|
|
|
|
dingus
Nov 22, 2005, 5:13 PM
Post #26 of 83
(7152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
I have a sincere question for you Lars... who owes you a protected ascent of Hair Raiser Buttress again?
I think the FA party has primary decision rights concerning their ascents. I think the community also has a say.
But this is western America and things never got done through committee out here. Justice in the west is one climber at a time, one route at a time.
Crying out to the gods about such injustice is 'so east coast.' We just ain't got the rock cops out here to ride in on the white horse and arrest the vigilantes. And WE LIKE IT THAT WAY.
I suggest to the folks who went out there and turned bitterly away...
if it means so much to YOU, then head on out there again with your hammer and drill, and fix the route to your satisfaction.
The chopper exercised her 'right' to chop. You can also exercise your 'right' to drill.
Vigilante justice, that's how we roll. If you involve the authorities, we all lose. Revel in our 'system' as its chaos is quite beautiful if you stand back and consider the whole picture.
Sucks though, to get shut down like that.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
asandh
Nov 22, 2005, 5:42 PM
Post #27 of 83
(7152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2002
Posts: 788
|
:)
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Nov 22, 2005, 5:47 PM
Post #28 of 83
(7152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Dingus I know you feel strongly about your words, but did you have to add them to the thread 3 times. :?: :)
No worries. it'll just be harder to go back and hide what I wrote.
In terms of the rest of your response...
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
boltdude
Nov 22, 2005, 6:17 PM
Post #29 of 83
(7152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 685
|
Lars, bummer that you didn't get to lead it, and great that you managed to get around to the pitch 1 anchor and TR.
But healyje has it right - once you start adding bolts, there's no end in sight. At Owens, the classic 5.9 sport climbs on Great Wall of China were "tightly bolted" when they were put up, yet only 15 years later, they are considered "runout". The Dike Route in Tuolumne used to be standard fare, a bit "spicy" - now it's "heinous & death-defying". Changing perceptions.
So you add a couple bolts on a long runout. Then a few years later, someone else adds a few more. Then more bolts get added - why not?
Already, modern gym climbers come into slab climbing with 1) no footwork, 2) expectation of tight bolting. If we start retrobolting stuff, then why not have a bolt every 5 feet? After all, there are slab routes with bolting that tight already (bolt-ladder sections on hard slab, even 1970s slab in Tuolumne).
Respecting the FA is the way to go. Otherwise, it's a free-for-all. I got a lot of flak in the "hard-core" climbing community for putting up Shagadelic on Medlicott Dome, which had two 150' pitches of face with 10 bolts each (I added bolts so my long-time FA partner could come back, lead it with his friends, and have fun). Yet I've had people suggest that I add even more bolts to Shagadelic to make it safer - on the same day another person called it "way over-bolted".
But even in Tuolumne, it was not chopped since it was NEW. There is plenty of terrain around with awesome climbing. We should respect the vision of the FA team. If it was put up by 5.11 slab climbers and is heinously runout for a 5.9 climber, don't complain about it - instead, leave it until you climb 5.11 slab and can do it comfortably.
Our rating system does not include a seriousness factor. So people who do a bunch of 5.9's expect to be able to do other 5.9's - even if the type or committment of the climbing is completely different. If our rating system did include a seriousness factor, I expect this discussion would be quite different.
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Nov 22, 2005, 6:51 PM
Post #30 of 83
(7152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
The big fallacy about respecting the style of the FA is that the FA was carrying a drill and bolts and could stop and drill whenever he felt like it, so saying that subsequent ascents are obligated to climb the route the way the FA did it doesn't quite hold water, because subsequent ascents can't drill where ever they want. It is easier psychologically to leave the ground knowing you can stop and drill where ever you want, than it is to be forced into running it out based on someone's arbitrary notion of what's reasonable/dangerous/whatever. In some ways the subsequent ascent is *more* committing - if the rock is textured enough so that you can't see the bolts from below, and aren't really sure which way to go to get to them, then in my book you're taking more of a chance than the FA, who was carrying a drill.
And you guys who complain about eliminating the deathfall potential of the runouts by adding bolts? You should just be free soloing the route, since the way it's bolted now, you're essentially doing that anyway. Then it doesn't matter if it's retro-bolted. That way, you still get to die if you fall, and everybody else who ropes up for it and falls gets to live. Win-win.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Nov 22, 2005, 7:24 PM
Post #31 of 83
(7152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: The big fallacy about respecting the style of the FA is that the FA was carrying a drill and bolts and could stop and drill whenever he felt like it, so saying that subsequent ascents are obligated to climb the route the way the FA did it doesn't quite hold water, because subsequent ascents can't drill where ever they want.
There is nothing at all preventing subsequent parties from carrying a drill. I know if I did the 2nd ascent of a wall route I'd DAMN SURE take a bolt kit. If I were ever tempted to go to Hair Raiser now, I'd DAMN SURE take the kit along as well.
If I thought I was going to die and a bolt could save me? I'd put it in and I wouldn't apologize for it either.
But I grew climbing in a time when we had to do for ourselves. We didn't have route setters and MANAGEMENT to settle our disputes.
Kalcario's way implies management, authority, rules. FUCK THAT. I don't even think he wants that end result, any more than I do.
I ask again, who among us is OWED a risk free ascent of Hair Raiser???
Not a damn one of you. Question answered.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Nov 22, 2005, 8:03 PM
Post #32 of 83
(7152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
Having poor morals and stlye, I probably should be spouting off about this.
In reply to: The big fallacy about respecting the style of the FA is that the FA was carrying a drill and bolts and could stop and drill whenever he felt like it, so saying that subsequent ascents are obligated to climb the route the way the FA did it doesn't quite hold water, because subsequent ascents can't drill where ever they want. It is easier psychologically to leave the ground knowing you can stop and drill where ever you want, than it is to be forced into running it out based on someone's arbitrary notion of what's reasonable/dangerous/whatever. In some ways the subsequent ascent is *more* committing - if the rock is textured enough so that you can't see the bolts from below, and aren't really sure which way to go to get to them, then in my book you're taking more of a chance than the FA, who was carrying a drill.
Not true. Spoken like a person who never did a ground up FA and drilled on lead with a hand drill. laboring to try to stand on a dime for 20-30 min while your forarms and other body parts cramped and you are staring at a huge fall until that bolt gets in.
In reply to: And you guys who complain about eliminating the deathfall potential of the runouts by adding bolts? You should just be free soloing the route, since the way it's bolted now, you're essentially doing that anyway. Then it doesn't matter if it's retro-bolted. That way, you still get to die if you fall, and everybody else who ropes up for it and falls gets to live. Win-win.
And you are free, as we all are, to go get on another route.
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Nov 22, 2005, 8:37 PM
Post #33 of 83
(7152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
*Not true. Spoken like a person who never did a ground up FA and drilled on lead with a hand drill. laboring to try to stand on a dime for 20-30 min while your forarms and other body parts cramped and you are staring at a huge fall until that bolt gets in.*
I've certainly repeated more than my share of those kind of routes, though, and I know that those routes are runout for 2 reasons: because the difficulty you mention in stopping and drilling was more of a factor in creating the runouts than any concious decision in creating a bold route, and, most importantly, that the FA'er *was climbing well below their limits on the runouts*. If you're going to bolt something, it only makes sense to bolt it so that you don't lethally deck. There's tons of routes in Tuolumne that are unprotected free solo's with no bolts - nothing wrong with that, I respect that style; but bolting something AND creating groundfall runouts, as seems to be the case with HRB? That's a botch job and should be fixed.
|
|
|
|
|
kubi
Nov 22, 2005, 10:42 PM
Post #34 of 83
(7152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2004
Posts: 815
|
The biggest problem with the blind deference to the FAist, at least in my opinion, is that it is so easy for the FAist to do a bad job bolting and make the route unclimbable for anyone else. If Micheal Reardon has the FA on a 5.11 and bolts it at his comfort level....it'll be unclimbable by 99% of the climbers out there...so in effect he just screwed us all over.
Maybe all you guys that say, "never retrobolt!" just say it so that some n00b with a Bosch doesn't go out and cover your crag with stainless steel...but if you truly believe that retrobolting is never appropriate....you are wrong, there are definite circumstances were, FAist be damned, the climb needs more bolts.
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Nov 22, 2005, 11:12 PM
Post #35 of 83
(7152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: That way, you still get to die if you fall ...
Classic. :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Nov 22, 2005, 11:20 PM
Post #36 of 83
(7152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: Not true. Spoken like a person who never did a ground up FA and drilled on lead with a hand drill. laboring to try to stand on a dime for 20-30 min while your forarms and other body parts cramped and you are staring at a huge fall until that bolt gets in.
But you're omitting that the only reason people do (or perhaps "did") put up routes that way is because they were too blinded by their "ground up" religion to realize that it is way easier to get the job done by rapping in from the top.
I realize it is hard---but that it is precisely the reason I think it is lame. (And, in fact, I'd say it is downright unethical if you are doing it in an area with very limited rock, do not want people to add bolts to it, and the result is a dangerous route).
In reply to: And you are free, as we all are, to go get on another route.
Except if you live in an area with limited climbing (of that particular angle/style). Basically, in that case, if we accept your view of first ascentionist rights, you have to just live with whatever the "botch jobs" (as kalcario put it) from decades ago (by people who don't really even climb anymore) gave you.
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Nov 23, 2005, 12:12 AM
Post #37 of 83
(7152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
It's all kind of a moot point anyway because that style of low-angle face climbing where you actually can stop, take both hands off the rock and drill, derisively known nowadays as "dome-aneering", "stink-bugging", or "tit-sagging", fell out of favor with the climbing masses 20 years ago, as did the mentality that favored contrived, ground-up ethics over difficulty. Sport climbers freeing previously unthinkable trad pitches on El Cap is the most obvious proof that prioritizing ethics over difficulty was the wrong way to go and hindered the progression of the sport. What I'm saying is, it's a little hard to respect that runout, ground-up ethic that says thou shalt not retrobolt, when historical perspective proves that ethic was a bad direction and a retrograde step anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
jv
Nov 23, 2005, 12:39 AM
Post #38 of 83
(7152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2003
Posts: 363
|
Happily, for the time being at least, the route is restored to its original condition, more or less. Whoever climbs it will have to deal not only with the physical challenge of the climbing, but the mental and emotional challenge of the runouts as well.
The next party who considers taking it upon themselves to add bolts without permission of the FA party would do well to think twice, given that any added bolts will likely meet the same fate.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Nov 23, 2005, 12:45 AM
Post #39 of 83
(7152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: But you're omitting that the only reason people do (or perhaps "did") put up routes that way is because they were too blinded by their "ground up" religion to realize that it is way easier to get the job done by rapping in from the top.
There are many reasons for a ground up style of first ascent, relevant and in practice today, religious procedures (and trolling) notwithstanding.
Kalcario spoke about advancement of the sport, equating difficulty to progress. Yet you say ground up FAist are too blind to see there is an easier way.
Hmmm. Harder, easier, harder, easier, I get confused!
Could it be, oh wise sport climbers, that not all of us share all the same motivations to climb? GASP! Is that even remotely possible in your sport climbing worlds, that others may seek different challenges, different notions of difficulty?
Say it ain't so Joe, say it ain't so!
I did one O deez titty saggers about a month ago. I did it precisely BECAUSE it was harder to do that way. I am well acquainted with other methods, have employed, will employ them again. Just as I'll do more ground up ascents too.
I had more reasons than increased difficulty too, based upon the local climbing community styles in practice at that cliff, by those who introduced me to the place. I'm sorry these rubes don't see it your way either, color it backwater. But it would be lower than whale shit to go invited to someone's ground up style cliff and start rap bolting, you'd have to be a piece of shit to do that. I'd walk away first. Call it a stylistic consideration if you prefer. I call it respect.
Not that you would, at the cliff in question. It wouldn't interest you I'm sure, but then again, I struggle to understand why either of you even opened this thread about a lowly non-advancement 5.9 titty sagger to begin with. And I don't think either one of you would be nearly as disrespectful in the flesh either. I bet we'd get on famously and you wouldn't care in the least about my pitiful routes. Nor, believe me, would I care about your 'sport advancing' sends. I don't even look at the pictures anymore.
None of these routes are going to 'advance the sport.' I didn't start climbing to 'advance the sport' anyway. The more I think about it, the less advancing your sport matters to me. I generally prefer to advance my own climbing and leave it at that.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Nov 23, 2005, 1:01 AM
Post #40 of 83
(7152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
* Whoever climbs it will have to deal not only with the physical challenge of the climbing, but the mental and emotional challenge of the runouts as well.*
You are free to experience all the drama you want whether it's retrobolted or not, simply by free soloing it, which is what you're doing now anyway, ropeless or not, because of the way it's bolted. What point do the bolts that are there now serve if they don't keep you from hitting the ground?
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Nov 23, 2005, 1:27 AM
Post #41 of 83
(7152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: Kalcario spoke about advancement of the sport, equating difficulty to progress. Yet you say ground up FAist are too blind to see there is an easier way. Hmmm. Harder, easier, harder, easier, I get confused!
Getting the bolts in is not climbing rocks. Why would you want to make it hard? (Unless, of course, you are more interested in that than you are in climbing rocks).
In reply to: Could it be, oh wise sport climbers, that not all of us share all the same motivations to climb?
Yup. I have met lots of rock climbers who seem to have no real interest in climbing rocks (either because they prefer playing with little widgets, or whatever).
But, how about the point in Joe's last post? A route like the type he is describing was recently retro-bolted at one of my local crags. There was an editors' note in the last Rock & Ice (written by Jeff Jackson) complaining about it---it was a Duane Raleigh FA. (Of course, the note did not describe the retarded way the route had been bolted).
What logically coherent reason is there to want bolted routes where falling from the crux means you die? If you want to die if you fall, why not just solo it?
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Nov 23, 2005, 1:37 AM
Post #42 of 83
(7152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: ...and make the route unclimbable for anyone else.
A route that has been climbed, and that you simply choose not to climb, is not then in any sense "unclimbable" because of your choice.
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Nov 23, 2005, 1:38 AM
Post #43 of 83
(7152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
*There are many reasons for a ground up style of first ascent, relevant and in practice today, religious procedures (and trolling) notwithstanding.*
Of course. If you can't run it out/free solo at your local crag, you'll never be an alpine climber, nor is it practical or even efficient to rap bolt everything - most of Owen's River Gorge was drilled ground up. I'm not saying runout slabs are irrelevant or that they shouldn't exist - just that if you're gonna bolt something, the bolts should at least prevent lethal groundfalls, otherwise why bolt it at all?
*But it would be lower than whale s--- to go invited to someone's ground up style cliff and start rap bolting, you'd have to be a piece of s--- to do that. I'd walk away first. Call it a stylistic consideration if you prefer. I call it respect.*
Except that that happens all the time, that most sacred cow of trad climbing, the b-y in Tuolumne, is surrounded by sport routes. There's a 17 bolt 5.11 single-pitch sport route a few feet left of the pitch the thread is about, fer chrissakes.
*And I don't think either one of you would be nearly as disrespectful in the flesh either. I bet we'd get on famously and you wouldn't care in the least about my pitiful routes.*
I knew that titty-sagger stuff would reel in a couple...
*Nor, believe me, would I care about your 'sport advancing' sends.*
I don't think I've ever done one of those...unless belaying one counts...
|
|
|
|
|
jv
Nov 23, 2005, 1:39 AM
Post #44 of 83
(7152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2003
Posts: 363
|
"What point do the bolts that are there now serve if they don't keep you from hitting the ground?"
The bolts reduce the risk that I will die if I fall. As someone who was just there has pointed out, the risk of ground fall is before reaching the first bolt, and for several feet before clipping the second bolt. I don't care to free solo a route this hard. But since I can't climb Bachar-Yerian, this satisfies my urge to dance on the edge within my bounds of reason.
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Nov 23, 2005, 1:41 AM
Post #45 of 83
(7152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: *Nor, believe me, would I care about your 'sport advancing' sends.* I don't think I've ever done one of those...unless belaying one counts...
Worked for Yerian.... ;)
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Nov 23, 2005, 2:05 AM
Post #46 of 83
(7152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
*Worked for Yerian*
which would entail belaying the belayer, which is as much involvement as Yerian had with the b-y...
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Nov 23, 2005, 2:06 AM
Post #47 of 83
(7152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: just that if you're gonna bolt something, the bolts should at least prevent lethal groundfalls, otherwise why bolt it at all?
I can't speak for the route or the FA party, but on balance I agree with you. And yet, I think there has to be room for the Mark Wilford's of the world too. A few Hair Raiser Buttresses aren't going to kill us or reduce our opportunities in the sport, are they?
In reply to: Except that that happens all the time, that most sacred cow of trad climbing, the b-y in Tuolumne, is surrounded by sport routes. There's a 17 bolt 5.11 single-pitch sport route a few feet left of the pitch the thread is about, fer chrissakes.
I assure you Kalcario, that's not my line. I've never drilled a hole anywhere in Tuolumne country.
And I like the titty sagger bit! and the dome thing too. Thanks man.
Cheers
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Nov 23, 2005, 2:10 AM
Post #48 of 83
(7152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: But, how about the point in Joe's last post? A route like the type he is describing was recently retro-bolted at one of my local crags. There was an editors' note in the last Rock & Ice (written by Jeff Jackson) complaining about it---it was a Duane Raleigh FA. (Of course, the note did not describe the retarded way the route had been bolted).
You got all that from Kalcario's post?
Haven't read that R&I. You know who gave me my name lol?
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Nov 23, 2005, 2:23 AM
Post #49 of 83
(7152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: In reply to: But, how about the point in Joe's last post? A route like the type he is describing was recently retro-bolted at one of my local crags. There was an editors' note in the last Rock & Ice (written by Jeff Jackson) complaining about it---it was a Duane Raleigh FA. (Of course, the note did not describe the retarded way the route had been bolted). You got all that from Kalcario's post?
:lol:
In reply to: Haven't read that R&I. You know who gave me my name lol?
Guess why I threw the author's name in there... :P
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Nov 23, 2005, 2:29 AM
Post #50 of 83
(7152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: But, how about the point in Joe's last post? A route like the type he is describing was recently retro-bolted at one of my local crags. There was an editors' note in the last Rock & Ice (written by Jeff Jackson) complaining about it---it was a Duane Raleigh FA. (Of course, the note did not describe the retarded way the route had been bolted). You got all that from Kalcario's post? :lol: In reply to: Haven't read that R&I. You know who gave me my name lol? Guess why I threw the author's name in there... :P
Nice one! Was it about those OK. routes Raleigh did back in the day? I suspect the 'limited resource' part of your thoughts comes to the fore if that is the case. I suspect if I lived and climbed there, I might take issue with the bulk of the climbing resources being locked up in death routes too.
I owe that dude big time for my name. Some day I hope to get the chance to thank him personally.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
