When hard routes went up during the gunks early climbing history, the second often didn't take the energy to remove the pitons. This basicly meant that the hard routes where only sport climbs. The easy routes, which hard good stances hard pins removed evry time.

Eveyone out ther is going to have their own opinion, as I have my own.

I am mainly a trad climber. I enjoy being scared in runouts and the feeling of relaxation when placing a perfect piece of pro and climbing past it. I feel that climbs which are bolted with lots of runout, or less than what might be found at say Rumney, NH, are in most cases more "realistic" and feel more like trad climbing to me. you cant always get a piece of protection in when you want, and there shouldnt always be a bolt to clip when you get scared either. Climbing is a risk involved sport, and if there is too much risk involved in a climb, walk on down the crag. I feel comfortable placing a #2 stopper and climbing past it, even falling on it, some people dont, but thats what the climb calls for, so either suck it up, place it, and climb by till you can stuff a #2 friend in, or climb something else.
Some people are saying everything should be bolted to make the climbing more comfortable. I disagree. Climbing is a not only a physical sport, it is also mental. If you are physically ready to climb a 5.12, you may not be mentally ready to climb a 5.12x. Keep climbing those well protected 5.12's till you mentally are. Dont bring the climbs down to your level, rise to the occasion.
MY biggest opinion is this: My father climbed in the Gunks in the late 60's, and I now climb there myself. He did it all with chocks, some hexes, and heavey leather boots. He doesnt consider it cheating to be using cams, and shoes as I am, or a belay device instead of body belays, but he feels there is only so far that technology should really help you in the sport of climbing, and I agree.
Bolts are about as "sure of a thing" as protection comes. Learn to place gear right and you will get that same feeling clipping a hex, and if you cant place a piece of gear, learn to deal with the fear.
Dont rebolt old routes with runout, or 0 pro, learn to climb; learn to deal with the fear.

-20 yr old, trying to escape the overpowering community of just sport climbers

p.s. people want to add more bolts for safety, how many sport climber do you ever see wearing a helmet? (just a question for refleciton)

TRAD FOR LIFE

I got to beleive if you embrace the "creation" of a route and you leave it as a R-X then frankly you might find a law suit in your future. Nothing can prevent someone's family from seeking you out and filing a suite over the death of a son/daughter, if nothing more to send a message to the rest of the climbing community.

R/X routes: You seem to deny the fact that it is possible to climb an r/x route in a safe and sane manner.

Are you seriously claiming that someone is more likely to die on r/x route than the pg classic next to it?

...idiotic positions

We agree on the rap bolter runout issue. As for ground up, eh.....I am a little less likely to go with a flat out rule here. A 5.12 climber going ground up on a 5.7 could put one bolt in the middle of the pitch at 80' and it would be just as idiotic as someone rap bolting runouts.

Route Authorship do not have an expiration, but I do not think they are above reproach, especially with the backing of the local community.

No it is possible. Climbing a route well within ones ability; i.e. 5.12 climber climbing a 5.10. Thats exactly the issue that some people have a problem with.

As it is related to death because of falling, yes. What you are implying is exactly the basis of part of the argument. R/X routes in general keep people away. Less people on it means less chance for a problem. However that also means that the few people who do get on it are probably climbers well above the grade ability-wise. So in essence, the grade of the climbing is "mistargeted" due to the protection. I personally think that is a waste, especially if the line is good.

So those people that don't hold your posiion are "idiotic"? Great way to approach something as subjective as this.

My point is that if a thousand ascents of the R/X route and the pg route next to it, more people would get hurt/die on the pg than the r/x.

"I want to climb cracks, but I don't want to have to buy a rack."
"If you want to trad it you can just skip the bolts."
"Top roping is pointless, on the other hand, it would be a "classic" two bolt lead."

Here to put it on even ground, take the same hypothetical thousand climbers and put them on the two routes: one R/X and one P/G and assume that each climb is rated the exact same. Which route would most likely have more problems?

Careful with the quotes grasshopper. Or are you trying to insinuate that anyone being a proponent of responsible and accountable retrobolting also somehow is obliged to agree with those statements? :lol: I would actually say all three of those points are completely irrelevant to this conversation.

A good number of VERY runout moderates still have big lines, despite potential death falls. Look at Hobbit Book (5.7) in Tuolumne - if you pitched from 50' above the bolt on (crux) 5.7 face, you'd probably eat it on all those steep plates as you took a 100' whipper. Yet it still has lines (with a big hike too!). Snake Dike has some good sized runouts. South Crack has some big ones. Yet these routes have big lines.

As far as liability, falls, bolts, etc: most deaths happen from belay chain errors. More traffic = more chances to make errors. Tight bolting = misconception of "safety" in an inherently unsafe sport. A good lead head is the most important piece of safety equipment anyone can ever have.

Lawsuits based on falls may well cause the closure of climbing areas in the future. But to conclude that poorly protected routes, especially ones labelled as R or X in the guide, increase injuries/deaths is ridiculous.

People who have the experience tend to be VERY safe on such routes. And as I stated before, a good number of folks doing 5.9 R/X routes can't climb harder than 5.10, yet they have the experience and lead head to deal with the runouts.

If you take away mentally challenging routes, then everything is one big climbing gym. If you want that, why not stay inside and set routes in a climbing gym?

As always, such debates as this one are kind of meaningless in the abstract, as it really depends on the local area. If you go retrobolt some POS route that no one ever bothered to repeat in an area where no one ever goes, and where there's not much history to preserve, no one will care. If you go add bolts to a classic Valley route, they'll get chopped.

I think most people on either "side" of the debate, if you actually were at the particular climb in contention, would probably agree about retrobolting some obscure route and not retrobolting some classic route. In the abstract we want to stand for ideals - in the real world, it depends on the particular route and particular situation.

And I for one see a lot of people supporting trad ideals, doing highball bouldering, taking stands against chipping, and aspiring to the awe-inspiring trad standards being set these days by the top climbers. I haven't seen many people calling for retrobolting everything (and as the ASCA Director, I get a LOT of email from the climbing public about bolting).

I don't think that just because people are learning to climb in gyms means that they can't learn about traditional climbing, appreciate the psychological challenges, and then rise above and put up the ground-breaking runout 5.15 trad routes of tomorrow on natural pro.

I think that we shouldn't be stuck with the past ideals and ethics when:

- Gear is different now
- Access and Liability is different
- Political climate is different

Who is to say that they are "past ideals and ethics?" Just because climbing is entering a mainstream gym pampered trend does not remove the legitimacy of preceding goals and ideals. Given the attention in the national media, I would say these ideals are experiencing resurgence. Things like this always go through cycles and trying to erase the past completely, so that it does not come back into your face is a misguided and shortsighted goal.

Are R/x bolters taking up all the good lines or are sport bolters taking up all the good lines?

The community? Dude, the community is reflected through the FA process. If the "community" is putting up R/X routes then that is what the community wants. A community is always a collection of disparate interests that need to come to some kind of compromise. The compromise is that whoever gets there first sets the standards.

Unfortunately, you will probably notice that the majority are 5.11 and harder. All easier terrain was taken up in the early years by good climbers or by free soloers.

Just about the biggest fallacy introduced by sport climbing is that bolts are what makes climbing safe. The idea that bolts can replace self responsibility and control is the number one fallacy that gets gym climbers killed.

roughster, what you are doing is simple:

You are arguing that climbing traditions should be discarded.

Why?

You're using a variety of arguments, some OK, some poor, but the underlying theme seems to be that you want to ignore and/or discard tradition........

.......Why are you attacking tradition? What's wrong with some nice runout routes? Why should you get to say that other climbers can't challenge themselves with psychologically demanding routes?

Actually I would say FA'ist often do not represent the community. The majority of the climbing community will never put up an FA. And yes, there have been instances of R/X taking all the good lines. Ever read the authors quotes in the Tuolmne Guide about sport climbing potential? And I quote,