|
jmlangford
Mar 27, 2002, 5:50 PM
Post #26 of 75
(5844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Adam...Good explanation. Josh...Don't talk to me about growing balls. Climbing is the SAFEST part of my day. In my 13 years at my present job, I have had 30 co-workers killed, including 5 that I knew personally. If you think a run-out climb is the ultimate ballsy act...you are sadly mistaken. My claim to climbing 'ballsdom' was a 5.10a free solo 15 years ago. I just don't like taking those kind of risks today with a family to support. My job is dangerous enough but it is what I HAVE to do.
Cheers,
|
|
|
|
|
saltspringer
Mar 27, 2002, 6:17 PM
Post #27 of 75
(5844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 12, 2001
Posts: 274
|
OK, courage, stupidity, ballsy runouts...what's it all lead to? A bunch of posturing BS that is totally ego-based! Why bother placing a bolt at all on a trad climb if it's once every 60 feet? This has nothing whatsoever to do with the technical difficulty of the climb but much more to do with the FA-ist's wish to make some sort of a statement: total BS! If you want to witness courage look at activities where people are risking their necks for other's sakes (firemen, policemen, soldiers, paramedics...HEROES!) and not for their own personal glorification. If you want to prove your prowess as a technically competent. level-headed climber, free-solo, if you climb with a rope then you're admitting fallibility and the fact that you may make a mistake and take the plunge. The question is really a matter of the hypocrisy of the so-called hardmen of the climbing scene: if I can do this then everybody else should HAVE to do it my way. Whatever, everybody has to learn and improve at their own pace and any responsible FA'ist would rather leave behind a route for people to enjoy (not bolted every 4 feet) than a route that could potentially kill you if you screw up at the crux or on a simple move. Let's face it: using a rope & gear=a wish not to die so that widely spaced bolts are a contracdiction in roped climbing!
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Mar 27, 2002, 6:25 PM
Post #28 of 75
(5844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Thank you salt! I couldn't say it better! Condescending egos are a royal pain in the arse!
[ This Message was edited by: jmlangford on 2002-03-27 10:31 ]
|
|
|
|
|
milesdesbrie
Mar 27, 2002, 6:35 PM
Post #29 of 75
(5844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2002
Posts: 130
|
Seems to me that this whole thread comes down to people being upset that they can't climb certain routes and wanting to bring down the committment level of those routes. How about realizing that the number grade of a given route is not the sole indicator of difficulty/committment? For instance I can climb 5.10 on toprope or on a route where the protection is good, but I wouldn't dream of getting on a runout 5.10 on lead because that would be more than my head could handle. And that's okay. There are lots of well-protected 5.10's where I can hone my skills and my lead head so that eventually I *will* be equipped to handle the runouts. Without any changes to the route.
Why this preoccupation with safety? Climbing is dangerous. Isn't that part of its appeal? If one wants "safe" climbing he should stick to the gym or to grid-bolted sport areas or to toproping. Don't kill the challenges for those who appreciate them.
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Mar 27, 2002, 6:38 PM
Post #30 of 75
(5844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
The question was... "Why ground up?"
It seems my answer was taken in the wrong way, so let me try it like this...
Why ground up? Ethics
Why not bolt a Trad Climb? Ethics
Why not retrobolt a Sport Climb? Ethics
Why not bolt a highball boulder problem? Ethics
Why not chip a route? Ethics
Why not leave tick marks all over a route? Ethics
Why "Clean Aid"? Ethics
Who do you think has higher ethical standards, old schoolers or the new generation of climbers ???
Ethics... Some people have them, some don't.
Note - This is not all inclusive... I think a 5.14a Sport climb would be dangerous to do from the ground up. But I also think rap bolting a 5.8 is laziness.
rrrADAM
[ This Message was edited by: rrradam on 2002-03-27 10:45 ]
|
|
|
|
|
radistrad
Mar 27, 2002, 6:42 PM
Post #31 of 75
(5844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 25, 2002
Posts: 800
|
Hey Miles,
Bridwell has some hugh nuts. I've done a bunch of his routes including the Gripper. I could not imagine how he put up these routes with out cams. Balls, all I can say.
As you know, in my book its a-ok to top rope his routes or anyone elses, if I can get up them.
|
|
|
|
|
climbjs
Mar 27, 2002, 8:50 PM
Post #32 of 75
(5844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2002
Posts: 379
|
I appreciate what Matt says. I think the route he mentions is Vertigo? Anyway, one of the bothersome things about climbing in areas such as the BH Needles, is that you must be prepared to get injured. Everyone has their own mentality about how to establish a route. However, everything in life evolves, including establishing routes. I think it is fun to climb an X or R rated route, but it isn't something I want to do all the time. Ground-Up is bold, no doubt about it. I think things have changed a bit, though. People want to climb fun, safer routes. "Respect the past and hold on for the future".
|
|
|
|
|
fishbait
Mar 27, 2002, 9:22 PM
Post #33 of 75
(5844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 19, 2002
Posts: 51
|
TheRRRe's a diffeRRRence between Ethics and Common Sense RRRadam. Not bolting next to a crack falls into the Common Sense category while tick marking falls into the Ethics area. I'm an oldschooler myself. Unfortunately many of my peers are slaves to ethical standards they don't understand. Usually it's something they've picked up from the past and are afraid to let go of. It helps define their accomplishments as climbers. It seems that Ethics are often confused with Egos. If you've done an R/X route with one or two bolts, why is there such an insane demand that everyone else do it the same? Perhaps there's a fear that someone who does the same route with 10 bolts will get the same credit with less risk. We don't want to bruise that ego do we? If you do a trad route with 3 pieces of gear and someone does it with 10 do you care? Does anyone?
Unfortunately, arbitrary ethical standards, R/X routes, and bolt chopping are not a part of climbing's future. Clipping fixed gear is becoming more and more accepted, sport routes are becoming more numerous, and many more people are climbing everyday. Pinkpointing is becoming a much more accepted ascent and is probably pointing us toward the future. Someday, hard Pinkpoint ascents may even be reported in the mags. Opps, I guess they already have… Even the famous routes in Yosemite are becoming "fixed" as more climbers do them. Someday you'll only need a set of draws to do the Nose.
Someone on this site said that there are plenty of 5.10's for them to do while avoiding the R/X ones. This won't be the case next week or next year when that crag of your's is jammed full of gumbies sporting a set of draws. If you want that ground-up ascent to stand the test than it needs to meet tomorrow's requirements, not the egocentric R/X requirements of today. Show a little vision people! Free your mind from the ridiculous ethics that hold you back today. That rack of gear didn't come with a rule book. Climbing is different today that it was in Bridwell's day, it will be different tomorrow.
It doesn't take vision to claw your way up a piece of rock, even a trad route. It takes vision to see how what your doing today will affect tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
|
saltspringer
Mar 27, 2002, 9:26 PM
Post #34 of 75
(5844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 12, 2001
Posts: 274
|
c'mon rrradam, old schoolers are also the mob that laid seige to climbs to get to the top by any means necessary: ground-up ascents WERE necessary in the old days but that doesn't mean that all of the ground-ups were done in good style. look at all of the piton scarring of the rock in older, more established climbing areas. The ground-up approach was the most effective way of getting up a climb in a lot of cases where rapping the route wasn't possible so please don't glorify the old schoolers to an innappropriate degree: they were working with what they had and oftentimes their ethics were quite qustionable (stealing routes, falsifying ascents, aiding sections through bolts...it goes on and on. So, ground-up is perhaps the preferred style of FA but that doesn't mean that it's necessarily the most ethical style of ascent...
|
|
|
|
|
pbjosh
Mar 27, 2002, 10:10 PM
Post #35 of 75
(5844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2002
Posts: 1518
|
I don't think that runout climbing is the ultimate ballsy act. But I think that bitching about not being able to climb something because it's runout is the ultimate ball-less act. Do you whine when other things are too hard for you? Climbing is about seeking challenge and then rising to challenge not bringing the challenge down to you.
I don't climb a lot of runout routes but I don't bitch about them either. At jtree probably 10-20% of the routes are what I would personally consider run-out. I climb some of them when my head is together and I'm very confident I will onsight the route, and I frequently find that they are protected in the correct places and I get a great feeling of satisfaction from leading them. But generally I prefer routes with better protection. There are probably 3500 well protected routes in the park - plenty for me to choose from.
I agree that if a hardman climber developes a new area with the majority of the easy climbs being R/X rated it's pretty stupid. It's happened in San Diego (Descanso) and there is maybe one good hard line that was put up on lead and is somewhat runout. The rest of the routes could be fun but are quite unnecessarily runout despite being easy. They're a bit of a pain to TR as some of the lines are over 100' and some of the top anchor bolts are poorly placed. I personally wish that the FA would better protect these routes. They aren't exactly classic but could be fun. However, some folks came along and retrobolted w/out permission. The FA chopped the bolts and threatened to complain to the USFS and try to get the cliff closed to climbing. Bolt wars blow. So do FA's who only put up unnecessarily runout routes. But I didn't find the cliff and I didn't put the routes up.
In any case, as rrradam and miles and others have said, it's alot about ethics and alot about courage. No s--- it's also about egos and bragging rights. Everyone is egotistical, selfish and self-aggrandizing to some degree. It's BS to say that you aren't. My friends and I are a lot more stoked for ourselves and each other when we lead classic trad routes or famous runout routes or heady testpieces than we are when we push up a letter grade at the sport crag. All my biggest numbered onsights and redpoints have been sport routes. Yeah they're fun. But I don't remember them for shit. What I remember and what I feel have been my hardest routes have been way runout or way spooky or onsights of stuff I didn't think I could do, groundup, placing gear on lead, on classic routes that everyone knows, that you can talk about back at the camp fire, etc etc etc.
|
|
|
|
|
addiroids
Mar 27, 2002, 11:31 PM
Post #36 of 75
(5844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 11, 2001
Posts: 1046
|
Well said pbjosh!!!
It is about committment. Damn people, remember that these widely spaced routes are the exception not the norm. If you have to whine so much about them, just climb the easier stuff until you are ready for the more runout climb!!
Props to jmlangford for thinking about his family, but that's the level of safety you wish to maintain on your leads.
Remember you can always (usually) toprope stuff if you aren't up to lead it yet. If it is a totally awesome route, but you just can't sack up enough to lead it, then just TR it. I sure am not going to give you any grief about it!!
TRADitionally yours,
Cali Dirtbag
[ This Message was edited by: addiroids on 2002-03-27 15:34 ]
|
|
|
|
|
pbjosh
Mar 27, 2002, 11:58 PM
Post #37 of 75
(5844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2002
Posts: 1518
|
I agree with addiroids (sp?)... toproping a route is totally fine and I do it all the time when I lack the cajones (or more realistically, when I've decided it's not something that I want to do and that I'm comfortable with the safety of) to lead a route.
Toproping in some ways is the most pure form of climbing and is a great way to experience a route that's beyond you to lead instead of bringing it down to your standard.
If you bring every route down to your standard, what'll be left to climb when you've improved? This has been a major issue with regard to chipping on high end sport routes.
..josh
|
|
|
|
|
krustyklimber
Mar 28, 2002, 12:26 AM
Post #38 of 75
(5844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 25, 2002
Posts: 1650
|
To answer the orignal question "Why from the ground up/" Someone (I can't remember who right now, because you guy's made my brain hurt) started to explain it but went off on some other tangent.
It is because rock climbing evolved from mountaineering, and the ethics in mountain climbing say to claim a first ascent you must get yourself to the top and back home under your own power. No taking ski lifts, gondolas, or cars.
How great of an accomplishment would Everest have been had Hillary and Norgay just taken a helocopter to the summit, with a big bag of gear, a power drill, 429 bolts and hangers, 16 ropes, a GPS and three aluminum ladders. Then, rapped down placing protection bolting the heck outof anything that would hold one, fixing toprope lines the whole way, rehersed all pithes, then made the successful bid for the summit? Not a very big one in my mind, so THIS is why we do it ground up.
It's real easy to apply todays ethics to climbs we put up today, but it is difficult, and in my opinion unfair to judge routes put up thirty years ago to those same standards.
I know I put up routes twenty years ago with a much different set of rules, and equipment, than I do today. And, Yes, I agree that when setting routes 5.7s should be set for 5.7 climbers, if you set 5.7R/X's at a gym you'd get fired.
But until you've gone through the unbelievable amount of work it takes to put up a route, you shouldn't pass to hard of judgement on us, as most of us really do mean well and are trying to contribute to our climbing communities.
And Matt, if you know the First Ascensionist you should go and ask if he would mind if you brought it up to modern standards, my attitude has changed in the last twenty years maybe his has too but he doesn't feel like updating it himself (I know i've put up some deathmatches I don't want a second shot at)
Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
awsclimber
Apr 28, 2002, 5:18 AM
Post #39 of 75
(5844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2002
Posts: 118
|
Nature makes routesnot people. If somebody places bolts on a route, they inherently change the route....bringing it to their level. It therefore seems unfair of them to hold other people to a higher standard (e.g placeing a bolt which makes the route safer) HOWEVER, if the route was lead the way nature intended, obviously it should stay that way until a climber has the skills to follow the FA
Climb Safe,
Adam
|
|
|
|
|
crux_clipper
Apr 29, 2002, 10:48 AM
Post #40 of 75
(5844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 14, 2001
Posts: 531
|
One word.....because.
Its just the way climbing is. Otherwise, it wouldn't be climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
offwidth
Apr 29, 2002, 5:33 PM
Post #41 of 75
(5844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2002
Posts: 188
|
To put it simply, the ground-up style is what trad climbing is all about. Not all face climbs are sport climbs.
|
|
|
|
|
desertgranite
May 13, 2003, 12:47 AM
Post #42 of 75
(5844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 2, 2003
Posts: 52
|
In reply to: I concur. I was at Mt. Diablo this weekend (in the Bay Area of CA) and there are three overprotected .10 & .11 climbs. I am talking a bolt every 5 feet, if that, on top ropable routes. Basically, this makes this route accessible to ANYONE to lead, because there's little-to-no risk involved, you fall a max of 10 feet. On a route like that, when you have the option of TR, there's NO excuse for placing 10 bolts on a 50 foot route. Bolts DO mar a rock. Not having the judgement or skill to place them well is a major problem. Rapping down to place is just forcing a route and certainly not taking into consideration good bolt placement (before a difficult move or crux, for example, or just in keeping with the math of leader falls). Feh!
Ok, have you ever been to Pine Canyon? Every time I've gone there up untill this past weekend, I have never seen another climber. Yesterday, I went with a friend, and upon arrival, we found that some one was already on the route we had planned to do, The Cave Route. So we went to the base, expecting them to get off of it eventually. A rock fell, bigger rocks started falling, I yelled up "what the hell are you doing up there!?" One of the two said, "climbing", right, they were rap rebolting! I was repulsed. Not only because they were using a power drill, not only because they were hanging from ropes anchored far above, but because they were replacing the ORIGINAL bolts & ORIGINAL homemade hangers, which If you've ever done the route, are spaced very close together, maybe 12 in 100', just because they didn't like the hangers! Sure there funky, and you can't even get your smallest carabiners through some of them, and there's no first asensionist on record, but the original bolts are what gives the climb half of it's thrill and character. Sure the last bolt on the second pitch was fouled so badly by rust it was a joke, but do you have to rebolt every other one down the line just because your bored?
MY POINT:
If these guys had tried to rebolt this 5.8 from the ground up with a hand drill they they would've been more likely to replace only the bolts you could'nt get a carabiner through rather than just arbitrarily choosing "ever other one". I was the first one to lead the route after they left it covered in sand, complete with gaping old bolt holes. Two of the worst hangars are still there!
So please, if your going to rebolt classic lines get a clue, do it like a man from the ground up, leave your power drill in the tool box, use stainless steel bolts (especially in the sandstone of Mt Diablo), fill in the old bolt holes so the rest of us don't have to look at them, and clean up your mess when your done.
|
|
|
|
|
crag
May 13, 2003, 1:14 AM
Post #43 of 75
(5844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 29, 2003
Posts: 623
|
If you could you would too. Why? Because it’s better, in this day and age of instantaneousism I'm glad that there are still bastions of the old style left. However tightly they cling to the routes of their humble but crazed beginnings they never like hearing the rock has been dumbed so that Johnny Spray Lord can scribe another FA
Rap bolting and climbing on pre placed gear are for those who can’t because if they could they would have done it differently; more bold - a better style. Ethics! Yes ethics, without them we would have trampled each other along time ago running to the editors of the rags. Looking to feed the need of our attention crazed egos. Thank the Lords of elbow deep chalk bags for ethics. I humbly look to them for guidance.
|
|
|
|
|
xanx
May 13, 2003, 1:18 AM
Post #44 of 75
(5844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2002
Posts: 1002
|
hmm.. i think this debate is suffering from "mission creep" - it has ventured into the realm of sport climbing a bit. i have a question for you all then, along the same lines: is it sport if is has 1 bolt (and the rest protectable)? how about 2 bolts? what about half bolts, half pro? and all bolted but 1 x-rated section requiring a cam? then what do you call it? how can people support bolting (for any reason) and then quibble about the ethics of "ground up" ascents? it seems hypocritical to me. if you are going to be obnoxious, at least be consistent. if a climb won't take any pro in a really long runnout, then (i would expect the traddies to say) you should wait to climb it until you are sure you won't fall. in fact, a freesolo would really be the epitome of "non-impact" climbing. and why would sport climbers care how the bolts they clip were put in?
This is a bit like Bush and the UN arguing over what color the table cloth should be... it is irrelevent compared to the over-arcing issues/inherent differences in trad and sport.
almost like asking "what is the most ethical way to kill someone?"
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
May 13, 2003, 1:48 AM
Post #45 of 75
(5844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
Desertgranite--
why are you pissed at people who are making a route safe? What ethics are they violating? They were rebolting old dangerous bolts? What does that have to do with ground up?
Sounds like they were doing something positive for the climbing community. I feel terrible for you that they were on the one climb you wanted to do.
Those guys could have spent the day climbing, but spent it replacing dangerous old bolts so you could bitch and moan.
|
|
|
|
|
phitty
May 13, 2003, 1:50 AM
Post #46 of 75
(5844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 16, 2002
Posts: 98
|
My 2 cents.
1. Bolting classic and easily protected trad lines is wrong. BTW I am a sport climber, no trad experience and frankly not alot of interest, and i STILL agree that it is wrong.
2. Over bolting, defined as: bolting so close that a person is never really on "lead" because the bolts are so close you can reach over you head to the next one without passing the previous one, is wrong.
3. Bolting from the ground up is PREFERRED because it makes the route take a more natural path.
4.Bolting from the ground up is PREFERRED because the bolts wil be placed in safe positions / stances.
5. Bolting on rap is NOT preferred because the chances of erroneous, and unnecessary placement is much higher.
So, if you are going to bolt on rap, climb it trad first, mark where they bolts should go and do a good job, dont just rap and every 5 feet drop one in. Be careful and if done properly the route will not be a reflection of how it was bolted.
FINALLY... from WAY back at the start of the thread... If a 5.12 climber is climbing a 5.7 and bolting it like a 5.12 climber would, he/she is just being a shi#thead. If it is a 5.7 climb, bolt it like a 5.7 climb. If you want to run something out run out the 5.12 you are busy protecting so closely. Just because you are climbing WAY WAY below your level and arent going to fall doesnt give you the right to take away a route which you, in all honesty, probably would only climb once a year. The climbs should be protected in a fashion that is reflected by the grade..... for the same reason a 5.5 climber doesnt rap in and bolt the shi!t out of your 5.13 project.
-rapping in to a route allows you to set bolt in in inconvenient and unsafe positions because they are secure at any point on the route while bolting it.
-a 5.12 climber in a 5.7 allows that person to set bolts in incovenient and unsafe positions because they are secure at any point on the route.
|
|
|
|
|
calpolyclimber
May 13, 2003, 2:39 AM
Post #47 of 75
(5844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 360
|
I didn't feel like reading all the other posts, this has probably already been said.
I'm not really into sport climbing, but here is one of the logical reasons, leaving ethics and such aside. When bolts are placed on lead, they are placed by the climber, where the climber sees fit for that specific climb. As the FA-ist climbs UP the route, he/she is able to somewhat predict where the crux is, and is able to tell where a bolt should be to allow the climber to clip it without reaching to far, or without being in a very precarious position. Climbs that are bolted on rappel often have bolts placed in really bad locations. The rap bolter doesn't know exactly where the route is going to go, because it has never been done. They just don't know where the holds are.
|
|
|
|
|
pywiak
May 13, 2003, 3:02 AM
Post #48 of 75
(5844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 5, 2002
Posts: 105
|
I always start my DOWN climbs at the top, not the bottom. Nothing like an on-sight free-solo downclimb of a multi-pitch route to add spice to a TRADITIONAL adventure climb. Of course, some board bozo will say it's cheating because of the gravity assist. I'll still check it off in the guidebook.
Occasionally I'll get my head twisted by the boulders and go SIDEWAYS. Some days it's left to right, some days it's right to left, and if I'm feeling burly I'll go back and forth.
Climbing is about the kinesthetics, not the technology.
|
|
|
|
|
newtocalgary
May 13, 2003, 3:18 AM
Post #49 of 75
(5844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 16, 2002
Posts: 97
|
I have done numerous ground up accents and had people bitch at a couple of times only the key to doing ground up for other people is you bolt where you can rest and not before crux, at crux or sometimes where you want. The rock determines how it is to be climbed not the FAer
I have never placed a bolt near natural protection and have done numerous mixed routes Never done sport cause there was no such thing when I started just started doing sport 3 years ago
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
May 13, 2003, 6:05 AM
Post #50 of 75
(5844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: Let me get this straight...Most climbing areas are public. Hypothetically speaking now-there is a great 5.7 climb at a public area. The FA'er is a 5.12+ climber and climbs the 5.7 route with the bare minimum of bolts-essentially giving it an R/X rating. The 5.7 expert comes along, wanting to enjoy the climb, and he can't because he doesn't want to kill himself? The 5.12 climber essentially making the climb off-limits for those of lesser skill? Doesn't seem fair to me. Why doesn't the 5.12 climber just skip the bolts he doesn't want to use? Just curious?
Topic Drift once again:
Because if someone has the balls to set the route then they should do it in whatever protection level they want. Sure it sucks but if you don't like it set your own bolt ladder on lead (or rappel). There are litterally millions (ok probably hundreds of thousands) of routes in the US alone. Thousands at any particular grade so you should be able to find routes you can climb. If you feel it is unsafe ask the first ascensionist to consider adding a bolt or changing the grade to reflect the protection. Sometimes the FAist will add bolts to a route after it's been set to better protect it if it is deemed to be unsafe at a given grade. I do believe (and this is my personal belief) the route, even if it is on public land, is the property of the FA. Unless he/she is dead or couldn't care less about the route then it is not for you to decide the safety, even then it should be up to the local community as a whole and not a specific climber who is more then likely not up to the level of the route. If you space the bolts close enough I could conceivably climb anything but what fun would that be. Where would the aestetics and adventure be. I think people need to be careful adding bolts to routes. I mean the Mona Lisa is an ugly broad and I could improve her with a can of Benjamin Moore from Home Depot if I was so inclined but it would be frowned upon.
On the topic, I think bolting from lead is more bold and in general the bolts are better spaced allowing you to actually climb and not just clip bolts. Not all bolted routes are single pitch bolt ladders and trad climbing is about ground up routes. It's a purer ethic pure and simple and it allows those who follow to experience the climb similar to the FA. Is it safer for the follower?? No but clearly a runnout route placed on lead hanging from a hook was still runout for the FA which makes it even more bold. I don't think bolting from a hook is truely aid. The hook is not being used to facilitate progress, and it isn't akin to resting on the rope after placing a piece of gear or clipping a bolt. The hook merely provides a stable stance for drilling a bolt hole. If the hook pops the FAist falls to the next piece of gear. If it's runout he/she falls a long way just like you would. Same risk as anyone else on lead.
Some areas require bolts to be placed with non power drill. this reduces over bolting and creates even a purer ethic if that matters to you.
Someone already pointed out that if getting to the top safely was all that was important climbing would be pointless. The risk is part of the fun and the ethics are all that hold the sport together. I don't think you can helicopter to the top of Everest but lets say I helicoptered to the top of Rainier. Do I get credit for an ascent? Who cares because that isn't what climbing is about. Thankfully some of the better and bolder climbers in the world still feel that way as well so hopefully climbing will never completely become a burned out extreme yuppie sport who's only purpose is sex appeal to sell SUV's.
In reply to: One should not only be equal to any climb that one undertakes, but be more than equal to it...The standard of difficulty which a climber can conquer with safety when descending, and for which he can consider himself competent, with an easy conscience, should represent the limit of what he should attempt on his ascent. --Preuss |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
