercial purposes could fund/spearhead that effort.
|
|
|
|
|
stickyfingerz
Apr 23, 2008, 9:51 PM
Post #63 of 160
(3113 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2005
Posts: 110
|
I'm curious as to what the student to instructor ratio was with the group?
Many guide services will cap it at a 3 to 1, client to guide ratio. If there are 4-6 clients they'll split into 2 groups, 7-9 into three groups, etc. The groups go to different climbs/locations and things tend to move more rapidly. Additionally, the students/clients get more individual attention and end up being in a less distracting environment.
I realize that this may be impractical/impossible for some school or camp groups, but it's something to aspire to. I've always felt that in the work that I've done with kids, that there's a tipping point (different for each group) where if that ratio gets too high, you start to lose control.
|
|
|
|
|
happiegrrrl
Apr 23, 2008, 10:09 PM
Post #64 of 160
(3100 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660
|
I'd be interested in that ratio, too. And whether or not CB's outfit is bound by those ratios.
The one I referred to was, I think, 5 students to 1 guide. An AMGA cert. kick-ass, guide no less. This was with the AMC, but I don't know if it was just their decision or by some other guideline.
|
|
|
|
|
jmeizis
Apr 23, 2008, 10:32 PM
Post #65 of 160
(3087 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2006
Posts: 635
|
I think they have just as much moral right as any other group. I think that was my point which might not have been clear. Institutional groups have the same moral and legal rights to access climbs as non-institutional groups. All groups have a ethical responsibility to not crowd classics, adhere to LNT principles, etc. Most institutional groups do so. Some don't. Institutional groups are only as courteous as those in charge of them. Same for non-institutional groups.
Rumney's just kind of a shitty area to guide. Most of the best places to guide at are where all the big groups and newbs hang out anyways, Meadows, Parking Lot Wall, etc. Getting to the more remote crags requires quite a bit of effort as well as some dangerous terrain relative to the skill levels of those travelling it. Rumney's just not a good place to guide. That's just my opinion though, and I've never guided there.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 23, 2008, 10:37 PM
Post #66 of 160
(3082 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
jmeizis wrote: I think they have just as much moral right as any other group. I think that was my point which might not have been clear. Institutional groups have the same moral and legal rights to access climbs as non-institutional groups. All groups have a ethical responsibility to not crowd classics, adhere to LNT principles, etc. Most institutional groups do so. Some don't. Institutional groups are only as courteous as those in charge of them. Same for non-institutional groups. Rumney's just kind of a shitty area to guide. Most of the best places to guide at are where all the big groups and newbs hang out anyways, Meadows, Parking Lot Wall, etc. Getting to the more remote crags requires quite a bit of effort as well as some dangerous terrain relative to the skill levels of those travelling it. Rumney's just not a good place to guide. That's just my opinion though, and I've never guided there.
When did putting up a couple of top ropes for a class of beginners become "guiding"?
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jmeizis
Apr 23, 2008, 11:33 PM
Post #67 of 160
(3049 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2006
Posts: 635
|
When they paid you for it. When you had to get permits and insurance and all kinds of silly certifications. When you alone were responsible for risk management, time management, and equipment management. When the purpose of the trip was to put the people on as many climbs as possible and make sure they have fun as opposed to some sort of educational purpose. Personally, I had to solo five routes today to set up those topropes for those beginners. Nothing hard, but I still guided them to the climbs, guided them up the climbs, and made sure they stayed safe and happy the whole time.
|
|
|
|
|
edge
Apr 23, 2008, 11:58 PM
Post #68 of 160
(3029 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120
|
jmeizis wrote: When they paid you for it. When you had to get permits and insurance and all kinds of silly certifications. When you alone were responsible for risk management, time management, and equipment management. When the purpose of the trip was to put the people on as many climbs as possible and make sure they have fun as opposed to some sort of educational purpose. Personally, I had to solo five routes today to set up those topropes for those beginners. Nothing hard, but I still guided them to the climbs, guided them up the climbs, and made sure they stayed safe and happy the whole time.
Wow, dude, how terribly short sighted of you.
I am not sure who gave you the ultimate authority to guide the routes that you are guiding, but I bet no official entity did. Did any Park Service, Forest Service, Land Owners Association, or anyone else give you the right to use these lands for your own personal gain? (Yes, if you charge people for your services, then it is your personal gain.)
It doesn't matter if you carried the clients there on your back and wiped their a$$es after a crap, you are taking advantage of public lands for your own benefit, and that most definitively does not give you the right to monopolize anything from the parking lot to the finishing chains.
Tons of people get certifications without being really qualified; dispute this all you want but the proof is overwealming. You got insurance for your own self, but was it from the land owner, or even with their knowledge? If by your own admission the certifications were "silly", then why do you do it?
No one gives a rat's hiney if you soloed the Rostrum and made your clients happy setting up a top rope. If you did it at the expense of someone who was counting on a fun day of climbing, then you have robbed a fellow climber of their experience, and that is just not right.
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
Apr 24, 2008, 12:31 AM
Post #69 of 160
(3007 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
so, i will chip in with my few random points: (some of these, 'biner, have no direct bearing on you, some do, i'm sure you'll figure it out.)
1) i cant really conceive of a situation where it would be a appropriate to have a group of more than ten at one wall. split that shit up. generally, i think it should be less than that, but sometimes it isnt practical. when it is more than ten, go to some shitty alcove with three 30 foot routes. i will second whoever said that beginner toprope groups will never know the diff between classics and that bullshit, esp if its the kind where they struggle up 5.8 sport.
2) from the perspective of a private climber encountering groups, i actually prefer it when they get a late start, say 10 or so. that gives all the people who just want to run up it and warm up, who know that shit is gonna be a zoo, to get up early and move on. anyone who gets there later than that can fight it out.
3) i have never once had a problem with simply asking someone if i could climb the route if a rope was hanging. it results in me being able to climb it, or they get their ass in gear and finish using it. i climb on their rope or trail it, whatever they ask.
4) sometimes i leave ropes hanging, cause i might want to go back to that route, or i'm feeling wishy washy, or what have you. i have never had a problem with someone being like, hey can i pull your rope. they pull it, and i sack up and lead it again later, or they pull it, climb on it, and leave it as it was, ect.
note: trail the rope if you're gonna whip all over a route. if you know you're cool, climb on it. thanks.
5) an observation: ppl get less bitchy about sharing, the harder a route is. i have been 7 deep in line for a sport route, and gotten a fabulous crowd rush when its my turn. i understand not everyone gets off on crowd energy like me, but seriously, hanging out in the collesium at the new, or pipe dream cave at maple, ect, i have never had a problem, even when people were stacked waiting for lines. why is it that crowds get easier to manage as the routes get harder? is it just that everyone is milking their rest in between burns? i mean, some 5.8 topropers seem pretty tuckered out, too, in between their burns. just sayin' that congestion doesnt have to result in bad feeling, 'cause i've been in situations where it doesnt.
|
|
|
|
|
socalclimber
Apr 24, 2008, 1:36 AM
Post #70 of 160
(2973 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 2437
|
Yup, Kate's a good egg and a friend of mine. That's exactly how to handle this kind of situation. I have always done that when I guide. I keeps things civil.
Robert
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 24, 2008, 2:21 AM
Post #71 of 160
(2951 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
jmeizis wrote: jt512 wrote: When did putting up a couple of top ropes for a class of beginners become "guiding"? When they paid you for it. When you had to get permits and insurance and all kinds of silly certifications. When you alone were responsible for risk management, time management, and equipment management. When the purpose of the trip was to put the people on as many climbs as possible and make sure they have fun as opposed to some sort of educational purpose. Personally, I had to solo five routes today to set up those topropes for those beginners. Nothing hard, but I still guided them to the climbs, guided them up the climbs, and made sure they stayed safe and happy the whole time.
You are completely full of shit.
In his undoubtedly hopelessly out-of-date profile, jmeizis wrote: I'm trying to get more comfortable leading trad...
Guides can lead climb. If I were a guide, I'd be pretty upset about n00bs like you who have the hubris to call yourself "guides."
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Apr 24, 2008, 2:30 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
nika
Apr 24, 2008, 3:23 AM
Post #72 of 160
(2907 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2003
Posts: 71
|
photoguy190 wrote: nika wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: nika wrote: 2. There is a difference between a 10-person group and 5 2-person pairs. Let's do this like a math problem. Say you've got 5 routes and 5 2-person pairs who have no affiliation with each other. Each pair is on a route. You get to the crag and want to do one of these 5 routes. You get in line behind the pair on the climb and you're up next. Now, say you've got a 10-person group. You want to climb on route A, but you get in line only to find out that the climbers on route A are switching with the climbers on route B. If they're on the first of 5 rotations, you have to wait for all 10 people, rather than just the one pair in the first example, before you get to get on ANY of the 5 routes. This is a real difference in practice, not just in theory, which is where all the group-hatred comes from. You make a good point, as it is easier for 5 2-person teams to dissipate than it is for a group, which is normally on a single route(s). But having said that, you still have to wait for one of the routes in the 5-pair example (and may still have to wait for all five pairs if your timing is off). In the group example, four routes are completely open while one route is hogged. Of course, now were talking about specificity if that one hogged route is the classic and the other four are choss. Sorry, I don't mean to drag this on, but I get annoyed when people spout about others hogging routes. I also think it is annoying, but only because I want to climb the route. If I didn't want to climb the route, then I wouldn't care. So the whole group-complaint thing comes down how it inconveniences the complainer, which, not so oddly, is just as selfish as the route-hogging group. But that's the thing though -- even in the group example, there is definitely more than one rope up in real life. There's at least 3 or 4. You have to wait for all 10 people to do all 3 or 4 of those climbs before you get a turn on any one of them. At least then they will most likely be on those 3 or 4 routes all day long. It would be annoying for me to see a group with two lines up, move on. In an hour the set up next to me, I move to were they were and its full now. Groups just need to be thoughtful when they set up. Lets say a you go to a popular wall with 5 climbs and find a group of 40 with the whole wall used up, thats a little much. But say you go to another wall that has 20 5.8 and many other routes and a group of 15 has three ropes up that they are using, that seems more reasonable. No one should hog a wall. However we need to think is it really fair, or maybe even safe to ask a group to always be on the choss. Its easy to think oh they could be do that over there and then I could climb. Well just think you could climb over there too...
Dude, all I was doing was comparing X-number of people all in one big group to X-number of people divided into X/2 smaller groups. I don't quite get your response.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Apr 24, 2008, 3:25 AM
Post #73 of 160
(2905 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
I recall years ago, when Jay said something to the effect that
"'Guide' used to mean someone who could free solo 5.9 in the rain wearing approach shoes. Now it means anyone who sets up topropes, belays, and yells instructions at the climbers."
|
|
|
|
|
WVUCLMBR
Apr 24, 2008, 12:23 PM
Post #74 of 160
(2760 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 20, 2007
Posts: 668
|
Page 16 of the 2008 edition of Climbing Rules defines "guide" as: A rockclimber who is occasionally paid to do so. Guides are often trained/certified in order to master their craft, sometimes they are not. Extreme caution should be used in selecting a guide. Guides who spend their time helping kids (troubled or not) earn rock respect that usually takes years of leading fat tourons.
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Apr 24, 2008, 1:34 PM
Post #75 of 160
(2718 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
Very well said, Loran. How have you been. Haven't seen you in a while. The kids keeping you too busy?
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
|
