|
weschrist
Apr 4, 2006, 4:36 AM
Post #26 of 54
(4567 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2004
Posts: 579
|
In reply to: A lot of people seem to forget about a man called Richard Wilson who apparently free-climbed all the pitches of the Nose in the early 1980's, although it was never publiscised/readily reported because he took a fall on the Great Roof pitch when his intention was for an onsight and he did not want to tarnish his reputation as an up-and-coming climber.
That is probably the dumbest story I have ever heard in my life.
Kind of like that previously unknown climber in socal who put up some 14d or 15a or something and had one witness... a non climber who, upon further inquiry, didn't know jack shit about climbing and had no idea what a redpoint was. When others questioned the validity of the send the FA wanker chopped the holds.
If someone can really climb that hard you are going to hear way more about them than some obscure post 20 years after the fact on rc.com.
|
|
|
|
|
brooks8970
Apr 4, 2006, 4:49 AM
Post #27 of 54
(4567 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 21
|
I think the fact that tommy and beth swung leads shows the best style yet. It shows a complete disregard for those that speak of climbing only in terms of redpoints, onsights, and letter grades. They climbed the route together as a team. IMO, that is climbing in its best form.
|
|
|
|
|
weschrist
Apr 4, 2006, 4:59 AM
Post #28 of 54
(4567 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2004
Posts: 579
|
In reply to: who cares? they both sent it free....doesnt much matter who sent which pitch first...
We'll just assume it was the man...
In reply to: and if there is a specific pitch on the route i want to lead (usually the crux), then i lead it.
Why bother with leading it when a TR is just as valid?
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Apr 4, 2006, 5:21 AM
Post #29 of 54
(4567 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
*Why bother with leading it when a TR is just as valid?*
I tend to agree with this to a certain extent. On short hard (sub 30') routes that have to be closely bolted for leading to avoid groundfalls, stopping to clip in every 6-8 feet often makes clipping as hard as actually doing the moves. I've always thought top roping something like that was just as valid as leading it. On tall stuff though, the weight of the top rope starts to kick in, whether you are actually weighting it or not it takes a little bit of weight off of you. Top roping 100 foot tall routes where the crux is near the top means you've got 80-90 feet of rope pulling upwards on you when you're on the crux. In that situation top roping kinda does invalidate the ascent. I've done lots of routes that way, but I never claimed them as sends, because they weren't.
By the way, something I haven't seen Caldwell get credit for is the fact that he, Croft and Schultz are the only people to do 2 El Cap routes in one day - except that Croft and Schultz jumared big chunks of sections that the other led, whereas Caldwell freed everything on lead. How burly is that...
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Apr 4, 2006, 5:27 AM
Post #30 of 54
(4567 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
In reply to: Why bother with leading it when a TR is just as valid?
personal preference.
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Apr 4, 2006, 2:48 PM
Post #32 of 54
(4567 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: In reply to: I say screw that. Topropes are valid redpoints. Call it whatever you want, but it just ain't right.
Do you hang your own draws when you redpoint?
Times change. The sport evolves.
In reply to: I watched a guy stick a crux dyno to a jug just before the chains, try to get set up to clip, but couldn't hold on. Another wanker at the crag called it a send and congratulated him. I was pleased to see the climber had more dignity than that and didn't consider it a send because he felt like he didn't finish the route.
Clipping the anchor isn't part of the climb, but if he wasn't "in control" on the last hold, I wouldn't count it. If he conciously decided to jump instead of clip (even if his reason was that he wasn't sure he could clip if he tried), then he redpointed it in my book.
I guess, though, if we can't truly send things without clipping an anchor, we will need to start adding bolts to the ends of boulder problems.
By the way, where I'm from, a lot of the sport routes have no anchors and top out (and then you fall a bunch of times to clean). 'Round here we know that you've sent it when the climbing is over, which is sometimes a different point in time from when the clipping is over. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Apr 4, 2006, 3:00 PM
Post #33 of 54
(4567 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: *Why bother with leading it when a TR is just as valid?* I tend to agree with this to a certain extent. On short hard (sub 30') routes that have to be closely bolted for leading to avoid groundfalls, stopping to clip in every 6-8 feet often makes clipping as hard as actually doing the moves. I've always thought top roping something like that was just as valid as leading it.
These are the types of routes I climb, and that is probably what's formed my viewpoint on this.
Even when people "lead" these routes, they are liable to stick clip multiple bolts. And even stick clipping only 1 bolt on routes of this length can sometimes result in toproping 1/3rd or more of the route, anyway. So it seems pretty arbitrary to care about whether you are "leading".
In reply to: On tall stuff though, the weight of the top rope starts to kick in, whether you are actually weighting it or not it takes a little bit of weight off of you. Top roping 100 foot tall routes where the crux is near the top means you've got 80-90 feet of rope pulling upwards on you when you're on the crux. In that situation top roping kinda does invalidate the ascent. I've done lots of routes that way, but I never claimed them as sends, because they weren't.
Hmm... I don't think I've actually ever toproped an 100' tall route (heh). But if the rope really pulls as you describe, it is worth noting that if you can clip a bolt that is above the crux before you have to do it, you would have the same effect.... (this would require a short crux to work, though)
However, I sure as hell have stick-clipped up to 3 or 4 bolts on routes that long. And damn right I'll call it a redpoint. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Apr 4, 2006, 3:03 PM
Post #34 of 54
(4567 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: *Why bother with leading it when a TR is just as valid?* I tend to agree with this to a certain extent. On short hard (sub 30') routes that have to be closely bolted for leading to avoid groundfalls, stopping to clip in every 6-8 feet often makes clipping as hard as actually doing the moves. I've always thought top roping something like that was just as valid as leading it.
These are the types of routes I climb, and that is probably what's formed my viewpoint on this.
Even when people "lead" these routes, they are liable to stick clip multiple bolts. And even stick clipping only 1 bolt on routes of this length can sometimes result in toproping 1/3rd or more of the route, anyway. So it seems pretty arbitrary to care about whether you are "leading".
In reply to: On tall stuff though, the weight of the top rope starts to kick in, whether you are actually weighting it or not it takes a little bit of weight off of you. Top roping 100 foot tall routes where the crux is near the top means you've got 80-90 feet of rope pulling upwards on you when you're on the crux. In that situation top roping kinda does invalidate the ascent. I've done lots of routes that way, but I never claimed them as sends, because they weren't.
Hmm... I don't think I've actually ever toproped an 100' tall route (heh). But if the rope really pulls as you describe, it is worth noting that if you can clip a bolt that is above the crux before you have to do it, you would have the same effect....
However, I sure as hell have stick-clipped up to 3 or 4 bolts on routes that long. And damn right I'll call it a redpoint. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Apr 4, 2006, 3:09 PM
Post #35 of 54
(4567 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: I've toproped some R rated trad leads already, but I don't consider them sends, they're circled on my ticklist with a TR beside them.
My comments are about sport climbing, so I don't disagree with the above.
In reply to: If someday I man up and get on them on lead and don't fall, I'll consider those lines sent and cross them off.
But I do disagree with this. If you toprope-rehearsed them, you can never really "send" them in true traditional style. Same thing if you fall or hang on it without lowering. Sorry.
Maybe you should take up sport climbing instead. :)
|
|
|
|
|
mr8615
Apr 4, 2006, 6:57 PM
Post #36 of 54
(4567 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2004
Posts: 1032
|
In reply to: In reply to: I've toproped some R rated trad leads already, but I don't consider them sends, they're circled on my ticklist with a TR beside them. My comments are about sport climbing, so I don't disagree with the above. In reply to: If someday I man up and get on them on lead and don't fall, I'll consider those lines sent and cross them off. But I do disagree with this. If you toprope-rehearsed them, you can never really "send" them in true traditional style. Same thing if you fall or hang on it without lowering. Sorry. Maybe you should take up sport climbing instead. :)
I thought this thread was about free climbing el cap? How did we descend into stick clipping sport bolts?
So you're saying that because Tommy and Beth rehearsed the pitches then theirs wasn't a true send? Since Tommy had already freed the nose (although half of the pitches weren't on lead) with Beth, his free lead of all pitches on the nose doesn't count as a send and neither does his linkup, since he had already 'rehearsed' both climbs? Following your logic, nothing short of onsight can be considered a send in true traditional style. That's what I'm getting from what you've said. It seems like your logic doesn't add up.
|
|
|
|
|
golsen
Apr 4, 2006, 8:16 PM
Post #37 of 54
(4567 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2005
Posts: 361
|
In reply to: Times change. The sport evolves.
Dont worry mr8615, I think Mr. fracture is confused.
To think that top-roping pitches on a big wall over months of time is "evolution" and to think that it is on the same par style wise with Lynn's ascent is ludicrous.
If Mr. Fracture wants to pretend his top rope ascents are every bit as valid and stylin as a lead ascent , I say whatever...but dont spray your confusion all over the internet, and for gods sake, dont call it evolution. The next thing you know we will be hiking around the back side to get to the top and calling it a send!
There is nothing wrong with top-roping. But that is what it is, top roping.
Hats off to Scott, Lynn, Tommy and Beth.
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Apr 4, 2006, 10:51 PM
Post #38 of 54
(4567 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: If someday I man up and get on them on lead and don't fall, I'll consider those lines sent and cross them off. But I do disagree with this. If you toprope-rehearsed them, you can never really "send" them in true traditional style. Same thing if you fall or hang on it without lowering. Sorry. Maybe you should take up sport climbing instead. :) I thought this thread was about free climbing el cap? How did we descend into stick clipping sport bolts?
Someone said toproping doesn't count as a redpoint. "Redpointing" is really a sport climbing thing. It's called "thread drift".
In reply to: So you're saying that because Tommy and Beth rehearsed the pitches then theirs wasn't a true send?
No; it certainly was a send (and so was Burke's).
But I'd say that because they rehearsed pitches (and likely used some pre-placed gear, like Lynn did), it certainly was not a traditional-style ascent.
It's like Beth's (impressive, if you ask me) ascent of Sphinx Crack (5.13). She essentially sport climbed the thing. Redpointing a route (i.e. free climbing it after rehearsing moves) on pre-placed cams is not traditional climbing.
In reply to: Following your logic, nothing short of onsight can be considered a send in true traditional style. That's what I'm getting from what you've said. It seems like your logic doesn't add up.
You would already know what I was getting at if you knew more about the history of free climbing in this country. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Apr 4, 2006, 11:01 PM
Post #39 of 54
(4567 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: If Mr. Fracture wants to pretend his top rope ascents are every bit as valid and stylin as a lead ascent , I say whatever...but dont spray your confusion all over the internet, and for gods sake, dont call it evolution.
Oh right. Sorry to actually discuss rock climbing on a rock climbing website. I suppose I should just resume sucking up to celebrity climbers and starting shoe threads....
In reply to: The next thing you know we will be hiking around the back side to get to the top and calling it a send!
Sounds like... mountaineering!
In reply to: There is nothing wrong with top-roping. But that is what it is, top roping.
Hey wow, I agree. :roll:
Oh: and there's nothing wrong with leading, either. (Especially since it is often much easier.)
|
|
|
|
|
mr8615
Apr 5, 2006, 12:43 AM
Post #40 of 54
(4567 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2004
Posts: 1032
|
Fracture, I'm just curious to pick your mind, can you describe for me a situation where realistic toproping is headier than leading? I'm honestly curious as to what you come up with.
Let the thread drift continue, wait, this is definitely an all out hijack.
|
|
|
|
|
holdeddie
Apr 5, 2006, 1:15 AM
Post #41 of 54
(4567 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 20, 2005
Posts: 92
|
To those people that said that because in Top Roping you can weight the rope- and that dosent make it a send--- you are right but to legitify tommys/beths ascent- in the issue of alpinist it says that on the changing corners pitch (5.14a), the crux of the whole shabang beth freed it twice because the first time she thought she wieghted the rope when her foot slipped
Just to make their ascent goood
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Apr 5, 2006, 1:16 AM
Post #42 of 54
(4567 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
*So you're saying that because Tommy and Beth rehearsed the pitches then theirs wasn't a true send?*
You can sport climb trad routes - which is basically what they did on the hard pitches.
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Apr 5, 2006, 1:33 AM
Post #43 of 54
(4567 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: Fracture, I'm just curious to pick your mind, can you describe for me a situation where realistic toproping is headier than leading? I'm honestly curious as to what you come up with.
Sure, no problem.
Here's a good one:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...p.cgi?Detailed=46917
"At this point you are looking at a 22 foot ground fall inspite of the top rope and the next few moves are the crux."
(Yeah, I'm trying to goad you into posting in this thread, Joseph.)
Here's another:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...p.cgi?Detailed=22971
You can't tell in this photo, but the climber is actually only about 20' from the ground: if you toprope this route (which would be hard to do, because it doesn't even have an anchor), you would nearly deck backwards if you unclip and then fall.
There's also this:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...p.cgi?Detailed=27343
The second to last draw in the picture is the one you stick clip to toprope the boulder problem start (which is down and to the left)---you either need to bring crash pads and spotters, or just not fall off the beginning, and it's the crux.
Situations like these are common if you climb very steep (and short) routes---which is basically what we have where I live. It is relatively common practice (at least, you will see it around here a fair amount), to stick clip a higher bolt once you have dailed the earlier moves on a super-steep route so you can save energy by not having to make extra clips. For example, in the last picture above, you might stick clip only the first bolt when learning the first half of the opening boulder problem in order to make it safer and easier to hangdog---but you sure as hell don't want to have to clip during that boulder problem on a redpoint attempt, so you do it as a toprope/bouldering hybrid.
Personally, even when it is relatively safe, or I have crash pads, the thought of swinging out backwards out of control towards the ground scares me way more than a completely safe, short sport climbing fall onto a bomber modern bolt.
That's regarding "headier". However, my other claim is that toproping is frequently harder than leading, and situations where that is the case are far more common. Primarily this is the case when you are trying to hangdog and work moves on a very steep route---toproping will leave you swinging out into space when you miss a move, unable to try it again (unless you feel like boinking and then somehow downclimbing the move you couldn't do). I'll spare you further arguments, though, unless you want them....
|
|
|
|
|
golsen
Apr 5, 2006, 4:23 AM
Post #44 of 54
(4567 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2005
Posts: 361
|
Mr Fracture, I dont have any problems with what you are saying above. Only when you say so adamantly that top roping is harder than lead climbing. Anyone who has climbed a bit has run into potential groundfalls and or trees behind them while TRing. But we are talking about El Cap, not some dinky crag in Texas. Have you done El Cap? It aint Texas. And toproping a pitch on El Cap and saying it went free is definitely NOT the same as leading it. Nor is it "evolvution" of the sport...
Thats not to say that TRing every pitch on the Nose is not impressive. It is, but it is not the same as leading...
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Apr 5, 2006, 4:15 PM
Post #45 of 54
(4567 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: Only when you say so adamantly that top roping is harder than lead climbing.
What I said is that it is frequently harder. Not always.
The important point is that the view so many climbers display about leading being better style is simply not rational, and moreover is incoherent because toproping is often more difficult.
An alternative view suggests that you should lead or toprope (or stick-clip) simply based on whatever makes it easier and more convenient for you to protect a route you are trying to climb (and contrary to what you may expect, this results in leading or leading with several bolts stick-clipped the majority of the time). This moves the issue away from nonsensical debates about "ethics" and "style", and into the more coherent framework of "redpoint tactics", where we can actually answer questions like "is hangdogging a good idea?" without resorting to religious dogma.
In reply to: And toproping a pitch on El Cap and saying it went free is definitely NOT the same as leading it.
On a traversing pitch under a roof that is only lead with pre-placed gear? Why do you really think it matters so much? If you don't even want to call it "free", apparently, for you, whether the rope goes to your left or your right even matters more than whether you can do the moves---that is, the actual climbing, which is supposedly the point of this whole activity, if you remember...
In reply to: Nor is it "evolvution" of the sport...
The anti-toproping zeal which many climbers display makes almost as little sense as the "lower after every fall" thing. And there is a price to this nonsense---it holds people back, and prevents them from focusing on movement and actually learning how to rock climb.
Getting rid of much of the unnecessary and incoherent "ethical" baggage we've inherited from the past is paramount for the evolution of the sport.
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Apr 5, 2006, 4:50 PM
Post #46 of 54
(4567 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
In reply to: On a traversing pitch under a roof that is only lead with pre-placed gear? Why do you really think it matters so much? If you don't even want to call it "free", apparently, for you, whether the rope goes to your left or your right even matters more than whether you can do the moves---that is, the actual climbing, which is supposedly the point of this whole activity, if you remember...
You haven't been up there, have you?
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Apr 5, 2006, 4:53 PM
Post #47 of 54
(4567 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: In reply to: On a traversing pitch under a roof that is only lead with pre-placed gear? Why do you really think it matters so much? If you don't even want to call it "free", apparently, for you, whether the rope goes to your left or your right even matters more than whether you can do the moves---that is, the actual climbing, which is supposedly the point of this whole activity, if you remember... You haven't been up there, have you?
Nope. Care to elaborate?
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Apr 5, 2006, 5:27 PM
Post #48 of 54
(4567 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
To throw some more fuel on the fire:
Tommy Calwell about Burke:
"I give him credit. I feel people should be able to do what they want up there, as long as they report honestly, which he did.... There's so many variations of what people count as a free ascent, in terms of stance to stance or ledge to ledge or in a push or one person or two---there's a bazillion different variations. There's no way you can police that and say what's legitimate, I don't think."
(What isn't mentioned in the above quote, though, is that Beth toproped more pitches---including the actual hardest pitch---than Scott Burke did.)
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Apr 5, 2006, 6:08 PM
Post #49 of 54
(4567 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
The Great Roof pitch is not a traverse and is not done on preplaced gear.
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Apr 5, 2006, 6:21 PM
Post #50 of 54
(4567 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
In reply to: (What isn't mentioned in the above quote, though, is that Beth toproped more pitches---including the actual hardest pitch---than Scott Burke did.)
that may be true, but she led the Great Roof....which isnt exactly a 'gimme' pitch!
|
|
|
|
|
|
