|
fracture
Aug 27, 2005, 12:49 AM
Post #51 of 89
(5826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: In reply to: And 5.13 isn't really anything to spray about, anymore, either. Yeah, but climbing Twilight Zone with pitons and tube chocks still is.
Maybe. It depends on your perspective.
It sure doesn't sound like fun, though. :P
|
|
|
|
|
hangerlessbolt
Aug 27, 2005, 1:12 AM
Post #52 of 89
(5826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2001
Posts: 7255
|
Educate yourself on the accomplishments of the pioneers to our "sport" and I think you’ll quickly see the idiocy of your statement.
The current hardmen know what you apparently have yet to learn.
|
|
|
|
|
memory_hole
Aug 27, 2005, 1:42 AM
Post #53 of 89
(5826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 30, 2005
Posts: 162
|
In reply to: Educate yourself on the accomplishments of the pioneers to our "sport" and I think you’ll quickly see the idiocy of your statement. The current hardmen know what you apparently have yet to learn. |
|
|
|
|
fracture
Aug 27, 2005, 1:44 AM
Post #54 of 89
(5826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: In reply to: Educate yourself on the accomplishments of the pioneers to our "sport" and I think you’ll quickly see the idiocy of your statement. The current hardmen know what you apparently have yet to learn. It doesn't seem all that controversial to point out that standards of climbing technique and athleticism have advanced through the years.
You'd think. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Aug 27, 2005, 2:00 AM
Post #55 of 89
(5826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: But those "safety nut" gym climbers are easily doing things--- en masse---that those "few odd individuals" were never capable of. 8^) Such as? (This should be entertaining) Have you ever been to a climbing gym in an even moderately sizable metropolitan area? :roll: It's not at all unusual these days to do 5.12 within a year of learning to climb. And 5.13 isn't really anything to spray about, anymore, either.
So fracture - if we rounded up all the folks that climb 5.12d in you average suburban gym, what percentage do you think would be able to lead a varied, multi-pitch 5.11a trad route with challenging pro.
|
|
|
|
|
hangerlessbolt
Aug 27, 2005, 2:02 AM
Post #56 of 89
(5826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2001
Posts: 7255
|
The claim was that climbers of today are doing what climbers of the past were never capable of.
Who paved the way? Who established the ratings? Who developed the systems and technologies that are being used today?
Who was pulling .10's in work boots? Who was pulling 5.12's in fire's? Who was bolting .11's on lead?
The 5.12 gymbie?
C'mon now.
If you familiarize yourself with the people/ routes/ ratings/ and gear used up to and including the 70's... I think you'll agree what we do today pales in comparison.
|
|
|
|
|
memory_hole
Aug 27, 2005, 2:25 AM
Post #57 of 89
(5826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 30, 2005
Posts: 162
|
In reply to: If you familiarize yourself with the people/ routes/ ratings/ and gear used up to and including the 70's... I think you'll agree what we do today pales in comparison. |
|
|
|
|
healyje
Aug 27, 2005, 2:30 AM
Post #58 of 89
(5826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: I don't agree. I think that many of us have romanticized early climbing and climbers to the point of becoming a fetish..
Forget the people, it was never about the people - take your pick, go to Eldo, the Gunks, or the Valley with everything you use today except make your rack just hexs and stoppers - then do the hard routes from the '70s and come back and talk about how it was all myth and romance...
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Aug 27, 2005, 2:31 AM
Post #59 of 89
(5826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: My take, “R” routes come with climbing…”X” routes in popular areas are unnecessary.
Why??
|
|
|
|
|
memory_hole
Aug 27, 2005, 2:37 AM
Post #60 of 89
(5826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 30, 2005
Posts: 162
|
In reply to: Forget the people, it was never about the people - take your pick, go to Eldo, the Gunks, or the Valley with everything you use today except make your rack just hexs and stoppers - then do the hard routes from the '70s and come back and talk about how it was all myth and romance... |
|
|
|
|
hangerlessbolt
Aug 27, 2005, 2:39 AM
Post #61 of 89
(5826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2001
Posts: 7255
|
Again, familiarize yourself...and then draw your conclusion.
This has nothing to do with romanticizing the pioneers...though there is the draw that you were suggesting in your post that comes from history...this has to do with getting on the same routes these guys established (in Tahquitz, Yosemite, and J-Tree)...knowing what gear they had available to them…and getting my ass systematically handed to me and my nuts planted firmly in my throat with all of the technology I have available to me now.
It’s a matter of respect. These guys (Gill, Long, Bachar, Yabo, Robbins, Harding, Beckey, Hill, etc) were and are bad asses.
To compare the 5.12 gymbie to the “old guard” is, as Largo would put it, “bad form”.
|
|
|
|
|
baigot
Aug 27, 2005, 2:50 AM
Post #62 of 89
(5826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2003
Posts: 87
|
Hey...it was time to come up the "Hard ratings climbers"
Dudes, this thread was about ETHICS, SECURITY, AND RESPECT, not about Hard Climbers.
But, you guy, who posted that Gym climbers can climb up to 5.13 in a couple of months, come on!
I bet my rack they can´t set a route, a new one, that grade without putting bolts all the way up...
We can send a 5.13 route bolted from strat to end, but, a few can send it with poor or thin or tricky placments...
The Hardness of your climbs not makes you a better climber, makes you a hard one, but do a route, bold on not, in the best and cleanest style you can, and RETURN SAFE HOME...and in that moment...
You become a good climber...
Style and experience/safety makes you a good climber...
If you don´t come back from a climb, you´re not bad...worst...you´re DEAD...
cheers
Vicente
Argentina
|
|
|
|
|
memory_hole
Aug 27, 2005, 2:57 AM
Post #63 of 89
(5826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 30, 2005
Posts: 162
|
In reply to: Again, familiarize yourself...and then draw your conclusion.
In reply to: This has nothing to do with romanticizing the pioneers...though there is the draw that you were suggesting in your post that comes from history...this has to do with getting on the same routes these guys established (in Tahquitz, Yosemite, and J-Tree)...knowing what gear they had available to them…and getting my ass systematically handed to me and my nuts planted firmly in my throat with all of the technology I have available to me now.
In reply to: It’s a matter of respect. These guys (Gill, Long, Bachar, Yabo, Robbins, Harding, Beckey, Hill, etc) were and are bad asses.
In reply to: To compare the 5.12 gymbie to the “old guard” is, as Largo would put it, “bad form”. |
|
|
|
|
fracture
Aug 27, 2005, 3:06 AM
Post #64 of 89
(5826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: Again, familiarize yourself...and then draw your conclusion.
I feel pretty familiar (for a modern sport climber, at least) with the history of the sport. My conclusion is just different from yours.
I don't at all suggest that the old generation were fundamentally incapable of performing as well as modern climbers do, for example, had they started climbing today---but they had too much neo-religious bogus ethical baggage weighing them down. They also had worse technology, and an even worse understanding of training for climbing (think Bachar Ladders) than we do today (and climbing training is still in its infancy).
In reply to: It’s a matter of respect.
Only in the sport of climbing do people think it is disrespectful to suggest the new generation out-performs the old.
Does anyone say it is disrespectful to Arnold Palmer to say that Tiger Woods is the best golfer so far? He's got new technology, better training, and started younger, too, ya know....
In reply to: These guys (Gill, Long, Bachar, Yabo, Robbins, Harding, Beckey, Hill, etc) were and are bad asses.
I'll take a Gill, a Harding, a Jardine, or a Hill over a Bachar or a Robbins any day. The former group represents people who were thinking outside the confines of established ideas of what was acceptable instead of reacting in an overly conservative and close-minded manner as new innovations and ways of climbing came along (think Bachar and Peace, or Robbins and the Wall of Early Morning Light).
Of course, in their own context and timeframe, all of the above certainly were badasses---they are some of the "giants" memory_hole mentioned earlier.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Aug 27, 2005, 3:26 AM
Post #65 of 89
(5826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: In reply to: Forget the people, it was never about the people - take your pick, go to Eldo, the Gunks, or the Valley with everything you use today except make your rack just hexs and stoppers - then do the hard routes from the '70s and come back and talk about how it was all myth and romance... And that would prove what, exactly? That gear is a lot better now than it was then? Well no s---, Sherlock. And what's with the fancy hexes and stoppers; couldn't those 70's hardmen handle pounding wooden wedges on lead like they did in the even older good ol' days? Feckin' 70's pansies...
No, you're the one talking romance and myth - but nothing has changed, the hexs, stoppers, and routes are all still available just as they were for you or any other spouter to exactly recreate the experience of climbing them in '70s. What it would prove is that then you would actually have a remote clue as to what you are talking about, as it is, you make it pretty damn clear you don't have either the clue or whatever it would take to suck it up and go get the facts before opening your mouth...
[Sidebar: We really are desperately in need of a 'National Passive Pro Week' where everyone sucks it up and leaves their cams at home...]
|
|
|
|
|
hangerlessbolt
Aug 27, 2005, 3:41 AM
Post #66 of 89
(5826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2001
Posts: 7255
|
Sorry gents...the misses pulled rank and called for my attention :wink:
Back to the topic:
The original comparison was that of the 5.12 gymbie vs. the Old Guard.
I entered myself into the equation as being closely related to the former. (began as a traddie 14+ yrs ago/ years later started training indoors/ was onsighting 5.11+ sport outside...blah blah blah)...
Anywho, what I was comparing were the overall accomplishments of the OG's as compared to the "accomplishments" en masse of the gymbie. (which are negligible)
Here's an idea...how about we compare the best climbers of today with the best of yester-year...with the old gear...on the old routes. The newbies will realize that it's not all about core tension and body position. There is a significant difference between a 5.14 sport route climbed in new shoes/ lightweight draws & harness with the relative safety of bolts 7 feet apart...and climbing a 5.12 the "old way".
I admit that I was amazed standing next to Sharma as he worked a boulder problem at the PBC a few years ago...
But it pales in my amazement of the feats of the OG's.
There's so much more to their climbs than the estimated grade of difficulty. Thus the greater accomplishment.
|
|
|
|
|
hangerlessbolt
Aug 27, 2005, 3:47 AM
Post #67 of 89
(5826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2001
Posts: 7255
|
In reply to: In reply to: My take, “R” routes come with climbing…”X” routes in popular areas are unnecessary. Why??
Cuz I gets very ascareded of course!
How dare you try to end this hijack!
I'll explain my theory later...gotta run.
Alpine start for tomorrow's run.
G'night gents
|
|
|
|
|
scottman13
Aug 27, 2005, 4:06 AM
Post #68 of 89
(5826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2004
Posts: 38
|
In reply to: Well, I don't think that I'm going to have time to fly to Yosemite in the course of this thread
Idunno, 5 pages and still going strong, i dont think this thread is dying in a hurry :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
memory_hole
Aug 27, 2005, 4:19 AM
Post #69 of 89
(5826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 30, 2005
Posts: 162
|
In reply to: No, you're the one talking romance and myth - but nothing has changed, the hexs, stoppers, and routes are all still available just as they were for you or any other spouter to exactly recreate the experience of climbing them in '70s. What it would prove is that then you would actually have a remote clue as to what you are talking about, as it is, you make it pretty damn clear you don't have either the clue or whatever it would take to suck it up and go get the facts before opening your mouth... [Sidebar: We really are desperately in need of a 'National Passive Pro Week' where everyone sucks it up and leaves their cams at home...] |
|
|
|
|
memory_hole
Aug 27, 2005, 4:35 AM
Post #70 of 89
(5826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 30, 2005
Posts: 162
|
In reply to: Here's an idea...how about we compare the best climbers of today with the best of yester-year...with the old gear...on the old routes. The newbies will realize that it's not all about core tension and body position. There is a significant difference between a 5.14 sport route climbed in new shoes/ lightweight draws & harness with the relative safety of bolts 7 feet apart...and climbing a 5.12 the "old way". I admit that I was amazed standing next to Sharma as he worked a boulder problem at the PBC a few years ago... But it pales in my amazement of the feats of the OG's. There's so much more to their climbs than the estimated grade of difficulty. Thus the greater accomplishment.
Gack, gotta run. Interesting thread so far, though.
|
|
|
|
|
snoopy138
Aug 27, 2005, 5:32 AM
Post #71 of 89
(5826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2004
Posts: 28992
|
In reply to: And while the FAist may have expended heaps of time, money, effort and vision, that doesn't guarantee that they've done a competent job of it.
For traditional (ground-up) routes, it seems to me that if they got to the top without falling, they did a competent job. If there's a runout involved with dangerous fall potential, just don't do the climb until you are confident in your ability to make it through that section without falling.
For sport routes in areas developed en masse, perhaps there is a "competence" issue involved, but would most developers of such areas actually be opposed to misplaced bolts being moved?
|
|
|
|
|
hangerlessbolt
Aug 27, 2005, 5:53 AM
Post #72 of 89
(5826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2001
Posts: 7255
|
In reply to: You're assuming facts not in evidence...
In the words of the great Einstein..."Duh"
Of course we're making assumptions. The statement that initiated the discussion was gym climbers as a whole can outclimb the climbers of years past...
It is basically the "my dad can beat up your dad" argument.
Silly perhaps...but allows for endless hours of...
(There must be an end...and I just had to get up to go pee...g'night, again)
Hugs 'n smooches
-HLB
|
|
|
|
|
crankenstein
Aug 27, 2005, 5:59 AM
Post #73 of 89
(5826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 20, 2002
Posts: 164
|
It all goes back to Dingus's "real deal", and that is a matter of respect. First ascent style should be respected, but there are places and times that call for route alteration. There are as many degrees of alteration as there are opinions about it. I would certainly argue that I don't want to see Eldo, Lumpy Ridge, Yosemite, or many, many other areas made "safe" for the general public.
I've looked at many hard, scarey climbs in awe of the first ascentionist's skill and bravado. I don't think it's up to me if there route is altered or not. The first ascent party should always be consulted before altering any climb.
I personally know of numerous instance where this credo has not been followed and there are some that bother me and some that don't. For instance, In Texas they have a state-wide elected committee to oversee climber/land manager relations. They have recently advised the retro bolting of some previously unprotected climbs that had been lead. In this case, I think that for the most part, Joe public climber and the first ascentionist and the land manger all agreed to open up some "new" routes by adding some bolts. I don't disagree with that at all. The first ascentionist was respected and the climbers have new routes (read new bolts) to go clip. Everyone wins in that situation.
Overall, the issues of respect and access have to outweigh the issues of mere "safety". With all that said, this debate will not be answered here today.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Aug 27, 2005, 6:56 AM
Post #74 of 89
(5826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: In reply to: No, you're the one talking romance and myth - but nothing has changed, the hexs, stoppers, and routes are all still available just as they were for you or any other spouter to exactly recreate the experience of climbing them in '70s. What it would prove is that then you would actually have a remote clue as to what you are talking about, as it is, you make it pretty damn clear you don't have either the clue or whatever it would take to suck it up and go get the facts before opening your mouth... [Sidebar: We really are desperately in need of a 'National Passive Pro Week' where everyone sucks it up and leaves their cams at home...] What conversation do you think we're having exactly, healyje? It's cute seeing you foam at the mouth and all, but you're off on your own little tangent somewhere...
The one where you can't stand behind what you type...
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Aug 27, 2005, 2:04 PM
Post #75 of 89
(5732 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: The first ascent party should always be consulted before altering any climb.
Why? The smell of other people's urine does not impress me.
If the FA did something lame (like, for example, rap-bolting a sport route wih a runout because there was some possible natural pro), it should be fixed. If they don't even live in the area any more---why should they get any say whatsoever?
The analogy previously made to trail building makes complete sense. No one contacts the original builder of a trail if they have to re-route it to avoid erosion. If the first guy did it wrong (and setting up good trails which avoid erosion isn't as trivial as you might think), it should be fixed.
In reply to: For instance, In Texas they have a state-wide elected committee to oversee climber/land manager relations. ... The first ascentionist was respected and the climbers have new routes (read new bolts) to go clip. Everyone wins in that situation.
If you're talking about the case I think you are, it turns out the FA (Duane Raleigh) says that he wasn't actually contacted, even though they thought he was.
Of course---it doesn't matter though. The CTCC has an actual legal right to vote to retro routes. And the neo-religious FA-contacting "ethic" is not mentioned in the MOU or the CTCC bylaws. This particular situation, for better or worse, very much is not the same as Dingus' "wild west".
:P
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
