You suggest "respect", but the problem is that participants of differing styles often do not respect other styles, or compete with their participants for the same limited climbing resources. That's a fact, and it isn't going to change.
I would disagree strongly with this. Maybe in your neck of the woods this is true.
As would I. In my neck of the woods, the opposite is true -- and obvious to most who climb here.
Ok, I was going to ignore CI, but now that two of you are saying this, I have to call you guys out for being delusional.
It is certainly possible that Austin is worse then wherever you guys are (it is the only place I have lived since I started climbing), but most people I know who have lived in a few areas consider it to be one of the most open and supportive climbing communities they've climbed in. This is in spite of a huge lack of respect between styles of climbing. (And I'm not just talking gear-wankery vs. gymnastic climbing: there's a relatively decent-sized sport clipper contingent here, and the boulderers and sport climbers often make fun of each other, humorously unaware of the fact that, if you look at behavior instead of words, they are generally playing the same game.)
(This post was edited by fracture on May 22, 2007, 2:31 PM)
The glory (or proudness) you see in so-called "bold climbing" is a cognitive illusion created by a virulent meme-infection that, in addition to many other negative side-effects, is capable of destroying the host if left untreated. If you find the idea of risking your life for climbing to be attractive, I suggest you consult a mental health professional.
I can certainly understand why you as a sport climber value movement/difficulty over all else (especially risk). I don't think it is all that much to ask that you understand that not all climbers think this way, and may not want their areas to reflect that line of thought. Some of us do value trying to overcome/manage risk while climbing.
Sure. And I don't think it is all that much to ask that you put in some effort to understand what I'm arguing for: elimination of the FAVD in favor of letting area climbers dictate what "line of thought" their area reflects.
Those of you who value managing risk should be able to do so. However, you shouldn't be able to force others to do so, and you shouldn't be able to relegate high quality sections of rock in limited areas to decades of non-use.
(This post was edited by fracture on May 22, 2007, 2:36 PM)
I suppose I can get on board with that. Luckily, in my opinion anyway, most of the areas I climb at (NC especially) the FAVC and most climber's "line of thought" regarding how well protected climbs should be are largely in harmony with each other. I have no problem with a majority of climbers overruling the FA if there is a real consensus in the community about it. I still think the FA should be given every opportunity to get on board with the community. It's when this done without some consensus that an endless cycle of bolting/chopping will occur. In absence of some consensus to change a route one way or another (not just the opinion of the FA!), I still think that the FA is should be the default state for the route.
...I was asking j_ung how a community service model for sport FA's is compatible with the FA Veto Doctrine.
The first describes how I view my own actions when I bolt a sport route and the second describes the ethic the community observes in may of the areas where I climb.
So you are fine with other people putting up sport routes that do not serve the community?
That's a false dichotomy. Fine? No. Fine enough to want to preserve what I believe to be a sound ethic over retrobolting it? Yes. Fortunately instances of botched bolting are the exception and not the rule. (Although who knows what the future brings? I might argue (but probably won't) that a bolt-first, ask-questions-later will lead to frequent botched jobs.)
In reply to:
A 5.9 X slab is not really a rock climb; it is a circus trick. Slap a toprope on it and literally any human being can do it with minimal practice: 5.9 hasn't ever been hard. (Not even when it was the "hardest grade".) "Bold climbing" involves a lot of self-deception and pretending.
I don't think we're too far off from each other on most points, but on the above I see a fundamental difference. I think you're projecting your view of what rock climbing is to you onto me. Which one problem with retrobolting that doesn't have a vast majority behind it. To me the upstairs aspect of climbing is fundamental to what I enjoy about it. I suspect that it is at least somewhat to you also. Or else, why bolt at all, other than for anchors? Why not just toprope?
You suggest "respect", but the problem is that participants of differing styles often do not respect other styles, or compete with their participants for the same limited climbing resources. That's a fact, and it isn't going to change.
I would disagree strongly with this. Maybe in your neck of the woods this is true.
As would I. In my neck of the woods, the opposite is true -- and obvious to most who climb here.
Ok, I was going to ignore CI, but now that two of you are saying this, I have to call you guys out for being delusional.
It is certainly possible that Austin is worse then wherever you guys are (it is the only place I have lived since I started climbing), but most people I know who have lived in a few areas consider it to be one of the most open and supportive climbing communities they've climbed in. This is in spite of a huge lack of respect between styles of climbing. (And I'm not just talking gear-wankery vs. gymnastic climbing: there's a relatively decent-sized sport clipper contingent here, and the boulderers and sport climbers often make fun of each other, humorously unaware of the fact that, if you look at behavior instead of words, they are generally playing the same game.)
fracture
It sounds like you should get out more. Seriously.
It is certainly possible that Austin is worse then wherever you guys are (it is the only place I have lived since I started climbing), but most people I know who have lived in a few areas consider it to be one of the most open and supportive climbing communities they've climbed in. This is in spite of a huge lack of respect between styles of climbing. (And I'm not just talking gear-wankery vs. gymnastic climbing: there's a relatively decent-sized sport clipper contingent here, and the boulderers and sport climbers often make fun of each other, humorously unaware of the fact that, if you look at behavior instead of words, they are generally playing the same game.)
fracture
It sounds like you should get out more. Seriously.
Totally. I'm not just talking from one state, or even one specific style of climbing. The only place where adding a bolt had been acceptable was Rifle, and then only because it was pretty common for the bolting to be poorly done, or bolts chopped after the FA had the route wired and didn't need them anymore. The St. George community frowned on retro-jobs without the FA's approval. The Queen Creek Community frowned on retro-jobs without the FA's approval. The Boulder community, the Jtree community, the Cody community, the Vedauwoo community, the Black Hills community, the Moab and Indian Creek communities, the Lander community (hell, I heard Alf got ran out of Lander for retroing a few too many routes). Even the local chosspile (which bears a striking resemblance to Reimers) and Smith Rocks (although only more recently) hold to that idea. Just because democracy makes sense to you in Austin doesn't mean it holds the world over. Bolting by committee leads to grid bolting. I'd take a few run out sport routes over that, any day.
Have you ever seriously climbed outside of Texas? Spoken to locals about new routes outside of Texas?
Instead of arguing about adding bolts to established death routes to make them "fun for the whole family," why not just toprope the route? I mean sheesh, Over bolted routes are just like toproping anyway. With every hard move having the rope clipped into a bolt above you!
That's called "lead toproping" if you ask me. Where does this sissy over bolting mentality end?!
You suggest "respect", but the problem is that participants of differing styles often do not respect other styles, or compete with their participants for the same limited climbing resources. That's a fact, and it isn't going to change.
I would disagree strongly with this. Maybe in your neck of the woods this is true.
As would I. In my neck of the woods, the opposite is true -- and obvious to most who climb here.
Ok, I was going to ignore CI, but now that two of you are saying this, I have to call you guys out for being delusional.
Call all you want, bro. But from where I stand it's you who are delusional. Actually, delusional is too strong a word, but petsfed said it pretty well. The ethic your espousing exists primarily in small, new, started-as-sport areas. Most of the rest of them still adhere to the our ethic, the one you call obsolete. And Hell, some of us climb in areas where retrobolting without a permit is a federal crime.
(This post was edited by j_ung on May 22, 2007, 5:46 PM)
Thank you for your response. So, if i have it correctly, it is wrong simply because of tradition. I wish i could pick the brains of some of these people who have established our "tradition." I think that accepting a reality because of tradition has nothing to do with logic or reason.
I'm not going to go starting any bolt wars and i certainly see the argument from both sides. Honestly tho, if i did a shitty job bolting a route, i would want someone to correct it for me, or show me the error of my ways. I certainly wouldn't bolt a route in a "style" that would get other people hurt. imho the point of bolts is placing "protection" in an otherwise unprotectable location.
I realize that a bolt war just ends up destroying the rock, but poor bolting jobs destroys the rock just the same.
I love climbing and i don't want to "ruin" the sport for anyone. Anyway, thanks again for the "reasons" behind your stance; however it still doesn't make sense to intentionally make dangerous routes. Sure, i probably will never climb some of these routes again, done them once, they weren't fun, but hell... i hate slab climbing anyway
it still makes me wonder... why bolt if you are not going to adequately protect the line?
Because not everyone agrees on what adaquate protection is.
Chocolate, strawberry, vanilla. No best flavour.
We need to have a mix of different styles as well. We need well protected routes of all grades, we need dangerous routes of all grades, and everything in between.
Gym climbers and Sportclimbers tend to fixate on developing their technical control - and need safe routes to do so. There are a lot of them, and more are being put up all the time.
Old school and traditional climbers like to develop the emotional control and self disipline of the more serious routes. They still have places to do that, but fewer and fewer new routes provide that, and many old school routes are being modernized.
Personally, most of the routes I build (ground up) end up being more to the safe side of the equation than the run-out side. I do, however, like to push the envelope on some routes.
If you don't hear the music, you will think the dancers mad. Goes for both sides of the debate.
(This post was edited by rockguide on May 22, 2007, 11:39 PM)
I suppose I can get on board with that. Luckily, in my opinion anyway, most of the areas I climb at (NC especially) the FAVC and most climber's "line of thought" regarding how well protected climbs should be are largely in harmony with each other.
Yep, and at most areas this is probably true, which one reason I find the vehemence with which people disagree with this to be so hilarious. I mean, the suggestion that democracy is a good way to handle conflict really should be pretty uncontroversial. (And it probably would be, except that we're dealing with a pseudo-cult here.)
In reply to:
I have no problem with a majority of climbers overruling the FA if there is a real consensus in the community about it. I still think the FA should be given every opportunity to get on board with the community. It's when this done without some consensus that an endless cycle of bolting/chopping will occur. In absence of some consensus to change a route one way or another (not just the opinion of the FA!), I still think that the FA is should be the default state for the route.
...I was asking j_ung how a community service model for sport FA's is compatible with the FA Veto Doctrine.
The first describes how I view my own actions when I bolt a sport route and the second describes the ethic the community observes in may of the areas where I climb.
So you are fine with other people putting up sport routes that do not serve the community?
That's a false dichotomy.
No, it was an honest question.
In reply to:
Fine? No. Fine enough to want to preserve what I believe to be a sound ethic over retrobolting it? Yes.
Ok, so we're back to square one. Why do you think the FAVD is a sound ethic? You have just basically admitted that it can result in a less efficient allocation of resources (a less served community, if you will) than democracy, right?
In reply to:
Fortunately instances of botched bolting are the exception and not the rule.
Agreed; especially at sport areas where RD's tend to think in terms of designing routes instead of doing routes. (And I don't see why this is relevant.)
In reply to:
In reply to:
A 5.9 X slab is not really a rock climb; it is a circus trick. Slap a toprope on it and literally any human being can do it with minimal practice: 5.9 hasn't ever been hard. (Not even when it was the "hardest grade".) "Bold climbing" involves a lot of self-deception and pretending.
I don't think we're too far off from each other on most points, but on the above I see a fundamental difference. I think you're projecting your view of what rock climbing is to you onto me. Which one problem with retrobolting that doesn't have a vast majority behind it.
Far from "projecting", in this whole thread, what I have advocated is allowing people to climb the way they want to climb (no matter how silly I think it is). In areas where retrobolting is frowned upon, it both shouldn't and won't happen.
In reply to:
To me the upstairs aspect of climbing is fundamental to what I enjoy about it. I suspect that it is at least somewhat to you also.
Yeah, except that I'm rarely scared of personal injury. My "upstairs" game is way more interesting than that.
An analogy: some people like to play poker because they get a "rush" when they risk money. When I play poker, actual money lost or gained in a given session is irrelevant: the issue is whether the decisions were correct. Who has the more interesting and complex "upstairs" game?
In reply to:
Or else, why bolt at all, other than for anchors? Why not just toprope?
I've explained this on this site too many times to feel like another go. You can do a search if you want my response.
(This post was edited by fracture on May 23, 2007, 8:24 AM)
It sounds like you should get out more. Seriously.
Totally. I'm not just talking from one state, or even one specific style of climbing. The only place where adding a bolt had been acceptable was Rifle, ...
"had been"? What are you talking about?
Your post makes no sense.
In reply to:
Just because democracy makes sense to you in Austin doesn't mean it holds the world over.
Yes, like I've been saying, your position is anti-democratic. For some reason this doesn't seem to distress you.
In reply to:
Have you ever seriously climbed outside of Texas? Spoken to locals about new routes outside of Texas?
The ethic your espousing exists primarily in small, new, started-as-sport areas. Most of the rest of them still adhere to the our ethic, the one you call obsolete. And Hell, some of us climb in areas where retrobolting without a permit is a federal crime.
Most Reimer's locals claim that the FAVD applies there, too. You are making an empirical claim about how most retrobolting is done, and I suspect you are probably wrong. But it is a question of fact, which we cannot settle by pure debate.
FWIW: I assure you that at several sport areas I regularly visit, despite widespread perception to the contrary, many (and in some cases a probable majority of) retro bolts have been placed without FA permission.
(This post was edited by fracture on May 23, 2007, 7:59 AM)
It sounds like you should get out more. Seriously.
Totally. I'm not just talking from one state, or even one specific style of climbing. The only place where adding a bolt had been acceptable was Rifle, ...
"had been"? What are you talking about?
Your post makes no sense.
Do I really need to spell out for you? The only place I've visited and spoken with the locals about where retrobolting a route without the FA's permission was ok, was Rifle. And the only reason that was ok was because some new route developers there, back during the big surge of routes, made it a habit to chop bolts they didn't need (after wiring the route relentlessly) leaving a "bold" route. I have not spoken with new route developers that were active during the surge of new routes at Smith Rocks, but I understand the same occurred. Even so, nowadays retrobolting is generally frowned upon at the places where it used to be accepted. Every other crag I've visited across the western United States (and that long list is just the ones I could think of where I'd spoken with people about new routes) has had the prevailing mindset that the FVD held precedent over community opinion.
I know a guy who thinks like you. And like I said, I'm pretty sure he got chased out of Lander after retrobolting a few too many routes at the Wild Iris, which is a spectacularly popular sport climbing area.
I suppose I should rephrase. You want the climbing community to think like you do. Unfortunately, its already formed an opinion, democratically if you will, and its not the one you like.
Placing bolts in the climbing resource (rock) to produce a route and promote a style that is commonly referred to as sport climbing is essentially public service. Make the route safe in terms of protection and allow the climber to focus on the movement. Its pretty easy to determine what is 'safe'. Occasionally there is hair-splitting.....but usually the is some common sense analysis that prevails. But contrary to traditional climbing, the 'style' of the ascent is not the issue. If you are going to inflict the level of impact to the resource that is typical of sport climbing, make it safe. If someone before you has created something that is, in common sense terms, dangerously risky....unnecessarily so, then retro.......they have no claim to adherance of 'style' as such in the traditional way of thinking.
Make it safe........that's what the drill and the bolts are for
(This post was edited by bernard on May 23, 2007, 3:38 AM)
I'm not gonna waste my time reading all your flame BS. climbing for a few years now, but after 2 days here on the forums I think I've found it's almost over-run with douche bags
(This post was edited by N_Oo_B on May 23, 2007, 7:25 AM)
Totally. I'm not just talking from one state, or even one specific style of climbing. The only place where adding a bolt had been acceptable was Rifle, ...
"had been"? What are you talking about?
Your post makes no sense.
Do I really need to spell out for you?
You just need to write sentences that I don't have to decrypt.
In reply to:
Every other crag I've visited across the western United States (and that long list is just the ones I could think of where I'd spoken with people about new routes) has had the prevailing mindset that the FVD held precedent over community opinion.
The reality at most crags where I know enough to comment is that people pay lip-service to the FAVD, but many retros nonetheless happen without FA permission. I know several people (I can think of at least four, off the top of my head) who claim to support the FAVD but have personally modified existing routes without the FA's permission.
In reply to:
I know a guy who thinks like you. And like I said, I'm pretty sure he got chased out of Lander after retrobolting a few too many routes at the Wild Iris, which is a spectacularly popular sport climbing area.
I've met and climbed with that guy. And I assure you, he does not think remotely like me (or if he does, he hides it well). In fact, he gave me and my friends a pretty name-drop-infused lecture about ground up climbing.... all whilst following us around to bum toprope belays on routes that are objectively easier to lead!
In reply to:
I suppose I should rephrase. You want the climbing community to think like you do. Unfortunately, its already formed an opinion, democratically if you will, and its not the one you like.
Actually (and as I mentioned to Dingus), current practice (at most sport crags) closely approximates what I'm advocating. (Remember to separate word from deed.)
(This post was edited by fracture on May 23, 2007, 9:02 AM)
I'm not gonna waste my time reading all your flame BS. climbing for a few years now, but after 2 days here on the forums I think I've found it's almost over-run with douche bags
Not according to caughtinside, petsfed, and j_ung! They seem to think we all respect each other.
(I suppose they must be reading a different website.)
(This post was edited by fracture on May 23, 2007, 8:08 AM)
The idea that we are ENTITLED to anything we desire is pervasive in our culture. Why must you climb a route that you find threatening? Why not leave it for others who might see things differently? Would you like me - a 5.8 noob - to spray your latest creation so I can take youth groups up it "safely"?
wow... some of these replays are just idiotic. They go against everything that I was taught and eveything that I believe in....
If you don't have the permission of the FA....DON"T YOU TOUCH THAT F"ING LINE.....Whether or not you think it is safe..... Damnit this pisses me off....
Go find another route that you don't have to take over with your own ego.
Let's go the other way becuase I am far from kauk or any other badass..... If i bolt a line with a ton of bolts on it and someone chops it because they think I am a pussey... I am either kicking that guys ass, or adding the bolts back in. Same goes if I am a badass and I put up a sparsely bolted line and you add to it.....I am either kicking your ass again or chopping your bolts....
It really just creates a war that defiles the rock or entails a bunch of ass kicking....haha[/:)]
You have to have permission man. If the FA is not around any longer than it should be a consensus with the local climbers. talk to everyone you can.... It is a sensitive issue
I have seen this go really bad in zona over the years... some people, who will remain nameless, just bolt across awesome routes or add a belay in the middle of a route established by someone else without their express permission.... Just Awful... it ruins the experience that the FA had and wants others to have.
I also know very strong climbers that put up routes in a traditional ground up style and the route is an R for sure and sometimes an x....after they lead it they then go back in and add bolts so that "joe climber" can enjoy the clean beautiful line becuase the FA WANTS HIM TO.... that is REALLY cool...and the FA's choice....
19 /
16%
Call all you want, bro. But from where I stand it's you who are delusional. Actually, delusional is too strong a word, but petsfed said it pretty well. The ethic your espousing exists primarily in small, new, started-as-sport areas. Most of the rest of them still adhere to the our ethic, the one you call obsolete. And Hell, some of us climb in areas where retrobolting without a permit is a federal crime. 
haha[/:)] 
