I guess it is just one of those things that I am passioinate about.... The history of this sport and those who came before me.
I learned form someone who I respect in the utmost that " respecting the work that came before you and understanding what really went into it" was a huge part of being a climber... That was what he said. Screwing with an FA's route is just wrong, without thier permission.
You can't tell me that some of your favorite bolted routes are the routes where you were cursing the FA for not adding more bolts.... that was living...that was an achievement, and that was something I'll never forget. I have to use everything I've got mentally and physically on that stuff.... I am mentally drained after a route like that. If Fracture had retro bolted the shit out of that I would never get that awesome experience.
The fact that sport climbing co-opted the term 'climbing' relegating climbing to 'trad climbing' almost said it all until recent times when it got shuffled even further to the back of the room as 'adventure climbing'. I have to say I consider this latest doppleganger a truly loathsome, if not abominable, term, but one that is ironically spot-on as indicative of the true state of our 'sport'.
Considering the overwhelming numbers of people climbing today, I consider the above to be a good thing. Hell, they can even have the word "climbing" all to themselves if they want. What's in a name? I'll be just as happy "mountaineering."
(This post was edited by j_ung on May 24, 2007, 12:45 PM)
It is just another entertainment option (you're deluding yourself if you think otherwise), and your generation is the one full of quackos spreading this imbecilic notion that it's a "lifestyle".
Actually, it's the sport climbers from the 80's and 90's who are largely responsible commercializing climbing via gyms.
What's that got to do with it? The "lifestyle" concept (in North American climbing) is probably rooted in the so-called "golden age"; a strange glorification of the self-destructive and anti-social behavior of a group of vagrants in the Valley.
Where I'm from, it's neither glorified nor socially acceptable to quit your job and spend your days leeching off others. If there even is a "lifestyle" notion among today's gym generation, it's so watered down that it is harmless and unrecognizable.
(Don't get me wrong; I'm not a fan of any sort of "work ethic". Or most other "____ ethic"'s for that matter. But we should describe things the way there are, not with silly euphemisms that make it sound like something else.)
In reply to:
In reply to:
But my sport and your silly pseudo-cult are mostly unrelated (except by accidents of history).
Thank god for that.
The problem is that sometimes we compete for the same resources. Conflicts between sport climbing and traditional styles are precisely the same (to me) as conflicts between sport climbers and hikers, backpackers, or equestrians. A lot of people want to use the land, so we have to be fair about how we allow the various groups access, even though some of them (e.g. birders or trad climbers) are doing things that most of the rest of us would probably consider hilariously stupid nonsense with their spare time.
Or from the other side: You may think sport climbing is stupid, but we have as much of a right to stupid recreational public land use as birders or backpackers. The point here, Joseph, is I'm trying to get you to agree with what j_ung is calling my #2 (though it was supposed to be my main position): that these disputes should be settled democratically rather than by authority, when the (historically and usually effective) mob-rule breaks down or reaches impasse. If people democratically decide to respect an FA's "veto", that's their decision to make.
This is not even a climbing-specific issue; it's a question of how people who disagree manage to compromise and get along like adults in a civilized society.
(This post was edited by fracture on May 24, 2007, 2:36 PM)
However, if you drilled a route ground-up (in what I might call a traditional fashion) the community should never add bolts to the route without your explicit permission.
But why?
Because, at least from my experience, a route put up ground up was put up for the FAs own enjoyment, not for those who would come in the future.
But that's just more support for the people's right to retro it!
As an example: If the RD put the route in for their own enjoyment, and then moved, what possible reason could they have for telling the rest of us not to enjoy it too? How does it harm their enjoyment (which occurred in the past) if a bolt is added now?
Will it help if we don't tell them about it? (There are a couple retros at Reimer's that have been or were there for years without the original RD, usually no longer a local, even realizing it.)
In reply to:
When bolting from hooks or free stances, with a hand drill, in granite, you think long and hard about placing that next bolt. I think preserving that mindset for future climbers is valuable in and of itself.
So. I hate to sound like a 12 year old, but why? Why is preserving that mindset valuable? Why do you care how other people at other areas want to climb? (Proselytization? Or are you saying it is axiomatically valuable, and that's the end of your argument?)
In reply to:
And in areas where ground up bolting is popular, the sport climbing would be boring and low angle anyway. From a pure movement perspective, you've done one grainy slab you've done 'em all, you know?
Almost, but not quite the same as my experience. There is definitely less variety in techniques than overhanging sport climbing, although I nonetheless can remember distinct individual moves on a number of slab climbs which I haven't been on in two years.
But either way, you've switched to yet another topic: the question I asked was not why we should not sport climb on slabs, it was why we should not retro ground up routes without FA permission. Presume for purposes of discussion that the local community wants to (or did) retro it, and the FA is against it. (This has happened at E-Rock and even Reimer's. Some of you may remember seeing a very one-sided editorial by Jeff Jackson in Rock&Ice about this, maybe 1.5-2 years ago.)
(This post was edited by fracture on May 24, 2007, 3:55 PM)
So the point of this post is to say that I'm rooting for you, Fracture, in a way, because there is value in your line of thinking, but... Be nice.
You have to keep in mind, though, that I'm posting here for entertainment, not to have a quality discussion (I'd be nuts if I expected that!). Being nice is not nearly as fun (either to write or to read). In fact, the "nice" posters on rc.com are among my least favorite to read. (Whether I find myself in agreement with them or not.)
It has changed so much even he manages to recognize it's mostly just another short-lived, low-skill, and no-risk entertainment option for most 'climbers' today.
Actually I don't agree with either of those three. It is low-risk, not no-risk, as high-skill as you want it to be (but weak old people will call you a "number chaser"), and it is so young that we have no idea how long it will live, although all indications suggest it isn't slowing down.
I do, however, agree that it is just an "entertainment option". There is a lot more to life than rock climbing. (If you haven't realized it yet, at your age, I hope for your sake that you get on that pretty soon.)
(This post was edited by fracture on May 24, 2007, 3:27 PM)
I've enjoyed this debate and think it's a good thread. But fracture, you really ought to go ahead and admit that, at least nationally, your view/your area's ethics are still clearly in the minority (talking about #1, not #2), a fact about which I'm pretty happy.
....and its obvious i don't know how to utilize the whole quote function when replying.......
Caught is right.... You know nothing regarding the history of the sport which you "claim" to be a part of. You have no respect for the rock or the people who truly embodied the sport who came before you.
I am so disgusted with fracture and bernard. I can't even realte to these ethics, or lack thereof. It is that gym rat, indoor techno bouldering philosophy. I am so glad that I climbed in a community where the history of the area and the style that the routes were established in, were, for the most part, highly respected.
Another thing....It must be horrible for you climbers who have been climbing for 20-30 years.... I have been climbing for about 8 and I have already seen drastic change. I am impressed with you guys and the level of control it takes to suck it up and just shake your head. I just hate the changes, hate em.
Healy is correct as well....this is how you guys turn crags into climbing gyms.... just awful. I know....Lets tick the routes, bolt every 4 feet( on an already established route) so everybody can come and shit all over mother nature... oh and never risk anything, ever....awesome.
You two need another sport or hobby... like knitting... that should be pretty safe. Although I am sure you find a way to take the fun and risk out of that as well...you could prick yourself
It is you that fails to recognize the history of the sport......and the divergence approaches of traditional climbing and sport climbing. I don't think you've read or understood anything i've been writing. You sound like another one whose trying to squeeze the ethics of traditional or ground up climbing and establishing of routes into the clothes of sport climbing........it just doesn't fit.
The arena of sport climbing is not a place to try to make a statement of boldness with regard to where the fixed protection is located. You the first ascensionist have a resposibility to those who will make use of the fixed gear to be judicious in their installations. I'm not talking bolt ladders. The issue of safety is open to interpretation and influenced by a lot of factors, like degree of difficulty, rock quality, the physical charater of the route, etc.
If you've got a latent axe to grind about sport climbing, fine. I don't care. I'm not advocating one style over the other. I personally enjoy and participate in both trad and sport. I'm not trying to start some kind of philisophical revolution......this style divergence has been well established for awhile now. Sport climbing removes the climber from worry about the gear and promotes focusing on climbing movement. It philosophically can't get any simpler than that. i didn't make this idea up. I've been climbing since '82 or so......i watched this divergence in style occur. I'm not trying to start a new campain to dumb down climbing styles. This divergence is water WAY under the bridge.
I can't help it if you are having a hard time digesting the ramifications of sport vs. trad......or even understading that there is a difference in the styles. But the basic distinction has been around for a long time now. I didn't bring this idea to town
But if you're in my neighborhood and you put up a dangerous route.......we'll talk about it.....and we'll get a consensus on what to do about it.......and we'll replace the rusting galvanized.....or we'll add a second lowering anchor because you were to cheap.....or you insisted on using the trees at the rim, which are now dying because of jillions of raps off them, or because the cliff top soil is washing over the side and threatening damage to the broader cliff top ecology in that area......or we'll add a bolt because there's a deck fall potential....or we'll replace your homemade hangers... or your rap-located bolts created a desperate clip cause you misjudged distances.......or any number of hypotheticals.
The Red, the New, Smith, the City, Little River, the Obed, southern Ill, Horseshoe, Owens, Fosters, many others....and i'm not listing European, Australian, and Asian locations........this is a common practice.....this is the way this is done, largely, in the sport climbing arena
I've enjoyed this debate and think it's a good thread. But fracture, you really ought to go ahead and admit that, at least nationally, your view/your area's ethics are still clearly in the minority (talking about #1, not #2), a fact about which I'm pretty happy.
Well. It depends what you mean by that. I certainly agree that most people are not willing to openly take the position I am taking (look at all the zealous mouth-foaming). However, at the sport crags where I know any history relating to retro-bolting (or retro pocket-filling, or whatever)---nationally and internationally---despite lip-service to the VD (sometimes even by the guy doing the deed), many retros happened without permission (which we could take as a behavioral endorsement of #1).
In fact, the story has been pretty much the same at every sport crag where there were retros and I've learned enough of the history to comment. There are plenty of sport crags in North America (and abroad) where I do not know enough to comment. (But again, my support of #2 indicates that I don't really care what happens at crags that I don't frequent.)
Screwing with an FA's route is just wrong, without thier permission.
JT, I don't know if you're around, but this wacko is a prime example of morality-based arguments in climbing "ethics" discussions. (And a good example of the reason that I don't believe in having "climbing ethics".)
(The context is our old "style" contra "ethics" (category error) debate: I believe you were telling me that you were not convinced that climbers view "ethical" issues in the moral light of right versus wrong, to support your claim that "ethics" has a special meaning (restricted to things which affect others) in climbing contexts. Correct me if that's way off.)
(This post was edited by fracture on May 24, 2007, 4:01 PM)
But my sport and your silly pseudo-cult are mostly unrelated (except by accidents of history).
A history you and yours will pave over pronto.
You go give no respect and you'll get none.
How many times do I have to explain to you that respect for the past is not an all-or-nothing proposition?
I wrote the following about retro-bolting several years ago. To me (as someone with a history degree), this is one of my strongest arguments against retro-bolting:
"I live in Pittsburgh, which has some great old architecture. Near the intersection of 5th and Shady there was a pair of stone mansions. One was purchased and renovated a few years back. In the process, the new owners ripped the soul from the house, tacked on modern additions, and left just enough of the old facade to remind you of the house's former beauty. It would have been better to just go to bare earth and start over.
"How's that relate to climbing? Bolting an established route is modifying an old house. These routes and houses are a tangible link to our past, that can be experienced by current and future generations as long as they are preserved. If you remodel all the old houses, if you retrobolt all the old routes put up in bold style, you're doing a disservice to the community. While there are plenty of old houses and routes, should we sit idly by while more and more are modernized? If the day comes when I just bring quickdraws to Seneca, or when every house looks like it was built last week, won't something be irretrievably lost? Sure, I can sit down and show my nephew pictures of old houses, or how a route existed originally. I'd rather be able to show him in person."
To try to apply sport-climbing mentality to all routes doesn't work. Thus, your use of terms such as route developer and the concept of serving the current-day climbing 'community' are ill-fitting. Trying to convert bold routes to make the widely accessible and 'safe' runs contrary to the original style of the route. Adding a bolt would change the very character and level of commitment for the route. Having the luxury to decide whether to clip the bolt alters the experience.
While the amount of rock may be finite, the number of old-school, bold routes is even more limited. The style of the first ascent (or the wishes of the FA party) should be deferred to. The only exception (if any) should be in cases where the entire local climbing community has an overwhelming consensus.
"I live in Pittsburgh, which has some great old architecture. Near the intersection of 5th and Shady there was a pair of stone mansions. One was purchased and renovated a few years back. In the process, the new owners ripped the soul from the house, tacked on modern additions, and left just enough of the old facade to remind you of the house's former beauty. It would have been better to just go to bare earth and start over.
Why would it have been better? Would it have been cheaper or something? This is totally incoherent.
In reply to:
"How's that relate to climbing? Bolting an established route is modifying an old house.
No, as a matter of fact it is not. And it's not like it, either. Houses are things that are necessary in order for humans to live; routes are just entertainment. And you are assuming we agree that modifying old houses is bad (I don't!).
(Did you really call this weak analogy one of your "strongest arguments against retrobolting"?)
In reply to:
If you remodel all the old houses, if you retrobolt all the old routes put up in bold style, you're doing a disservice to the community.
Assuming the community doesn't want the retros, you mean? Or are you telling us that the original RD knows what the community wants better than the community itself?
In reply to:
While there are plenty of old houses and routes, should we sit idly by while more and more are modernized? If the day comes when I just bring quickdraws to Seneca, or when every house looks like it was built last week, won't something be irretrievably lost?
I dunno; what's your point? Are you expecting us to agree that it is always bad to "irretrievably lose" something? (And if not, where is your argument?)
In reply to:
Thus, your use of terms such as route developer and the concept of serving the current-day climbing 'community' are ill-fitting.
You can't reject the notion of route development as community service and also use serving the community as an argument (cf. above). Please, figure out whether you care about the community or not, and then get back to us.
In reply to:
Trying to convert bold routes to make the widely accessible and 'safe' runs contrary to the original style of the route. Adding a bolt would change the very character and level of commitment for the route. Having the luxury to decide whether to clip the bolt alters the experience.
All three of these sentences are true. (You seem to be assuming that we already agree that they are bad things.)
In reply to:
The style of the first ascent (or the wishes of the FA party) should be deferred to. The only exception (if any) should be in cases where the entire local climbing community has an overwhelming consensus.
....
Ok, so, after all, it is ok to "irretrievably lose" some of our "tangible links to the past", to do a "disservice to the community", and to harm your ability to entertain your nephew, just as long as we have an "overwhelming consensus"? Way to undercut anything remotely resembling an argument in your post.
(I'm glad you're at least somewhat on board with #2, though.)
(This post was edited by fracture on May 24, 2007, 5:28 PM)
***edited to include Jung's qujote which i was responding to:
j_ung wrote:
52-10
I've enjoyed this debate and think it's a good thread. But fracture, you really ought to go ahead and admit that, at least nationally, your view/your area's ethics are still clearly in the minority (talking about #1, not #2), a fact about which I'm pretty happy.
****
which is actually the point of all his posting---
majority rule on the ethics is what he has espoused continually...
you people don't even see that the only thing we are arguing against is a
STRICT DOGMATIC ADHERENCE TO THE "i pissed here first, so its mine and you can't pee on my pee" FAVD --
you guys are so wound up tight and there are continual references to putting a bolt every 4 feet.
WHO DOES THAT? the climbs that i have enjoyed lately are mostly bolted say....8-12 feet apart.
i'm not asking for extra bolts on that. But i am asking for things to be rationally bolted - no 30 foot runout where you would hit the ground if you fell trying to clip a bolt.
oh my god i'm so scared of change!!! people are going to change it oh no oh no!! sorry bud, the rock breaks, and polishes and the bolts degrade, change is inevitable and as they change so will applicable viewpoints. If you can't adapt to the new circumstances you will be left behind. NO ONE is advocating grid bolting in your favorite trad area. We are talking about sport climbing... climbing which is evolving ... has anyone climbed any 15a trad?? Ok... so sport climbing is moving along without you and your trad-elders... maybe we stood on their shoulders, but that was just so we could reach the face and start climbing, you just enjoy your cracks and when i am plugging gear, i promise to use your antiquated ideologies; however if i am going to go and climb a steep overhung face i sure hope there will be some dogging bolts if i'm not strong enough to get it on the onsight. Because when it comes down to it, its really only about movement and tactics.
Oh btw Jung -- i believe that if you went back far enough in time and offered a poll that said:
a) the world is flat b) the world is round
some of us would be in the minority on that poll too. Where would you be?
EVOLVE!! DAMMIT !!
(This post was edited by 8flood8 on May 24, 2007, 6:56 PM)
As I stated, the first section of my post was an old post from another forum. I added new comments relevant to the discussion. That should have been clear. By the by, I'm glad to see checking for typos has made it into your style of debate. Very commendable.
You said I undercut my argument. I'm not an absolutist. While I think the FA wishes should trump in most cases, I don't think climbers of past generations were without fault. If local climbers have an overwhelming opinion in opposition to the FA, they have some basis for action. I think there needs to be a long discussion and careful consideration before you open that door. I don't have respect for a community or committee that disregards the wishes of the FA party out of hand.
The house analogy is relevant. They don't build old houses, and you can't put up old routes. If you want a cookie-cutter, ultra-modern POS (either route or house), then by all means go put one together. You don't have to destroy something that has value to some of us just because you don't find it accessible or enjoyable in its current state.
You don't care about anything other than the physical aspects of climbing sport routes. With all the traveling you've done, and all these sport routes you've climbed, tell me what you've lost by having a small percentage of routes (of a type you don't claim to like) that aren't accessible to you?
here is a cue for you, just in case you meant to actually join us in conversation.
sport climbing
retro
why or why not is it acceptable
and please bring something new to the table
I'm beginning to think there are several different types of routes we are speaking of here. I apologize for the delay in response. I do have a life outside this forum.
here's the ideal I subscribe to, in a nutshell. Irrelevant what kind of climb it is:
rap-bolted lines have had their bolts installed (hopefully) with an intention to provide an intelligently protected climb with logical locations to make clips from, dependent on the movement required to reach the next bolt. Such routes require little commitment from the bolter, and in fact may not even receive the First Ascent from the original bolter.
Bolts may be moved if they prove to be less than intelligently located. I say this with Maple Canyon in mind, where cobbles may work themselves loose over the years making for less than safe bolts, though (in my mind) it should translate to most areas with a high concentration of "sport" climbs. Adding bolts to a climb which has received a second or third ascent would be lowering the climb to another's ability. One should aspire to a higher level in such a case.
<aside> If you seek confirmation of this, check the new Peter Mortimer film "First Ascent" for the Didier Bertold ascent of Europe's hardest unclimbed bolted crack. Didier chopped the bolts on rappell before he started to work the route on gear... from the ground up!
In this case, the original bolter has lost all rights to the route. In fact, IMHO, the bolter should be neutered for bolting a route so far above his ability. Just because there's bolts on a route doesn't make it a sport climb, and just because one thinks there might be a route doesn't mean they should pull out the bolt gun. </aside>
ANY route which has received bolts from the FA during a ground-up ascent should NEVER receive a retro-bolt, unless the FA'er does it him/her self. Period. If the FA'er is dead, you're shit outta luck. Stay off it till your technique improves.
WHY is it not acceptable?
Because I must provide the next guy the same respect I would expect in return, even though I don't own a Hilti.
Disclaimer: I have not read all 9 pages of reply. I don't have that kind of energy or enthusiasm.
Talking points:
- People who are strictly sport climbers are, as a generalization, largely unfamiliar with traditional rigging and protection methods. Bolted faces, steep, are the primary venue. Thus, their knowledge of gear systems and climbing variety tends to be, by comparison, limited. Thus, when it comes to issues of trad lines, retrobolting, R/X, etc., I don't take that community's vote with a lot of weight, valid community though it may be (sort of).
- You don't retrobolt a climb unless the FA team oks it. This means everyone still alive. If no one is still alive, then as mentioned, you're SOL.
- I watched with great amusement as people suggested stick clips and top-roping. I don't know the characteristics of the line involved (and I don't care, to be honest), but it's simply a fact that there are plenty of areas where you're going to need a LONG stick, or a LONG top rope. In other words, it's not always feasible.
- Bitching about 20 foot runouts? Sack up. Come by sometime and I'll take you to Stone Mountain, and we'll discuss runouts.
I think that's all at this point. Warm up your flamethrowers.
- Bitching about 20 foot runouts? Sack up. Come by sometime and I'll take you to Stone Mountain, and we'll discuss runouts.
I look forward to the day when I can hold you to your word. We'll have to see how the next few months play out for me, but when I get a monkey off my back we'll have to talk.
- Bitching about 20 foot runouts? Sack up. Come by sometime and I'll take you to Stone Mountain, and we'll discuss runouts.
I look forward to the day when I can hold you to your word. We'll have to see how the next few months play out for me, but when I get a monkey off my back we'll have to talk.
~Sty
Just so's we're clear, I wasn't firing at you *personally*, yours was just the closest reply button within reach. I didn't want to have to go back through the thread and search out who I should've been drill sergeanting.
That said, if you find yourself in North Cackalacky any time in the next 18 months or so, hit me with a PM and I'll gladly climb with the legendary STY MINGERSFINK.
19 /
16%
... any good lawyers out there licensed to practice in Eastern District of California Federal Court
? 
