|
|
Forums:
Climbing Disciplines:
Trad Climbing:
Re: [healyje] Trad climbing, what's in a name?:
Edit Log
|
|
guangzhou
May 4, 2011, 6:17 AM
Views: 8737
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
In reply to: Actually, many of the hard free lines were aid routes that went free. Aid routes were an obvious target for hard free climbs in the 60s and 70, much like the 80 and since. Aid routes also had the advantage of having been cleaned by countless previous ascents. This means the crack were free of dirt and could actually be jammed. In reply to: Uh no, most of the hard free lines that went up in 70's were in fact new lines.
guangzhou wrote: Those aid routes being freed were hardly what I call on-sights either. Most of the climbers doing those hard free ascent had previously aided the route and while on the line decided the route could be done free. In reply to: Again, not really.
guangzhou wrote: Weighing the rope, not weighing the rope, is a separate conversation in my book. I could care less if someone works a red-point or not, it's a personal climbing decision. In reply to: Except for the fact that if you're dogging your way up lines on gear you aren't trad climbing - you're sport climbing on gear. Also, there are no red, pink, blue, or purple or any other color point ascents in trad climbing - you either onsighted it or you did it in some number of attempts.
guangzhou wrote: I personally don't have the patience of some climbers who work routes over and over, but I have been on routes that got my attention and I worked. I admire climbers who have the discipline to work a route as much as I admire a climber who on-sight routes. Two different styles. Neither is right nor wrong, both climbers just see climbing differently and choose to practice the sport one way or the other. In reply to: Not quite sure what you think onsighting vs. 'working' has to do with trad vs. sport - onsighting could happen in either. But if by 'working' you mean dogging up a route working and figuring out the moves while resting on the rope then, yeah, not really a matter of right vs. wrong, but rather the difference between trad climbing and not. Also, the notion of an 'onsight' in either trad or sport is a pretty dubious notion if the route is established and well-chalked.
guangzhou wrote: In reply to: ...Dresden had and has some of the boldest climbing and clean ethics around. In reply to: Bold ethics, I think they have a bold style. Ethics and style go hand and hand in my book, they interweave and define one another, but they are separate issues. Style is how you climb, Ethics is the individual's view on what is acceptable or not. Two climbers climbing the same style could have very different ethics and styles. In reply to: I'm not going to argue any of those points, but read what I wrote again; I wasn't conflating style and ethics. Not much to argue about for sure. guangzhou wrote: Today, I sport climb, trad climb, and aid climb. Three very different styles. In those style, I isolate my ethics. In reply to: Well, congratulations, then you're one of the few cross-overs I've heard from who doesn't dog on gear while still calling it trad climbing. I don’t on-sigth every trad route I climb. Actually, I think trad climbers who don’t get on routes where they fall on the gear they placed are scared of falling on their placement. It’s an excuse for not pushing themselves. Strange, because no one should need an excuse on how or why they climb. guangzhou wrote: Weighing the rope, not weighing the rope, a separate conversation in my book. I could care less if someone works a red-point or not, it's a personal climbing decision. In reply to: Except for the fact that if you're dogging your way up lines on gear you aren't trad climbing - you're sport climbing on gear. Oh, and there are no red, pink, blue, or purple points in trad climbing either. Here is where I don’t agree with you. If you choose to get on a hard route and you fall, then go back and get he route clean, you still climbed trad. On-sigth isn’t what determines whether a routes is trad or sport. Many European think that it’s funny American call a route finished on El-cap when it’s still requires aid. In their view, if the route is aided, it still has not been climbed. While I don’t agree with this view, I find it more realistic then you view of on-sigth is the only way a route is trad. guangzhou wrote: The biggest Ethic issue I have isn't about bolts versus no bolts, I am against pitons. Fixed or not fixes. Aid or not aid. I think piton do much more damage then bolts. I think Aid climbers who use pitons are much worse for the cliff then sport climber who bolt routes. In reply to: Fixed pins are still appropriate in some areas, don't damage the rock, and have outperformed bolts in terms of corrosion resistance by a wide, wide measure. Granted those areas are far and few in between, but they still exist. There is no single fixed piton placement I’ve ever seen that would not have been better off as a bolt. If you’re going to leave a permanently fixed piece of gear, a piton isn’t the best option, might be the fastest and easiest, but never the safest. guangzhou wrote: Most climbers have no idea how the bolts were placed anyways. In reply to: True enough, other than they were placed by someone else.
(This post was edited by guangzhou on May 4, 2011, 6:18 AM)
|
|
|
Edit Log:
|
|
Post edited by guangzhou
() on May 4, 2011, 6:18 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
