|
wonderwoman
Sep 8, 2010, 5:36 PM
Post #76 of 149
(2527 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: 4275
|
mlcrisis wrote: ckirkwood, since i was there, and was witnessing the whole thing, and discussed it with ya right after....trust me, they were in the wrong. Any other assumptions by folks here are mistaken...the guys were rude and out of line...had no manners and I am sure their mom's are not so proud. Also, this same day, saw someone throw a rope to rap, without warning, over a leader on a pretty darn hard climb... Note to self, don't climb on weekends in the gunks.
If you saw that happen on Friends and Lovers (next to Snooky's) on Sunday, I was the lucky recipient of a rope in the face.
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Sep 8, 2010, 5:51 PM
Post #77 of 149
(2515 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
Nobody has or ought to have any "priority" to climb over a party already in place, unless the party already on the route agrees. But I see some fault with everyone's behavior here.
1. The original party of three goes with a beginner to one of the most popular and easily accessed routes on the crag and then turns a two-pitch (or, really a single pitch to the top) route into a one-pitch toprope. This is at least mindless, and I'd call it inconsiderate. Do they have a "right" to do this? Sure, but it isn't as if there weren't a bazillion choices less likely to clog.
2. The original party compounds the problem by leaving their gear in. The leader should have cleaned it on the way down. More inconsiderateness.
3. The second party lays claim to an absurd and nonexistent "rule" of priority, and doesn't act very nicely. They too have to realize that if they are going to climb on one of the most crowded spots on a crowded crag, they either need to practice chillin' or go someplace else.
But, some surliness nothwithstanding, they did climb another line, sharing only a portion without gear and that the top-roper was already above. So what's the fuss about? They got ahead of a slower party to the right? Happens all the time---everyone needs to get used to that.
It sounds to me like the first party was a bit inconsiderate but spoke politely, and the second party was a bit surly but acted politely. The whole lot of ya need to chill out if you are going to climb at one of the most overused locations in the entire U.S.
The herds seem to stampede to the same few spots and then have fits when they can't act as if they own the crag. There's actually plenty of room at the Gunks.
|
|
|
|
|
Arrogant_Bastard
Sep 8, 2010, 6:09 PM
Post #78 of 149
(2491 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
I realize that disagreeing with rgold will just roust a bunch of butthurts, but oh well...
rgold wrote: 1. The original party of three goes with a beginner to one of the most popular and easily accessed routes on the crag and then turns a two-pitch (or, really a single pitch to the top) route into a one-pitch toprope. This is at least mindless, and I'd call it inconsiderate. Do they have a "right" to do this? Sure, but it isn't as if there weren't a bazillion choices less likely to clog. 2. The original party compounds the problem by leaving their gear in. The leader should have cleaned it on the way down. More inconsiderateness.
I disagree with both points. It's a popular line because it's 5.6 so everyone can bring their cousin's sister's roomate's girlfriend along. There's nothing wrong with taking a beginner on a beginner climb. I also don't believe there's anything wrong with only doing 1 of the two pitches, your party is off in the same amount of time - less so in this case as you don't have people at the belay. And in the case where you have two experienced climbers and one newbie, you put the newbie in the middle so your experienced climber can clean the belay (not in this case), and clean the gear so the newbie doesn't fix a piece and/or get one stuck that creates an additional delay.
Yeah, they over reacted, but this is the internet.
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Sep 8, 2010, 6:25 PM
Post #79 of 149
(2469 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
There's no question that the points are arguable. And we could argue some more about whether top-roping the pitch ties it up longer than climbing it and the next pitch traditionally, especially in view of the possibility of having two people follow simultaneously. And no one can say that the party in question didn't have a "right," whatever that really means, to do what they did.
But my main point is that being considerate is also involved in choosing where you bring a beginner and how you set that up. Given a vast array of options, choosing just about the most crowded possibility and then complaining about another party's perceived lack of courtesy is, I think, a tad short-sighted.
And perhaps it is appropriate to confess a definite bias: I really dislike what top-roping has done to the Gunks climbing experience in general. But that's just me.
|
|
|
|
|
mlcrisis
Sep 8, 2010, 6:39 PM
Post #80 of 149
(2449 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 27, 2003
Posts: 51
|
Yep, that's me...
You made your opinion clear to them, so good for you...nice lead by the way. You and your beau were real cool, it was nice to meet ya.
|
|
|
|
|
ckirkwood9
Sep 8, 2010, 6:39 PM
Post #81 of 149
(2449 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 262
|
rgold wrote: 1. The original party of three goes with a beginner to one of the most popular and easily accessed routes on the crag and then turns a two-pitch (or, really a single pitch to the top) route into a one-pitch toprope.
It wasn't 'clogged' at all. it was essentially a 3-party lead of pitch 1, When new party came, Leader was done, new-ISH climber (not NEW climber) who was climbing quickly and was almost done. They would have had to wait no more than 5 mins to get their party of 3 on route ahead of me, while i'd have to wait for all 3 to compete pitch 1.
There were no plans for us to stay on the route as a TR; there was no line of people waiting to get on the TR and i let them know this. And (as I stated earlier) I was willing to let the lead party of 3 go ahead of me, if they just waited till my climber finished the route that she was almost done.
rgold wrote: 2. The original party compounds the problem by leaving their gear in. The leader should have cleaned it on the way down. More inconsiderateness.
gotta disagree here. I don't think there's anything inconsiderate about the 2nd climber taking it out on the way down. Part of it being an easy climb is that newish leaders/followers will be able to get more experience to bump up to more challenging stuff. Having said this, it wasn't a lesson.. she had removed gear on several multi-pitch climbs in the past, it was additional experience.
rgold wrote: they did climb another line, sharing only a portion without gear and that the top-roper was already above. So what's the fuss about?
The only reason they climbed another route was because I objected several times to their climbing on the route we were on. Their stated original intention was to 'climb around' my climber, which was at the least, rude and at the most dangerous.
rgold wrote: They got ahead of a slower party to the right? Happens all the time---everyone needs to get used to that.
actually if you considered that I offered them to go ahead of me and my climber was almost done, WE were the faster party. Their party of 3 would certainly have been MUCH slower than my climber who was almost done.
rgold wrote: It sounds to me like the first party was a bit inconsiderate but spoke politely,
Still not seeing how I was inconsiderate at all, but if a majority says it, I’ll just have to accept it. BUT judging by the responses above it looks like the jury is out.
SOOO how about we all attempt to get along and communicate with one another and not assume. (which was my original objection anyway)
rgold wrote: and the second party was a bit surly but acted politely.
gotta disagree ... there was nothing polite about what they did. They didn't communicate their intention but rather assumed the right to do what they pleased. When objections were raised, the just did what they wanted anyway, without any attempted discussion. Then they positioned their party of 3 above a part of 5 who were already on Pitch 1 of Maria Direct. All I see is inappropriateness.
rgold wrote: The whole lot of ya need to chill out if you are going to climb at one of the most overused locations in the entire U.S.
This I agree with. It would start with being a little more polite with one another.
rgold wrote: The herds seem to stampede to the same few spots and then have fits when they can't act as if they own the crag. There's actually plenty of room at the Gunks.
There IS plenty of room, and though it was a holiday weekend, it actually wasn't too crowded. Case in point, I arrived at the West Trapps parking lot somewhere around 8:30 and there were still many spots left. I've seen the lot fill up much earlier.
SO what's the point of all of this? **Everyone** should have some consideration, and if it SEEMS like there's a lack of consideration, don't assume - communicate and work it out.
In my 10 years of climbing (over 7 of it trad) I've found that MOST climbers are actually pretty cool, very understanding, and totally willing to compromise when asked. That DEF includes my willingness to compromise.
|
|
|
|
|
wonderwoman
Sep 8, 2010, 6:53 PM
Post #82 of 149
(2427 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: 4275
|
mlcrisis wrote: Yep, that's me... You made your opinion clear to them, so good for you...nice lead by the way. You and your beau were real cool, it was nice to meet ya.
Small world! And may they never, ever do that to another climber again! That sucked!
Which climber were you? And sorry for my potty mouth. Even I was surprised at what I said.
|
|
|
|
|
welle
Sep 8, 2010, 6:59 PM
Post #83 of 149
(2421 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2008
Posts: 212
|
I find both parties at fault - anyone climbing a 3-star route in the Gunks near the Uberfall over the holiday weekend and expects no overcrowding tensions, is a damn fool. Take a walk further down the Carriage road, go to the Nears, climb 1 star or starless climbs (emboldened), drive to Adirondacks or go to the beach. I took a 9-hour drive up to Acadia and climbed at Precipice. Short approach, no crowds and superb moderates right next to each other on a beautiful pink granite + friendly locals.
|
|
|
|
|
retr2327
Sep 8, 2010, 7:35 PM
Post #84 of 149
(2397 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2006
Posts: 53
|
"anyone climbing a 3-star route in the Gunks near the Uberfall over the holiday weekend and expects no overcrowding tensions, is a damn fool."
Can't disagree with that.
"I find both parties at fault"
Can't agree, at least not if you mean equally at fault. You should expect, and be prepared to tolerate, crowds. But that doesn't mean the 2d party had a right to act like jerks. And while I'd have to agree that anyone wanting to avoid such jerks would be well-advised to go on down the Carriage road a ways, I'm not willing to say that the OP did something "wrong" solely (and I emphasize solely) because he chose a popular climb. After all, routes are popular because more people choose to climb them; if that becomes bad conduct, then most people will be guilty of bad conduct. Doesn't seem like a sound approach to devising a system of ethical conduct.
If he had been hangdogging or otherwise unreasonably monopolizing the route, then maybe, but that's not how he tells it.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Sep 8, 2010, 8:37 PM
Post #85 of 149
(2360 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
This thread helps me appreciate what I have in life. Thanks for that.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
welle
Sep 8, 2010, 8:40 PM
Post #86 of 149
(2356 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2008
Posts: 212
|
retr2327 wrote: "I find both parties at fault" Can't agree, at least not if you mean equally at fault. You should expect, and be prepared to tolerate, crowds. But that doesn't mean the 2d party had a right to act like jerks. And while I'd have to agree that anyone wanting to avoid such jerks would be well-advised to go on down the Carriage road a ways, I'm not willing to say that the OP did something "wrong" solely (and I emphasize solely) because he chose a popular climb. After all, routes are popular because more people choose to climb them; if that becomes bad conduct, then most people will be guilty of bad conduct. Doesn't seem like a sound approach to devising a system of ethical conduct. If he had been hangdogging or otherwise unreasonably monopolizing the route, then maybe, but that's not how he tells it.
I totally agree with you. My first instinct was to side with the OP. But then I gave the other party the benefit of doubt, since we can't hear their side of the story. Maybe they were just racking up and intended to ask the OP for the permission to climb past their second, but the OP's tone irked them so they acted in passive aggressive manner? And as for climbing past the party on Maria/Maria Direct - they may have over-estimated the time they would reach the belay and given the traversing nature of the route they just went for it to find themselves overtake the other party? So yeah, the 2nd party sure sounds to have acted impolite, but at the end they just went around and hoped on another climb to accommodate the OP.
I should have phrased it better, it is of course not anyone's fault to choose to climb popular routes. But expecting to take time to climb a 3-star route on a busy holiday weekend without being rushed by others is a bit of an oversight for the OP, no? From the resolve of the 2nd party and their picking of both 3-star routes sounds like they maybe visiting. Sometimes, visiting climbers just know of handful classics, many don't have a guidebook, but a printout off online resources. In that case, I just tell them of other good climbs nearby and/or offer to lend them my guidebook.
|
|
|
|
|
happiegrrrl
Sep 8, 2010, 9:04 PM
Post #87 of 149
(2326 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660
|
welle wrote: [.. but the OP's tone irked the....
I am sure the OP's party isn't the one we first encountered at Jackie the day we were out...but if it were then I would say that you might have called it on the irking tone having an effect.....
When we came up there, there was a party of 3(2 guys and a girl) at the climb, with a leader just started out. Since I'd walked "all the way" up there from the carriage road, I just naturally asked if they were a party of 3 for the climb, and whether they were expecting to be quick or slow.
The person on the ground(guy, not girl) did give us a bit of a "back off, we'll be a while" speech. If I recall correctly, the person did mention the girl was new-ish.... and the leader did seem to fly right up the route, with no gear placed until passed the tree.
I have to admit, it occurred to me that maybe this was the same party, when I read the OP..... To the OP, if that WAS you, then maybe you aren't fully cognizant as to how you come off when approached by others with a simple question...(but, as I said, it's not likely it was the same person).
|
|
|
|
|
devkrev
Sep 8, 2010, 10:10 PM
Post #88 of 149
(2294 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 28, 2004
Posts: 933
|
dingus wrote: This thread helps me appreciate what I have in life. Thanks for that. DMT
The Dacks were amazing this weekend, Poke-O handed me my ass.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Sep 8, 2010, 10:16 PM
Post #89 of 149
(2292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
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.
Really? I know that everyone says that, and that the guidebook says that, but every trip I've been to at the Gunks, topropes are strung like fucking Christmas Tree decorations on the first pitches of popular climbs, and often stay there all day. Go to the McCarthy Wall on any weekend and see how many people are actually leading Co-Ex or Graveyard Shift.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Sep 8, 2010, 10:20 PM
Post #90 of 149
(2288 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
dingus wrote: This thread helps me appreciate what I have in life. Thanks for that. DMT
hah! I always think we've got it pretty good when we get these post busy weekend gunks threads. A cliff full of easy climbs right next to NYC? Sounds like pure hell.
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Sep 8, 2010, 10:26 PM
Post #91 of 149
(2276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
caughtinside wrote: dingus wrote: This thread helps me appreciate what I have in life. Thanks for that. DMT hah! I always think we've got it pretty good when we get these post busy weekend gunks threads. A cliff full of easy climbs right next to NYC? Sounds like pure hell.
Yeah, and thank God we get a rehashed micro-analysis of the clusterfuck given from the perspective of every. damn. one. of. them.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Sep 8, 2010, 10:26 PM
Post #92 of 149
(2275 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
jt512 wrote: 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
Climbing over a party already on route when told 'no' to is the hallmark of an advanced prick.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Sep 8, 2010, 10:28 PM
Post #93 of 149
(2274 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
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.
Semantics are all well and good but I wish those boys would not use the term '2nd class' to describe top roping. By definition its 4th or 5th class.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Sep 8, 2010, 10:29 PM
Post #94 of 149
(2274 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
zeke_sf wrote: caughtinside wrote: dingus wrote: This thread helps me appreciate what I have in life. Thanks for that. DMT hah! I always think we've got it pretty good when we get these post busy weekend gunks threads. A cliff full of easy climbs right next to NYC? Sounds like pure hell. Yeah, and thank God we get a rehashed micro-analysis of the clusterfuck given from the perspective of every. damn. one. of. them.
It's even better to imagine all of the posts as being spoken in a really nasally, loud, Brooklyn Jewish accent.
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Sep 8, 2010, 10:46 PM
Post #95 of 149
(2255 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
camhead wrote: zeke_sf wrote: caughtinside wrote: dingus wrote: This thread helps me appreciate what I have in life. Thanks for that. DMT hah! I always think we've got it pretty good when we get these post busy weekend gunks threads. A cliff full of easy climbs right next to NYC? Sounds like pure hell. Yeah, and thank God we get a rehashed micro-analysis of the clusterfuck given from the perspective of every. damn. one. of. them. It's even better to imagine all of the posts as being spoken in a really nasally, loud, Brooklyn Jewish accent.
It's kind of like a Where's Waldo picture with each character given 700 words to describe every inane nuance of their positioning related to Waldo.
|
|
|
|
|
losbill
Sep 8, 2010, 10:54 PM
Post #96 of 149
(2248 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2004
Posts: 416
|
Damn it! I just can't resist joining the fun.
Both parties were at fault, plain and simple.
Worst of all I have now lost all respect for Dingus who previous to his post on this issue used to be one of my idols but now revealed as just another internet zombie like me! Have a life. News flash, you don't!  Please don't let it happen to RGold!!!!!
There could be resurrection however. DMT have you ever climbed at the Gunks?
Former Disciple, Bill
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Sep 8, 2010, 10:57 PM
Post #97 of 149
(2243 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Of course I've climbed the Gunks Bill. Whaddaya think I'm NEW?
DMT
(This post was edited by dingus on Sep 8, 2010, 11:05 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
TradEddie
Sep 8, 2010, 11:38 PM
Post #98 of 149
(2205 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2007
Posts: 164
|
camhead 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. Really? I know that everyone says that, and that the guidebook says that,
Can I again ask, what guidebook do you think says that?
TE
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Sep 8, 2010, 11:44 PM
Post #99 of 149
(2199 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
TradEddie wrote: camhead 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. Really? I know that everyone says that, and that the guidebook says that, Can I again ask, what guidebook do you think says that? TE
Since when has it been ok to TR the first pitch of a multipitch that people regularly climb to the top? I don't know if I've ever seen that here.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Sep 9, 2010, 12:20 AM
Post #100 of 149
(2176 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
TradEddie wrote: camhead 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. Really? I know that everyone says that, and that the guidebook says that, Can I again ask, what guidebook do you think says that? TE
The Williams guidebooks clearly say that lead climbers have priority over top-ropers. Quit trying to beat a minor nuance to death.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
|
