|
|
|
|
jonf
Jan 15, 2003, 4:55 AM
Post #1 of 67
(5763 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2002
Posts: 123
|
After reading various posts in this forum it is clear that chipping, glueing, and manufacturing are highly debated topics.
I happen to be opposed to chipping. Natural lines should be left the way they are. Unfortunately it is obvious that chipping is a reality in modern climbing. Americans and many Europeans have been hacking up routes to suit them to their desires. The fight to stop these actions entirely will just NOT be won. Instead of fighting a battle and getting nowhere I suggest we look for some sort of alternative.
I think the idea of using old quarries as a place for chippers to go and manufacture whatever they want to be a good solution ( i know that the Kingston quarries in NY are like this). Any natural line that was once present in the quarries has been blown to bits, so no natural lines will be damaged by chipping or drilling at these places. It will give some people a place to fulfill their chipping desires, and keep their chisels away from the natural lines of the other frequented crags.
I would love to see a permanent end to chipping, but because it does not look like this will happen the use of quarries could preserve the integrity of our beloved classics and futur projects. I'd love to hear others opinions on this possible solution, and any other solutions you guys might have.
[ This Message was edited by: jonf on 2003-01-15 16:19 ]
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 15, 2003, 5:26 AM
Post #2 of 67
(5763 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Tuolume Meadows and Jailhouse Rock peacefully coexist within 50 crow miles of one another. One is a classic high Sierra granite area with a residual set of the most stern ethics this side of Dresden. The other was created using crow bars in a choss pile. The climbers who ply each area, and many who ply both areas, get along and mostly respect the ethics and mores of each. It a model of how things can be.
Respect the local ethic. What is so hard to understand about that? The locals at Jailhouse would react with self righteous anger if you suggested they limit their activity to a quarry. And the Meadows activists would chop the hell out of any clearly indentified chiseled route.
But the Meadows ethics should not be imposed at Jailhouse either. For the same reason: respect. By suggesting the quarry you are demonstrating the same disrespect that you seem to believe the chislers are expressing toward you. Disrespect leads to conflict and conflict leads to regulation.
Preach respect, not segregation. If someone is tempted to chisel in an unwarranted area... if they've had respect drummed into their heads and seen it demonstrated toward them, they are so much more likely to return the favor.
Call a man evil enough times and he will begin to act that way.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
socalbolter
Jan 15, 2003, 5:53 AM
Post #3 of 67
(5763 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 27, 2002
Posts: 796
|
BRAVO DINGUS!
without choosing sides personally, you have made a very clear statement of mutual respect.
in any controversy, this is by far the most important and effective approach to communication.
i'm not sure how your post could have been better stated.
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Jan 15, 2003, 2:24 PM
Post #4 of 67
(5763 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
not to mention the chippers can cut stone blocks and make statues of themselves. and nobody (at least no climber) will threat to harm them
CLIMB ON
|
|
|
|
|
w6jxm
Jan 15, 2003, 2:43 PM
Post #5 of 67
(5763 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 14, 2002
Posts: 792
|
I don't know what you are talking about by saying that this is a highly debated topic. as far as I know there is no one on this site taht thinks chipping is ok. the only discussions come from people who are being stupid and are trying to get a flame sessin going.
Sure in certain areas ethics may have somethng to do with it, but rock climbing is all about pitting yourself against the rock in its natual state, not changing it to suit your level of clmbing. If you don't do it in its natural state its called aid climbing. But don't mutilate the rock just so you can climb it.
|
|
|
|
|
jjg757
Jan 15, 2003, 2:51 PM
Post #6 of 67
(5763 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 3, 2002
Posts: 19
|
Chipping is completely wrong. It defies almost every point of leave no trace, and the hold could become even worse than before. And if you suck enough to have to alter a hold to be able to grasp it, Then you don't need to be climbing. Nature was put here by God. Don't alter it. Cause God wouldn't make it if it wasn't perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
bandycoot
Jan 15, 2003, 5:11 PM
Post #7 of 67
(5763 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
|
Excellent thread!!!
[ This Message was edited by: bandycoot on 2003-01-15 18:46 ]
|
|
|
|
|
antimatter
Jan 15, 2003, 5:17 PM
Post #8 of 67
(5763 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 18, 2002
Posts: 140
|
Quote:
Sure in certain areas ethics may have somethng to do with it, but rock climbing is all about pitting yourself against the rock in its natual state, not changing it to suit your level of clmbing. If you don't do it in its natural state its called aid climbing. But don't mutilate the rock just so you can climb it.
I think I will mutilate the rock just so I can climb it. Absolutely. Have you been to some of our fine 'Chosspiles turned Crags?' There's so much loose, heavy stuff initially that it has to be chipped, crowbarred or whatever to avoid many belayer deaths.
These places are not classic Tuolomne Meadows domes, they are choss piles with hardly a natural line to be found. Once the loose stuff has been knocked off and a sweet (albeit somewhat contrived) line spotted, the result is serious sport climbing FUN!
Anti-modification purists may turn their noses up at these choss piles turned crags but I love 'em. However, I also love places like Tuolomne and would never think of touching a thing there.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 15, 2003, 5:18 PM
Post #9 of 67
(5763 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
"I'm curious as to what type of chipping is being discussed. "
Chipping could be (and is) any of the following:
Cold chiseling a hold out of blank stone, as Ray Jardine did on the Nose.
Prying off pieces of rock thereby creating holds beneath them.
Removing "loose" rock with construction tools.
Purposely pin-aiding in such a way as to ultimately create free climbing holds.
Swiping your hand back and forth on a loose sandstone edge about 100 times until the hold is improved.
ALL of these are chipping, by degrees if you will. I guarentee the ethics aren't nearly so cut and dried as some of the more rigid conservative thinkers out there suggest.
Most of the Yosemite Valley 5.10 and under cracks are chipped... the vast majority of the popular ones are.
Monkeyfinger Wall in Zion is a manufactured route, as are many sandstone aid routes subsequently freed. A fine tradition, encouraged by the likes of Ron Olevesky, is to remove pins in such a way as to create finger locks. THAT is purposeful chipping.
It is rather routine in many areas, especially in sport climbing venues, for FA parties to aggressively clean new routes. If that cleaning involves construction tools like crow bars, chipping is being performed.
I don't even want to talk about aid climbers purposely creating aid placements out of blank stone.
I believe that many climbers are, and I don't mean to be antagonistic or provocative in saying this, rather ignorant of what goes on the sharp end of FA's when no one is looking, what has gone on in the past both near and distant and what will continue to go on in the future.
One of the boldest climbers in the history of Yosemite, a man whose ethics have often been praised and even fought over... glued holds to a boulder just outside the park. That example serves very nicely to illustrate the problem...
Chipping HAS always gone on. Many popular "clean and free" climbs are chipped. That is the reality of the situation.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
w6jxm
Jan 15, 2003, 5:22 PM
Post #10 of 67
(5763 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 14, 2002
Posts: 792
|
Dude, there is a big difference between chipping and cleaning.clearning is simply removing the loose slag that will pull off as soon as you pull on it. chipping is making new holds were there were none naturally. And NO, making holds so a route can be climbed is not climbing in its true esense. Think of Dreamtime or Realization. What is some joker came along five years ago and thought "hm look to hard, lets put a couple new hold right before the crux". What would we have then? Instead of a problem or route that has been worked on for the last few years and finally sent, we would have just another 5.14a (not that 5.14 is "just another" but you get my point). Like I said in my last post, if you can't climb it clean, then aid it.
Besides that, how many "crowds" do you find at crags that are not climbable because they are too hard and need to be "chipped" so they well be "spaced out". And if the route is partially climbed, then how do you know that it will not be climbed in the next few years, and be a much better climb because nobody came in an jacked it up.
Leave nature the way you found it and nature will leave you the way it found you.
Climb On
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
Jan 15, 2003, 5:28 PM
Post #11 of 67
(5763 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
Mhr, with all due respect to your status as a "newby", as self-described in your profile, your "ethic" about chipping what would otherwise seem inaccessible is ill-advised, to put it mildly.
An indoor gym is the place for manufactured routes. There are a number of manufactured routes and areas that have gotten mention in the major climbing mags, but over the past few years it seems that the trend is away from respecting them and, to a large extent, even acknowledging them. Does it still go on? Yeah, but the larger climbing community is trending strongly against them.
Your logic sounds good, but the problems with such behavior, even apparently well-motivated, can lead to serious problems for all climbers. Unless the property you would chipping is privately owned, and the owner has given permission, chipping will ultimately lead to access problems on public land. I'll assume that you and everyone else knows that chipping should never be done on someone else's private property. Personally, I'd say chipping should never be done, PERIOD. But, I'm not going to demand that a private land owner not be allowed to do that to his/her own private property.
As climbers, though, I would encourage that an anti-chipping ethical stance be taken, no matter where the crag is located. "What's the difference between cleaning a route and chipping?" That's a classic example of a philosophical or ethical "slippery slope". If chipping is okay, then so is drilling pockets; so is "comfortizing" holds; so is putting bolts next to trad gear placements.
And, by whose standards of difficulty are asserting that part of a given wall is "unclimbable"? If you're capable of 5.10, but the next guy is capable of .13, are you going to take it upon yourself to bring down the difficulty of the wall so that you (and, presumably, more climbers) can climb on it? How about glueing artificial holds to the wall? Is that okay, too, to provide more routes to climb on an otherwise "unclimbable" wall?
If climbers alter the rock they find on public lands, then other user groups are going to claim the right to modify the lands to make them more ammenable to their "enjoyment". And, don't start talking about bolts as altering the rock; for the most part, I consider a well and reasonably bolted route no more offensive to the land than a path throught the woods. The question is whether or not we want to see a propagation of concrete and asphalt paths through the forests, meadows and talus fields, or will we agree to minimize our impact, and accept what nature gives us as a resource?
As climbers, I hope (and encourage locally) that we accept a role of stewardship over our resources, and learn to walk away when the routes aren't available to us. We either get stronger and better, or accept the particular piece of rock as unclimbable. The rocks weren't "put here" for us to climb. We don't have to change something just because we can.
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
Jan 15, 2003, 5:46 PM
Post #12 of 67
(5763 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
Dingus, thanks for the history. I accept your knowledge of these facts, and I agree that it is a part of our distant and recent history, and, in fact, that the things you described go on presently. But, I do think there is a difference between blatant manufacturing, as considered by MHR2000, and much of what you described.
I would hope that the "gray area" manufacturing, with pins and agressive cleaning, etc. would be practices that are slipping into the past. I don't have the breadth of experience that you have, but the impression I've gotten from publications and internet forums is that these things seem less acceptable. Do you have a sense of this as true, or am I seeing things through my own bias? Do you have a sense that more climbers are seeing the examples you mentioned as opportunities to progress beyond them? Yeah, it's always gone on, but I hope it's a practice that dwindles away.
And, I agree with the edict that we respect the local ethical standards for whatever different areas we visit. I think most climbers are smart enough to know the difference between a "choss pile ethic", so to speak, and a more standard ethic for most established and new natural areas. I guess if someone is so desperate for climbing on real rock, chipping up a quarry might be okay if they have permission from the owners. To me, it seems kinda like patronizing a prostitute. But, chipping and manufacturing on public and private land, in general, should be strongly rejected.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 15, 2003, 6:13 PM
Post #13 of 67
(5763 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
"But, I do think there is a difference between blatant manufacturing, as considered by MHR2000, and much of what you described."
A difference by degrees, sure. Most U.S. climbers would side with you on that is my guess.
"I would hope that the "gray area" manufacturing, with pins and agressive cleaning, etc. would be practices that are slipping into the past."
While hope springs eternal we have to depart company on this point. Those techniques are alive and well and practiced extensively.
" but the impression I've gotten from publications and internet forums is that these things seem less acceptable."
Seem less acceptable to whom? The people doing it or the people who subsequently climb those routes unawares of what went on, only to go off preaching about the evils of chipping?
"Do you have a sense that more climbers are seeing the examples you mentioned as opportunities to progress beyond them?"
Beyond the labratory of debate such as this, it is my firm conviction that the average Joe Blow and Jane Doe climber doesn't really care about these issues all too much, especially when they are climbing. And keep in mind most of these climbers aren't first ascensionists nor are they likely ever to be one.
"To me, it seems kinda like patronizing a prostitute."
Hehe. Have you ever patronized a prostitute? Ever sport climbed at one of these choss piles?
"But, chipping and manufacturing on public and private land, in general, should be strongly rejected."
Cool. May I also encourage you to strongly advocate the respect for local ethics while you're at it? The two hand in hand offer you the opportunity to encourage what you sincerely believe to be better behavior while simultaneously fostering a climate that will discourage other climbers from perpetrating these sorts of modifications at the areas where they are inappropriate. But it also recognizes that at these so-called "choss pile" areas, you have no right nor should you have the expectation that the anti-chipping ethic holds sway.
What's wrong with that? That is the intent behind my original response in this thread.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
Jan 15, 2003, 6:31 PM
Post #14 of 67
(5763 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
Yeah, as I said, I do "respect" the local ethics of wherever I may be climbing, to the extent that I don't impose my own if it's different than what I find there. What I mean, is that I may not always agree with the ethics as practiced in a particular area, but I would not, for example, chop bolts that I thought shouldn't be there, nor would step up on my soapbox to chastise the locals if I disagreed with 'em. I might not stay and climb there, but that would be my choice, and perhaps my loss. The most I would do, if it mattered enough to me, would be to seek out any local climber group or individual to get a sense of why their ethic is what it is, and talk about it. I hate preaching of any kind (hard to believe?), so I'd try to have a real conversation. If I could contribute my viewpoint, I would, if not, so be it. How much I would get worked up and involved would be subjective to a lot of factors; this too is by matters of degree.
You may be right about the concerns (or lack of same) on the part of the average climber; you're in a position to know much better than I. I hope climbers can at least get a sense of the risk to access that some behaviors can pose, when done on publicly managed land. I'd hope that not damaging private property would be obvious enough, but... I would also hope that the discussion and debate would help to avoid falling down the ethical "slippery slope".
Quote:May I also encourage you to strongly advocate the respect for local ethics while you're at it? The two hand in hand offer you the opportunity to encourage what you sincerely believe to be better behavior while simultaneously fostering a climate that will discourage other climbers from perpetrating these sorts of modifications at the areas where they are inappropriate. But it also recognizes that at these so-called "choss pile" areas, you have no right nor should you have the expectation that the anti-chipping ethic holds sway.
I completely agree.
|
|
|
|
|
mreardon
Jan 15, 2003, 6:41 PM
Post #15 of 67
(5763 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 1337
|
Chipping has always existed, and will continue unfortunately because even if you don't agree with chipping verbally, every time you chalk up and do a route with chipped holds, you justify what was done.
If you truly do not agree with it, then ignore those routes. Of course this would mean ignoring most of the newly free routes in Yosemite that were aid prior (as well as many routes in Zion, Fisher, Gunks, Rumney and a few others), a ton of stuff in Vegas, most of the southern cal. sport areas (Williamson, Echo, NJC, etc.), plenty of Colorado's lines, and even many classic bouldering areas from Hueco to Bishop where most of the lines are indeed natural, but a couple of them sure have convenient edges where there was a "loose" piece before.
Now I'm assuming for the moment that everyone commenting has climbed at least one route that was chipped on a regular basis. If you truly object, then don't do the route. Otherwise admit that you approve, and re-define what type of chipping that you do not agree with.
Personally I do not approve of using any tools on a route where a line can exist. But I have made the mistake of climbing chipped routes and thereby justifying that it was okay by me. Frustrating but true which is why I personally limit myself in going to those areas and climbing those routes. If you can't pull it off by hand or foot, then you don't need a crowbar. If you can't do the move because it's "blank" then save it for future generations (Charleston followed the "we couldn't do the bottom 30 feet to the great pockets so we chipped" and now it's worthless in terms of allowing future generations to free some truly great natural lines on limestone).
On a more poersonal note, someone started chipping like crazy last year at the local area (Stoney Point) on problems that had always gone in the past, but holds broke. Most of these routes have since gone without the chipped holds, and just the other day I managed to free a couple boulder lines that had never gone before, and 11 years ago I thought would never go. They're not the hardest by any stretch, but the skill set has improved enough that I found a way after all these years.
Anytime you tool the rock, or climb on a route that has been tooled, you approve of the damage done and set a precedent for future generations to not achieve beyond the past, but to limit themselves that nothing harder can be done. And that is garbage.
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 16, 2003, 1:42 AM
Post #16 of 67
(5763 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
here we go again...hehehe..
mhr2000---"I'm all for chipping as long as the route has been proven unclimbable and would be wasted otherwise."
15 years ago, john bachar and ron kauk were walking through buttermilk country and came across an exquisite piece of rock. it was unclimbable, by even the best climbers of the day. today, that "unclimbable" project is known as the mandala and is one of the most beautiful; boulder problems in the world to look at...and its still au natural...
5 years ago, v14 hadnt even been completed yet. a small, severely overhanging piece of rock in cresciano, switzerland was looked at repeatedly and deemed "unclimbable" by the strongest in the world. 2 years later, fred nicole sent what is now known as dreamtime.
40 years ago, it was believed impossible by the strongest hardmen in the world to climb anything harder than 5.9. it was firmly believed that freeclimbing beyond this grade was mythical. today, id bet that 50% of the climbing community can climb hard 5.9, with at least 25-30% regularly climbing 5.10+.
herein lies the [problem. something that is "definately unclimbable" today can and will be climbed by future generations. i ask you this "who the %@#$ are you to rob them of that right???" it is neither our right nor our job to make all faces of rock climbable by todays standards. doing so only prevents upward progression in the sport of climbing.
if tori allen is climbing .14a at the ripe old age of 14, what will she be capable of when she 25? i dont know...but we never will unless we preserve the rock in its natural state for the future generation of climbers.
my g/f and i have a 4 year old. i climb around v6/v7 regularly. she doesnt. but she climbs now...what will SHE be capable of climbing when shes 25?? according to you, only .14d...because everything else is unclimbable...
|
|
|
|
|
jonf
Jan 16, 2003, 2:15 AM
Post #17 of 67
(5763 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2002
Posts: 123
|
Well put madman.
Just as another example a little while ago on newenglandbouldering.com somebody posted that chipping should be done on the blank unclimbable piece of rock next to The Fly 14d so that there can be even more routes for people to do at Rumney. Little did he know that "unclimbable" piece of rock was Dave Graham's project Superfly which he had been working, and had already done a number of the moves.
|
|
|
|
|
beyond_gravity
Jan 16, 2003, 2:45 AM
Post #18 of 67
(5763 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2002
Posts: 5078
|
I think every area should have one section of rock that is totally chipped out so the guides would take all there newbie classes there, as long as it didn't create any acess issues. Newbies don't care about chipped holds, and it would keep them away from disturbing other climbers.
Lets face it. Sure there might be a 14d...but no one is going to spend time working on a route if it's a piece of crap and not interesting at all.
I personally don't have a problem with chippers chipping routes if there isn't a good natural line. There is plenty of rock out there.
I'd never chip, but i'm not gonna kick someone's ass if I saw them chipping somthing that was crap.
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Jan 16, 2003, 2:59 AM
Post #19 of 67
(5763 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
There is nothing wrong with taking an otherwise worthless chosspile and turning it into an outdoor gym. Try to remember that there is no such thing as ethics in sport climbing, that is one of its main attractions believe it or not, ethics are for the people in your life, not the rocks in your life, most experienced climbers realize that it is really silly and strange to anthropomorphize mineral deposits...
Also, you boulderers who are trying to lecture on this thread about climbing ethics...don't even try it. We sit around every weekend at the sport crags and clown on the pebble wrestlers with the matresses strapped to their backs, you have zero credibility in the real climbing world, you guys complaining about chipped holds are like miniature golfers complaining about the layout of the greens at Augusta, no one cares what you think...
|
|
|
|
|
jonf
Jan 16, 2003, 3:39 AM
Post #20 of 67
(5763 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2002
Posts: 123
|
I think in general climbers are some of the nicest, and most helpful people around. Comments like that last one are what ruin the atmospere in climbing. Why anybody would feel the need to attack boulders like that is beyond me. Does he not realize how many boulders also climb routes including trad. Does he know that Sherman (a legendary boulderer) has done the Eiger. Labeling boulderers into one distinct class is wrong. Boulderers are still rockclimbers, they just choose to climb different rocks. The similarites between bouldering and route climbing outweigh the differences by a massive amount. They have every right to complain about chipping, in someways even more. A number of problems may only consist of 3 or 4 holds. So if 1 hold is chipped on a problem then 1/3 to 1/4 or the route has been changed, but hold being changed on a route would change a much smaller percentage. Im not saying that chipping is more acceptble on routes, just that it is just as big of a problem in bouldering. This similar attitude was used towards sport climbers in the past, but now people seem to view sport routes and bolting as being fully acceptable, do you remember the saying "Sport climbing is neither." Attitudes like these are what ruin climbing for many.
Maybe you are just jealous of the massive strength and ability of many boulderers, maybe you are just saying this to piss people off, maybe its just because you dont understand some of the deeper meanings people have about climbing. Whatever your reason I dont think people want to see such negative posts on this site. I know i dont.
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 16, 2003, 3:42 AM
Post #21 of 67
(5763 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
riiiight...
no one here has any respect for the likes of:
dave graham
fred nicole
chris sharma
lisa rands
wills young
and lest we forget, john gill
you asshole. most of the poeple listed above are either pure boulderers or mainly boulderers.
the ones no one respects are assholes like you that think only youre way is the right...
hmm...can anyone say "troll"...STFU kalcario...youre a jackass...
[edited for disclaimer]my cussing is usually auto-censored. sorry for those who are offended by the word asshole...but he really is acting like one...
[ This Message was edited by: boulderingmadman on 2003-01-15 19:45 ]
|
|
|
|
|
garrettk
Jan 16, 2003, 3:52 AM
Post #22 of 67
(5763 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 22
|
Intolerance is lame. I have always enjoyed that the climbing community seems to be one of understanding. I am a boulderer because it is the aspect of climbing that I enjoy most. It is where I feel that I'm able to push my limits best. But I also do not go and tell trad climbers or sport climbers that they have no influence in the climbing world. I feel that chipping is an issue to all climbers. Not just those who rope up. Like jonf said holds sometimes can be even more crucial in a boudler problem. We have every right to be as concerned about this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 16, 2003, 4:19 AM
Post #23 of 67
(5763 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
what i find amusing is these same people who thought that repairing a flake wasnt comparable to chipping are now saying that pin scars are chipping...hmmm...a double standard to suite every need???
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Jan 16, 2003, 5:45 AM
Post #24 of 67
(5763 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
*Labeling boulderers into one distinct class is wrong. Boulderers are still rockclimbers, they just choose to climb different rocks.*
Lame cop out. Should we call backpackers climbers too because they climb to the top of different rocks?
In the Yosemite Decimal System, Class 1 is hiking on a trail, class 2 hiking cross country, class 3 and 4 scrambling, class 5 technical rock climbing. The line between class 3 and 4, and class 5, is the survivability factor of an unroped fall. If you're not gonna die, it is'nt class 5 climbing, it's class 3 or 4 scrambling. This is the way it has always been. So now we're supposed to change the definition of what climbing is because people who don't go more than 20' off the ground want to be called climbers too? I don't think so...
Go to thedeadpoint.com. Their header, or whatever you call it in html-speak, is "Rock Climbing. Bouldering. And Much More." Hmmm...they seem to think the 2 are different enough as to be defined using separate terms...
Is skimboarding surfing? Is ping pong tennis? Is snorkeling scuba diving? Is bungee jumping skydiving? All these sports and many more I'm sure share similar elements, yet their participants are comfortable labeling themselves differently for obvious reasons, not least of which are truthfulness and credibility.
[ This Message was edited by: kalcario on 2003-01-15 21:50 ]
|
|
|
|
|
flamer
Jan 16, 2003, 7:40 AM
Post #25 of 67
(5763 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2002
Posts: 2955
|
Mr. Dingus,
In response to your statement about Ron Olevsky(and other zion climbers) Encouraging people to clean pins so as to leave"finger locks" you are mistaken. It is encouraged in Zion to clean pins emphazing the upward blow, thus creating CLEAN AID PLACEMENTS. The reasoning for this is the nature of the sandstone in zion- it is extremly soft! Thus it cannot withstand the repeated use of pins- which can make a placement unusable in as little as 2 piton placements! You are correct in that this can also create finger locks, BUT this was not the intended reason! The idea was to Preserve the rock(as much as possible) and the state(natural) of the routes after repeated ascents- not to chip a piece of rock into free climbing submission!
josh
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
