Forums: Climbing Information: General:
Gunks - Climber Etiquette FAIL
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for General

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next page Last page  View All


retr2327


Sep 7, 2010, 8:47 PM
Post #26 of 149 (2549 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 15, 2006
Posts: 53

Re: [brianri] Gunks - Climber Etiquette FAIL [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

I realize the OP called what the newbie was doing "top-roping," but answer me this: why is having the 2d follow up a pitch the leader has led "top-roping"? How else was he/she supposed to get up there? Pull the rope and mock lead? Does that somehow entitle them to be on a 5.6, when simply following doesn't?

As a relatively long-time Gunks climber (17 years, which leaves me a novice to many, but still) and leader, I say there's nothing wrong with a party of three LEADING Frog's Head, and that's what they were doing. Now, if they were dithering around on it forever, I might question why they chose something out of their range, but I didn't get that sense. And others -- such as RG, long may he thrive -- may say they should have done the 2d pitch and walked down, but that's an issue for another day.

I say the 2d party was being inconsiderate, at best.


Partner happiegrrrl


Sep 7, 2010, 8:50 PM
Post #27 of 149 (2549 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660

Re: [vegastradguy] Gunks - Climber Etiquette FAIL [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Well, most people(except for chicken shits like me) don't place gear in first 20 feet of Frog's Head, anyway, so the fact that their belayer almost pulled the leader off the thing is a side tangent.

Maria does share the first 20 feet, as said, but since no gear...it's not really an issue. There really is no problem I could see with someone starting on Maria while I had someone TR'ing on Frogshead(which I never would have selected for a first time climber anyway), even as I, as a 3rd, was waiting to climb and clean gear.

The people do sound like nasty ones, though. Which is often the case with people who have their eyes set on one line and get panty-bunched when - whatasurprise! - they find it in use on a weekend....

To say they would climb around ON F/Head is pretty selfish, lead>toprope ethic notwithstanding, when your gear was still in situ, and especially since you were actively climbing the route.

My synopsis - Yes, they were badly behaved. And yes, you might have considered going to Peterskill to teach the newbie is a less stressful environment, or chosen a climb that you might not have expected this to happen on(anyone with more than a single season of leading at the Gunks WOULD have anticipated that there would be, at the very least, a party come along and being pissy about it). If the scenario WAS anticipated, and the attitude is "We were there first, so tough crap on you," then well.....you sort of set yourselves up for it.




Meanwhile, here's a scenario I saw this weekend....
We were a party of 3 with a leader wanting to do Jackie. Got there at 9:30 and of course it was being climbed. Instead we did RMC. Came back, and Jackie was being climbed and so....we set up a TR on Pebbles and did the various variations, keeping an eye on Jackie.

Then, Jackie opened up, and we roped up for it. Next door was a TR set up at the bolted ancjhors for Classic. Not ON Classic, which traverses quite a bit but hanging straight down, with a piece of gear set off to the right as a....directional. NOT for the climber, but for the belayer, so the rope wouldn't be in their way, I guess.....

The TR powerpoint was place dead smack IN the notch of Classic's roof, and people were group TR'ing the line. I am not sure this is a line in the guidebooks. Maybe it is. But.....

There was a leader roping to lead Classic. I wondered, to myself, whether he had asked this TR party about that powerpoint clogging up the route, but it's not my problem.

In the interim.... a leader from the TR group alights on a route to the right of Classic. I don't know the route, and don't have my book handy to check it but....

Apparent;y the leader has to traverse over to the bolted anchor of Classic, because he "ran out of gear."

So - we are headed up Jackie, watching the TR people on the route as the leader takes off on Classic, and seeing that this other dude is now clogging the Classic anchor area while he belays his second up the side route and over....

Now you might say THAT is a clusterfuck!

But it gets worse..... The TR people SEE that the leader is started on Classic, but instead of dealing with their rope, they decide it is time for lunch, and leave it hanging, along with the gear that is placed on classic, and the rope that will then be in the leader's way.



Welcome to the Gunks.


sbaclimber


Sep 7, 2010, 8:51 PM
Post #28 of 149 (2549 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 3118

Re: [vegastradguy] Gunks - Climber Etiquette FAIL [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

vegastradguy wrote:
brianri wrote:
"Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
A lot of people think their opinions as leaders hold more weight than that of someone topropping. A lot of people also think that their opinion as a 5.11 climber holds more weight than you as a 5.9 climber. Doesn't make either correct.

I agree with you. Doesn't matter how hard you climb to have a valid opinion. The accepted etiquette at the Gunks has always been you don't top-rope trad lines or you at least get out of the way of trad climbers, especially on super popular three star trad climbs like Frogs Head. It is generally a trad climbing area. There are some top roping areas there that can be utilized, Jumping on one of the most traveled trad lines there and top-roping it is just bad judgment.

perhaps they weren't following the standard local ethic, but thats really beside the point. the party of three were being douchebags, which doesnt really help anyone- they could have been more polite and had a little patience, and maybe even helped educate the OP on the local ethic- but god forbid we should actually be kind and help out people when we're on a mission to climb a two pitch route.
You do realize how close the Gunks are to NYC, Long Island and NJ, right!? Crazy


sbaclimber


Sep 7, 2010, 8:55 PM
Post #29 of 149 (2537 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 3118

Re: [happiegrrrl] Gunks - Climber Etiquette FAIL [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

happiegrrrl wrote:
Welcome to the Gunks.
PS, I think that ^^ sums it up right there.

Edit: stupid keyboard...


(This post was edited by sbaclimber on Sep 7, 2010, 8:56 PM)


Kartessa


Sep 7, 2010, 8:58 PM
Post #30 of 149 (2528 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 18, 2008
Posts: 7362

Re: [sbaclimber] Gunks - Climber Etiquette FAIL [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

sbaclimber wrote:
happiegrrrl wrote:
Welcome to the Gunks.
PS, I think that ^^ sums it up righ there.

I'm staying in Canada... I'd probably get shot for telling off some dillhole who tried to pull any of the above shit on me.

There is no rock worth that kind of douchebaggery. Period.

I'm going back to Nemo


sethg


Sep 7, 2010, 9:03 PM
Post #31 of 149 (2522 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 9, 2006
Posts: 134

Re: [happiegrrrl] Gunks - Climber Etiquette FAIL [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

So you are saying that there's a rope hanging down from the Classic anchor (which is also the Jackie anchor, isn't it?). And you are leading Jackie. And there's a leader on Classic. And then yet another leader is on Classy (the route that starts on Classic but then moves to the right and ascends the curving left-facing corner) or Pink Laurel (which ascends the short chimney/corner just a few more feet to the right)?

That sounds crowded.


Partner happiegrrrl


Sep 7, 2010, 9:09 PM
Post #32 of 149 (2512 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660

Re: [sethg] Gunks - Climber Etiquette FAIL [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Yes, to most.

You can set an anchor for Jackie to the left of the bolts though, simply by slinging a tree. To use the bolts as anchor, you actually would be far enough away that a person falling off the roof would penji, if one didn't place a piece above the roof, that is.

But yes...crowded. It was a crowded weekend, due to the holiday too. Moreso than usual.


johnwesely


Sep 7, 2010, 9:24 PM
Post #33 of 149 (2488 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360

Re: [ckirkwood9] Gunks - Climber Etiquette FAIL [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

They might have been being jerks, I personally would have gone to another climb, but you should have accommodated them. It would have saved you a lot of grief, and it is in line with the area ethics. Frog's Head is a super popular route after all. It is not inconceivable that a party interested in doing the entire route would want to do it.


ckirkwood9


Sep 7, 2010, 10:02 PM
Post #34 of 149 (2460 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 262

Re: [johnwesely] Gunks - Climber Etiquette FAIL [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

so after allowing some of the masses to chime in... there are some assumptions that some responders are making here.

I'm the OP - I was being friendly, and I thought VERY accommodating by asking for a little patience. I asked the group of 3 to wait for my climber to finish the 1st pitch, I would let her down, then they could hop on the route BEFORE me.

If my climber and I were doing it as a mutli-pitch, (and hence would be leading it, not TR'ing it) then the proper Etiquette would be for them to wait for me to climb as a 2nd, or a 3rd regardless of how slow we were. Mind you, we were not slow, nor was I being stand-offish or territorial with the route. I offered to let a party of 3 go ahead of me as a group, even before I climbed it myself, if they just waited till the newbie finished the route and was lowered. As it was, she was on the ground and off-belay before the first of their group made it to the top of pitch 1.

comments on some responses:

1) I don't see why that should have affected you at all.

Sharing the START wouldn't affect me at all but his original intention was to 'climb around' the newbie. And keep in mind it WAS a BEGINNER lead route, not moderate. Try to remember what it was like when you were a beginner... there's a lot to deal with without another climber climbing around/above you.

To the guy who said 'go teach somewhere else' (paraphrased)... it's a BEGINNER trad climb.

My objection really was their sense of entitlement... not asking if they could get on the route.

They wouldn’t have had to wait very long since the beginner was almost done
and as an climber with 7 years experience, I would have been up and down pitch 1 very quickly.

ALSO, this wasn't a lesson... the newbie climbed a few times before, and was climbing well. There was no instruction going on.

The db's just didn't want to wait their turn.


2) Righteous indignation won't help you climb better

Agreed... I’m not posting with the hopes to climb better. A little politeness goes a long way. Had they asked, I would have had no problem letting them go before me.

After recounting the story to the 30-year leader, he agreed they were out of line,
told me of a story many years ago when one aggressive party did the same and the offender was attacked with a rock.

I wasn't looking to start any fights of course; I was just surprised by the lack of courtesy.

This of course goes both ways.

If the other party approached and we had 3 people waiting to get on the TR,
then I would agree that their climbing through would be reasonable. However (and this is a BIG however), they should STILL ask. It's just common courtesy.

3) The OP didn't push it and is just venting here, rather than cam munch the guy in the nuts.

*laugh*... yes, venting... and hoping that MAYBE the offending party is reading this. Though admittedly it will not likely change anything. Once a DB, always a DB.

4) Just another Gunks picture that should have been taken but wasn't - hm???

YES - FAIL me! DAMN!

5) Maybe it's a Canadian thing, but I've never encountered anything close to that, EVER.

Nor have I in 7 years of climbing at the gunks. Though I have heard many stories of it, especially at the gunks.

6) the clusterfuck at the Maria vs Maria direct P1 anchor probably would have been a great photo.. that little stance is small enough with 1 party let alone 2.

Again - my fail. I think they were being rude to the party on pitch Maria Direct by jumping above them w/o asking.

As for being open to 'standard' practices in the gunks, I’m all for being fair... a simple 'mind if we jump in' would have been nice rather than for them to assume that it was cool to hop on whenever they were ready.

(This post was edited by ckirkwood9 on Sep 7, 2010, 10:06 PM)


curt


Sep 7, 2010, 10:20 PM
Post #35 of 149 (2443 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275

Re: [jakedatc] Gunks - Climber Etiquette FAIL [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

jakedatc wrote:
jt512 wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
I think you were justified in your stance and reaction to the situation. Up till this point:

ckirkwood9 wrote:
them: We're going to be nice and climb the route NEXT to you
(side note: both routes share the first 20 feet or so)
me: Can you please wait till I pull my gear; I don't want to get our gear mixed up. We JUST got here, the leader put up the route, my climber is just finishing the route and I’ve not even gotten on it yet.
their
leader: I’m not going to use any gear in your route

I don't see why that should have affected you at all.

+1

True, but went on to become the jerks on the other route. P1 of Maria (route next to the route the OP was on) is a R>L traverse to a very small anchor stance...

Are you by any chance, dyslexic? Cool

Curt


jakedatc


Sep 7, 2010, 10:22 PM
Post #36 of 149 (2440 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

Re: [redlude97] Gunks - Climber Etiquette FAIL [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

redlude97 wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
jt512 wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
I think you were justified in your stance and reaction to the situation. Up till this point:

ckirkwood9 wrote:
them: We're going to be nice and climb the route NEXT to you
(side note: both routes share the first 20 feet or so)
me: Can you please wait till I pull my gear; I don't want to get our gear mixed up. We JUST got here, the leader put up the route, my climber is just finishing the route and I’ve not even gotten on it yet.
their
leader: I’m not going to use any gear in your route

I don't see why that should have affected you at all.

+1

True, but went on to become the jerks on the other route. P1 of Maria (route next to the route the OP was on) is a L>R traverse to a very small anchor stance. To which it seems another group was doing Maria Direct which goes to the same anchor..
Isn't having a party of 5 on a popular multipitch route poor climbing etiquette as well? It is here on the west coast in my experience

Yes, I don't see how that would have been very possible. Hell i would not even want to do a party of 3 on Maria or Maria direct.

Dammit Eric.. L to R.. yes.
|
|-------------
|


I don't have an issue with doing Maria's traverse while someone is on Frogshead. No one in their right mind places gear before the traverse unless they want a ton of rope drag and if they are scared of the initial moves then the traverse is probably not for them either.

The problem is if they saw that someone was already at the Maria Direct anchor then they are just going to try to bully their way through and that is a jackass move when they could move on and have 500 other routes.

I duno where you guys were all climbing. apparently at uberfall and Frogshead but we didn't wait for hardly anything sat at the trapps or sunday at the nears. Some tough guy made ants line look 5.12 and then even after talking to us wanted to TR Ents line.. we gave him some serious dirty looks and his friends told him to forget it and luckily he left. Being flexible as to what routes you want to do goes a long ways to avoid being frustrated all weekend.


retr2327


Sep 7, 2010, 10:30 PM
Post #37 of 149 (2434 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 15, 2006
Posts: 53

Re: [ckirkwood9] Gunks - Climber Etiquette FAIL [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

"If my climber and I were doing it as a mutli-pitch, (and hence would be leading it, not TR'ing it)"

Interesting how some fairly basic terminology seems -- at least to me -- somewhat unclear. To me, the distinguishing characteristic of TR'ing (or the main reason why it's often viewed unfavorably and relegated to 2d class status) is either repeated laps on a pre-set rope, or a large number of climbers taking single laps on a rope that was set by one leader.

Of course, in this instance your party of 3 was using a belay from the ground, which TR'ers often use. But that doesn't seem particularly relevant to the main issue, which is predominantly a matter of whether the party is tying up a route for an excessive period of time through tactics viewed as inferior to "real" climbing, i.e., leading. Given the relatively narrow and heavily-used ledge at Frog's Head, belaying the 2d from the ground seems like a fairly considerate way of having a party of 3 climb, and I don't see any reason why you should be penalized for doing so.

So I suspect that if you'd written your post by saying that your party had decided to "lead" only the first pitch, etc., instead of describing it as TR'ing, you would have gotten a more favorable reception here even though, in practice, your actions and their impact on others would have been the same.

Which is a long-winded way of saying you're getting more prejudice than analysis in response to your post.


jakedatc


Sep 7, 2010, 10:52 PM
Post #38 of 149 (2409 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

Re: [curt] Gunks - Climber Etiquette FAIL [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

curt wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
jt512 wrote:
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
I think you were justified in your stance and reaction to the situation. Up till this point:

ckirkwood9 wrote:
them: We're going to be nice and climb the route NEXT to you
(side note: both routes share the first 20 feet or so)
me: Can you please wait till I pull my gear; I don't want to get our gear mixed up. We JUST got here, the leader put up the route, my climber is just finishing the route and I’ve not even gotten on it yet.
their
leader: I’m not going to use any gear in your route

I don't see why that should have affected you at all.

+1

True, but went on to become the jerks on the other route. P1 of Maria (route next to the route the OP was on) is a R>L traverse to a very small anchor stance...

Are you by any chance, dyslexic? Cool

Curt

Left to right! shh i edited it in my post on this page going left across Nightfall to City lights would be spicy :P


zeke_sf


Sep 7, 2010, 11:01 PM
Post #39 of 149 (2404 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730

Re: [ckirkwood9] Gunks - Climber Etiquette FAIL [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

ckirkwood9 wrote:
Here's the setup:

We're a party of Three - 2 trad leaders - one with 30 years experience the other leader (me) with 7-8 years experience, finally 1 newbie with 6 days experience.

Trad leader with most experience leads a very popular 5.6 in the Gunks (frog's head) with the intention of setting up a TR for newbie to gain experience/confidence.

Leader 1 finishes route VERY quickly (it IS a 5.6), is lowered from anchor, gear is still in place.

Leader 2 is belaying TR for newbie climber, who is dealing with typical-newbie-climber issues BUT is climbing well and fairly quickly for a new climber.

Newbie climber is 3/4 the way up said route.

Meanwhile group of 3 walk up to base of route 5 feet from me and racks up to climb.

me: (friendly) Hi guys... what are you getting on?
them: Frog's Head
me: Ah, well... we just got on it
them: We'll climb around
me: Oh. Well would you mind waiting? The climber is pretty new and might get nervous if you try to climb around.
them: She won't even know I’m there
me: Ummmmm, yea... she will. She's really new and is not very confident yet, would you mind waiting for her to finish the route?
them: (discussion amongst them)
them: (tying in seemingly to climb frog's head)
me: (still friendly) So would you mind waiting till she's done, besides my gear is still in place, if you wait, i'll run up it really quickly and pull my gear, then you can have at it.
them: (Ignoring me)
them: (leader about to climb)
me: (incredulously) You're NOT going to wait for me to pull my gear?
them: We're going to be nice and climb the route NEXT to you
(side note: both routes share the first 20 feet or so)
me: Can you please wait till I pull my gear; I don't want to get our gear mixed up. We JUST got here, the leader put up the route, my climber is just finishing the route and I’ve not even gotten on it yet.
their
leader: I’m not going to use any gear in your route

their leader proceeds to climb the first 15 feet of Frog's Head and is standing on top of
the first block with no protection in...
their belayer stumbles backwards a foot or 2 pulling the rope **A little** ALMOST pulling leader off the block
leader feels this and yells "whoa"


I have mixed feelings at this, but say nothing.

me: Ya know, I don't mind sharing the route or anchors at all,
I just want to be sure my climber is safe and our gear doesn't get mixed up
I mean... come on... we were all new climbers at one time or another, have a little compassion.

them: Well climber etiquette says any leader climbs through any top rope setup.
me: Hmmm... i'm not so sure about that.

They climb away and follow a route to the right,
eventually climbing ABOVE a party of 5 that's are set up a few routes to the right,
setting an anchor to do the 2nd pitch.

... the party of 5 was never ASKED by the party of 3 that their intention was to do so.

SOOO I ask you all.

Was I being unreasonable by asking the party of 3 to wait?

1) They never asked to share the route
2) I still hadn't gotten on the route
3) (though they didn't know this because they didn't ask), we had no plans of
setting up camp and hogging the route... we were all going to do it once and move on
4) When arriving at a climb that's currently occupied, I’ve always asked the people ahead of me if they minded if we climbed below them once they've set off on the 2nd pitch, but would NEVER assume I could get on a route that they're actively climbing.

Anyway - just wanted to get some feedback. I think they were seriously in the wrong here.

I'm not reading this^^^


Arrogant_Bastard


Sep 7, 2010, 11:05 PM
Post #40 of 149 (2397 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994

Re: [happiegrrrl] Gunks - Climber Etiquette FAIL [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

happiegrrrl wrote:
Well, most people(except for chicken shits like me) don't place gear in first 20 feet of Frog's Head, anyway, so the fact that their belayer almost pulled the leader off the thing is a side tangent.

Maria does share the first 20 feet, as said, but since no gear...it's not really an issue. There really is no problem I could see with someone starting on Maria while I had someone TR'ing on Frogshead(which I never would have selected for a first time climber anyway), even as I, as a 3rd, was waiting to climb and clean gear.

The people do sound like nasty ones, though. Which is often the case with people who have their eyes set on one line and get panty-bunched when - whatasurprise! - they find it in use on a weekend....

To say they would climb around ON F/Head is pretty selfish, lead>toprope ethic notwithstanding, when your gear was still in situ, and especially since you were actively climbing the route.

My synopsis - Yes, they were badly behaved. And yes, you might have considered going to Peterskill to teach the newbie is a less stressful environment, or chosen a climb that you might not have expected this to happen on(anyone with more than a single season of leading at the Gunks WOULD have anticipated that there would be, at the very least, a party come along and being pissy about it). If the scenario WAS anticipated, and the attitude is "We were there first, so tough crap on you," then well.....you sort of set yourselves up for it.




Meanwhile, here's a scenario I saw this weekend....
We were a party of 3 with a leader wanting to do Jackie. Got there at 9:30 and of course it was being climbed. Instead we did RMC. Came back, and Jackie was being climbed and so....we set up a TR on Pebbles and did the various variations, keeping an eye on Jackie.

Then, Jackie opened up, and we roped up for it. Next door was a TR set up at the bolted ancjhors for Classic. Not ON Classic, which traverses quite a bit but hanging straight down, with a piece of gear set off to the right as a....directional. NOT for the climber, but for the belayer, so the rope wouldn't be in their way, I guess.....

The TR powerpoint was place dead smack IN the notch of Classic's roof, and people were group TR'ing the line. I am not sure this is a line in the guidebooks. Maybe it is. But.....

There was a leader roping to lead Classic. I wondered, to myself, whether he had asked this TR party about that powerpoint clogging up the route, but it's not my problem.

In the interim.... a leader from the TR group alights on a route to the right of Classic. I don't know the route, and don't have my book handy to check it but....

Apparent;y the leader has to traverse over to the bolted anchor of Classic, because he "ran out of gear."

So - we are headed up Jackie, watching the TR people on the route as the leader takes off on Classic, and seeing that this other dude is now clogging the Classic anchor area while he belays his second up the side route and over....

Now you might say THAT is a clusterfuck!

But it gets worse..... The TR people SEE that the leader is started on Classic, but instead of dealing with their rope, they decide it is time for lunch, and leave it hanging, along with the gear that is placed on classic, and the rope that will then be in the leader's way.



Welcome to the Gunks.

^^^ That either.


johnwesely


Sep 8, 2010, 12:10 AM
Post #41 of 149 (2352 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360

Re: [ckirkwood9] Gunks - Climber Etiquette FAIL [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

ckirkwood9 wrote:

I'm the OP - I was being friendly, and I thought VERY accommodating by asking for a little patience.

I think you are a little bit too upset about this.


redlude97


Sep 8, 2010, 1:09 AM
Post #42 of 149 (2318 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990

Re: [retr2327] Gunks - Climber Etiquette FAIL [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

retr2327 wrote:
"If my climber and I were doing it as a mutli-pitch, (and hence would be leading it, not TR'ing it)"

Interesting how some fairly basic terminology seems -- at least to me -- somewhat unclear. To me, the distinguishing characteristic of TR'ing (or the main reason why it's often viewed unfavorably and relegated to 2d class status) is either repeated laps on a pre-set rope, or a large number of climbers taking single laps on a rope that was set by one leader.

Of course, in this instance your party of 3 was using a belay from the ground, which TR'ers often use. But that doesn't seem particularly relevant to the main issue, which is predominantly a matter of whether the party is tying up a route for an excessive period of time through tactics viewed as inferior to "real" climbing, i.e., leading. Given the relatively narrow and heavily-used ledge at Frog's Head, belaying the 2d from the ground seems like a fairly considerate way of having a party of 3 climb, and I don't see any reason why you should be penalized for doing so.

So I suspect that if you'd written your post by saying that your party had decided to "lead" only the first pitch, etc., instead of describing it as TR'ing, you would have gotten a more favorable reception here even though, in practice, your actions and their impact on others would have been the same.

Which is a long-winded way of saying you're getting more prejudice than analysis in response to your post.
who the fuck defines toproping in that way. Its toproping if 1 person does it or 20 people. toproping is 2nd class because you aren't on the sharp end with potential consequences to a fall. I'd rather have a group of 2-3 with 1 leader and the rest toproping and cleaning, it generally takes less time than for each person to lead it.


jt512


Sep 8, 2010, 1:11 AM
Post #43 of 149 (2315 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [redlude97] Gunks - Climber Etiquette FAIL [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (8 ratings)  
Can't Post

redlude97 wrote:
[T]oproping is 2nd class because you aren't on the sharp end with potential consequences to a fall.

Obsessing about the supposed primacy of leading is the hallmark of the intermediate climber.

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Sep 8, 2010, 1:29 AM)


Arrogant_Bastard


Sep 8, 2010, 1:24 AM
Post #44 of 149 (2299 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994

Re: [redlude97] Gunks - Climber Etiquette FAIL [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

redlude97 wrote:
retr2327 wrote:
"If my climber and I were doing it as a mutli-pitch, (and hence would be leading it, not TR'ing it)"

Interesting how some fairly basic terminology seems -- at least to me -- somewhat unclear. To me, the distinguishing characteristic of TR'ing (or the main reason why it's often viewed unfavorably and relegated to 2d class status) is either repeated laps on a pre-set rope, or a large number of climbers taking single laps on a rope that was set by one leader.

Of course, in this instance your party of 3 was using a belay from the ground, which TR'ers often use. But that doesn't seem particularly relevant to the main issue, which is predominantly a matter of whether the party is tying up a route for an excessive period of time through tactics viewed as inferior to "real" climbing, i.e., leading. Given the relatively narrow and heavily-used ledge at Frog's Head, belaying the 2d from the ground seems like a fairly considerate way of having a party of 3 climb, and I don't see any reason why you should be penalized for doing so.

So I suspect that if you'd written your post by saying that your party had decided to "lead" only the first pitch, etc., instead of describing it as TR'ing, you would have gotten a more favorable reception here even though, in practice, your actions and their impact on others would have been the same.

Which is a long-winded way of saying you're getting more prejudice than analysis in response to your post.
who the fuck defines toproping in that way. Its toproping if 1 person does it or 20 people. toproping is 2nd class because you aren't on the sharp end with potential consequences to a fall. I'd rather have a group of 2-3 with 1 leader and the rest toproping and cleaning, it generally takes less time than for each person to lead it.

It's semantics, and probably could have been better stated. I believe he's getting at the difference between following and TRing. Most here wouldn't fault someone for following the leader and cleaning the gear, because that's normal. Yet by your definition it's "Toproping" and inferior. Whether or not there's fall potential has little to do with the main issue: when people set up a TR on a line and leave it up for hours giving all their friends a run on it. What the OP did here was nothing more than climb a route as a party of three. That's it, get over it.


redlude97


Sep 8, 2010, 1:28 AM
Post #45 of 149 (2294 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990

Re: [Arrogant_Bastard] Gunks - Climber Etiquette FAIL [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
redlude97 wrote:
retr2327 wrote:
"If my climber and I were doing it as a mutli-pitch, (and hence would be leading it, not TR'ing it)"

Interesting how some fairly basic terminology seems -- at least to me -- somewhat unclear. To me, the distinguishing characteristic of TR'ing (or the main reason why it's often viewed unfavorably and relegated to 2d class status) is either repeated laps on a pre-set rope, or a large number of climbers taking single laps on a rope that was set by one leader.

Of course, in this instance your party of 3 was using a belay from the ground, which TR'ers often use. But that doesn't seem particularly relevant to the main issue, which is predominantly a matter of whether the party is tying up a route for an excessive period of time through tactics viewed as inferior to "real" climbing, i.e., leading. Given the relatively narrow and heavily-used ledge at Frog's Head, belaying the 2d from the ground seems like a fairly considerate way of having a party of 3 climb, and I don't see any reason why you should be penalized for doing so.

So I suspect that if you'd written your post by saying that your party had decided to "lead" only the first pitch, etc., instead of describing it as TR'ing, you would have gotten a more favorable reception here even though, in practice, your actions and their impact on others would have been the same.

Which is a long-winded way of saying you're getting more prejudice than analysis in response to your post.
who the fuck defines toproping in that way. Its toproping if 1 person does it or 20 people. toproping is 2nd class because you aren't on the sharp end with potential consequences to a fall. I'd rather have a group of 2-3 with 1 leader and the rest toproping and cleaning, it generally takes less time than for each person to lead it.

It's semantics, and probably could have been better stated. I believe he's getting at the difference between following and TRing. Most here wouldn't fault someone for following the leader and cleaning the gear, because that's normal. Yet by your definition it's "Toproping" and inferior. Whether or not there's fall potential has little to do with the main issue: when people set up a TR on a line and leave it up for hours giving all their friends a run on it. What the OP did here was nothing more than climb a route as a party of three. That's it, get over it.
No he defined toproping specifically as multiple laps or large groups. that was my problem with his definition. I had no problem with the way the OP climbed the route.


blueeyedclimber


Sep 8, 2010, 1:39 AM
Post #46 of 149 (2282 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602

Re: [ckirkwood9] Gunks - Climber Etiquette FAIL [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

Ethics aside, they were jackasses. I have been climbing at the Gunks for 9 years and no one has ever done that to me. Then again, there are certain areas I try to avoid like the plague on busy weekends. The Frog's Head area is one of them. Not just because I don't necessarily want to do any climbs there, but I don't enjoy having rocks and ropes falling on my head by the Gumby patrol that appears to be tidying up the top of the cliff. Tongue

Josh


gblauer
Moderator

Sep 8, 2010, 1:53 AM
Post #47 of 149 (2267 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2002
Posts: 2824

Re: [blueeyedclimber] Gunks - Climber Etiquette FAIL [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

blueeyedclimber wrote:
... there are certain areas I try to avoid like the plague on busy weekends. The Frog's Head area is one of them.

Well I can tell you that area was a total cluster on Sunday and we contributed to the cluster by getting our ropes stuck on Pas de Deux. We ultimately had 2 sets of doubles running up it! There was a huge party on City LIghts, a never ending parade of folks for Frogs Head and noise noise noise.


dugl33


Sep 8, 2010, 1:54 AM
Post #48 of 149 (2265 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 6, 2009
Posts: 740

Re: [brianri] Gunks - Climber Etiquette FAIL [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

brianri wrote:
The accepted etiquette at the Gunks has always been you don't top-rope trad lines or you at least get out of the way of trad climbers, especially on super popular three star trad climbs like Frogs Head.

This made me laugh. Ooh, ooh... trad climber, let him through, let him through!

****************

I agree with Kartessa. The situation as described was a dick maneuver and to my experience doesn't happen in California or other places I've climbed west of and including Colorado. (Perhaps this is an east coast thing?)

It would probably be more like:

"Yo hey were thinking of doing route "x" you mind if we skirt by."

"Sure, no prob, but do you mind if my friend gets up higher on the route. She's new and a little nervous, plus she might hang and knock you off."

"OK. Cool. Thanks"

"So, where ya'll from?"

"Up north, you?"....


jakedatc


Sep 8, 2010, 2:18 AM
Post #49 of 149 (2247 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

Re: [gblauer] Gunks - Climber Etiquette FAIL [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

gblauer wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
... there are certain areas I try to avoid like the plague on busy weekends. The Frog's Head area is one of them.

Well I can tell you that area was a total cluster on Sunday and we contributed to the cluster by getting our ropes stuck on Pas de Deux. We ultimately had 2 sets of doubles running up it! There was a huge party on City LIghts, a never ending parade of folks for Frogs Head and noise noise noise.

Went to the Nears sunday.. glad we missed the drama :)


brianri


Sep 8, 2010, 3:25 AM
Post #50 of 149 (2208 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 28, 2003
Posts: 126

Re: [dugl33] Gunks - Climber Etiquette FAIL [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dugl33 wrote:
brianri wrote:
The accepted etiquette at the Gunks has always been you don't top-rope trad lines or you at least get out of the way of trad climbers, especially on super popular three star trad climbs like Frogs Head.

This made me laugh. Ooh, ooh... trad climber, let him through, let him through!</quote>

****************

Yeah, I've got to admit that sounds elitist but the tradition at the Gunks has always been that leaders have the right of way. That tradition has been watered down over the years as there are more and more climbers. I'm not sure where you climb in CA but imagine if you went to Joshua Tree and most of the popular climbs had a top-rope dangling off the first pitch. That is what it can be like at the Gunks on a weekend.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Climbing Information : General

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook