Some responces to a few statements made by 8flood8:
8flood8 wrote:
If the bolts were not put there to make the climb "safe" then why did they put any bolts at all?
To not die.
8flood8 wrote:
Do you know what the "rule of thumb" was? It was an old school ethic that no one subscribes to anymore.
I know many people that would like to leave bold climbs as they are. The old school ethic is alive and well, you may just not come across it if you hang out with certain climbing circles.
8flood8 wrote:
This isn't a penis or scrotal measuring contest, it is a sport and someone who thinks that their "ethic" is better than someone else's is just like all those other egotistical morons fighting wars out there.
The solution to the ethics debate and whether or not to retro-bolt runout climbs comes down to allowing everyone to do what they enjoy. I prefer bold climbs over bolts every 4 feet. But, I believe that some climbs should be bolted every 4 feet because that is what some climbers want. All I ask in return is that I am allowed to climb some routes in a style I enjoy, which means fewer bolts. Thus, why not leave bold climbs the way they are for those that enjoy it? Aren't there enough well bolted climbs out there? Thus bold climbs should be rebolted if necessary, but not retro-bolted without permission from the FA. Somebody please explain their thoughts if they don't think that this logic is fair.
The only people that should be placing new bolts or pitons are the ones that are putting up first ascents! If you ever feel so compelled to bolt something, go find a NEW line. It's not your duty to make someone else's route "safer." It's not your call. That's my two cents...
The solution to the ethics debate and whether or not to retro-bolt runout climbs comes down to allowing everyone to do what they enjoy. I prefer bold climbs over bolts every 4 feet. But, I believe that some climbs should be bolted every 4 feet because that is what some climbers want. All I ask in return is that I am allowed to climb some routes in a style I enjoy, which means fewer bolts.
One thing I don't get about this kind of argument is that it assumes that if a bolt is there, you *must* clip it. If you like *bold* climbing, then just tell yourself you will only clip every other bolt. Then you can still brag about how big your balls are. I feel like that's what this is all about. People that are brave/dumb/carefree enough to climb the sketchy routes want to have bragging rights. And if someone retrobolts it to make it safer, it makes it harder for the badass bold climbers to prove they are badass. they can still enjoy climbing boldly if they really want, regardless of how many bolts there are, but they won't *look* as bold, which is what really bothers them I think.
what about a climb that was put up with pins that are now rusty as hell. Should new pins be put in, or bolts perhaps. My local area is so full on pins that are so rusty I wouldn't hang my hat on them - and as a result the climbs are totally unleadable (unless you prefer soloing).
what about a climb that was put up with pins that are now rusty as hell. Should new pins be put in, or bolts perhaps. My local area is so full on pins that are so rusty I wouldn't hang my hat on them - and as a result the climbs are totally unleadable (unless you prefer soloing).
Yeah, replacing old dangerous bolts with new ones is fine, just don't add any new bolts in new places...... that's what I think.
One thing I don't get about this kind of argument is that it assumes that if a bolt is there, you *must* clip it. If you like *bold* climbing, then just tell yourself you will only clip every other bolt. Then you can still brag about how big your balls are. I feel like that's what this is all about. People that are brave/dumb/carefree enough to climb the sketchy routes want to have bragging rights. And if someone retrobolts it to make it safer, it makes it harder for the badass bold climbers to prove they are badass. they can still enjoy climbing boldly if they really want, regardless of how many bolts there are, but they won't *look* as bold, which is what really bothers them I think.
Let's try and keep this civil. No need to insult. Many people enjoy bold climbs not to brag, but rather because of the mental control it takes to keep things together when you are a bit runout. Some people find this extremely satisfying. Even if you may not understand that, isn't it okay to let people do what they enjoy? Bold climbers don't chop well bolted routes. Let's let everyone do what they enjoy. There is enough rock to do that.
As far as not cliping bolts that are there. You've got to be kidding me. That's like leaving a fixed rope on an aid climb and telling people "you don't have to use it."
Years have gone by, the FA team doesn't climb together anymore for a host of reasons. When they're asked about retrobolting the route to make an X an R, one of them says "absolutely not!!" and the other "absolutely - it scared the sh*t out of me!!"
What do you do?
You posted this in the sport climbing forum, so I am assuming that you are talking about a sport route. (And tangents about crags like Enchanted Rock are irrelevant.)
If so: retro it. The FA Veto Doctrine does not make sense in a sport climbing context. Putting up a sport route is not a climbing accomplishment: it is something that we have to do before we can even climb. Why do (some) sport FA's believe they deserve dictatorial control over future route modifications? Is it that they peed on it first? Do they think we should be impressed?
Give bolters of sport routes the naming rights (regardless of whether they get the first redpoint), but the concept of giving them veto power is both anti-democratic and an incoherent misapplication of concepts relevant to traditional climbing in a new and different era. Putting up a sport route is a community service, not a climbing accomplishment.
I have to disagree with you, the guys that put up the routes out at e-rock ....
This is the sport climbing forum. Routes like those at E-Rock are completely irrelevant.
But while we're at it, here's why modifications to the E-Rock backside are justifiable:
It is already grid bolted.
Some routes zig zag to try to take up more wall real-estate instead of following natural lines.
The anchors bolts are all too far apart horizontally, requiring the use of special long webbing instead of standard quick draws.
The anchors are all just barely out of range for lowering or toproping with a single 60 meter rope, and the final 30-40' feet of all the routes is boring sub-5.9 climbing that adds nothing to their difficulty.
The boring 30-40' easy sections have no bolts.
On many routes, the second bolt is too high for the first to adequately protect you from decking.
Many of the most dangerous "testpiece" routes are overgraded (in some cases, nearly a number grade), presumably because the FA was scared.
There is no other granite slab climbing anywhere remotely nearby---the crag was monopolized by a generation that doesn't even climb there anymore. These days, the Shield mostly sits empty, even though all the routes are warmup difficulty (or easier) for most modern climbers.
Basically: the E-Rock backside is the worst bolted route development I have ever seen. The routes are not designed, they were just done. It is a botch job of the worst kind: they botched an entire wall.
Stick clip the first bolt, don't fall at the second bolt.. Unless the fa team agrees then leave it be. 8flood. Typical texas ahole. Do it your way and screw em if they don't agree with you...........
Ok. You are defending the FA Veto Doctrine, and complaining about a "screw em if they don't agree" mentality.
Do you think that any of these fa guys are going to show up and chop some bolts on a 5.9 slab climb?
Yes, it's happened at Erock already. I think there are some posts at texasclimbers.com or erockonline.com regarding this happening last year. Bolts chopped at Cheap Wine wall maybe?
Yes, the FA came back (after a long hiatus from texas climbing) and chopped a retro without talking to anyone (coward). He later learned that the bolt was placed after our democratically-elected body voted to put it there (something he could have figured out by, well, I dunno, asking someone who still climbs?). Accordingly, he apologized, and even filed an application to re-place the bolt that he removed (commendable).
However, that's where the matter currently stands: the bolt is still gone.
This is not about the FA 'team.' This is about the history of our sport and respect for the past, for elders, and for the traditions that led to, well, all this.
Climbing's pre-history is a joke.
In reply to:
You needn't shit on all who came before you as you stand upon their shoulders to reach the next plateau. Show some respect!
When FA's from the past pretend they deserve veto power over future generations, "standing upon their shoulders" is not the metaphor I'd use. I think they're more like ... standing in our way.
In reply to:
Now to the action side of the issue - you 8flood8 are perfectly within your rights as an individual to go retro the route in question. No one requires you to check with anyone (presuming you don't have to kowtow to the State of Texas,).
(FYI, at E-Rock and Reimer's (the main Central Texas crags), all bolting is done through an agreement with the government where the local climbers democratically elect a body that makes the decisions. I don't think the OP was about Texas, though.)
All of the cools things we do today we do so perched on the shoulders of all the climbers who came before us. The choice is simple... respect or don't.
Let me explain why some in the old generation have trouble gaining respect with today's kids by transcribing a conversation I had with a 12 year old a few years ago:
Kid: "So-and-so says that 5.9 used to be the hardest climbing grade, is that true?" Me: "Yes." Kid: "Huh. Are you sure?" Me: "Yes." Kid: "But how is that possible? I mean, people can campus 5.9!"
You think it's an all-or-nothing proposition. You either respect the past or not. That's a false dichotomy: some of climbing's past is respectable, and some of it is not.
So, you want to see respect? Ask (or tell) some of these kids about John Gill.
I wouldn't retro it...I would toprope it until I felt comfortable enough w/ the climbing to risk leading it. I would lower my style before I lowered the style of the the climb.
This is the sport climbing forum. Why are you even discussing what the FA says?
Because respect for the FA is a default ethic that preserves community cohesiveness. You argue it's obsolete in the sport climbing arena. I disagree. But even allowing that's the case, it's not a sport route simply by virtue of the fact that we're discussing it in the RC.com Sport Climbing Forum. I agree that sport routes should be a form of community service, but we're discussing turning a bold lead into a sport climb, which to me makes a huge difference.
My opinion would be the same if we were talking about chopping a sport climb to create a bold lead.
I agree that sport routes should be a form of community service, [..]
How do you reconcile this with your support of the FA Veto Doctrine? Do you think the FA knows what the community wants better than the community itself?
(This post was edited by fracture on May 21, 2007, 9:31 PM)
I agree that sport routes should be a form of community service, [..]
How do you reconcile this with your support of the FA Veto Doctrine? Do you think the FA knows what the community wants better than the community itself?
Simple, if the community doesn't like it, they don't have to climb it. In a similar vein, food banks can refuse to take your donation, but they can't force you to go back and get something better.
The strict no-retro ethic has kept a lot of really proud lines just that: proud. I think the most telling argument I've ever heard against bolting is on Mountain Projects description of Perilous Journey. Some routes just shouldn't be made boring, no matter how dangerous you think it'd be.
I agree that sport routes should be a form of community service, [..]
How do you reconcile this with your support of the FA Veto Doctrine? Do you think the FA knows what the community wants better than the community itself?
Simple, if the community doesn't like it, they don't have to climb it.
Irrelevant. No one has to climb anything. (And furthermore, giving the community something they won't climb isn't much of a service.)
In reply to:
The strict no-retro ethic has kept a lot of really proud lines just that: proud. I think the most telling argument I've ever heard against bolting is on Mountain Projects description of Perilous Journey. Some routes just shouldn't be made boring, no matter how dangerous you think it'd be.
The glory (or proudness) you see in so-called "bold climbing" is a cognitive illusion created by a virulent meme-infection that, in addition to many other negative side-effects, is capable of destroying the host if left untreated. If you find the idea of risking your life for climbing to be attractive, I suggest you consult a mental health professional.
(This post was edited by fracture on May 22, 2007, 12:03 AM)
Irrelevant. No one has to climb anything. (And furthermore, giving the community something they won't climb isn't much of a service.)
...
The glory (or proudness) you see in so-called "bold climbing" is a cognitive illusion created by a virulent meme-infection that, in addition to many other negative side-effects, is capable of destroying the host if left untreated. If you find the idea of risking your life for climbing to be attractive, I suggest you consult a mental health professional.
First, you're absolutely right! Nobody has to climb anything. You're also right that putting up a route in ground up style is not a community service. Nor is it meant to be. If you want to do a community service, you put up a route that will be appreciated by the community. Simple as that.
As to my apparent mental delusion that climbing can be (and often is) a dangerous endeavor, well I guess you're right again. I meanOH NO! I SAW A SHADOW! I BETTER HIDE OR I MIGHT GET HURT!
19 /
16%
