When someone chooses to deface the rock and place a bolt, isn't the only sensible justification "to make the route safe"? So if you're placing bolts yet create a poorly protected route, WTF?
Um, no? The placement of one bolt justifies 10? Again, I'm talking about bolting on lead, not rap.
But I'm not sure where the entitlement to safe routes comes from still...
For the record, I don't climb a lot of R routes. I am no hardman. But I have done some, and I do some pg-13 routes.
Many times, these are routes I wouldn't even have considered doing a few years ago. But as I've developed as a climber, they started to fall within my comfort zone. And I'm only an average climber. There a lots of climbers out there climbing stuff I don't have the skills or wherewithall to get on.
Should I begrudge them that? There are ways to do those routes anyway. Every now and then I'll hook up with a stronger partner and get towed up something over my head. It's a fun way to spend a day, and it opens your eyes to what is possible.
Actually "trad" does not have many meanings to those of us who actually climb trad and have for decades. When Dingus, I and others have to resort to using this unfortunate adjective we all know exactly what it means. You on the otherhand, clearly have no idea what it means so I have no doubt it could mean almost anything to you.
SO WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF TRAD?
J says that anything bolted ground up on lead is a trad climb.
I realize that bolts are used in *aid* climbing, as well as *mixed* (*edit* i don't mean ice/dry tool).
So what is "sport" climbing and what is "trad" climbing
Healyje - Dingus - J_ung ???
(This post was edited by 8flood8 on Jun 6, 2007, 6:33 PM)
We're not "lifestyle" bums, but people who climb for fun, and we have families, jobs, and aren't willing to risk it all just to prove how tough we are.
Well, first off, let me say pejoratives like "lifestyle bums" and the associated argument that this just something we do for fun just shows how far climbing imagery has penetrated suburban pop culture and it just substantiates the validity of my assertion that 'climbing', as perceived by folks like yourself, is now simply another risk-free entertainment option.
In reality, the only reason this entertainment option is available to you today is because someone in the not-so-distant past, i.e. BSP (before sport climbing) availed themselves of the challenges associated with the sport formerly known as 'climbing'. In the days BSP, 'climbing' meant an assumption of personal responsibility and risk more like your free-solo than your sport climbing.
Those of us who are still driven to climb by the prospect of doing groundup, onsight trad FA's don't do it to prove we're 'tough' - we do it for the challenge and the pure expression of the on-the-fly creativity experience. I don't sport climb because I climb specifically to escape the predefined, predetermined, connect-the-dots mentality underlying it.
dynosore wrote:
Some may worship free-soloing, drug abuse, etc. but many of us don't. Climbing is a sport, not a lifestyle, and those who tie their entire identity to it are sorely lacking human beings.
That's all fine, but I simply object to the relentless, mass alteration of rock necessary to accomodate those seeking occasional, risk-free, vertical entertainment.
When someone chooses to deface the rock and place a bolt, isn't the only sensible justification "to make the route safe"? So if you're placing bolts yet create a poorly protected route, WTF?
Sometimes people place bolts to make routes safe enough.
Sometimes people place bolts to make routes safe enough.
God forbid j_ung!!! Safe enough for what? And for whom? You should know such comments are simply more proof the sky is falling and that a terrorist really is lurking under every bed.
Your comment cuts right to the heart of the matter. The logical extension of Fracture's 'democracy' push would naturally (and sometimes does) result in a lowest-common-denominator bolt spacing on sport routes.
J says that anything bolted ground up on lead is a trad climb.
I realize that bolts are used in *aid* climbing, as well as *mixed* (*edit* i don't mean ice/dry tool).
So what is "sport" climbing and what is "trad" climbing
Healyje - Dingus - J_ung ???
Well, I didn't quite say that. And if I did, I misspoke.
When I started climbing there was only "leading." At the time, a lot of routes were popping up that today we call "sport routes." They are entirely bolt protected and established for reasons fracture outlined fairly well, namely to have a medium for people who enjoyed the movement and problem solving aspects of climbing, but didn't care so much for a high level of risk, nor for specialized knowledge and carrying gear to mitigate it. If they could minimize that risk, they'd be free to climb really fucking hard. Eventually climbers (being humans with a penchant for categorizing things) began to want terms to differentiate the two styles. (Maybe someone knows who first coined the terms or where they began to be in vogue -- Smith?) But whatever... viola. The terms "sport," and "trad" were born.
With this history in mind, we can then assume that trad includes every free route that isn't a sport route (also excluding TRs, boulder problems and solos -- we agree on that, right?). Routes that are intended to test mental fortitude, including R and X lines with the occasional bolt fall well within this "trad" range.
I'm not making this up. This is the definition of a trad route. It has been so since the term first reared its little head. Some people may think differently. But then, some people think an ATC is any belay device that isn't a figure 8 or Gri-gri.
(This post was edited by j_ung on Jun 6, 2007, 7:40 PM)
When someone chooses to deface the rock and place a bolt, isn't the only sensible justification "to make the route safe"? So if you're placing bolts yet create a poorly protected route, WTF?
The real question here is do you respect the roots and history of the sport you now enjoy?
When the routes you are referring to were bolted, the normal bolt spacing was much further apart than what is commonly seen on today's "sport climbs."
This wasn't a case of being too cheap to place more bolts, too lazy to add more bolts, or of trying to prove how bad-ass we were to our friends and others that might get on our routes after we left them.
It was simply a case of going with the accepted standard of the time and of the particular area. Sometimes that meant bolts every 15-20 feet, sometimes every 20-30 feet. It also was based on a desire to drill only what bolts were necessary to make climbs relatively safe and to avoid potential death falls if possible.
Remember, that many of these early bolted routes came on the tail end of Royal Robbins', Yvon Chouinard's, and other's attempts to get those developing new climbs to minimize their impact on the rock and to use natural placements wherever possible. This resulted in many face routes (not sport routes) that depended on sketchy RP's or other minimal gear for the sole purpose of avoiding the use of a bolt.
On a similar vein, when "sport climbing" first came to the States at areas like Smith Rocks, the bolt spacing was far from the standard body-length (or closer) bolt spacing seen at many newer crags. By today's standards most Smith routes would warrant an R rating. Should they then be retro-bolted?
The participants in this entire convoluted thread can be lumped into two categories. Aside from what you might think those categories are not the old guys and the NOOB's. They are those that respect what came before and those that don't. It's really as simple as that.
Our sport has a rich history and I for one enjoy the activity far more for knowing and respecting that history. Hopefully most of today's generation of new climbers will be able to say the same. I'm a sport climber through and through these days, but those older routes have merit in my mind and I would hate to see everything be diminished to a homogenized state of risk-free movement.
I am not asking for "risk free climbing" I understand the inherent risk of climbing. An old man living in mariposa told me, "Don't climb unless you know how to fly."
The warnings are printed on every gear tag as well as at the beginning of every guide book that i own.
I'm not advocating a bolt every 4 feet and i'm not retrobolting anything.
I think J_ung hit the nail on the head with the statement "safe enough"
And you reiterated "drill only what bolts are necessary to make climbs relatively safe and avoid potential death falls if possible."
These guidelines are satisfactory to me.
So the question SoCal -- Are you in favor of retrobolting a climb that has killed someone (due to lack of adequate protection)? OR would you simply not climb it?
Further -- what if no one climbs the route because people have died on it, is it then a candidate for retro-bolting or should we give the future generations a chance to die on it as well?
Well, I didn't quite say that. And if I did, I misspoke.
When I started climbing there was only "leading." At the time, a lot of routes were popping up that today we call "sport routes." They are entirely bolt protected and established for reasons fracture outlined fairly well, namely to have a medium for people who enjoyed the movement and problem solving aspects of climbing, but didn't care so much for a high level of risk, nor for specialized knowledge and carrying gear to mitigate it. If they could minimize that risk, they'd be free to climb really fucking hard. Eventually climbers (being humans with a penchant for categorizing things) began to want terms to differentiate the two styles. (Maybe someone knows who first coined the terms or where they began to be in vogue -- Smith?) But whatever... viola. The terms "sport," and "trad" were born.
With this history in mind, we can then assume that trad includes every free route that isn't a sport route (also excluding TRs, boulder problems and solos -- we agree on that, right?). Routes that are intended to test mental fortitude, including R and X lines with the occasional bolt fall well within this "trad" range.
I'm not making this up. This is the definition of a trad route. It has been so since the term first reared its little head. Some people may think differently. But then, some people think an ATC is any belay device that isn't a figure 8 or Gri-gri.
So trad is everything that is not entirely protected by bolts? (that doesn't have an x or r rating?)
By the way the comment about El Potrero Chico was serious, I would say 99% of the lines are bolted (a little run out, but usually bolted well for the crux) There are even bolted cracks. I don't know of many people that use trad gear on limestone. Would you call this place a sport climbing destination? Even if most of the routes were put in ground up (some with aid)
I'm glad to see that you share some of the same thoughts.
As to your question: I know of several routes that people have died on. I know of many more that people have been seriously hurt on. Some of the lines don't appeal to me, or I cannot convince myself that the risk is worth the experience (for me), while others I have prepared myself for and then successfully led.
One of those is the Bachar-Yerian in Tuolumne Meadows. I think it was originally bolted as a statement by good old JB, so it may actually fall into the category you were putting forth about trying to prove something and making an intentional decision to bolt something in a certain way. This route is known the world over to be a mental testpiece. The hardest single moves on it are probably only 5.11, but there are many sections of sustained 5.10 climbing with big fall potential. Those that have led it will always remember it and probably count it as one of their best climbing achievements. I know I do.
Not sure if anyone has died on it, but I know there have been quite a few bad injuries on it. Do I think it should be retro bolted? NO! It would be a crime to see a route like that one retro bolted in any form. If someone was not up to the challenge, there are many other routes on the same formation that are not as runout. So speaking in extremes - YES, I do think others should have the chance to die on it.
- Louie
(This post was edited by socalbolter on Jun 6, 2007, 8:27 PM)
Well, I didn't quite say that. And if I did, I misspoke.
When I started climbing there was only "leading." At the time, a lot of routes were popping up that today we call "sport routes." They are entirely bolt protected and established for reasons fracture outlined fairly well, namely to have a medium for people who enjoyed the movement and problem solving aspects of climbing, but didn't care so much for a high level of risk, nor for specialized knowledge and carrying gear to mitigate it. If they could minimize that risk, they'd be free to climb really fucking hard. Eventually climbers (being humans with a penchant for categorizing things) began to want terms to differentiate the two styles. (Maybe someone knows who first coined the terms or where they began to be in vogue -- Smith?) But whatever... viola. The terms "sport," and "trad" were born.
With this history in mind, we can then assume that trad includes every free route that isn't a sport route (also excluding TRs, boulder problems and solos -- we agree on that, right?). Routes that are intended to test mental fortitude, including R and X lines with the occasional bolt fall well within this "trad" range.
I'm not making this up. This is the definition of a trad route. It has been so since the term first reared its little head. Some people may think differently. But then, some people think an ATC is any belay device that isn't a figure 8 or Gri-gri.
So trad is everything that is not entirely protected by bolts? (that doesn't have an x or r rating?)
Nope. There are plenty of bolt-protected trad climbs out there that don't have Rs and Xs.
In reply to:
By the way the comment about El Potrero Chico was serious, I would say 99% of the lines are bolted (a little run out, but usually bolted well for the crux) There are even bolted cracks. I don't know of many people that use trad gear on limestone. Would you call this place a sport climbing destination? Even if most of the routes were put in ground up (some with aid)
I haven't been there, so I don't know first hand, but its reputation is one of a sport area. And yet, many of it's routes went up on lead/aid. So the style in which a route is established obviously doesn't make it a sport route. I think it's more a question of ethic and intent.
As for trad gear in Limestone, well, I have very limited experience on Limestone, so no comment. I'd be talking out of my ass if I did.
(This post was edited by j_ung on Jun 6, 2007, 8:27 PM)
Because as a group we have valued tradition and the broad shoulders upon which we climb. It is part of the heritage of our sport, whether you like it or chaff under perceived dictatorship.
...
What we have is a tradition of respect.
At different points of history, our ancestors used to own slaves, beat their wives, worship all kinds of objects and believe the earth was flat. That's part of our heritage. Cultural norms and standards change and there's no reason why this shouldn't apply to climbing.
So the question SoCal -- Are you in favor of retrobolting a climb that has killed someone (due to lack of adequate protection)? OR would you simply not climb it?
Drivers have died at the Indy 500. Would you favor lowering the speed limit on the track to 45 mph? Or would you simply not race?
Some climbs are dangerous. If you're not interested in taking that challenge, then simply don't; but leave the opportunity there for those who are.
So what makes it "trad" is the style in which i was put up?
Does that mean that sport routes are only put up on rappell? (or with stepladders or firetrucks?)
The distinction for me has always been whether or not i had to bring my own protection.
I understand people's nostalgia for climbing's history, but my problem with the past is that it is not "now." Yes, i am concerned about what is left for the future, but i will not expect those who come after me to care about my insignificant ideals.
Back to the limestone -- I think that limestone is WAY too soft (at least the limestone im experienced with here in the southern part of this country and the northern part of mexico). So soft that you would find gear exploding out of placements
That concept isn't hard to understand. The O.P. asked if he should retro the climb or not. I became involved when i told him to bolt it. My reasons are already on display
So the question SoCal -- Are you in favor of retrobolting a climb that has killed someone (due to lack of adequate protection)?
8flood8, I believe the essential point some of us are trying to reiterate is that, essentially, no one dies 'due to a lack of adequate protection' - they die due to a lack of the requisite skills and judgment.
Because as a group we have valued tradition and the broad shoulders upon which we climb. It is part of the heritage of our sport, whether you like it or chaff under perceived dictatorship.
...
What we have is a tradition of respect.
At different points of history, our ancestors used to own slaves, beat their wives, worship all kinds of objects and believe the earth was flat. That's part of our heritage. Cultural norms and standards change and there's no reason why this shouldn't apply to climbing.
Comparing climbing to slave ownership? I'm surprised you didn't throw in a little Hitler while you were at it. And since when did beating your wife go out of fashion? Kidding....The difference (to me, at least) is that climbing is a game we choose to play. It's much like you respect the basic premise of the game of basketball if you choose to play that sport. The game evolves, of course, but you respect the fundamental rules, the players that came before you. But when you ask some hardcore ballers to play the equivalent of four-square, don't expect them to dribble all over the bibs in anticipation. There! Now we've both made some very bad analogies.
So the question SoCal -- Are you in favor of retrobolting a climb that has killed someone (due to lack of adequate protection)?
8flood8, I believe the essential point some of us are trying to reiterate is that, essentially, no one dies 'due to a lack of adequate protection' - they die due to a lack of the requisite skills and judgment.
As an aside to this thought, I think there are probably more accidents and deaths on well protected routes? Seems like anchor threading or gear pulling mishaps are much more common than hearing about a guy blowing it on an R route?
But if someone were, say, to propose putting a bolt at the beginning of Double Cross, I would support that. That climb is a killer.
Yes. can't think of any other game though where participants would get so worked up about a change in a rule, or call the rules of the game "ethics".
In reply to:
Comparing climbing to slave ownership? I'm surprised you didn't throw in a little Hitler while you were at it. And since when did beating your wife go out of fashion? Kidding....The difference (to me, at least) is that climbing is a game we choose to play. It's much like you respect the basic premise of the game of basketball if you choose to play that sport. The game evolves, of course, but you respect the fundamental rules, the players that came before you. But when you ask some hardcore ballers to play the equivalent of four-square, don't expect them to dribble all over the bibs in anticipation. There! Now we've both made some very bad analogies.
19 /
16%
