|
onceahardman
Sep 27, 2007, 12:10 PM
Post #76 of 122
(2412 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
In reply to: It was a good summary. But it is a question of tactics, not ethics. In reply to: thanks. it becomes "ethical" when a climb that was originally top roped or sieged is then climbed free, and reported as free at a certain grade. the first ascent style really was NOT free, and the rating is likely to be a bit lower than it should, since the cruxes were worked out on TR. for climbs with all fixed protection, its less of an issue, because that is the "ethic" of sport climbing. but if gear placement and cruxes are scoped on TR, well, it really hasn't been "freed", and someone could get dangerously sandbagged.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Sep 27, 2007, 1:55 PM
Post #77 of 122
(2400 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
dingus wrote: cracklover wrote: I'm trying to arrive at a more nuanced interpretation Good for you. Nuance away. Instead of picking my posts apart, how about writing those nuances down and stating your own... in one go. Lay it out there.
I did. If you're interested, feel free to read it, if not, cheers, that's fine.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Sep 27, 2007, 2:51 PM
Post #78 of 122
(2387 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
paintrain wrote: Your examples were based on what was technically possible and feasible for the day. The tactics changed without too much stink because of the improved gear and techniques (were the piton drivers in 1931 referred to as "sport climbers" by the Traditional gentleman climbers?).
They were called much worse. The use of pitons generated a huge controversy before WWI in German and Italian-speaking circles (called the Mauerhakenstreit). That conflict is a landmark of alpine history. Later, in the 1930s, many Brits, especially, identified pitoncraft with the rise of Fascism and Nazism.
In the U.S., pitoncraft divided the climbing community a bit as well. Ansel Adams, for instance, never really made peace with the new technology. Mostly, though, climbing in the US was such a marginal activity that it was easier for new methods to take hold. Other people and places either rejected the new methods (British gritstone) or adapted them in part (Elbsandsetein where pitons remain outlawed--to this day--but ring bolts were accepted for belay stances, often very closely spaced).
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Sep 27, 2007, 3:11 PM
Post #79 of 122
(2383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
dingus wrote: paintrain wrote: Ground up was out of necessity, not necessarily a choice of style for many of these ascents. I don't agree. From Robbins and Kamps to Higgins and Clevenger, take to the extreme by Erickson, the ground up ethic was stout and purposeful. You're doing those dudes' styles a disservice to suggest they would have top-downed their great climbs had they only known how. Cheers though DMT
"Ground-Up" was originally out of neccessity. Early alpine ascents included lots of stuff that today we'd consider dodgy (grappling hooks, ladders, shoulder stands, etc.) A top-rope was used on the help pioneer a difficult section of a route on the Matterhorn later in the 19th c, but only after the Hoenrli had been established. By the end of the century, the Brits, especially, were taking a much more critical attitude toward the use of "artificial aids" including top-ropes. By 19oo, as crag climbing became more popular, "ground-up" had become a tradition.
And as Dingus points out, "ground-up" was a key part of the US tradition in climbing until about the fifties, when Gill (and some important other folks) began to use top-roping more systematically. Gill also did a lot of on-sight leading, soloing, and highballing, but many of his important classics were first done on a t.r. In the late seventies and early eighties, Bachar and others began to use top-ropes even more systematically and by the time I arrived in JTree (around 1980 or so), top-ropes were routinely thought of as valid ascents or even first ascents by many of the locals. Stacks of the classic JTree "trads" were established this way. Few of the ascentionists intended, as Bachar usually did, to employ the tr mostly as rehearsal for a later free solo. And even on grit, as climbing standards came under pressure from rising standards on the continent, rappel inspection and tr rehearsal ("headpointing") began to appear.
Making "ground up" the key to "trad" works pretty well for trying to explain to a gymbie why his or her proud send, via tr rehearsal, dogging, and ticking, of a forty-foot 5.11 crack at the roadside crag is not really traditional climbing. But it works considerably less well for defining "trad" in a strict way that will separate "trad" areas and practice from all others sorts of climbing. And the gymbies will just ignore it anyway. At this point, rock climbing has been so fully abstracted from its alpine origins that we have arrived at a ridiculous place in which we attempt to devise ever-more debatable criteria for differentiating one practice from another.
The only reason anyone should care is that, as some here and on the related ST threads worry, is that the reduction of "trad" to "gear" climbing makes retro-bolting more likely. A related and realistic concern is that gymbies who learn "trad" climbing by bringing gym technique (esp. dogging and multiple falls) to the roadside crag are much more likely to risk a catastrophic injury. Or worse, after a season working local 5.10s into submission, will head up into the high country without a clue of how to find a route, deal with weather, or manage a 3rd-class walk-off.
|
|
|
|
|
paintrain
Sep 27, 2007, 3:13 PM
Post #80 of 122
(2381 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2004
Posts: 184
|
dingus wrote: paintrain wrote: Ground up was out of necessity, not necessarily a choice of style for many of these ascents. I don't agree. From Robbins and Kamps to Higgins and Clevenger, take to the extreme by Erickson, the ground up ethic was stout and purposeful. You're doing those dudes' styles a disservice to suggest they would have top-downed their great climbs had they only known how. Cheers though DMT
I am mostly referring to farther back when the top of a peak hadn't been obtained.
Referencing Yoesemite's golden era, there was definitely a focus on ground up (I won't argue against that). Getting to the top of el cap had been achieved, so they were looking more for the dirretissima ala comici which dates quite a ways back. The tactics changed dramatically with technology. Clean is now more accepted than hammered, etc.
There are definitely more respected tactics for their embodiment of self containment, challenge, and inherent risk (alpine style). But by todays standards, siege tactics used by Robbins et al wouldn't be deemed as all that impressive, but during the time period, it was the only way to get up it.
PT
|
|
|
|
|
paintrain
Sep 27, 2007, 3:25 PM
Post #81 of 122
(2375 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2004
Posts: 184
|
onceahardman wrote: In reply to: It was a good summary. But it is a question of tactics, not ethics. In reply to: thanks. it becomes "ethical" when a climb that was originally top roped or sieged is then climbed free, and reported as free at a certain grade. the first ascent style really was NOT free, and the rating is likely to be a bit lower than it should, since the cruxes were worked out on TR. for climbs with all fixed protection, its less of an issue, because that is the "ethic" of sport climbing. but if gear placement and cruxes are scoped on TR, well, it really hasn't been "freed", and someone could get dangerously sandbagged. I think your "ethic" is my "tactic". It is a question of style. I frankly don't much care until as a KlK I think mentioned it changes the nature of the climb - clean to bolted. Where then some argue, just don't clip the bolts (which I don't agree with). As to grading based on TRing it first or not. It is a matter of understanding the history of the climb. I am leery of 5.9+ put up during certain time periods because didn't exist (like the 7th grade for Messner). Subsequently they are often much harder than 9+. No one goes to the gunks (unless you have had your eyes and ears sewn shut) thinking high exposure will be a walk in the park since its grade is 5.6. Lynn Hill didn't get much criticism for sandbagging the Nose (13b now 14a). m
|
|
|
|
|
paintrain
Sep 27, 2007, 3:35 PM
Post #82 of 122
(2372 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2004
Posts: 184
|
k.l.k wrote: The only reason anyone should care is that, as some here and on the related ST threads worry, is that the reduction of "trad" to "gear" climbing makes retro-bolting more likely. A related and realistic concern is that gymbies who learn "trad" climbing by bringing gym technique (esp. dogging and multiple falls) to the roadside crag are much more likely to risk a catastrophic injury. Or worse, after a season working local 5.10s into submission, will head up into the high country without a clue of how to find a route, deal with weather, or manage a 3rd-class walk-off.
I love the history. Keep it coming.
It is interesting how so much climbing history had a mentoring process that required time. Cutting of teeth and gaining of experience as part of the physical progression climbing outside. Objective hazards were part of the learning experience.
Now it is a lot of convenient physical progression without the other requisite experience related knowledge for climbing outdoors because of gyms.
I agree with you though. Don't bolt cracks, not necessary. Just as using pitons is generally not necessary anymore.
PT
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Sep 27, 2007, 4:15 PM
Post #83 of 122
(2363 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
cracklover wrote: dingus wrote: cracklover wrote: I'm trying to arrive at a more nuanced interpretation Good for you. Nuance away. Instead of picking my posts apart, how about writing those nuances down and stating your own... in one go. Lay it out there. I did. If you're interested, feel free to read it, if not, cheers, that's fine. GO
Notice I didn't pick apart your posts. Notice I have never picked apart your posts. Notice I've never called you any names or called into question your character.
Cheers
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Sep 27, 2007, 5:16 PM
Post #84 of 122
(2348 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
thanks for your input, paintrain and klk...this gets convoluted sometimes, and while there may be "consensus" on these issues, i doubt that EVERYONE will ever agree.
i suppose my main point is, remember the (5) in 5.1, 5.6, or 5.12.
it means 5th class. top rope is not 5th class. sieging is not 5th class. pre-placed protection or inspection is not 5th class.
a route should not be 5.ANYTHING until it has been climbed 5th class. call it a 9+, or a 10c, but the 5. has meaning.
originally, aid climbing was called 6th class, until it was realized that an easy aid climb was considerably easier than a hard free climb. then the A0-A5 scale came about.
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Sep 27, 2007, 5:29 PM
Post #85 of 122
(2341 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
onceahardman wrote: thanks for your input, paintrain and klk...this gets convoluted sometimes, and while there may be "consensus" on these issues, i doubt that EVERYONE will ever agree. i suppose my main point is, remember the (5) in 5.1, 5.6, or 5.12. it means 5th class. top rope is not 5th class. sieging is not 5th class. pre-placed protection or inspection is not 5th class. a route should not be 5.ANYTHING until it has been climbed 5th class. call it a 9+, or a 10c, but the 5. has meaning. originally, aid climbing was called 6th class, until it was realized that an easy aid climb was considerably easier than a hard free climb. then the A0-A5 scale came about.
Your definition of that 5 is different from....everyone else I ever talked to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...emite_Decimal_System
In reply to: Class 5 is considered true rock climbing, predominantly on vertical or near vertical rock, and requires skill and a rope to proceed safely. Un-roped falls would result in severe injury or death. |
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Sep 27, 2007, 5:30 PM
Post #86 of 122
(2337 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
In reply to: I think your "ethic" is my "tactic".
maybe, maybe not.
Style affects only the individual. it is an artificial constaint climbers voluntarily place upon themselves. like if i placed a ladder on midnight lightning, and ascended it to the top of the boulder. it doesnt affect anybody but me (i just shouldn't report that i climbed midnight lightning)
Ethics affect everybody who climbs the route. fixing protection, reporting a climb as free, when it has not been done free, chipping holds, intentional sandbagging, etc, are examples.
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Sep 27, 2007, 5:39 PM
Post #87 of 122
(2329 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
In reply to: Your definition of that 5 is different from....everyone else I ever talked to.
i really used the term "5th class" without defining it. i thought everybody here would know what 5th class means.
roped climbing using intermediate protection points between leader and belayer is 5th class.
climbing roped with NO intermediate protection points is 4th class.
no rope is 3rd class. (or lower if you dont need your hands)
top roping is not 5th class. it is top roping. its fun, pretty safe, and good practice, and can be an end in itself for many climbers.
incidentally, what is the definition you've heard from "everybody else", and how is mine different?
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Sep 27, 2007, 5:49 PM
Post #88 of 122
(2319 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
onceahardman wrote: In reply to: Your definition of that 5 is different from....everyone else I ever talked to. i really used the term "5th class" without defining it. i thought everybody here would know what 5th class means. roped climbing using intermediate protection points between leader and belayer is 5th class. climbing roped with NO intermediate protection points is 4th class. no rope is 3rd class. (or lower if you dont need your hands) top roping is not 5th class. it is top roping. its fun, pretty safe, and good practice, and can be an end in itself for many climbers. incidentally, what is the definition you've heard from "everybody else", and how is mine different?
No, you defined it here:
In reply to: it means 5th class. top rope is not 5th class. sieging is not 5th class. pre-placed protection or inspection is not 5th class.
and again, everything you just said above disagrees with everyone else I have heard giving definitions. If someone free solos a 5.14a, then the climb is not demoted to 3rd class. The climb is still 5th class. The class description is separate from the way a climber CHOOSES to ascend. Leading, top roping, free soloing are all independent of the class. Below I quote what I have heard as the standard definitions as written by wikipedia:
In reply to: Class 1 is walking with a low chance of injury and a fall unlikely to be fatal. Classes 2 and 3 are steeper scrambling with increased exposure and a greater chance of severe injury, but falls are not always fatal. Class 4 can involve short steep sections where the use of a rope is recommended, and un-roped falls could be fatal. Class 5 is considered true rock climbing, predominantly on vertical or near vertical rock, and requires skill and a rope to proceed safely. Un-roped falls would result in severe injury or death. |
|
|
|
|
flamer
Sep 27, 2007, 6:03 PM
Post #89 of 122
(2306 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2002
Posts: 2955
|
j_ung wrote: I think it was drkodos who coined the term "sport tradding," to mean set-'em-up, knock-'em-down single-pitch climbing on routes that are commonly considered traditional. Seems that term probably works for the hybrid we're discussing here, too.
I've always thought of Indian creek as a place for crack climbers to go sport climbing.....
josh
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Sep 27, 2007, 6:04 PM
Post #90 of 122
(2305 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
flamer wrote: j_ung wrote: I think it was drkodos who coined the term "sport tradding," to mean set-'em-up, knock-'em-down single-pitch climbing on routes that are commonly considered traditional. Seems that term probably works for the hybrid we're discussing here, too. I've always thought of Indian creek as a place for crack climbers to go sport climbing..... josh
Sure lots O places like that. "Cragging." Its fun!
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Sep 27, 2007, 6:33 PM
Post #91 of 122
(2297 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
In reply to: No, you defined it here: In reply to:it means 5th class. top rope is not 5th class. sieging is not 5th class. pre-placed protection or inspection is not 5th class.
that is not a definition. that is a list of things which don't fit the definition of 5th class.
In reply to: and again, everything you just said above disagrees with everyone else I have heard giving definitions. If someone free solos a 5.14a, then the climb is not demoted to 3rd class. The climb is still 5th class
true. the soloist does the climb in the STYLE called "3rd class", however. just like if i aid a 5.8 crack, the grade doesn't go to A1. no dispute there.
the guidebook grade describes the most common style in which a route is done. if somebody hangdogs, the route doesn't change to A0, but the climber did the route in that STYLE.
incidentally, this is all completely consistent with the wiki definition.
if a route has not been climbed in the STYLE of 5th class, it should not have a (5.) rating.
|
|
|
|
|
paintrain
Sep 27, 2007, 7:27 PM
Post #92 of 122
(2278 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2004
Posts: 184
|
Things that permanently effect others in an objective way (fixing gear, chipping). This falls in line of the ethic of leave no trace.
Intentionally misleading someone with malicious intent as to the difficulty of a climb is not honest. Honesty is the ethic being breached and that goes beyond the climbing arena. Giving an opinion of what you "thought" it was rated is just what it is, an opinion.
How you report a success on a climb as free or not doesn't affect me one bit. If someone puts a ladder on midnight lightning and ascends it, they have climbed midnight lightning - via a ladder - but nonetheless it was ascended. I won't lose a finger or have to call SAR because of it. It is just that person's perception. Now if they rate it V7 after that, then I would call BS.
There is inherent differences in perception and often a lack of consistency in people's memory. I don't completely trust guidebooks (bolt counts, rope lengths, etc). I weigh verbal beta with a grain of salt as the person giving it might have too much horsepower to understand what 5.6 anymnore, is tall or is good at fiddling widgets on that terrain. It is up to me to take the lion's share of responsibility for the climb I am doing.
PT.
(This post was edited by paintrain on Sep 27, 2007, 8:00 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
flamer
Sep 27, 2007, 7:37 PM
Post #93 of 122
(2271 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2002
Posts: 2955
|
dingus wrote: flamer wrote: j_ung wrote: I think it was drkodos who coined the term "sport tradding," to mean set-'em-up, knock-'em-down single-pitch climbing on routes that are commonly considered traditional. Seems that term probably works for the hybrid we're discussing here, too. I've always thought of Indian creek as a place for crack climbers to go sport climbing..... josh Sure lots O places like that. "Cragging." Its fun! DMT
I agree cragging is fun!
Indian creek, however, takes it to a different level entirely.
Take all the thinking about gear out of the equation.
You look up(or in a guide book) realise that all you need is 8-10 #2 cams. Clip them on like quickdraws, and you're off! Need gear? Plug and go, no need to think!
I'm far from badmouthing the place. I think it's an excellent example of the lines between "sport" and "traditional" climbing being blurred.
josh
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Sep 27, 2007, 7:57 PM
Post #94 of 122
(2267 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
In reply to: Things that permanently effect others in an objective way (fixing gear, chipping). There is an ethic of leave no trace or as little a trace as possible.
yes. i agree completely.
In reply to: If you never pick up a guidebook, look up a clean line and climb it, then go back to find out it was rate something different from what you thought where is the "ethical" breach.
there is no ethical breach in the situation you describe.
In reply to: Misleading someone as to the difficulty of a climb is not honest, but the person climbing it has to take responsiblity for their actions as well.
i agree. personal responsibility is a big part of what climbing is all about. however, if you hangdog a route, and preplace protection, and finally make your way up a first ascent, and call it 5.10d, (for example)you are MISLEADING others regarding the grade. you never 5th classed it, yet you called it 5.10d. others SHOULD have a reasonable expectation of finding a 5.10d commensurate in difficulty with others in the area. but it might not be. who knows? maybe if it WAS done 5th class, it would be stiff 5.11c.
In reply to: How you report a your success on a climb as free or not doesn't affect me one bit.
i agree, for established routes.
except when giving advice to other climbers.
if my buddy told me he did an established 5.11a, i might try to do the same route, and get defeated or worse, injured, when my "buddy" never freed the route at all. i know how he climbs, and i figure if he can do a certain 5.11, so can i. but are we talking about the same difficulty if the STYLE changes from 5.11a to 5.11a A0?
anyway, i hope you aren't getting angry or feeling argumentative. this all seems really straightforward to me. there is a reason these terms have clear definitions.
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Sep 27, 2007, 8:28 PM
Post #95 of 122
(2253 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
AAARRRGGHHH! you edited after i replied! that's an ethical breach!
In reply to: Intentionally misleading someone with malicious intent as to the difficulty of a climb is not honest. Honesty is the ethic being breached and that goes beyond the climbing arena. Giving an opinion of what you "thought" it was rated is just what it is, an opinion.
true. but the STYLE (5th class vs. toprope/aid), is NOT AN OPINION. it is a statement of fact.
In reply to: How you report a success on a climb as free or not doesn't affect me one bit. If someone puts a ladder on midnight lightning and ascends it, they have climbed midnight lightning - via a ladder - but nonetheless it was ascended. I won't lose a finger or have to call SAR because of it. It is just that person's perception. Now if they rate it V7 after that, then I would call BS.
perfect. agree completely.
In reply to: There is inherent differences in perception and often a lack of consistency in people's memory. I don't completely trust guidebooks (bolt counts, rope lengths, etc). I weigh verbal beta with a grain of salt as the person giving it might have too much horsepower to understand what 5.6 anymnore, is tall or is good at fiddling widgets on that terrain. It is up to me to take the lion's share of responsibility for the climb I am doing.
i agree completely. the GRADE is subjective. but the STYLE is objective.
thanks. this was fun. you (or somebody) mentioned high ex at the gunks before. i'm a tall guy, and i hate that move to gain the upper face. but the face is great. the F.A. team (kraus/weissner) were both about 5 feet tall (ok maybe 5'4") so to them, it probably WAS 5.6. grades are subjective.
|
|
|
|
|
paintrain
Sep 28, 2007, 2:44 AM
Post #96 of 122
(2223 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2004
Posts: 184
|
onceahardman wrote: anyway, i hope you aren't getting angry or feeling argumentative. this all seems really straightforward to me. there is a reason these terms have clear definitions.
Hell no. I love discussing this stuff in a civil fashion. I love the history, I love to look at where its going with an eye on that history. I love "trad" climbing in general.
Sorry about the edit. I hit reply when I meant to hit preview.
On the flip side of misleading, a buddy and I love to yank the chain of a friend who is a relative noob to alpine climbing. We have on several occasions mentioned he needs a #5 camalot or way more gear than he needs on alpine climbs with long approaches (well below his ability) just to get him to drag it along. Hazing is trad climbing I would argue.
This thread was a valuable one. Thanks for everyone's time and thoughts. Thanks for starting it DMT.
PT
|
|
|
|
|
bizarrodrinker
Sep 28, 2007, 1:10 PM
Post #97 of 122
(2191 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 20, 2005
Posts: 2316
|
The real question is why people are intent on mucking up a sport as pure as climbing with a bunch of rules other than those that instill good safety practices?
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Sep 28, 2007, 2:35 PM
Post #98 of 122
(2180 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Because a good portion of people cannot function without a firm set of rules.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
bizarrodrinker
Sep 28, 2007, 2:38 PM
Post #99 of 122
(2179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 20, 2005
Posts: 2316
|
that's pathetic. Just my opinion, but I'm certain it doesn't make a difference here. and even if it did, I wouldn't care too much.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Sep 28, 2007, 2:48 PM
Post #100 of 122
(2173 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
flamer wrote: dingus wrote: flamer wrote: j_ung wrote: I think it was drkodos who coined the term "sport tradding," to mean set-'em-up, knock-'em-down single-pitch climbing on routes that are commonly considered traditional. Seems that term probably works for the hybrid we're discussing here, too. I've always thought of Indian creek as a place for crack climbers to go sport climbing..... josh Sure lots O places like that. "Cragging." Its fun! DMT I agree cragging is fun! Indian creek, however, takes it to a different level entirely. Take all the thinking about gear out of the equation. You look up(or in a guide book) realise that all you need is 8-10 #2 cams. Clip them on like quickdraws, and you're off! Need gear? Plug and go, no need to think! I'm far from badmouthing the place. I think it's an excellent example of the lines between "sport" and "traditional" climbing being blurred. josh
I agree that the Creek is largely sport tradding, most importantly because many climbers approach the routes there with a hang-dog mentality (hell, I did precisely that yesterday).
However, a good trad head can come into play even at the creek. There are a few routes there with tricky gear. Placing a blind TCU of dubious quality from a sketchy layback is certainly NOT the same as plug-and-go.
Furthermore, many hard send at the Creek require committing to a runout; not because of a lack of gear, but to avoid the imminent pump. Getting twenty feet above a small piece in soft desert rock: again, not the same as sport.
But yeah, the siege tactics, the ticking, the toprope whoring, the big groups of dirty hippies with dogs and drum circles-- all very sporty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
