|
bolder
Aug 9, 2002, 2:56 PM
Post #101 of 137
(9551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 28, 2002
Posts: 203
|
This is a waste of time. This won't solve anything. It is just a chance for people to get out their angry aggressions. Why do people feel obligated to say things in a forum that they would never say to someone's face?
|
|
|
|
|
detourdave
Aug 9, 2002, 7:16 PM
Post #102 of 137
(9551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 14, 2002
Posts: 29
|
I am sick of reading about this first ascensionist style crap. The first ascensionist don't OWN the rock. Just because the first person to climb the route was a maniac that free soloed the first pitch, does that mean from then on, only reckless, suicidal climbers are allowed to do that route? If a few bolts are placed to protect dangerous runouts, that is a good thing. If you don't like it, don't clip it - there, you are doing it in the original style. I am a trad climber and I have been the first ascensionist on a route. If someone added a bolt to that route because there was an R or X run out I left in because I was having a good day, I wouldn't mind. If someone sewed it up like a bolt a ladder, I would chop. There needs to be moderation and balance on this issue.
Sure makes for a livily thread though eh
|
|
|
|
|
mtnjohn
Aug 9, 2002, 8:26 PM
Post #103 of 137
(9551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 17, 2002
Posts: 230
|
No one owns the rock. I have the right to establish routes with bolts AND the right to take "abandoned" bolts. If you intentionally leave a bolt somewhere, then you've decided that you no longer wish to own it. If I feel like taking it home, it's up to me. You don't leave things at picnic grounds and expect them to be there forever until they rust into oblivion, do you?
And yes I have numerous first ascent bolted routes. I'd be pissed if some one chopped them. That doesn't mean they can't. Think big picture. Climbers don't own the rock. We have acces to use it. So do skiers if they want to. Nobody sets rules for any section of accessible stone! Private property is a completely different story.
|
|
|
|
|
sparky
Aug 10, 2002, 3:07 AM
Post #104 of 137
(9551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 31, 2002
Posts: 438
|
If they are there leave them. Only put in new bolts for belay anchors or super runout sections.
|
|
|
|
|
xtacy57
Aug 10, 2002, 3:58 AM
Post #105 of 137
(9551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 8, 2002
Posts: 8
|
First of all...I am not old school, and I am not a badass climber (unless 5.8 trad is badass), but if you're not the first ascentionist, you have no right to add or remove bolts on a climb. If you say adding bolts doesn't change a climb, think about a place like Stone Mountain, NC...if it was bolted every 10 feet the climbs would be VERY different. The phychological and danger aspects are part of routes like those at Stone Mountain. If you think a route is too dangerous because it's runout, DON'T CLIMB IT! On the flipside, it's not right to go to the New and remove bolts because you think a route is overbolted. On top of that, if you're putting up a FA, make sure you do it within the ethics of the area. Now go climb, and have fun.
|
|
|
|
|
cragstar
Aug 10, 2002, 9:42 PM
Post #106 of 137
(9551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 69
|
Im so sorry I brought this post back to life Im actually very sick of this topic myself
|
|
|
|
|
apollodorus
Aug 11, 2002, 7:27 AM
Post #107 of 137
(9551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 18, 2002
Posts: 2157
|
I saw a trip report:
http://www.devilstowerlodge.com/climbing/tales8.html
Midway through, the author talks about the crack being too wide for pro, and "Paul, send up the drill . . ."
DRILL? Right next to a perfect crack????
The only reason was because huge cams weren't available then.
In the olden days, before bongs were invented, people would bolt next to 3 and 4 inch cracks. Warren Harding used the Stoveleg pitons to get around having to bolt all the way up the Stoveleg cracks (I am not making this up). Today, this mentality would be lunacy: why not slam a couple of #4 Friends?
A smooth face is one thing, but to place bolts next to a big crack is another. There is NO reason to bolt next to a big crack.
Charlie Porter didn't have to bolt the Excalibur on El Capitan; he used aluminum shim blocks against bongs. This was at least six years before Jardine invented his cams.
Today? Just shim your #5 Camalots with pieces of 2x4 duct-taped to the cams.
Drilling next to big cracks is stupid.
[ This Message was edited by: apollodorus on 2002-08-12 18:28 ]
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 11, 2002, 7:37 AM
Post #108 of 137
(9551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Ah! "To bolt, or not to bolt. That is the question." I say, only when necessary. Than I'm all good with it.
Steve
[ This Message was edited by: wildtrail on 2002-08-11 01:24 ]
|
|
|
|
|
maculated
Aug 12, 2002, 4:30 AM
Post #109 of 137
(9551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2001
Posts: 6179
|
Although this is something that constantly gets beat to death, living here in Tuolumne has lead me to be privvy to some intellectual discussions as to the use of bolts.
Let me preface my statement by saying that:
a) Tuolumne is known for its runouts
b) I started out as a sport climber and have no problem with bolted routes within reason.
A couple of weeks ago a bunch of us climbers got to discussing the bolting situation from an NPS perspective and Naomi, the Tuolumne climbing ranger (and an excellent one at that), pointed out that climbers were the only ones priveledged to alter the wilderness. That being the case, we should respect it.
Then, conversation turned to a well known classic: The SouthEast face of Cathedral Peak. On the top, there were bolts for rapping off the blocks and descending. These bolts have been chopped and mandate a 5.4 downclimb.
Two schools of thought on this were: If you can climb Cathedral, you should be able to downclimb it and not have the bolts. If you climb Cathedral, the downclimb is dangerous and someone has already put up the bolts, so yay - let's use them.
I'd never done the climb until yesterday and the bolts had, indeed, been chopped. Both my partner and I were bummed. I mean, the rock was already marred because I could see the hangerless head of the bolt sticking out there, teasing me. I also hate downclimbing. Especially unprotected downclimbing. My partner was desirous of protection so I put him on belay while he downclimbed. I had to do it with a rope tied to me and full rack.
Bolts. They can be good. Don't chop them if they are just because you think you're a badass soloist and everyone should be, too.
|
|
|
|
|
wonder1978
Aug 12, 2002, 5:02 AM
Post #110 of 137
(9551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2002
Posts: 250
|
All I wanna say is bolt or don't bolt but make up your mind for cryin out loud
I went to a small crag on a sunny afternoon, I saw a beautiful line of bolts on a face and couldn't resist. I start climbing, then what happens? After the 4th bolt...nothing, blank, void,...no bolts anymore Why? Because there was a small horizontal crack where there should have been a bolt. The 5th bolt was a deadly run out two trad pros higher. After I got down from the 4th bolt, pissed as hell, a climber showed me the topo which said: MIX. What in the f---in' hell is that all about. Am I going to carry the whole god damn rack with me for two lousy pros on a FACE climb? Now the only way I can climb something hard securely at that crag is A)by asking a local exactly what gear I need to bring B)rappeling down the route and preplacing the pro C)not bother with that non-sense and go climb at Rumney. This is bullshit if you ask me: Bolt or don't bolt Mix, this is just annoying
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
compclimber
Aug 12, 2002, 10:34 PM
Post #111 of 137
(9551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 22, 2001
Posts: 683
|
Woah... If I remember right this was probably my first post here at the site. At least one of the first five I made. Cool to see it back up again... especially considering there was probably about 15 core users of this site when I started it.
|
|
|
|
|
bellster
Aug 13, 2002, 1:18 AM
Post #112 of 137
(9551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2002
Posts: 1
|
I don't believe that bolts should ever be added to a route unless the person who made the first ascent goes back and adds them for whatever reason. There is more to a route than just the moves that are made to get to the top...a rock climbing route is an experience. A runout may be part of the experience that the climber who first climbed the route envisioned when creating the route. If an artist created a painting that used a red that was bright and gave you a headache when you looked at it...you wouldn't go and add some blue to the color to tone it down so that you could enjoy it more. A rock route is the same...it's a beautiful creation. None of us are so important that we should alter a route so that we can climb it. If a route is not protected how you would like...then don't climb the route. Find a different route that has protection more to your liking.
|
|
|
|
|
the_elk
Aug 13, 2002, 1:44 AM
Post #113 of 137
(9551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2002
Posts: 200
|
Why not throw in another post on this topic?
A "friend" of mine rang me the other day to tell me he had done the FFA of a climb at a climbing area a couple of hours east of Melbourne. In order to climb it he had to bolt it. Personally I had a go at him, not because he bolted it, because I have seen the climb, I've done the climb on top rope, and know that it had no natural gear, and was to either be solo'd or bolted. My problem was that he did not do adequate research into it. He didn't talk to anyone who had set up climbs in that area, he didn't approach the proper people involved. He just had a look in a guide book, checked out whether it had been listed as a climb and assumed that it had never been done before.
If I was the first ascentionist of that climb, I'd be choppin' the bolts! His ethics, as far as I'm concerned are wrong. He happily goes out and bolts if he thinks he should. His theory being that if it is too far between gear there should be protecion, so he'll go bolt it. So far he hasn't done too much, and hasn't apparently stepped on any toes... but it's only a matter of time. And I will happily watch him get put back in his place by a first ascentionist. If he doesn't get permission from the right people after being told by at least 5 of us the proper way to go about it, then he deserves it.
cheers
Elk
|
|
|
|
|
mhr2000
Aug 13, 2002, 6:39 AM
Post #114 of 137
(9551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2002
Posts: 290
|
I have just now begun to get interested in climbing and it's pretty simple to see how bolting every route is just wrong. I've been debating as to exactly how I want to start my climbing career. Considering my options bouldering seems to be a great place to start because it's all natural without bolts and minimal risk for a newbie like myself. Great for building technique and endurance both physically and mentally. I've done some free climbing on 30/40 footers but they weren't anything very risky. My point being is there has to be something to graduate to. While bolts have their place, I'd much rather be challenged by nature and overcome it (isn't that the whole point). I understand the commitment factor that many are talking about. If you bolt every 10 feet then where is the mental challenge and commitment. I also understand bolts can be ignored and not used, but just seeing the bolts is kind of like finding out your girlfriend lied about being a virgin. Every man who came around was able to have her. Knowing the route your climbing has been ascended by every person who came upon it is just somewhat disappointing to me. I feel there has to be some sort of "rite of passage". If, as a rookie, I could climb the toughest route available because it's bolted, then what was the point? As I progress I want to know that bigger and better challenges await and only those who have reached higher skill levels are capable of beating them. This is the "rite of passage". A common thing among all sports and activities.
Well, this is just my 2 cents. I'll get off my soap box now. Hope I didn't offend anyone as this was not my intention. I plan on sticking around and learning as much as I can from what appears to be a great bunch of experienced climbers.
Matt
|
|
|
|
|
metoliusmunchkin
Aug 13, 2002, 8:50 PM
Post #115 of 137
(9551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2001
Posts: 1410
|
Again I am discouraged at the finding of such heated debate birthed through such matters of opinion. Most debates worth while are the opinions derived from fact, a true statement. Such statements made within this forum are solely the opinions of others. Why continue such meaningless quarrel?
Bolting a route is based on the matter of opinion. If the distinct climber wishes to bolt a particular undiscovered climb, it is that particular climber's prerogative. However, I am very much against the bolting of classic trad routes.
Trad routes belong to the use of trad gear, used by trad climbers. Sport routes (bolted routes) can be used by any climber willing to utilize the bolts upon the climb. The two should not be interlocked. It is here where the heated debate should lie.
If an inexperienced sport climber finds a particular trad route too difficult, and thus bolts the route to better suit his needs, the bolts should be chopped along with the questioned climber's hands. This is the highest form of disrespect I can personally think of whilst considering the many faults of rude climbers - rude to the community, and rude to his fellowship.
That is all.
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
Aug 14, 2002, 2:10 PM
Post #116 of 137
(9551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
The longer this thread goes, the less likely it will be that the people who are posting have actually read what others have already said, including in the other forum threads linked.
"Wonder"boy: if you want a completly convenient climbing experience, go indoors. Mixed-pro routes are in many ways at the heart of this very discussion. Mixed-pro routes indicate that the author of the route did indeed demonstrate respect for the rock. Your attitude is what those of us who care about access are too often battling against, when we talk to land managers, private land owners, etc. Land managers and owners have encountered the grid bolting of cliff walls and faces, which is damage done by lazy-ass whiney arrogant shit-for-brains morons who want a quick cheap thrill, and then back to their SUV for a ride to the nearest Starbucks. It's a very short step from this attitude to justifying chipping and "comfortizing" holds and routes. So, if it's a little too offensive to your tough manly persona to carry in some trad gear for a day of climbing, then stay home, or go to that really tough, but convenient gym.
Read these threads, and do a little research in the vast climbing history literature out there, before you make such an ass out of yourself. You're not the first to express such laziness and selfish arrogance, and, unfortunately, you probably won't be the last. But, show a little respect to the thousands of climbers that have come before you, and appreciate the decades of climbing that precede your efforts, by learning more. And: say less.
|
|
|
|
|
wonder1978
Aug 15, 2002, 2:08 AM
Post #117 of 137
(9551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2002
Posts: 250
|
Well jds, nice try, very aggressive indeed but my opinion still stands. The fact is that thecrag I am referring to and that you know nothing whatsoever about is essentially sport apart from these few very dangerous routes.
For what it's worth, I do climb trad and appreciate it very much. I am informed and have read the other posts. I am also very respectful of all styles of climbers, even those with elitist attitudes such as you seem to have.
I can climb up to 5.9 trad and up to 5.11+ sport. I will not bring my rack on a 5.11 as it would be dangerous for me at this level. I choose not to do those routes and respect (and admire) those who do climb them. I do not always carry a guide book with me. I believe that a guide book is not a prerequisite for climbing. When I see a line of bolts and I am climbing at a crag that is considered 'sport', I am justified in thinking that this route will therefore be 'sport'. When I realize that it is not, halfway up, in a precarious position, risking a dreadfully long fall, I am justified in being pissed and so would you. I do not carry my full rack when I expect to climb a route that is supposedly 'sport'. Do you?
Big difference:
Mix: placing a bolt on a trad route to avoid a potentially deadly run out. Yes, thank you, well done
Mix: Refraining to place a bolt on an otherwise bolted sport route because of a tiny spot for an rp. Hell no, you are endangering my life as well as other climber's
Anecdote: A few years back at this very crag a guy comes up and sees a line of bolts that looks inviting. The first bolt is high, way high. The guy choses to respect the first ascender's idea and do it in a clean style, no stick clip, no t-r, no rappeling down. Ground up as they say. After all, if the f-a chose to do it this way, who is he to question his godlike wisdom. And he's a pretty solid climber all things considered. He goes for it, reaches the first bolt, clips the quickdraw. At the very moment that he grabs the rope his belayerslips and pulls the rope very slightly. The guy loses balance and plummets down. He's in a wheelchair to this day but he did respect the f-a to the end. True story.
Turns out that the f-a could solo .12+ and didn't give a sh it about anyone else. The locals would ask him to protect the ground fall a bit more reasonably on his routes but hey, they're way too respectful of his majesty to even ask. Instead they just don't climb his routes, but they keep them clean in case Peter Croft might stumble by.
Waste of rock if you ask me.
Very respectfully,
Steve.
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
Aug 15, 2002, 4:03 PM
Post #118 of 137
(9551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
Steve, your complaints about the particular route you mentioned are not much different than if you had gotten onto a route that you had no idea about, and found it beyond your capabilities that day. You seemed to primarily be bitching about the inconvenience of a mixed-pro route, and assert that a portion of a route that is trad-protectable should be bolted for the convenience of those who did not bring a rack that day. And, as far as "climbing securely" at that crag or any other, you may need to define your sense of "securely". Maybe you unintentionally sound as though risk is not part of your climbing experience. Risk is part of climbing, period. And, that's not elitist; that's the nature of the activity.
It also sounds as though it wouldn't have taken too much effort to find out a little more about this particular crag's development, or this particular route, if another climber who is right there has a topo.
I do climb most frequently at a crag that is primarily a sport climbing destination. There are also some trad routes, and some mixed pro routes (not "mixed" routes, which is a different definition), but I have taken the time to get to know what's there, and I do take a rack if I plan on getting on the mixed-pro routes. I take the gear that I need for those routes, not the full rack. I'm also prepared to back down if I encounter an unknown or unexpected element.
This sport crag has become very popular, and my partners and I have noticed an increase in climbers who seem to think -to assume- that everything is or should be laid out for them to just pull up in the car, rap down a fixed line that they have no idea about it's history (how old, who put it there, are the anchors safe, etc. etc.), hop on any and every bolted route that isn't overhanging, and treat it like an outdoor gym. These are the same people who bitch endlessly that a new edition of a guidebook hasn't been published, as if they have a right to demand someone else's efforts in the form of a comprehnesive guidebook, and they have the right to complain and insult the author for taking "so long". These are the people who put in no effort to clean up areas, make no effort to help with access issues by improving relations with managers and other user groups, and act like they're God's gift to climbing when they hangdog a 5.11b.
As far as your anecdote, it is a rotten situation for that climber to end up paralyzed. But, the unfortunate truth is also that he made the choice to attempt the route, and it's also true that his belayer screwed up at a crucial moment. This has little or nothing to do with the nature of the pro of the route that the climber had chosen to attempt. (By the way, the anecdote has nothing to do with your complaint of being "annoyed" by a mixed-pro route. Your complaint is about the inconvenience of carrying some trad gear.)
If this one climber who put up routes with poor or inconsiderate pro is such a pariah, by consensus, I certainly believe that the climbing community is ehtically able to correct bad bolting. I've posted a lot on this website about the ethics of bolting, and about the ethics of respecting FAs, etc. I am no idealogue about these matters. I believe that actions about retro-bolting and correcting bad bolting should be taken as a result of community consideration, by group consensus. If this climber is so unilateral and selfish in his thinking and actions, then, if the community at large agrees, I think the routes are subject to correction. But, it's a slippery slope to start down. (By the way, if commuinity consensus was that these mixed-pro routes should be bolted, then I would support that decision. I would disagree with the ethics of it, but I would support that it's the right of the community to have a different ethic than mine, and act in the community's interests in managing a community resource.)
My ethic, and that of the general community of climbers here, is that we would not bolt a trad-protectable route or section. The concepts of when a bolt "should" be placed, of "safe" bolting, "waste of rock", etc., is individualy too subjective, and that's why community consensus is so important.
Respecting the rock, the resource, nature, is hardly an elitist attitude. Rather, I think that it is the height of arrogance to assume that climbing should be made more convenient -less "annoying"- for one climber.
[ This Message was edited by: jds100 on 2002-08-15 09:14 ]
|
|
|
|
|
fieldmouse
Aug 15, 2002, 5:06 PM
Post #119 of 137
(9551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2002
Posts: 404
|
the only bad thing steve diekoff did was to not return the hangers to their owner.
|
|
|
|
|
kerouac
Aug 15, 2002, 5:17 PM
Post #120 of 137
(9551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2001
Posts: 90
|
Would someone please lock this Topic. It has been talked about forever and no end in site.
|
|
|
|
|
spank_spank
Aug 15, 2002, 5:38 PM
Post #121 of 137
(9551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 480
|
Bolt the World
|
|
|
|
|
wonder1978
Aug 15, 2002, 7:54 PM
Post #122 of 137
(9551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2002
Posts: 250
|
jds, we seem to be approaching some sort of agreement here. My arguments may seem harsh at times but this is mainly for the purpose of making a livelier conversation. I'm not a bad person all in all.
some precisions: I do climb mixed-pro routes when I expect to be climbing such a route.
The route in question was not beyond my abilities but the run out certainly was. Of course their wouldn't have been a run out had I brought gear. I would have brought gear if I had known it was needed. I would have known if I had had a guidebook. I did not have a guide book therefore I had no way to know. And most importantly the route was completely bolted save for that ridiculous placement.
Once again there is a big difference between placing a bolt on a trad route to protect a run out and not placing a bolt on an otherwise bolted sport route for the sake of one small placement.
Bringing gear on a route doesn't annoy me in the least, I assure you.
In fact my main argument was mostly, as you have mentionned, against bad bolting. I might not have made that clear enough.
Regards,
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
Aug 15, 2002, 11:53 PM
Post #123 of 137
(9551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
Steve, I agree; we're probably pretty close to being on the same page on this.
Good climbing out there.
Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
mkadlec
Aug 17, 2002, 1:21 PM
Post #124 of 137
(9551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2001
Posts: 25
|
I am all for bolting, and I love to climb trad. For the life of me I can't understand people opposed to bolting, if you don't want to use a particular bolt - don't use it!
There have been many times where I have questioned bolts that are 3 feet apart or right next to a nice natural placement, but I have chosen to use them or not to use them, it was a simple decision.
Do the bolt choppers look at bouldering problems and try to knock out holds around the bouldering problem for fear they may be tempted to use them?
Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
collegekid
Aug 18, 2002, 4:16 AM
Post #125 of 137
(9551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2002
Posts: 1852
|
I think it's a little different then that...sometimes (as*holes) chop new holds into old bouldering problems, or deepen current holds so that their weak hands can hang on....I think that is more like what over-bolting is. It's tough to not use carved holds, especially if the formerly small holds were enlarged.
The rock should be altered as little as possible (ie chopping holds, bolting, etc). If you can't handle the small holds, or the lack of bolts, get off the rock and go somewhere else, PREFERABLY A GYM. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
