Anything rap bolted should be fair game for reasonable fixes.
I'm speechless.
(Although, actually, I disagree. I do think local consensus should trump the lameness-factor. If locals really want to climb lame rap-bolted runout routes, let 'em have what they ask for.)
Anything rap bolted should be fair game for reasonable fixes.
I'm speechless.
(Although, actually, I disagree. I do think local consensus should trump the lameness-factor. If locals really want to climb lame rap-bolted runout routes, let 'em have what they ask for.)
well, your little parenthetical was more or less what I meant by 'reasonable.' But I think a rap equipped runout isn't really deserving of respect.
Honestly...I'll go again.... Fracture... you seem to be severly under-experienced in this area.
I am literally reading all of your posts thinking to myself "this guy has no clue as to what he is talking about" Just because your sissy ass can't get up a runout route certainly doe not entitle you to retrobolt it so you can mosey on to the top.
Some of us like to imporve our mental faculties as much as our physical.
I don't climb hard.... but I can certainly tell you that getting up a super slabbed out slick 5.9 R in cochise was vastly more rewarding than sending a well protected .11a. And it took a much greater degree of skill and mental fortitude to accomplish that than it did many much more technically difficult routes.
If someone like your ignorant ass had retrobolted it, cause ya felt like it, you would have robbed me of that experience and I take that very seriously.
Answer me this.... cause I guess I missed it...
Why is okay for you to retrobolt "my" route? Or a route that I put up... without my permission?
(This post was edited by azrockclimber on May 23, 2007, 4:40 PM)
An issue more likely than R-ratings (this isn't about safety!) at real-world sport crags is the addition of dogging bolts (intended to be skipped on redpoint). A lot of older sport routes do not have them (even in relatively obvious places), because they were less popular in sport-climbing's early days.
Ok, you got a good chuckle out of me with this one.
Does every route-working fall have to be a 4 footer? Do you really demand the convenience that comes with not having to reclimb that extra 10 feet? Aren't you the guy who says there's nothing to be scared of?
So what I say. So what if your working burns result in 20 footers. Let a different part of your rope take the abuse for a change.
Sorry, I just think it's amazing how much you'd like to homogenize sport climbing. HAHAHA!! Maybe the time has indeed arrived for permanent, color coded ticks.
Fracture seems to be advocating a universal standard to be applied at sport climbing areas, yet also denounces the opinions of those that don't climb in the areas in question (his local crags?). Throughout his most recent posts he alternates from one position to another. Please clarify this, if for no other reason than to allow us to know exactly where you stand.
Ok. Maybe I am not being clear enough.
I am arguing in this thread in favor of local control, instead of FA-control. If locals want to vote (or make their decisions or however it is structured, if it is structured) based on what they think the FA wants, that's their prerogative.
At the same time, I am expressing my view that that is not a good way to make decisions. That isn't something that I think should directly affect how climbers handle retro-bolting (in the sense of their self-governing or their elected bodies), except if people are convinced and want to change their "votes" (whether metaphorical or structured) to not be based on the FAVD.
Basically: I am arguing that support of the FA Veto Doctrine is irrational, anti-democratic, and harmful, but if locals at a crag want it, they deserve what they get. (It's kinda like being against racism, but defending the KKK's right to have racist marches on first amendment grounds.)
In reply to:
My personal opinion is that the FAV should be respected. I have retro bolted routes before, but always with the FA's permission. A few times this has been denied and I did not add bolts to those routes. Going even further back in my personal climbing history I can think of routes that I bolted, ground-up by hand-drilling, that I would be bummed to hear had been retro bolted.
Why would you be bummed? Do you still climb on them regularly? If not, don't you think that is a little bit selfish? What makes you think you have the right to tell other people how to enjoy those sections of rock?
In reply to:
I don't think that everything has to be 100% safe to be a valid or acceptable route. Nor do I think that all walls (regardless or size, steepness, or quality) should be bolted in whatever way would make them attainable by the largest number of users.
Nor do I.
In reply to:
The bottom line (IMO) would be that this should be discussed on a situational and local level. The FAV should be the universal standard unless the consensus of a local community decides otherwise. I would hate to see the FAV abandoned, but unless it's at an area I frequent I will be the first to suggest that my opinion should not carry as much weight as that of the locals.
So you and I are actually almost on the same side.
The only difference is that I would prefer to reverse the emphasis: I'd say that community consensus should be the universal standard (and is, de facto, anyway), and the FAVD should only apply if they decide to apply it.
Of course, a difference between me and you, is that I would also like to see the FAVD eradicated from the climbing meme-pool (or at least kept in quarantine at trad crags or areas I don't want to travel to). (And again: I am not willing to do it by force, dictatorship, or vigilante retro-bolting, because I believe in democratic local control over climbing resources.)
Does that clarify anything?
(This post was edited by fracture on May 23, 2007, 4:55 PM)
An issue more likely than R-ratings (this isn't about safety!) at real-world sport crags is the addition of dogging bolts (intended to be skipped on redpoint). A lot of older sport routes do not have them (even in relatively obvious places), because they were less popular in sport-climbing's early days.
Ok, you got a good chuckle out of me with this one.
Well, at least I'm doing something useful with my time.
In reply to:
Does every route-working fall have to be a 4 footer?
Of course not.
In reply to:
Do you really demand the convenience that comes with not having to reclimb that extra 10 feet?
If it is a beta-intensive or bouldery crux, of course! CI, if you ever get into gymnastic climbing, you might understand why.
In reply to:
Aren't you the guy who says there's nothing to be scared of?
A 30 footer into pure air and a 10 footer into pure air are essentially equivalent in terms of objective risk (provided that you are far enough from the ground, etc etc). If you are more nervous about one, it is because you have less experience with it, not because it is something to be scared of. Big falls do not always mean bold climbing.
And again, in case you aren't understanding: dogging bolts are things you usually skip on redpoint (because they are often placed mid-crux and are too hard to clip).
In reply to:
So what I say. So what if your working burns result in 20 footers. Let a different part of your rope take the abuse for a change.
If adding a $5 bolt can make even an average of a 1-try difference in redpoint-efficiency for a large number of people trying to do the route, I think it is worth it. That's one more burn you can put into another project, or another good warmup. Or a bit more energy you can save for later days in your road trip. That $5 is a direct investment in more time having fun climbing; a community service.
Dogging bolts, like chalk, hang-dogging, gluing, stick-clipping (and partial-toproping), or tick marks, are an innovation that can push (and have pushed) this sport to new levels. Why do you want to stop progress?
(This post was edited by fracture on May 23, 2007, 5:15 PM)
If adding a $5 bolt can make even an average of a 1-try difference in redpoint-efficiency for a large number of people trying to do the route, I think it is worth it. That's one more burn you can put into another project, or another good warmup. Or a bit more energy you can save for later days in your road trip. That $5 is a direct investment in more time having fun climbing; a community service.
Dogging bolts, like chalk, hang-dogging, stick-clipping (and partial-toproping), or tick marks, are an innovation that can push this sport to new levels. Why do you want to stop progress?
Red point efficiency!!! WTF??? haha...this is actually hilarious....haha
you would be burnt at the stake where I learned my climbing ethics.
People like you are ruining climbing for the rest of us.
(This post was edited by azrockclimber on May 23, 2007, 5:16 PM)
I see your point about the convenience of dogging bolts. I guess I don't find your rationale as compelling as you do though.
The line has been sent. Now you're talking about making it easier for you to send. Why can't you face it on the same terms? With the same risk of failure? Is it just ego? Is it just that climbing for you is boiled down to just moves and nothing else?
I must have missed the decree where sport climbing became about making routes easy and convenient to send.
In reply to: My personal opinion is that the FAV should be respected. I have retro bolted routes before, but always with the FA's permission. A few times this has been denied and I did not add bolts to those routes. Going even further back in my personal climbing history I can think of routes that I bolted, ground-up by hand-drilling, that I would be bummed to hear had been retro bolted.
Why would you be bummed? Do you still climb on them regularly? If not, don't you think that is a little bit selfish? What makes you think you have the right to tell other people how to enjoy those sections of rock?
It probably is somewhat based on selfish reasons, but at the same time some of those routes are perfectly safe; they just aren't sport routes. I don't think all bolted routes are necessarily sport climbs and the routes I'm thinking of fall into that category. If they were at sport climbing crags then I would not have a problem with them being retro bolted, but some routes at Joshua Tree and other areas of mixed climbing usage I would rather see left as they are. These are routes that still get regular activity (if not by me).
Thanks for reiterating your positions. It actually sounds like much of our thoughts are very similar.
If a local community decides to ignore the FAV, I would agree that that should be their decision. If I was part of that local community I would likely be on the side of the FAV though, in absence of a compelling argument to retro bolt.
Also, that local community should be made up of as many different factions and members of the total user group as possible. It would be very easy to skew results in one direction or another based on the opinions sought after. If we're going to accept a democratic opinion - it needs to be truly democratic and representative of the majority.
Now what the hell is so controversial about that???
Your insistance on categorizing 'respect of the FA' as a dictatorship.
Ah, I think I know what's going on here. DMT was raised by the type of family which equates "respect" with submission to authority. Just stop thinking and obey?
I'm sorry, Dingus. Truly sorry. You're welcome to PM me if you need someone to talk to about it.
Nah I'll just comtemplate your POV next time I find myself on a 35' tall clip up. (we call them boulders round here)
So, fracture, let me get this straight... what you're discussing is essentially two separate issues:
1. What we should do at crags, e.g., respect for FA or not. 2. How we decide what we'll do at crags, e.g., by consensus or authoritarianism.
Correct? If so I agree with you on #2 and disagree with you on #1. Consensus -- yes. But my vote in that consensus will be to respect the FA in many -- but not all -- cases (see rap-bolted sport routes, above).
I see your point about the convenience of dogging bolts. I guess I don't find your rationale as compelling as you do though.
Naturally. We play different games. The rationale for dogging bolts is convincing---in fact obvious---to people who are interested in gymnastic climbing. But not to people who aren't. When disparate groups compete for access to a single shared climbing resource, a compromise has to be found.
(And unlike the FAVD advocates, I am willing to give every community member equal votes.)
In reply to:
The line has been sent. Now you're talking about making it easier for you to send. Why can't you face it on the same terms? With the same risk of failure? Is it just ego? Is it just that climbing for you is boiled down to just moves and nothing else?
We generally don't face routes on the same terms. The notion of a static chunk of rock, waiting for future climbers to face the same challenge as their elders did, is not a notion based in reality. Especially on rock like limestone (where holds regularly break, crumble, polish, etc). For that matter, I don't avoid using new technology in climbing shoes when it can help me send, either.
And yes, climbing is the moves for me and nothing else.
In reply to:
I must have missed the decree where sport climbing became about making routes easy and convenient to send.
Well, that's probably because no one is saying that. (I, at least, don't agree with it.) Gymnastic climbing is about removing distractions so you can focus on truly difficult movement, instead of ropes, bolts, clips or so-called "ethics".
So, fracture, let me get this straight... what you're discussing is essentially two separate issues:
1. What we should do at crags, e.g., respect for FA or not. 2. How we decide what we'll do at crags, e.g., by consensus or authoritarianism.
Correct? If so I agree with you on #2 and disagree with you on #1. Consensus -- yes. But my vote in that consensus will be to respect the FA in many -- but not all -- cases (see rap-bolted sport routes, above).
Correct. (And I probably should've made that separation of issues clearer.)
(not going to use some of your catchy terminology, because it doesn't accurately reflect reality.)
Btw, I'm curious what you mean by this. If you're talking about the phrase "FA Veto Doctrine", part of the point is to emphasize that it is more of a doctrine than a reality. (As I've mentioned a couple times in response to people claiming that most sport crags operate under it.)
Well fracture, I'd say you are in luck. Most (all?) sport routes going up today are the tightly bolted ones that you love.
I am sorry to say that even with your typically fine logic, I am unpersuaded that adding dogging bolts is a good idea, or necessary. Maybe different routes require different tactics. Maybe, as a climber, it is good to be able to recognize what tactics are necessary and adapt to the challenge.
Your position seems to be the minority one here. Who's to say whether or not that will change over time. It certainly might, but I am not convinced it is inevitable.
Quote "ZERO ETHICS!........Zero!" The question is beyond ethics and in the realm of safety. Let me add i'm referring to sport routes where bolts are installed on rappel or by various other means of aid. It is your responsibility to make the climb safe. Interpretation abounds......for instance.....a long run out stretch of 5.8 with no bolts on a 5.12d route is not uncommon because it is understood that the climber at the 5.12d, or thereabouts, fitness level is unlikely to find that run out stretch to be intimidating. Of course for the striving 5.8/5.9 climber, this condition might well be extremely intimidating.
When you are inflicting maximum impact by your use of permanent, fixed gear.....bolts......its is your responsibility to consider the safety of those who will follow and make use of those anchors. It is your responsibility to use what is generally recognized within the climbing community and specific locality as the most durable equipment and tools that achieve the best, most durable of installation. If you are not able to see the wisdom of that.....don't not have the maturity or reasoning to see why that is important, then give up installing sport climbs.
Trying to extend the idea of traditional climbing's first ascent style and ethics into the realm of sport climbing is not reasonable and compromises safety. Sport climbing is about focusing on climbing movement......not about evaluating the safety or prejudice of the fixed anchor location or quality of strength and installation of the materials used.
(This post was edited by bernard on May 23, 2007, 7:51 PM)
I guess I just don't get why you would bolt a route, but do it in such a manner as to make it poorly protected? Hand drilling on lead blah blah, bottom line you bolted it. If the FA was so hardcore they would have soloed it. Somehow hand drilling on lead while hanging in aiders just doesn't seem like awesome style to me, seems like risking your neck for foolish pride
That said, if you don't like "their" route, don't climb it, or better yet, put up a better one somewhere else in the area.
I guess I just don't get why you would bolt a route, but do it in such a manner as to make it poorly protected? Hand drilling on lead blah blah, bottom line you bolted it. If the FA was so hardcore they would have soloed it. Somehow hand drilling on lead while hanging in aiders just doesn't seem like awesome style to me, seems like risking your neck for foolish pride
You know, it ain't my style either, but your post just shows you don't know anything about climbing.
19 /
16%
