|
socalbolter
Dec 5, 2007, 3:50 AM
Post #26 of 40
(2208 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 27, 2002
Posts: 796
|
Hey Richard, Louie here.
Nice to see that things are finally coming around as to people's understanding (and hopefully acceptance) of what you guys accomplished up there.
I for one have always been impressed with the route, and hope that when all things are considered that you and Mark can still look at the route with fond memories.
For those of us in the know, WOS and your other routes and achievements remain inspiring.
|
|
|
|
|
madbolter1
Dec 5, 2007, 4:16 AM
Post #27 of 40
(2198 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 28, 2006
Posts: 37
|
Louie! Great to hear from you. Yes, over the many... long... years, YOU have remained one of our loyal few friends in the community. Thank you for that, brother! So, maybe some of the vindication is rubbing off onto you too. I hope so.
I do want to restate one fact, though. While I appreciate you and now more and more others calling the route "inspiring" and such things, Mark and I have never called the route "great" or claimed much more for it than that it was NOT the rivet ladder the rabid claimed it was. I mean, of course it feels good to hear it called "inspiring," but it has never felt "great" to me. We were just trying to get up, and we were slooowww in doing that. This is no false humility, as you well know, Louie. We've just continued to try to correct the errors and slanders, but I would never call our "accomplishment" much more than that we got up without turning the thing into a botch job. So, really, thanks, but it just doesn't feel like an "accomplishment" of much more than tenacity to us.
The really great thing is that a guy like Pete could go up there and then come back and give an honest account of what he found, even when that account wasn't flattering to him. That utter lack of ego-pumping is what I find inspiring. As I've said before, tragically, many "top" climbers turn out to not be top people. Pete has managed to maintain his integrity, even when that didn't serve his personal interests, and I find that rare and humbling. So, I'm with billcoe_ in thanking Pete for taking the shot and being honest in his report. Rare form, there, Pete... RARE form!
|
|
|
|
|
socalbolter
Dec 5, 2007, 4:37 AM
Post #28 of 40
(2193 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 27, 2002
Posts: 796
|
Knowing you (and Mark) like I do, I certainly don't see false humility in your post(s).
And as for the "inspiring" nature of the climb, I can only speak personally. If the route or your efforts inspire others, I really am in no place to comment on that.
For me, I see a pair of climbers secure enough in their own abilities to tackle what I'm sure looked like an improbable challenge. I then see that those two remained true to their ideals and persevered to succeed in that challenge without lowering their standards (despite unexpected hardship and a much longer duration than planned for). That to me (in whatever context you take it - climbing or not) is nothing less than inspiring.
From a climbing standpoint, you and Mark were able to piece together an amazing display of route finding and (to use your word) tenacity to reach the top of the slab. In an aid climbing and hooking context, your ascent is no less inspiring.
Don't read too much into this as hero worship, or me building a pedestal for the both of you to reside on, it's simply speaking in plain terms to let you know the impact the climb had on me. I feel quite certain that I'm not alone here.
- Louie
p.s. Still having fun at The Quarry, all these years later. The game may have changed a bit but the rock and the good times remain the same.
|
|
|
|
|
madbolter1
Dec 5, 2007, 7:25 AM
Post #29 of 40
(2172 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 28, 2006
Posts: 37
|
Thank you, Louie. Very much. And I am really happy that the good times do continue! Climb ON, brother.
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
Dec 7, 2007, 12:01 AM
Post #30 of 40
(2118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
[quote "dingus"]Its a religious question, like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Only a few individuals, a small cult if you will, cares in the least as to the definition.
Trying to decipher cult rules from the outside is a waste of time.
.Cheers
DMT[/quote]
The Angel pinhead quote leaped to mind before I got to your post Dingus. Sick minds....
That said, I admire attempts and style which do a minimum of damage to the rock. I'm not passing judgement on WOS cause I don't know enough.
Hey Pete, I'd love to inspect it too. What I'd really like is to do it with a rope from above just to get a feel of where the limits are without exploring the death realm. Isn't it possible to do something easier to bypass those first pitches and rap down em? Would it be possible to basically TR those pitches without inflicting extra damage to rock by nailing or heading?
Peace
karl
|
|
|
|
|
holdplease2
Dec 7, 2007, 2:32 AM
Post #31 of 40
(2103 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 18, 2002
Posts: 1733
|
Karl -
Pete can't post over here any more. You can find the details of his WOS attempt over on SuperTopo, I'm sure you probably saw those threads. One has details on the stick-clip ability of the first pitch. Not sure if you can make the anchors that way.
If you go to the web site of the FA-ists, there is a shot of Pete trying to lead the first pitch. The height he is standing above his pro is nauseating if you've ever seen the rock over there, which I'm sure you have.
The route is pure sickness. I bet it has, by now, bouted more second ascent attempts than any other El Cap Route....
Can anyone think of an El Cap route that has bouted more than four or five second ascent attempts? I'd love to know.
-Kate.
|
|
|
|
|
russwalling
Dec 7, 2007, 6:40 AM
Post #32 of 40
(2085 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 12, 2002
Posts: 239
|
holdplease2 wrote: Can anyone think of an El Cap route that has bouted more than four or five second ascent attempts? I'd love to know. -Kate.
Bad Sign: a handful early, then three or four that I know of including, Barbella/Slater before they went on to do the FA of the Sheep Ranch. You can toss Walling/Shipley in there too on our first attempt. So maybe 7 total?
|
|
|
|
|
holdplease2
Dec 7, 2007, 7:06 AM
Post #33 of 40
(2081 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 18, 2002
Posts: 1733
|
Hi Russ:
Thank you for the info. Bad Sign must be quite a route, then. Sick! I know there are some that people haven't bothered to try to repeat, which may put those routes on a whole 'nother level, too.
-Kate.
|
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
Dec 8, 2007, 4:28 PM
Post #34 of 40
(2026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709
|
holdplease2 wrote: If you go to the web site of the FA-ists, there is a shot of Pete trying to lead the first pitch. The height he is standing above his pro is nauseating if you've ever seen the rock over there, which I'm sure you have. -Kate.
Sorry for the lame request, but I'm interested in the web site... Could someone point me in a direction?
Thanks! -Boy
|
|
|
|
|
socalbolter
Dec 8, 2007, 4:46 PM
Post #35 of 40
(2021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 27, 2002
Posts: 796
|
Here's a link to Richard's site:
http://www.jensenconsultations.com/climbing/climbing.html
Click on the Wings of Steel link and then scroll to the bottom to see pics of the FA and Pete's SA attempt.
You will also find a list of links to various internet threads discussing the route.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
holdplease2
Dec 8, 2007, 4:57 PM
Post #37 of 40
(2016 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 18, 2002
Posts: 1733
|
I don't know how to put the image in the thread, if somebody could, that would be great. Tried with upload and the Image button.
This pic, alone, is plenty proof to me that the thing isn't a "Rivit ladder." Pete doesn't back clean, check out the distance between him and the rivit, traveled most likely on micro hooks and hooks.
The rivits, for anybody who doesn't know, aren't bolts. They are basically the things that are used to hold down the floor in port-o-potties. Probably fine for bodyweight, but maybe not much more. Kinda depends, I hear.
-Kate.
(This post was edited by holdplease2 on Dec 8, 2007, 5:15 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
socalbolter
Dec 8, 2007, 5:12 PM
Post #38 of 40
(2010 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 27, 2002
Posts: 796
|
Here's the pic:
and another from the FA:
|
|
|
|
|
ja1484
Dec 8, 2007, 5:46 PM
Post #39 of 40
(2004 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: I have been reading through the 500+ posts on SupperTopo regarding Wings Of Steel, and one detail of the debate caught my attention. About two thirds of the way down this thread ( http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=72849 ) Mark Smith mentions that in about 10% to 15% of the micro ledges they used had to have one or two exposed crystals removed in order to make enough room to place their vary small hooks. In response jeff benowitz vehemently stated that any modification done with a drill was a hole and should be included in the hole count. Now this point may well have already been addressed in a later post which I have not read yet, but I feel impelled to weigh in on this point with my unique perspective as a Geomorphologist (meaning that I have a science degree in the study of how big mountains break down into progressively smaller rocks which eventually roll to the sea). Breaking off an exposed crystal is an artificial means of accelerating the natural weathering process. Drilling a hole is an artificial means of creating a cylindrical feature which would not occur naturally. Thus, breaking off an exposed crystal is more natural, and thus more “clean” than drilling a hole. While breaking off a crystal and drilling a hole might both be counted as modification, they are not the same thing, and minor modifications such as removing an exposed crystal should not be part of a “hole count”. Of course this it is a mater of scale. If you remove the exposed crystals, and then start chiselling into the feldspar which holds the crystals in place you are trenching. This goes beyond the next natural step in the weathering process and becomes increasingly contrived as you are weathering the rock at one point far beyond the weathering stage of the surrounding rock to produce a feature which would not likely have formed there in that way on its own. At some point, which I will not try to define here, trenching quickly becomes just as contrived as drilling a hole. I should state that I am not against drilling. I think the decision to drill should be a function of both the situation and the local ethic. I just wanted to make the argument that removing exposed crystals, rock crust, or loose flakes is not the same thing as drilling a hole. Removing an exposed crystal to place a hook is, I believe, a higher standard of ethic (less impact) than drilling a hole to place a hook. Teth Cleveland
Too long; did not read. But let's put all that scientific mumbo-jumbo aside for a second and focus on what matters:
Frankly, anyone who complains about the removal of a a few *crystals* on a climbing route is enjoying their ride on the whine-o-tron way too much. Ever look at the soles of your rock shoes after climbing a route? I guess, by that definition, we've ALL chipped every route we've ever climbed.
Purist is one thing, but that's not purist: that's being an anal baby.
(This post was edited by ja1484 on Dec 8, 2007, 6:57 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
Dec 8, 2007, 6:51 PM
Post #40 of 40
(1997 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709
|
Thanks for the link. I'll be reading it all real soon
|
|
|
|
|
|
