|
|
|
|
unabonger
Jan 28, 2004, 4:36 PM
Post #1 of 99
(5289 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2003
Posts: 2689
|
Well, the thread "Sport Climbing Compliments..." is locked up and soon to be forgotten. And there's one aspect of this that no one mentioned and I'd like to discuss.
I started climbing in 1985 and climbing was undergoing another change in context. Alan Watts, Christian Griffith, Todd Skinner, and a few others were making waves with rappel bolting to access blank, steep sections that would only be climbed otherwise by madmen not long for our world. Most of us were just scratching away well below the limits of movement, so it didn't matter to us yet.
So like a lot of noobs, I had the fever. At that time "sport" and "trad" didn't really exist like now. We just climbed. I got the gear, developed my skills, climbed a lot of classics at Seneca, the New, then on to Colorado in 88 or so. Trips to Yosemite, Arizona, a summer in the Tetons. Instead of making fun of sporto's, we made fun of "thin face" climbing. Ha! We liked burly cracks and overhangs.
I was starting to hit 5.11 with some confidence. These were usually finger cracks and occasional face climbs from before the sport revolution. Dispatched with bunches of 10 and 11 classics. Even a few offwidths. Well, now what? I was getting good. By good, I mean I wanted to climb harder than 11.
So now what? The number of 5.12 trad routes is limited. And the number of 5.12 trad routes that you could climb without risking your body is even more limited. Its still limited, even today. I'm not particularly bold, so should I just be happy climbing fifty thousand 10s and 11s?
No. I started sport climbing because I wanted to push my body further and I didn't want to end up like Christopher Reeves. And the traditional climbing I did before served me well. Climbing is fundamentally about movement--whether your Bachar or Tribout, its about moving gracefully over stone to do the hardest thing you can. Likewise, the best trad climbing I've done was after sending 5.13 at Rifle. The Naked Edge is an amazingly fun walk in the park after you've done some sport climb that checks in at 2 number grades harder.
So for all you "trad superiors", if you think sport climbing isn't legitimate, or isn't a natural outgrowth for a sport to take, maybe you just aren't good enough to appreciate its role yet.
Good Day, Sirs and Madames.
The AllAroundBonger
|
|
|
|
|
nnichols
Jan 28, 2004, 5:46 PM
Post #2 of 99
(5289 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2003
Posts: 800
|
nice!
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 28, 2004, 5:52 PM
Post #3 of 99
(5289 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
Hopefully this thread will remain civil and not also get locked. Regarding this comment about sport climbing:
In reply to: So now what? The number of 5.12 trad routes is limited. And the number of 5.12 trad routes that you could climb without risking your body is even more limited. Its still limited, even today. I'm not particularly bold, so should I just be happy climbing fifty thousand 10s and 11s? No. I started sport climbing because I wanted to push my body further and I didn't want to end up like Christopher Reeves. And the traditional climbing I did before served me well. Climbing is fundamentally about movement--whether your Bachar or Tribout, its about moving gracefully over stone to do the hardest thing you can.
Pushing the envelope of difficulty appealed to us--as it did to you. But the new ethic did not.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Jan 28, 2004, 5:58 PM
Post #4 of 99
(5289 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
Boy that didn't take long.
In reply to: I'm not particularly bold, so should I just be happy climbing fifty thousand 10s and 11s?
This states a certain kind of sport mentality very well.
In reply to: So for all you "trad superiors", if you think sport climbing isn't legitimate, or isn't a natural outgrowth for a sport to take, maybe you just aren't good enough to appreciate its role yet.
Maybe you just couldn't handle the trad 12 and up scene, as you alluded to above. There's nothing wrong with wanting to stay alive though, and as long as you are not claiming that sport is more difficult than trad, fine. But you are claiming that, as indicated in the second quote above. You are also trying to reignite the stupid argument that sport climbers are better and more fit than trad climbers.
This thread needs a lock box. Or a Scotch debate LOL.
|
|
|
|
|
crazygirl
Jan 28, 2004, 6:05 PM
Post #5 of 99
(5289 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2003
Posts: 595
|
it seems to me that our grandchildren will not be able to experience trad climbing. everything will be bolted, and the cliffs will resemble amusement parks
that said, i still like to do sport climbing, given an opportunity, and thus i contribute to the problem
|
|
|
|
|
hazael
Jan 28, 2004, 6:15 PM
Post #6 of 99
(5289 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 1, 2004
Posts: 130
|
I'm with you man! sport climbing has it's reasons to exsist, and I prefer to climb a bolted route than soloing in some place without cracks!
|
|
|
|
|
nnichols
Jan 28, 2004, 6:15 PM
Post #7 of 99
(5289 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2003
Posts: 800
|
I have refrained from posting on this subject because the tone, etc. has become so negative. Not having climbed long enough to offer technical advice, I don't post much on this site; however, I read much. But, that is beside the point.
This is just my humble opinion and would love someone to please clarify (nicely, if you would) why there is so much animosity between sport and trad climbers. I am a sport climber - perhaps I will venture into the trad arena at a later date if and when I meet someone I trust enough to teach me well and teach me correctly (having $$$$ for trad gear would help also). I greatly admire trad climbers because it takes strength, courage, and quite a bit of technical knowledge. However, I am perfectly fine with sport climbing and enjoy it tremendously.
What I am confused about is the "new ethic" that curt keeps referring to that sport climbers brought about. What happened when sport climbing gained popularity that angered so many trad climbers?
Nancy
|
|
|
|
|
scubasnyder
Jan 28, 2004, 6:30 PM
Post #8 of 99
(5289 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 3, 2003
Posts: 1639
|
all climbing is putting your body at risk, try 5.12s in the gym see if you can climb them, then try one outside, thats all i could say
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 28, 2004, 6:37 PM
Post #9 of 99
(5289 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
Nancy,
In reply to: What I am confused about is the "new ethic" that curt keeps referring to that sport climbers brought about. What happened when sport climbing gained popularity that angered so many trad climbers?
I'll try to answer this in a way that will not throw gasoline on the fire once more. And, I'll try to stick to facts, rather than letting my opinion enter in.
Prior to the early-80s or so, the term "sport" and "trad" did not exist in the climbing vernacular. Climbing, be it aid climbing, free climbing (except for top-roping) or bouldering implied that a climber would start at the bottom of something and ascend upwards. It was considered poor ethics to rap down and even pre-inspect a route prior to climbing it.
The term "sport" climbing refers to an ethic adopted by many in the time frame mentioned above, where the climber would employ other than "ground-up" ethics. A sport route could be established by rapping down from the top of the route, cleaning the route, and even pre-placing bolts with a power drill--all while hanging on a rope from above.
So, to the hard-line traditionalists this is cheating, while to the sport climbers this is merely a progression of the sport. And, clearly everyone has to make that determination for themselves.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
nnichols
Jan 28, 2004, 6:42 PM
Post #10 of 99
(5289 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2003
Posts: 800
|
Curt - thanks for the clarification.
|
|
|
|
|
rmiller
Jan 28, 2004, 7:11 PM
Post #11 of 99
(5289 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2002
Posts: 251
|
So Curt,
How has this "new ethic" damaged climbing? I am still confused on that point.
Ronnie
|
|
|
|
|
noodlearms
Jan 28, 2004, 7:15 PM
Post #12 of 99
(5289 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2002
Posts: 145
|
In reply to: Climbing, be it aid climbing, free climbing (except for top-roping) or bouldering implied that a climber would start at the bottom of something and ascend upwards. It was considered poor ethics to rap down and even pre-inspect a route prior to climbing it.
From what I've read on this site -- which has been plenty -- trad climbers seem to hate sport climbers for two separate reasons.
(1) Abandonment of the bottom-up ethic.
(2) Abandonment of the leave-no-trace ethic, i.e. bolts marring the rock.
I can understand (2) in some cases. This is something that affects other climbers. But despising sport climbers because of (1) -- as you seem to be stating here, curt -- puzzles me. Why should anyone care THAT MUCH if one climber chooses to put himself at less risk than another? Seems to me that's a personal matter.
So to address issue (2), if sport climbers only bolted when:
- the route was otherwise unprotectable, or
- the route was in an established sport area...
Would you be happy curt? Is this possible?
Or do you really think no one should climb anything unless they climb it trad? Under any circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
dynoguy
Jan 28, 2004, 7:22 PM
Post #13 of 99
(5289 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 6, 2003
Posts: 730
|
In reply to: In reply to: Climbing, be it aid climbing, free climbing (except for top-roping) or bouldering implied that a climber would start at the bottom of something and ascend upwards. It was considered poor ethics to rap down and even pre-inspect a route prior to climbing it. From what I've read on this site -- which has been plenty -- trad climbers seem to hate sport climbers for two separate reasons. (1) Abandonment of the bottom-up ethic. (2) Abandonment of the leave-no-trace ethic, i.e. bolts marring the rock. I can understand (2) in some cases. This is something that affects other climbers. But despising sport climbers because of (1) -- as you seem to be stating here, curt -- puzzles me. Why should anyone care THAT MUCH if one climber chooses to put himself at less risk than another? Seems to me that's a personal matter. So to address issue (2), if sport climbers only bolted when: - the route was otherwise unprotectable, or - the route was in an established sport area... Would you be happy curt? Is this possible? Or do you really think no one should climb anything unless they climb it trad? Under any circumstances.
I agree with just about everything you said, except for bolting a traditionally protectable climb just because there are a bunch of sport routes in close proximity. If you don't have to mar the rock than don't.
That being said I love sport and trad equally but for different reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Jan 28, 2004, 7:25 PM
Post #14 of 99
(5289 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
If it were not for bad rap bolting, retro bolting, and the boltng of very poor climbs in the first place, the whole debate would be a lot less hot in the south.
A well done bolted route allows you to climb where there would otheriwse be no gear. Some sport routes are as classic and good as a classic trad climb. When the bolts are placed on lead, or at least after climbing in some way to determine where the bolts should be, a sport route can be very nice, and still as a friend would say " sportingly bolted", that is, not too close together, not in stupid places and leaving in a bit of a thrill with out the danger.
It's not all bolters that start trouble, it's the mad bolters that think they can do whatever they want without regard for the rest of the climbers or the original routes.
|
|
|
|
|
rmiller
Jan 28, 2004, 7:28 PM
Post #15 of 99
(5289 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2002
Posts: 251
|
In reply to: In reply to: Climbing, be it aid climbing, free climbing (except for top-roping) or bouldering implied that a climber would start at the bottom of something and ascend upwards. It was considered poor ethics to rap down and even pre-inspect a route prior to climbing it. From what I've read on this site -- which has been plenty -- trad climbers seem to hate sport climbers for two separate reasons. (1) Abandonment of the bottom-up ethic. (2) Abandonment of the leave-no-trace ethic, i.e. bolts marring the rock. I can understand (2) in some cases. This is something that affects other climbers. But despising sport climbers because of (1) -- as you seem to be stating here, curt -- puzzles me. Why should anyone care THAT MUCH if one climber chooses to put himself at less risk than another? Seems to me that's a personal matter. So to address issue (2), if sport climbers only bolted when: - the route was otherwise unprotectable, or - the route was in an established sport area... Would you be happy curt? Is this possible? Or do you really think no one should climb anything unless they climb it trad? Under any circumstances.
The thing most don't get, however, is that there is no "leave no trace" reality. There is a leave as minimal trace as possible ethic, but there is no reality to leaving no trace. It cannot happen. Trad, sport, bouldering, ice, aid, etc., all leave impacts on the rock and the environent. Most climbers no matter what type of climbing they participate in have a "leave as minimal trace" ethic. There are exceptions in every camp, but most try to follow this in my experiences.
Ronnie
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 28, 2004, 7:33 PM
Post #16 of 99
(5289 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: So Curt, How has this "new ethic" damaged climbing? I am still confused on that point. Ronnie
I'm not sure I can be any more clear than I was in my post above, without getting back into personal opinion and starting up the flame fest that got the other thread locked. However, you will notice that I did say this above -
In reply to: So, to the hard-line traditionalists this is cheating....
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
noodlearms
Jan 28, 2004, 7:36 PM
Post #17 of 99
(5289 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2002
Posts: 145
|
In reply to: Trad, sport, bouldering, ice, aid, etc., all leave impacts on the rock and the environent. Most climbers no matter what type of climbing they participate in have a "leave as minimal trace" ethic.
Fair enough. But trad leaves less of a trace than sport, correct? Perhaps I should just restate my reason (2) as "Abandonment of the leave-as-little-trace-as-possible ethic".
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 28, 2004, 7:40 PM
Post #18 of 99
(5289 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Well, the thread "Sport Climbing Compliments..." is locked up and soon to be forgotten. And there's one aspect of this that no one mentioned and I'd like to discuss. I started climbing in 1985 and climbing was undergoing another change in context. Alan Watts, Christian Griffith, Todd Skinner, and a few others were making waves with rappel bolting to access blank, steep sections that would only be climbed otherwise by madmen not long for our world.
That is what I was getting at when I wrote, "Sport climbing was invented by elite trad climbers to push the standards of climbing difficulty," in the other thread.
Many of the now sport climbers I climb with were accomplished trad climbers in the 80s who made the switch to sport climbing in order to enjoy harder, more gymnastic moves on steeper rock.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
mcumbrae
Jan 28, 2004, 7:43 PM
Post #19 of 99
(5289 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 28, 2004
Posts: 89
|
This IS on topic, just read it to the end...
Funny thing. This reminds of a very similar debate on a completely different field: rock music.
I play in a band, serious Metal. Sometimes i walk into an elder musician around a gig or in a store and trade some words. They usually comment about we younger players using digital systems to improve sound, recording and stuff and remember when in their young days it was done on good ol´tube Fender amps and the likes. I just tell them that our way of doing things is not at war with theirs. More than that, it is thanks to them that we can do it, but things always change. So with climbing. Sport is here to stay, i guess. That we sporties use different tools and techniques will someday be forgotten. The thing is, there´s no need to make things more difficult by fighting over it. As i tell my elder musicians: "anyone with the balls to stand on a stage with a guitar deserves respect, no matter what laguage the axe itself speaks. Country, Blues, Rock, NU Metal...all are awesome". So, anyone whit the will to push themselves up a harsh rock deserve at least the same respect they show. No one is here to piss someone else off. I know i´m not, anyway... and right now, i feel like playin´ some Blues... 8)
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Jan 28, 2004, 7:51 PM
Post #20 of 99
(5289 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
One other problem with modern sport climbers is that they think they can switch to trad, find out just how hard trad is, and get hurt trying to climb a trad route like a sport route.
It's easier to go from trad to sport than from sport to trad, but most people today do not see it that way, since they go by numbers.
Somehow many fail to notice that a 5.12 sport clcimber does not usually climb 5.12 trad.
Because of rating inflation, a sport climber who can climb 12 sport may jump on an 11 trad climb, flame out, have places gear poorly be casue he has not got the skill to do it right under stress, and fall to the ground and get hurt. This is not hypothetical, it has happened to someone I know.
|
|
|
|
|
noodlearms
Jan 28, 2004, 7:56 PM
Post #21 of 99
(5289 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2002
Posts: 145
|
In reply to: How would any person, in any sport (baseball, golf, football, whatever) not see cheating as something that damaged their sport?
This seems a little slippery of you. Sport climbing is not "cheating" in the sense of a corked bat, an unrecorded stroke, etc. Sport climbers aren't claiming they didn't use bolts. They are playing a new variant of the game, with different rules, openly.
|
|
|
|
|
tucsonalex
Jan 28, 2004, 8:05 PM
Post #22 of 99
(5289 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 11, 2002
Posts: 1689
|
In reply to: In reply to: So, to the hard-line traditionalists this is cheating.... How would any person, in any sport (baseball, golf, football, whatever) not see cheating as something that damaged their sport? Curt
It all depends on your definition of "cheating". To some people that play golf aerodynamic computer designed balls that fly farther and lightweight titanium alloy clubs are cheating. To others it's just another form of progress. The PGA has strict rules about about what kind of clubs and balls can be used on tour. The weekend golfer can now drive as far as the pros due to more advanced equipment that is not sanctioned for use on the PGA tour. In climbing as well, grades that used to be the realm of elite hardmen are now falling to more mortal climbers due to safely bolted routes, modern training methods and the use of seige tactics for working a route. Progress or cheating?
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Jan 28, 2004, 8:09 PM
Post #23 of 99
(5289 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
Bonger/Curt/Et al.... Thanks for understand why the other thread got locked and I more than welcome seeing the debate go in a much more to the issue at hand manner.
This subject is charged and most likely will remain so for the rest of time. I think we as humans like to set artificial limitations on ourselves for several reasons, but I think one of the common elements is that by having such a clean cut black and white ideal, it is easy to identify with others who are willing to hold themselves to that same standard. People like to "belong" to a group, and often it is shared ideals which is the common ground and basis for the friendships that spring up from those associations. Much as there was debate in the 80s about "ethics' of switching from Wood Rackets/clubs to Graphite and Composite in tennis/golf, the same is for the switch form trad to sport. But in reality is there any "ethics" invloved at all?
Look at the three common definition of ethics:
A set of principles of right conduct.
A theory or a system of moral values
motivation based on ideas of right and wrong
Notice that each of three contain a component of "Right or wrong" or "Moral versus the presumed Unmoral". Is there any clear cut "right or wrong" inherently associated with climbing? Do others enjoyment become infringed upon when someone sport climbs? Does somehow millions of baby kittens get slaughtered whenever a bolt is installed ? Does sport climbing inflict bodily or emotional harm to it's non-participants? Does the rock have feelings and therefore is hurt by being bolted?
I do think that there is an element of "responsible" actions that many confuse with ethics as it is related to this argument. Ethically I can not think of one things that would seperate trad vs sport climbing. Responsible route development I can easily be a source of contention between the all groups associated with climbing however. This line of logic can be attributed to Aid climbers and pounding out cracks and bolting endless rivet/dowl ladders/enhaced hook placements. To boulderers climbing near/on/over Indian Art, scrubbing off tons of moss/lichen, and trampling vegetation in mass. To trad climbers cleaning out cracks and using "constructive pin scaring" to create free lines and gear placements.
There is issues with each aspect/style of climbing. So the question has to be asked, why do trad climbers specifically target sport climbing as particularly vile when there is so much else to criticize for "responsible" action in every aspect of climbing?
You want to know what I think is a good illustration of why? If you have kids or know someone who does, go watch the interaction between an older sister and a younger brother. It perfectly defines why trad climbers have so much piss and vinegar about sport climbers. It is petty spite and a false sense of "I am always right" by virtue of being older (idealogically). As much loathing as there is among groups there is also love (cross participation). Its only those who buy into their own charade that will have such dedication and devotion to somehow perpetuate the idea of "unethical" behaviors of the other group. Most often, these same people neglect to recognize the unresponsible actions of their own particular group.
|
|
|
|
|
tucsonalex
Jan 28, 2004, 8:14 PM
Post #24 of 99
(5289 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 11, 2002
Posts: 1689
|
Well said roughtster, I agree 100%.
|
|
|
|
|
the_crawler
Jan 28, 2004, 8:18 PM
Post #25 of 99
(5289 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2003
Posts: 90
|
The debate lies in many places for many people.
I see the debate more as a scale with shades of grey.
The extremist on either end, well there is no talking to those who know everything, argue bolt everything vs. bolt nothing. There is no debate and they argue to argue!
For the rest of us on the scale the debate seems to be "what should be bolted and what shouldn't be." And this is where the "ethics" come in! By definition ethics is the discipline dealing with good and evil and moral duty. Since everone has ther own set of moral standards everone has there own ethic, in a sense. We then group ourselves based on lines we draw concerning different aspects of these ethics. We can argue endlessly over the details and even change allies based on the specific topic of dicussion.
One thing that seems common in most arguements is the climbing area in question. For the most part it comes down to who's area is it, who decides what the ethic of the area is?
A huge line I see drawn often is that of ownership of an area. Most fall on one of two sides: The area is mine to do with as I please OR the area is no ones and should be left as is for the next person. IMO areas need to have a well defined and highly visable ethic that reflects the views of the locals.
Another line I often see drawn is that of what the climbing experince is and should be. You can't define what climbing is or should be for someone else. The opertunity should be there either way. The fear of everything being bolted so no trad climbing exist is a bit far fetched I think. But some things should be protected.
We have to live and climb together and solve problems locally where they arise. To argue something like ethics as a universal idea in climbing leads only to arguments not understanding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
