|
|
|
|
kalcario
Jan 5, 2004, 3:07 AM
Post #26 of 246
(11813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
*And, obviously, the X-Rated routes don't NEED additional bolts. Sure, they might make lots of people feel safer, but they're not NEEDED.*
But the route is rated X because if you are leading it with rope, harness, and belayer, and you fall, you will still die, otherwise it would'nt be rated X, right? So you might as well just free solo it, in which case it doesn't matter if it's retro-bolted or not. The X rated routes don't need ANY bolts, they should just be chopped, because the bolts obviously don't do any good, or it wouldn't be rated X. You see, in reality the retro bolter isn't imposing ANYTHING on anybody else, you can retro bolt the X rated route, and if you do it without a rope, it's just as much of an X as it was before, just the security of the rope (security was never there in the first place, because it was rated X) is gone. The only way to not free solo an X rated route is to top rope it.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jan 5, 2004, 3:15 AM
Post #27 of 246
(11813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: *And, obviously, the X-Rated routes don't NEED additional bolts. Sure, they might make lots of people feel safer, but they're not NEEDED.* But the route is rated X because if you have are leading it with rope, harness, and belayer, and you fall, you will still die, otherwise it would'nt be rated X, right? So you might as well just free solo it, in which case it doesn't matter if it's retro-bolted or not. The X rated routes don't need ANY bolts, they should just be chopped, because the bolts obviously don't do any good, or it wouldn't be rated X. You see, in reality the retro bolter isn't imposing ANYTHING on anybody else, you can retro bolt the X rated route, and if you do it without a rope, it's just as much of an X as it was before, just the security of the rope-security was never there in the first place, because it was rated X-is gone.
Not exactly. There may be certain locations where a fall can result in death (or ground impact,) but that is not true for the ENTIRE climb. Say I'm doing some 5.11a-X, and I clip the third bolt. If I fall now, I'm not going to deck. I'd only deck if I was far enough PAST that bolt. Big difference.
Now, by the logic you propose, it's perfectly acceptable for me to aid my way up a bolted route and claim I've climbed it with style?
Sweet... I'm heading to France to tick Realization off my list of "Things to do before I die." Sure, I won't do it the way Sharma did it, but who cares, right? I climbed it, and that's all that matters.
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Jan 5, 2004, 3:30 AM
Post #28 of 246
(11813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
*By this logic, it's perfectly acceptable for me to aid my way up a bolted route and claim I've climbed it with style?
Sweet... I'm heading to France to tick Realization off my list of "Things to do before I die."*
Uh, no, that would be lying. I'm not claiming a retro bolted route is still rated X after leading it with additional bolts-that would be lying too. But the retro bolted route is STILL rated X if you free solo it, which in reality is what you were doing when you led it before it was retro bolted anyway. Lead fall=death means freesolo, whether you've got a rope on or not.
|
|
|
|
|
rockprodigy
Jan 5, 2004, 3:31 AM
Post #29 of 246
(11813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2002
Posts: 1540
|
Kalc, you're making an assumption that any fall on every "X" rated route will result in death, which is simply not true. There is a difference between a big whipper and death. Most "death routes" really won't kill you...just scare the crap out of you. There IS a difference between leading them and soloing them.
Rockync: You claim "ego" as the reason for these runout climbs. Why must you LEAD these routes, if not "ego"?
Nobody is saying you can't climb these routes. Just toprope them. Why do you feel that you need to permanently alter them just so they will be safe to lead? There is no added adventure in leading the route if it has been sanitized by bolts, so what's the difference between a sanitized lead and a toprope?
Is that you think it is more "convenient" to lead them? Trust me, there is nothing convenient about bolting rock, it's a big pain in the a$$...much easier to put up a TR.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 5, 2004, 3:33 AM
Post #30 of 246
(11813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: Lets set the stage. There are twice as many climbers today than ten years ago. Most are enjoying sport climbing. That means more expectation that routes are safe and bolted.
Most perhaps, but not all. Why not leave a few routes for those who feel differently? Or, are you truly suggesting that every route be accessible to the lowest common denominator?
In reply to: Tradition impedes progress.
So you say. I say that tradition imposes ethical standards. It is not progress if you need to employ tactics tantamount to cheating in order to succeed on a climb. Lowering a climb to your level accomplishes nothing if you are honest with yourself about your accomplishments.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Jan 5, 2004, 4:11 AM
Post #31 of 246
(11813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
*Kalc, you're making an assumption that any fall on every "X" rated route will result in death, which is simply not true. There is a difference between a big whipper and death. Most "death routes" really won't kill you...just scare the crap out of you. There IS a difference between leading them and soloing them.*
Those are R rated, then, not X. And believe it or not there are G rated sport climbs that have big whippers, Just Do It at Smith has a 70 footer going to the anchors, it's a safe fall, though.
*Rockync: You claim "ego" as the reason for these runout climbs. Why must you LEAD these routes, if not "ego"?*
Many reasons, the main one being the top of the route isn't accessible any other way except from below. What if it ends below a big roof, for instance? Surely you know of many routes where leading is the only way to get up there.
*Nobody is saying you can't climb these routes. Just toprope them. Why do you feel that you need to permanently alter them just so they will be safe to lead? *
You would make climbing history and become an overnight celebrity if you could go to a modern sport crag, chop the bolts, and relead the routes without them. This has never happened in the history of the sport, to my knowledge, mainly because serious injury or death would almost certainly ensue. And bolting a rock does not "permantely alter" it. The bolts can be pulled and the holes filled in. Correctly done there is no permanent visual impact whatsoever.
*Is that you think it is more "convenient" to lead them? Trust me, there is nothing convenient about bolting rock, it's a big pain in the a$$...much easier to put up a TR.*
Uh, yes, it is more convenient to lead them with bolts.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Jan 5, 2004, 4:17 AM
Post #32 of 246
(11813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
Lets keep the debate civil guys. I have read the thread through and sent our PMs cocnerning those who are circumventing the profainity filters and using excessive personal attacka against others.
So far most of it has been good debate. Lets try to keep it from become just another flamefest.
|
|
|
|
|
rockprodigy
Jan 5, 2004, 4:24 AM
Post #33 of 246
(11813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2002
Posts: 1540
|
Actually, I don't know of many routes that can't be toproped...even El Cap can be rapped. Surely, you would retrobolt these routes on rappel...since leading them is so deadly? I they can be retrobolted, they can be toproped.
"Most" X rated routes have a reasonably well protected crux with long runouts on relatively easy terrain. A fall during the runout could result in "serious injury or death", but a fall at the crux wouldn't necessarily kill you...you're just being argumentative.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jan 5, 2004, 4:33 AM
Post #34 of 246
(11813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: And bolting a rock does not "permantely alter" it. The bolts can be pulled and the holes filled in. Correctly done there is no permanent visual impact whatsoever.
Kalcario:
I certainly appreciate your ability to maintain a respectable debate. Please keep this in mind. It's a debate about beliefs, not an ad hominem discussion. For that, you should be commended.
However.... (you knew there was going to be a "however" didn't you?)
Bolting does indeed permanently alter the rock. A bolt requires that a hole be placed in the rock where there was no hole prior. That hole will not grow back in... at least not in our lifetime. Patching with dirt, dust, epoxy, glue, or Silly Putty does not change the fact that the rock is altered. Perhaps the visual damage is not visible to most people, but the damage is done nevertheless. Kinda like when you break a law or rule, but don't get caught. You still broke the law, even if nobody else saw it. In the case of bolting, you still know there's a scar on the rock for eternity (or close enough) even if nobody else does. That sort of burden is not to be taken lightly. Hence, I don't commonly support retrobolting.
That having been said, there are times when placing an additional bolt is wise and proper. For example, there are climbs here in the South Platte area of Colorado where the bolts are 1/4 inch, rusty, and easily 30 years old or more. I think those should be replaced. That would not alter the ethic of the climb (it started as a runout bolted slab route, and it will remain a runout bolted slab route,) but would make it safer. That is a subtle, but crucial, difference.
Good debate on this topic.
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Jan 5, 2004, 4:43 AM
Post #35 of 246
(11813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
*Actually, I don't know of many routes that can't be toproped...even El Cap can be rapped. Surely, you would retrobolt these routes on rappel...since leading them is so deadly? I they can be retrobolted, they can be toproped.*
You're right, El Cap can be top roped, one of the times I did it, I lead damn near (28 out of 34 pitches) the whole thing, so my partner effectively tr'd it. But some body had to lead it to get the rope up there, right?
*"Most" X rated routes have a reasonably well protected crux with long runouts on relatively easy terrain. A fall during the runout could result in "serious injury or death", but a fall at the crux wouldn't necessarily kill you...you're just being argumentative.*
There are G rated sport routes that have protected cruxes with long runouts on easy terrain. Something that's X rated means deathfall from difficult (compared to the rest of the route) climbing. Otherwise it's rated R.
And it takes 2 to be argumentative.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 5, 2004, 4:44 AM
Post #36 of 246
(11813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
rockprodigy,
In reply to: "Most" X rated routes have a reasonably well protected crux with long runouts on relatively easy terrain. A fall during the runout could result in "serious injury or death", but a fall at the crux wouldn't necessarily kill you...
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Jan 5, 2004, 5:00 AM
Post #37 of 246
(11813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
* Bolting does indeed permanently alter the rock. A bolt requires that a hole be placed in the rock where there was no hole prior. That hole will not grow back in... at least not in our lifetime. Patching with dirt, dust, epoxy, glue, or Silly Putty does not change the fact that the rock is altered. Perhaps the visual damage is not visible to most people, but the damage is done nevertheless. Kinda like when you break a law or rule, but don't get caught. You still broke the law, even if nobody else saw it. In the case of bolting, you still know there's a scar on the rock for eternity (or close enough) even if nobody else does. That sort of burden is not to be taken lightly. Hence, I don't commonly support retrobolting.*
This is a little too philosophical for me, you might as well be talking about hurting the rock's feelings. If there is no visual impact then it doesn't matter if the bolt was ever there or not. And it's funny how the same people who are so passionate about bolts scarring the rock are strangely silent about pitons, by far the most destructive form of rock climbing ever devised, which scar the rock EVERY TIME they are used. Go figure.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Jan 5, 2004, 5:15 AM
Post #38 of 246
(11813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
I agree with Joe on this issue. However, I really feel these debates will be mute in a few years. The old guard is on their way out, the new is taking the vanguard. When the sport climbing/bouldering generation is the ones holding the reins of power (i.e. they are the land managers) the ideals of the past will be just that, the past. Yes it is the passing of an era, but not necessarily a bad thing in my opinion.
Many of the older R/X routes are that way simply because of the technology and ideals in place at the time of their authoring, not because of some moral crusade or statement from the FA'ist. How many R/X climbs would have been bolted on rappel if not from peer pressure and simple unavailability of safer bolting means? My guess is a lot.
Ironicially enough, I think it will ultimately be our own society's fast draw to litigation which will ultimately lead to R/X rebolting happening. All it takes is one high profile death, a wrongfull death lawsuit at a National Park, a screwed in the head federal judge, and we will have a decision collectively as a user group: Create safer routes, or simply be barred from using the parks as a recreational means.
In my mind, the choice is simple. If the route features fixed protection, it should be bolted in a manner which is true to the characteristic of the area, but not life threatening. R/X routes will not have a place in this type of environment. Bolts +10' will most likely be frowned upon. Now if it is a traditionally protected line with good gear, then no fixed protection should be retro added. I am not for bolting reasonably protected trad lines.
As for Bouldering Highballs vs soloing vs short sport routes vs top roping... that is a little more sticky. I would tend to side with leave them as highballs, but in the past I have bolted things that were short enough to solo/high ball. Its a hard call to make, and one that is easy to armchair FA.
I guess what I am getting at is is the train is moving on with or without us. Whether your sitting on that train, or standing aside and shaking your head makes no difference. The old guard is gone, and the masses are coming, come Hell or high water.
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Jan 5, 2004, 5:16 AM
Post #39 of 246
(11813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
By the way RockProdigy, I saw this thread awhile back...
*2003 has been a great year for me. Some of my highlights:
-Learned to Telemark
-Redpointed my first 5.13 trad route
-Free climbed Moonlight Buttress
-Redpointed my first 13b sport route *
freed Moonlight, you are The Man in my book, way harder than my piddling little Astroman-Rostrum sends...what was the 13b?
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jan 5, 2004, 5:22 AM
Post #40 of 246
(11813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: This is a little too philosophical for me, you might as well be talking about hurting the rock's feelings. If there is no visual impact then it doesn't matter if the bolt was ever there or not. And it's funny how the same people who are so passionate about bolts scarring the rock are strangely silent about pitons, by far the most destructive form of rock climbing ever devised, which scar the rock EVERY TIME they are used. Go figure.
OK... we're going to have to agree to disagree.
Bolting damages the rock. On this, there can be no debate. It's a fact. Visibility does not count. It's damaged. Period.
I'm not a fan of pitons, either, in principle. I've never placed one, as I've never been on a route that needed one, so my views on pitons should be taken with a grain or two of salt.
But you seem to imply that as long as there is no visual impact, then it's OK. Well, heck... I can walk on permafrost without concern, since there is no visual impact. Sure, it damages the ground, but you can't really see it, so it's no big deal.
Ditto for urinating into water sources... Throwing my cigarette butts under a shrub... leaving a food wrapper under a rock. Can't see 'em, so it's OK, right?
Sorry, Kalcario, but I'm just not getting it. I'm dense like that sometimes.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 5, 2004, 5:24 AM
Post #41 of 246
(11813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: I agree with Joe on this issue. However, I really feel these debates will be mute in a few years. The old guard is on their way out, the new is taking the vanguard. When the sport climbing/bouldering generation is the ones holding the reins of power (i.e. they are the land managers) the ideals of the past will be just that, the past. Yes it is the passing of an era, but not necessarily a bad thing in my opinion. Many of the older R/X routes are that way simply because of the technology and ideals in place at the time of their authoring, not because of some moral crusade or statement from the FA'ist. How many R/X climbs would have been bolted on rappel if not from peer pressure and simple unavailability of safer bolting means? My guess is a lot. Ironicially enough, I think it will ultimately be our own society's fast draw to litigation which will ultimately lead to R/X rebolting happening. All it takes is one high profile death, a wrongfull death lawsuit at a National Park, a screwed in the head federal judge, and we will have a decision collectively as a user group: Create safer routes, or simply be barred from using the parks as a recreational means. In my mind, the choice is simple. If the route features fixed protection, it should be bolted in a manner which is true to the characteristic of the area, but not life threatening. R/X routes will not have a place in this type of environment. Bolts +10' will most likely be frowned upon. Now if it is a traditionally protected line with good gear, then no fixed protection should be retro added. I am not for bolting reasonably protected trad lines. As for Bouldering Highballs vs soloing vs short sport routes vs top roping... that is a little more sticky. I would tend to side with leave them as highballs, but in the past I have bolted things that were short enough to solo/high ball. Its a hard call to make, and one that is easy to armchair FA. I guess what I am getting at is is the train is moving on with or without us. Whether your sitting on that train, or standing aside and shaking your head makes no difference. The old guard is gone, and the masses are coming, come Hell or high water.
Oh, its true. The "dumbing down" of climbing is inevitable and has been going on for some time. Why anybody would think this is a good thing escapes me though. Perhaps all climbing routes should also be made wheelchair accessible while you're at it. Its not that far a leap from your current position really.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Jan 5, 2004, 5:29 AM
Post #42 of 246
(11813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
* In my mind, the choice is simple. If the route features fixed protection, it should be bolted in a manner which is true to the characteristic of the area, but not life threatening. R/X routes will not have a place in this type of environment.*
The flip side to this is doing things fast and light in the big Alpine ranges. You'd better be able to run it out like a psycho on your local granite if you ever want to do long committing things in the mountains, and death routes get you ready for that. I realize that for many people, The Dream is not 80' high, and many people neither need nor want bolts every 10'. But there are undoubtedly some routes that should be retro bolted just as there are some routes that should be left alone, and trust me, the scope for runout first ascents on low angle California granite is friggin limitless.
|
|
|
|
|
matthews_element
Jan 5, 2004, 5:36 AM
Post #43 of 246
(11813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 5, 2004
Posts: 1
|
I don't get on here much, but I check the forums...I just HAD to post my thoughts on this...so much so that when I couldn't find my old account, I had to make another...which wasnt easy in itself cuz I can't use my own e-mail *sigh* anyways...
Well I am a younger one...18...so maby that has something to do with it...but if a rout is x...or R or any of that...I don't enjoy them anymore when I get to the top than if I were to get up an "overbolted" rout. Being kicked out of climbing for about a year...when i was 16-17 due to a nasty fall on a x rout blowing out my knee will mean that I wont ever do them again...but it has made me think a lot about this. I know that it was my choice to do that climb...and I take full responsibility for my actions...But I wonder why...what is the point of this "copyright" you speak of?
I agree with the origional post in that it must be ego...and I find that just sad. If I put up a rout...regardless of how it was for me...of how hard...how dangerous...how specatacular and amazing it was...I would want to share it. If it is that great that I'm putting my name to it, I would be damned if others couldnt enjoy it.
Then again, never having the extreme pleasure and honor of having the FA on a would-be-classic rout...I cant say this for sure.
So after my rambeling...RETROBOLTING good....DIEING bad...argue that I should walk away if it is too hard...I argue that the masses should have the joy and excitement that a rout can offer...
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Jan 5, 2004, 5:45 AM
Post #44 of 246
(11813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: Oh, its true. The "dumbing down" of climbing is inevitable and has been going on for some time. Why anybody would think this is a good thing escapes me though. Perhaps all climbing routes should also be made wheelchair accessible while you're at it. Its not that far a leap from your current position really. Curt
Curt,
If you notice I didn't say it was a "good" thing. I said it wasn't necessarily a bad thing. Not quite the same thing. I think that routes that would see a lot of traffic and are of the moderate grade featuring fixed protection that have the R/X ratings should be good candidates for retro'ing given some amount of dialogue within the local climbing community for the area. However as Joe pointed, I think there are other places, namely alpine, remote, wilderness, etc... that should remain true to the commiting nature of the area. I.E. your not going to have lines of gumbies waiting to kill themselves when it requires a 10 mile + alpine start for the approach alone.
I just don't think we should be "bound" to the past. I had one of my routes stripped and the bolts moved on me a few years back. My intiial reaction was being pissed. I went back and climbed the "new" route and felt that it probably wasn't that bad of a move. Everyone makes mistakes or in this case makes either a bad judgement call (and I would say a 5.12 climber soloing/RX'ing a 5.11 and under route a bad call), or lack of attiquate means of equiping a route (old school FA's done because of lack of avaliable hardware or bolting equipment) should be the end all be all for a route.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 5, 2004, 5:46 AM
Post #45 of 246
(11813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: Well I am a younger one...18...so maby that has something to do with it...but if a rout is x...or R or any of that...I don't enjoy them anymore when I get to the top than if I were to get up an "overbolted" rout. Being kicked out of climbing for about a year...when i was 16-17 due to a nasty fall on a x rout blowing out my knee will mean that I wont ever do them again...but it has made me think a lot about this. I know that it was my choice to do that climb...and I take full responsibility for my actions...But I wonder why...what is the point of this "copyright" you speak of?
Not to be overly critical, but you simply exercised bad judgement and paid the consequences. You (at the time) were simply not good enough to lead the route you set out to do. Perhaps later you would have been.
I am truly sorry that you were injured as a result of your participation in the sport of climbing, but making the route that you got hurt on safe for everyone is simply not the answer.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Jan 5, 2004, 6:07 AM
Post #46 of 246
(11813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
* Oh, its true. The "dumbing down" of climbing is inevitable and has been going on for some time. Why anybody would think this is a good thing escapes me though. Perhaps all climbing routes should also be made wheelchair accessible while you're at it. Its not that far a leap from your current position really.*
Curt, if you'd get out a little more you'd know that in Europe, where I've spent a pretty good chunk of time climbing, this dire scenario has basically already occured. They install via ferratas at their crags so fat people can go rock climbing too, which is about as close to wheelchair access as you can get, and unbolted crack climbs are not the norm. Yet the Euros are unquestionably the best trad/sport/alpine climbers in the world. You've got *husband and wife* teams over there that free Trango Tower and do 5.13's on the friggin North Face of the Eiger, fer christ's sake. Meanwhile the bouldering fad has rendered American climbing impotent and we are the laughing stock of the climbing world because of it. American climbing is getting dumbed down...but by the crash pad, not the bolt.
|
|
|
|
|
boltdude
Jan 5, 2004, 6:12 AM
Post #47 of 246
(11813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 685
|
Runouts and retrobolting may be all about ego, but there are a LOT of well bolted routes out there already.
Why go "sanitize" classic easier routes?
A LOT of people, myself included, will probably never climb 5.13 or higher. We'll certainly never push the uppermost ratings of the sport. However, psychological challenges are worth having, even fun. Yes, runout routes can be deadly. Real risk is a CHALLENGE. Dangerously runout routes are something worth preserving.
There are a lot of well protected climbs out there. There is a lot of unclimbed rock in the U.S. Why dumb down old bold routes - why not do new routes and protect as you want to?
And to those who claim that runout routes are elitist, I call BS. Here's why:
A good number of regular climbers hit a barrier in their climbing careers - a barrier of injury, tendon strength, training time, etc. This barrier prevents many from climbing harder routes. Yet these same people, who may never climb harder than 5.9, have built up the experience to do fun runout easy routes. Just look at how many people do Snake Dike, South Crack, Hobbit Book, etc.
Are you going to take the sense of achievement away from these people by retrobolting a moderate but committing route? Why? Why not go do new routes and protect them well?
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 5, 2004, 6:26 AM
Post #48 of 246
(11813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: * Oh, its true. The "dumbing down" of climbing is inevitable and has been going on for some time. Why anybody would think this is a good thing escapes me though. Perhaps all climbing routes should also be made wheelchair accessible while you're at it. Its not that far a leap from your current position really.* Curt, if you'd get out a little more you'd know that in Europe, where I've spent a pretty good chunk of time climbing, this dire scenario has basically already occured.
Joe,
Had you read a bit more carefully, you would see that I have already conceded your point. I said "its been going on for some time" in this regard. And, I have already conceded that further emasculation of the sport is sure to follow, as additional hordes (with no past climbing knowledge or ethics) flow into the sport. You seem to think somehow that the absolute difficulty of climbs being done is the proper yardstick by which to measure progress. I find this laughable. Is a high grade on a final exam the best measure of learning if you cheated on the test?
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
okinawatricam
Jan 5, 2004, 6:34 AM
Post #49 of 246
(11813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2003
Posts: 420
|
I've put up routes in several locations now, and occassionally recieve an email asking me if it would be OK to add a bolt. I have not said no yet. I have had a couple of bolts added to routes that I put up (without any one asking) and at first I was upset, but I got over it.
Here I just found an old aid line, the routes hasn't gone free and the FA party isn't around anymore. I have decide that I really want to put this line up and it will require bolts being placed. When I mentioned this to some local, they aren't many of us, noone seemed to object.
What's the difference between adding bolts to R/X routes and bolting aid lines to go free?
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Jan 5, 2004, 6:36 AM
Post #50 of 246
(11813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: Is a high grade on a final exam the best measure of learning if you cheated on the test? Curt
I wouldn't call climbing a route free regardless of its protection "cheating" by any terms. It would be more like getting a high grade because you had the crib notes from a friend :twisted:
You seem to equate runout routes as "superior" to well protected routes. It is the same line of logic you are using against Joe's example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
