|
|
|
|
coylec
Jan 12, 2004, 2:02 PM
Post #1 of 24
(3780 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 12, 2003
Posts: 2024
|
Question: What are the rights and privileges of the first ascent party?
I'm looked around on RC.com as well as various websites. I've found references to supposed privileges of the first ascent party, but never a clear statement of what those are.
Its obvious that the FA party has the right to name the route. It appears that there are not limitations on the content of that name, given the number of "profane" names found in guidebooks. It also appears that the FA party also has the right to declare a rating for the climb, though ratings have been changed. There does not seem to be a method for changing the rating, though it happens, especially after bad rebolting, face changes or environmental damage.
It also appears that the FA party has the right to determine the route of the climb as well as the fixed protection along that route. For example, during the rebolting project at Pinnacles, the rebolting group (FOP: Friends of Pinnacles) were careful to ask permission of the first ascent party when possibile in order to secure their blessing for the rebolt. The justiification for this was that rebolting changed their route. (see http://www.stanford.edu/~clint/pin/rebolt.htm).
Additionally, according to ASCA (American Safe Climbing Assocation), there are directions to consult the first ascent party prior to rebolting. (see http://www.safeclimbing.org/)
It seems obvious that the first ascent party has the right to determine the type of route, especially in terms of bolts. What other rights does the first ascent party have? While it appears that most would agree that if an FA party determined that no bolts should be placed, then no bolts should be placed, for whatever reason. It implies that the climb should be left the way the FA party intended it. But, what about the logical extensions of that argument? For example, if a climb was located in what the FA party considered a very pristine area, and the FA was done without chalk, could the FA party declare that chalk was not allowed on the climb?
There appears to be a lot of talk about the rights of the FA party, and people are quite proud (rightfully so) of their FAs. But what does an FA earn a climber in terms of determining the future of a piece of rock?
This area interests me for several reasons, most importantly as an academic concern regarding a self-made, self-imposed regulation system. I would appreciate feedback, opinions and references. Any summary or additional material created for these posts would be reposted to rc.com.
thanks in advance,
coylec
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 12, 2004, 2:21 PM
Post #2 of 24
(3780 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
The things you cite are not rights. Seems like I'm nitpicking but I'm not. There are no rights in climbing, except perhaps the right to die. They are privileges or courtesies, to be extended or retracted at the whim of individuals, one at a time. They are not documented, except occasionally in guide books or in discussions such as these.
Suggestions and Guidelines, call them that.
There are no laws stiplating the rights of a first ascent party (yet). There is no umbrella organization to define that which the government does not, nor is there a need for one. There is no rule book nor is there a need for one. There is no official sanction required to climb nor is there a need for one. And each area is somewhat unique.
The 'rights' of the first ascent party do not extend beyond that party, nor do they outlast the ascent. The ONLY measure the FA party can rely upon to protect their work is the good will of other climbers, one at a time, one climb at a time. Eveything else is just words.
Respect.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
voriand
Jan 12, 2004, 2:31 PM
Post #3 of 24
(3780 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2003
Posts: 73
|
I believe that the FA party should have the right to name the right and give it a best guess grade.
The climbing community has the right to change the rateing to be more accurate.
Just because you are the first party up does not give your ego the right to sandbag a route.
|
|
|
|
|
mtengaio
Jan 12, 2004, 3:36 PM
Post #4 of 24
(3780 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2003
Posts: 276
|
First ascent parties have the right to name and rate a climb; that's it. Naming a climb after a successful ascent is always fun and the names should stick , however, the rating of a new climb after it has seen one or two ascents should still be subject to change. Too many first ascents get rated too high for ego sakes; leaving the rating open to suggestion is the way to go.
And by the way, climbing is just a game. A fun game.
|
|
|
|
|
hosh
Jan 12, 2004, 3:36 PM
Post #5 of 24
(3780 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2003
Posts: 1662
|
Rights for the FA party?
Bragging rights.
|
|
|
|
|
asandh
Jan 12, 2004, 4:29 PM
Post #6 of 24
(3780 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2002
Posts: 788
|
:D
|
|
|
|
|
ambler
Jan 12, 2004, 5:04 PM
Post #7 of 24
(3780 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 1690
|
In reply to: The things you cite are not rights. Seems like I'm nitpicking but I'm not. There are no rights in climbing, except perhaps the right to die. They are privileges or courtesies, to be extended or retracted at the whim of individuals, one at a time. They are not documented, except occasionally in guide books or in discussions such as these..
Indoors climbing does not emphasize traditions, and sees any adventure (risk) elements as bad. Behavior is controlled in terms of risk-averse house rules. Maybe that indoors emphasis on rules, no traditions, and the elimination of risk is one reason why we get so many threads imagining that the state of outdoors routes must reflect bad things like the "rights," "ownership" or "ego" of first ascentionists.
|
|
|
|
|
coylec
Jan 12, 2004, 5:06 PM
Post #8 of 24
(3780 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 12, 2003
Posts: 2024
|
I want to thank everyone who has responded thus far. I agree with Dingus in that the things I talked about are not rights, rather privileges. I also agree that the only "enforcement" mechanism is respect from the community.
I hate to bring this into this discussion, but where does bolt cutting fall into this scheme? If the FA party bolts a route (in accordance with local ethics), it seems that other organizations (including rebolting groups) try to respect those placements. What do members of the climbing community feel about this guideline, which seems to indicate that the FA party's bolting should be maintained?
Others feel that any bolts are bad and cut them. I've been told of a number of individuals in the NE that cut bolts on declared "sport" routes. Does anyone have the ablity to cut bolts or should they talk to the FA party first?
Does anyone have an answer to the earlier chalk question (this is a person inquiry - I'm not a fan of chalk and hate to have nice rocks marred by chalk. Also, where does chalk come in to play with regards to a leave no trace ethic?
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Jan 13, 2004, 1:19 PM
Post #9 of 24
(3780 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
the FA party doenst grade a route, but PROPoSES a grade. the second, third and so on accesininsts either confirm the grade or propose a different one.
FA also can determine the type of pro "allowed", but i dont believe they can determine the chalk...
|
|
|
|
|
rockfax
Jan 13, 2004, 2:36 PM
Post #10 of 24
(3780 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 26, 2001
Posts: 652
|
The first ascensionist (note the correct spelling) proposes a name and a grade. There are no rights.
DINGUS....gizzan email I've got something for you....(an Eastern Sierra Ice guide).
Mick
rockfax@verizon.net
|
|
|
|
|
ambler
Jan 13, 2004, 3:11 PM
Post #11 of 24
(3780 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 1690
|
In reply to: The first ascensionist (note the correct spelling) proposes a name and a grade. There are no rights |
|
|
|
|
wideguy
Jan 13, 2004, 3:53 PM
Post #12 of 24
(3780 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 15046
|
Chopping bolt s is a whole other discusiion and generally runs counter to the courtesies and considerations that have already been discussed.
Generally speaking, if a route was first put up bolted it was hopefully done becasue the route couldn't been protected any other way. It is generally thought that the guidlines still apply. Respect the choice of the FA to bolt it. Many Trad purist will disagree and claim that the bolts should be chopped because trad pro would have worked just as well. This one gets contentious and there is no likely resolution.
The guidelines apply in reverse as well. Bolting a long standing trad route just to make it more comfy for your style is likely to get you lynched.
Chopping gets real heated because it is rarely done in the open and after any discussion. It is done under cover of night and secrecy to avoid conflict.
|
|
|
|
|
copperhead
Jan 13, 2004, 6:47 PM
Post #13 of 24
(3780 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 668
|
In reply to: Just because you are the first party up does not give your ego the right to sandbag a route.
In reply to: Too many first ascents get rated too high for ego sakes; leaving the rating open to suggestion is the way to go.
Rate it too low and you’ve got an ego; rate it too high and you’ve got an ego. Sounds like a ‘no win’ situation… But then again, it’s just a rating and ratings have always been screwed. That’s why some routes are un-rated.
In reply to: …the community owns the rock not the individual.
And the community says that BOLTS SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO EXISTING ROUTES!!!!!
It’s a matter of respect, not only for the FAists, but more so for the route. Take the Zodiac, on El Cap, for example. How many bolts and holes have been added to this route since November of ’72? A bunch, right? How has/does the route appeared/appear (aesthetically) to us climbers? And why have those bolts and holes been tolerated for so long? More importantly, why were many of these added ‘chicken’ bolts replaced with new fatty bolts? Now we have guys like Beyer going up there who snip and flatten bolt hangers as a response to this over-bolting-pansy-ass madness. I don’t blame him but I don’t agree with his methods of proving a point. So, after all of this, who loses? Yes, the rock loses, and we all lose a valuable resource. Why? Because there is no respect. It is our responsibility to determine whether we are capable of climbing a given route; if we are not up to the task of climbing the route without making changes to it, then we should not be on the route. Be honest.
Though it is inevitable to some degree (pin scars, etc…), routes should not purposely be changed. This applies to original bolts as well. I would absolutely love to climb the WOEML and chop any bolt/rivet that wasn’t needed and climb all of the bolted corners on thin heads and beaks but I won’t. Why? Because Harding got there first and I greatly respect what he has climbed. He has established the route and it is what it is. There are also bolted (original) sections of the Zodiac that could be climbed with gear. Should I chop all of these bolts too? NO. These routes (and all routes) are history; Warren and Charlie did the first ascents in the best style possible and for their time, these routes were cutting edge. They are a part of Yosemite climbing history. To remove original bolts is as bad as adding ‘chicken’ bolts. Respect – without it, our climbing resources are sure to quickly dwindle into heaps of junk, forever scarred and littered with the remains of disagreement and disrespect. In today’s society, much of our resources and natural treasures are being altered, damaged or destroyed because of negligence, ignorance, carelessness, and greed. I would hope that climbers, as a community, are above all of this and wish to preserve what we have – our climbing resources are finite and irreplaceable. I don’t know about you, but Mars doesn’t seem too inviting to me quite yet, though a ‘magic carpet’ ride might be fun…
In reply to: Indoors climbing does not emphasize traditions, and sees any adventure (risk) elements as bad. Behavior is controlled in terms of risk-averse house rules. Maybe that indoors emphasis on rules, no traditions, and the elimination of risk is one reason why we get so many threads imagining that the state of outdoors routes must reflect bad things like the "rights," "ownership" or "ego" of first ascentionists.
Good point. Survey says: Frick Gyms!!!! (…and you can’t even drink a beer while belaying!!) No fun.
In reply to: Chopping gets real heated because it is rarely done in the open and after any discussion. It is done under cover of night and secrecy to avoid conflict.
Not necessarily (though you did say rarely…). I make a point of talking with as many locals as possible before chopping. If I can ask the person(s) responsible for adding the bolts, then I will. It’s not about starting controversy and getting in someone’s face (superficial jokes aside… ‘vroom vroom’…); it’s about respecting original routes and trying to preserve them in their original state for the future. Obviously, when someone decides to put up a route, it is expected that they will adhere to local ethics; a sport-bolted crack in Yosemite Valley is simply not acceptable, though Cookie Monster seems to be a bit of an oxymoron (eh hem…). The same goes for thin aid lines – they should not be bolted so that they can be ‘conveniently’ freed, as was the case with Coffin Nail and Sunblast.
It’s not about rules or rights; it’s about ethics and respect and preservation of history.
Respect is why the first pitch of Bachar/Yerian still has only two bolts.
One last thought: Let’s say, for example, that Boot Flake on the Nose falls off and someone goes up there, finds a super-thin seam, climbs it on dicey gear, and calls it A4. Does this now mean that the Nose is again A4 and that the hoards will no longer be able to send the route? Or should we go up there and drill a bolt ladder next to the new seam so that everyone is still able to climb C1? Where does it all end?
|
|
|
|
|
padenjr
Jan 13, 2004, 7:48 PM
Post #14 of 24
(3780 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 7, 2004
Posts: 28
|
If you have the FA, and you can name the route, how is that name documented?
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 13, 2004, 8:02 PM
Post #15 of 24
(3780 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: ..........Does anyone have an answer to the earlier chalk question (this is a person inquiry - I'm not a fan of chalk and hate to have nice rocks marred by chalk. Also, where does chalk come in to play with regards to a leave no trace ethic?
Sure, this does happen, but it is more rare than the other things you mention. One example I know of is the "North Shore" climbing area in Minnesota. It has been designated a "no-chalk" area for many many years, at the request of the FAs involved in establishing the routes. And, as far as I know, this ethic is generally respected. You may want to PM Dan or Les or some of the other MN based climbers for more details. I think I have heard of other examples of this ethic as well.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Jan 14, 2004, 2:02 AM
Post #16 of 24
(3780 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
One reason the FA party might over rate is because they might have had to clean it on lead, and that makes the climb harder, although it will never be that hard again, unless allowed to return to a natural state, where, for instance, that life saver bucket is once again filled with damp dirt and mud, and instead of being a bucket with a two inch lip is in fact once more a soft, sloppy rounded slimey sloper hahaha.
As for naming rights and "dirty" names, I know of at least one route where the propsed name was disallowed by the guide book author as too obscene-- but he did allow the acronym, and the insiders all know what the letters of this nonsense name stand for.
|
|
|
|
|
goldencrowbar
Jan 14, 2004, 2:53 AM
Post #17 of 24
(3780 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 8, 2003
Posts: 112
|
SOS?
|
|
|
|
|
whenindoubtrunitout
Mar 12, 2004, 11:59 AM
Post #18 of 24
(3780 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 31
|
First Ascentionists have the right to do anything they want to so long as it is not forbidden by law. However, that doesn't mean the climbing community is going to accept, support, condone, glorify, repeat or even mention it in public. There are still plenty of places on this planet where one can legally chip 2" diameter holes ever 2 feet up the rock, stick big pieces of wood in them and climb it like a ladder. And there was a time in this country when doing so was a heroic feat that received a great deal of media attention. Today, you probably wouldn't get the second stick in the hole before you were severely beaten by a local climber.
The truth about this entire affair is that individual climbers have largely chosen to challenge themselves within the narrow framework built by the community out of respect for the community and its ethic. In return, first ascentionists are given a similar respect from the community. To the extent that individual climber's operate outside the community's ethical framework that respect is not reflected back to them.
I think 'copperhead' said it well with, "It’s not about rules or rights; it’s about ethics, respect and preservation..."
Difficulty Ratings: As a guidebook author, I largely ignore the difficulty ratings I hear from first ascentionists... and most parties accept that without taking it personally. The reasons?..... As a first ascentionist I understand that I'm probably the worst person to rate the difficulty of a climb I just did. A route I just drilled on lead from stances is going to seem much more difficult to me than it will seem to later parties simply clipping my bolt hangers. And with that awareness heightened, it can lead to underestimating the difficulty. Working a route for two weeks on toprope until I have every move wired can also lead down that erroneous path. You just can't win. The first ascentionist's perspective is neccessarily tainted. Most of us know it, but can't really do anything about it but try to ignore our own perspective, look outside ourselves and turn to public opinion. Perhaps the climbing community doesn't realize this but authors and FA teams defer to the community concensus whenever it is possible. We have no more incentive to overrate the difficulty than we do to underate it... and vice versa. The penalty for either is equal. Authors and FA teams generally seek to present things in an image the community will accept. To this end it is not uncommon for FA teams to give authors the silent treatment on difficulty ratings. That way they can't be blamed for the error. Authors are truly on the sharp end because they have to come up with something. And there will always be a segment of the community that doesn't like what they come up with.
Route Names: Route naming is a good example of the kind of priviledge the community has historically given to first ascentionists. They didn't have to give them that priviledge, but they have. It has been argued that the priviledge of naming routes may have been given to first ascentionists simply out of convenience. That position has considerable merit. And as the American climbing community has become more conservative and mainstream their tolerance for "colorful" route names has decreased. The result of these seperate realities is that more an more guidebook authors have relinquished that priviledge under pressure from the community. Respect.... Mutual Respect has deteriated.
Where a route goes: Ditto
How many bolts to place: Ditto
The entire symbiotic relationship breaks down when Love is not present and respect is not mutually given. The result is a complete breakdown in the preservation of anything except what the law protects. And the law has nothing to do with mutual respect or Love and everything to do with "rights", "rules" and fear.
Well... that's my opinion, anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
deleted
Deleted
Mar 12, 2004, 12:41 PM
Post #19 of 24
(3774 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
fa party does have some unspoken, well respected rights...
yeah, you could go and retrobolt something...you could also carry a sign with a racist message through the streets of a city...but you wouldn't.
if someone puts up bolts on any of my fa, i'm going to kill them
|
|
|
|
|
whenindoubtrunitout
Mar 12, 2004, 12:47 PM
Post #20 of 24
(3780 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 31
|
I have news for you, buddy. Prepare yourself emotionally for that inevitability. I'm not saying I will be the one to do it or that I agree with anyone who does it. Just that the reality of our sport is that there are climbers out there who have no respect for you or anyone else and every route you have ever done will eventually have bolts added to it unless our community undergoes a radical shift in its attitudes very soon.
|
|
|
|
|
deleted
Deleted
Mar 12, 2004, 1:38 PM
Post #21 of 24
(3774 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
[quote:88c2fbc5f7="whenindoubtrunitout"]I have news for you, buddy. Prepare yourself emotionally for that inevitability. I'm not saying I will be the one to do it or that I agree with anyone who does it. Just that the reality of our sport is that there are climbers out there who have no respect for you or anyone else and every route you have ever done will eventually have bolts added to it unless our community undergoes a radical shift in its attitudes very soon.[/quote:88c2fbc5f7]
i have prepared an emotional response for this situation...and that is murder.
i don't think "our community" (as silly as that sounds nowadays) needs to undergo a radical shift...the people who don't have respect are the ones who don't really know anything about climbing and it's history...they're also the ones who wouldn't take the initiative to go and drill some bolts...
people who retrobolt either have no idea that the route has been done before, and through some poor egocentric logic, assume they're the first one's there. Or, they're people who do it just to spite you...
either way, my response is murder.
|
|
|
|
|
whenindoubtrunitout
Mar 12, 2004, 4:55 PM
Post #22 of 24
(3780 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 31
|
I have a name for you.... Brad Shilling... Climbing Ranger at the City of Rocks National Reserve and Castle Rocks State Park and long-time climber. He routinely adds bolts to previously established routes and pressures first ascentionist to do the same on routes they established. I speak from personal experience, but you can read about it in Rock & Ice magazine if you would like, too. Don't take that as a murder for hire, though. There is a growing segment of the community that supports his views.
First ascentionist have no rights under the law. And the law is becoming the standard to which our community is lowering itself to.
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Mar 12, 2004, 5:34 PM
Post #23 of 24
(3780 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
In reply to: Difficulty Ratings: As a guidebook author, I largely ignore the difficulty ratings I hear from first ascentionists... and most parties accept that without taking it personally. The reasons?..... As a first ascentionist I understand that I'm probably the worst person to rate the difficulty of a climb I just did. A route I just drilled on lead from stances is going to seem much more difficult to me than it will seem to later parties simply clipping my bolts. And with that awareness heightened, it can lead to underestimating the difficulty. Working a route for two weeks on toprope until I have every move wired can also lead down that erroneous path. You just can't win. The first ascentionist's perspective is neccessarily tainted. Most of us know it, but can't really do anything about it but try to ignore our own perspective, look outside ourselves and turn to public opinion. Perhaps the climbing community doesn't realize this but authors and FA teams defer to the community concensus whenever it is possible. We have no more incentive to overrate the difficulty than we do to underate it... and vice versa. The penalty for either is equal. Authors and FA teams generally seek to present things in an image the community will accept. To this end it is not uncommon for FA teams to give authors the silent treatment on difficulty ratings. That way they can't be blamed for the error. Authors are truly on the sharp end because they have to come up with something. And there will always be a segment of the community that doesn't like what they come up with. .
Well there is another point that fist in well with your ideas about FA party over rating.
THE FA party has no beta, no chalk highway, and may have to uncover a few key holds while on lead, run out, in a difficult section of rock. The FA party does often not know if a line will go.
Everybody who comes after will have some if not all of these advantages.
It's likd of funny to see a climb go like this in its rating determinatioin:
Never been climbed, a line with some dirtiness and hidden holds, not straighforward-- " it's a little warm up 5.8,".
After several falls at the current crux-- " it's got to be 5.10, but just that one move and you are sailing"
After 4 or 5 falls on bad gear and ripping some pieces-- THis climb is F--ing HARD!
After It had been led once, wet in places, and followed "IT has to be 5.10c"
After a bunch of friends who only see the now totally clean climb and have all the gear and move beta, and they know it has been done and who did it-- "It's 9+, or maybe 10a"
Thing is, no matter what the rating wound up, it was still a great climb, but the way the subjective rating changed was hilarious.
And I agree 100%, the guy who leads it first probably has the worst idea of the rating.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Mar 12, 2004, 6:51 PM
Post #24 of 24
(3780 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Ratings discussions are always fun. So many opportunities to be sarcastic and cynical. Good stuff. Territorial too.
In defense of the FA party egomania, from the little bit of work I've done in the field, assigning an accurate rating and depiction to a route can be immensely gratifying or just simply fun.
I've had the pleasure of climbing with a couple prolific FA climbers. They are a different breed of climber in my opinion. Seeing them first envision and then realize a climb is a beautiful thing. It seems they were born to it, some crucial spark of... what? What is it that enables a climber to head up into totally unknown ground, to climb into the white spots on the map? Thar be dragons up there, but up there they go, pitch after pitch, climb after climb, week after week, year after year.
And it doesn't seem to matter if they are a big mountain climber or a bouldering specialist or a madman with a gas powered Bosch. These climbers are not content to repeat the lines of their brethren. They feel compelled, for reasons surely both nobel and base, to forge a path of their own.
I saw a picture of Royal Robbins once. He's standing at a belay, spiral notebook in hand, jotting gear notes and topo lines of the FA as they climb it. I was taken by that image, I don't know... the combined arrogance and efficiency of, 'why yes I am engaged in an FA and of course it is worthy and others will want to know."
Then I began to do some FA's myself. I've always had the itch but not always the balls, if you get my drift. I go to scratch that itch on some lonely wall but when I reach down to do the deed, like, 'where's my balls?' They've gone fishing I suppose. So do I.
But climbing with these good friends of mine, I saw actualized what I had only guessed at before.
Brutus of Wyde drug me up a wilderness wall one time. It was an FA with 99.9 percent surety. So we did the line, packed up our stuff and left. Back at the cars we split out the gear and in seemingly undue haste drove away from the trailhead. We agreed to stop in town for some food before we parted ways.
Half way into town Brutus's truck stops at a shaded pullout along side a creek. He and Nurse Ratchet, along with Pavel the Polish climber, tumbled out into the hot air of the lower Owens Valley.
Brutus opens the back of the truck and lays down the tailgate, but not before popping the tabs on 4 bottles of Smith's Ale. Ice cold fresh from the cooler.
"Almost forgot!" He exclaims in that Brutus of Wyde fashion that those of us who love him know so well. "Now we get to do the FUN PART!"
He whips out a notebook and before my eyes, without a single error, proceeds to reproduce our climb as a topo. I was slack jawed in amazement as he did it, crack after crack, belay after belay, chimney after chimney, he remembered and depictied the details of an 8 pitch climb a day into an untracked wilderness area.
As be free handed it, he would ask me to confirm details. I'm like, "Yeah dude, whatever!" I barely could remember my name after 3 days in the wild, let alone what pro I used on the few simple leads I could manage. Brutus remembered it all and in one go he drew the topo.
"So, what are we gonna call this thing?" His eyes glowed at the prospect, his whole pesona exuded a secret and warm happiness. We drank the beer and debated the merits of various names.
Stranding there on the side of the road in the Lower Owens Valley with these friends of mine, these few people to whom I entrust EVERYTHING, we were already reliving our grand adventure.
And in so doing, in Brutus's detailed and perfectly depicted topos which adorn several guide books and publications, to the friendly banter over the name and rating of a new climb, to the telling of the tale as I am doing now, we carry on the true heart of the legend of climbing.
There is an atristry in it, and act of creation and communication. In climbing the new route we create a thing that others may value and in naming, rating and telling the world of the climb we say, 'behold, this is who we are.'
Robbins, standing there at the belay, with his spiral bound notebook log, was as wrapped up into the mystique of the FA as anyone else. He dug that shit, the mystery, the what if aspect to it all. And yet so cocksure was he in his ability to get up any given stretch of unknown rock, he documented the climbs as he went. There is a magic in that, a profound power too.
The simple act of naming and rating a climb holds deep significance in the history of our sport. Ratings are so subjective that we all pretty much assume we can't get it right. Imagine your delight, then, when you discover and climb with people who consistently get it right.
They judge a potential route within their capacity. They recruit partners and organize an expedition. They lead the charge up a new route, all the while looking elsewhere on the wall for more new lines. They get up shit. Then they document it, name it and rate it. And when you take in the totality of it all, it's a thing of beauty, a moment of art.
Who could believe that a simple name of a route could hold so much significance. And yet, in the lore of the campfire, who could possibly forget it. The magic of our sport lies in the living it and the telling it. Route names play a huge role in that very necessary human requirement for myth and legend.
We weave our legends with the names of our routes. The Nose. The DNB. Sons of Yesterday. Wheat Thin. Outer Limits. Reeds Direct. Sometimes just mentioning the name of a classic climb can evoke a whole range of emotions in the listener. And surely you recall the delight of striking up a conversation with a visiting climber, maybe somewhere in an airport, when she says, "My favorite climb in Yosemite was Steck-Salathe."
Oh my god, the emotions, the recalled trials, the feeling of something deep. A guy could fall in love on the spot with a gal like that...
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
