|
|
Forums:
Climbing Disciplines:
Trad Climbing:
Re: [healyje] Trad climbing, what's in a name?:
Edit Log
|
|
guangzhou
May 4, 2011, 2:33 AM
Views: 8541
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
healyje wrote: guangzhou wrote: The clean climbing movement of the 70's was definitely about selling gear and not moving climbing forward. I don't have the time or inclination to delineate all the ways this comment is completely full of shit.
Where was the most famous essay about climbing clean published?
guangzhou wrote: On a deferent note, when you look at old trad areas, in the traditional days, many of the routes that were "HARD" had more fixed gear then those that were easy.
In reply to: Again, a complete crock; most of the "HARD" [free] lines were new.
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.
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.
guangzhou wrote: I remember having a conversation with a gunk's climber from the 60's, he said the hard routes were like modern day sport climbs, the pitons were put in, the second didn't bother taking them out, so the next party was able to just clip and go.
In reply to: By definition the 60's weren't in any way part of the [70's] clean climbing era which was at it's root simply a realization cleaner methods of climbing protection could be devised. But as far as the climbing went, whether 60's or 70's, not weighting the rope when free climbing was a fundamental tenet they shared.
I agree, the 60 and 70 were not the same time period, but what happen in one lead the way for what what happened in the next.
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.
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 general, even my red-point projects are routes I get on, don't succeed and try again on my next trip. I don't camp at the routes base and work on that route exclusively in general.
guangzhou wrote: I played on the cliffs outside of Dresden, a place that has plenty of Pyramid placed bolts. First Ascents took Months as entire climbing club went to the cliff together to establish a new route.
In reply to: There was some pyramid placements of first bolts, and installation by any means of some of the larger ring bolts, but you again attempt to paint edge cases as the norm - pretty sad given Dresden had and has some of the boldest climbing and clean ethics around.
I agree, they have strong views on what is acceptable and not acceptable. Team ascent were the norm early on for sure, check out the guidebook and see for your self.
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.
I learned to climb in the days of "Sport Climbing is Neither," bumper stickers.
Advance rock craft, some hexes, and nuts, with the cracks of Yosemite and Donner summit to learn on.
I did my first sport route with a guy named Jason Campbel.
When he invited me to climb the route, I refused because I was ethically apposed to sport climbing at the time.
That evening, around the campfire, he and I discussed climbing and he gave me his views about sport climbing opening new terrain. While walking to Jelly Roll the next day, he invited me on the same route when we walked by, this time I accepted the invite and turns out that face climbing with bolts wasn't that bad.
Today, I sport climb, trad climb, and aid climb. Three very different styles.
In those style, I isolate my ethics. 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.
As for Sport versus trad on bolted routes, the only person who can tell the difference is the First Ascent party. I have bolted plenty of sport routes on lead over the years. While they were bolted from the ground up, sometime while holding on, sometime while hanging on hooks, I don't consider those routes trad routes. They were put up in a ground up style. I doubt anyone who climbs them today would say they are anything other then Sport routes. Most climbers have no idea how the bolts were placed anyways.
(This post was edited by guangzhou on May 4, 2011, 2:36 AM)
|
|
|
Edit Log:
|
|
Post edited by guangzhou
() on May 4, 2011, 2:35 AM
|
|
Post edited by guangzhou
() on May 4, 2011, 2:36 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
