Simply because your grasp of the topic is poor, is no reason to conclude that everyone else is similarly lost.

Curt

If it was possible to relive history I'd be living it up in my 20s again. But it ain't. That's passed and can't be recreated. That's a smart assed way of making my point, but it's not the same experience anymore.

Super. Then I can count on you to state his position clearly. Thanks.

My stance on things. A climb should remain intact as the FAist(s) climbed it. Hence, if a 5.2 is done in impeccable style without the need for bolts, the leaving of pins, or was runout to the point where you may have just unroped and soloed it, then it should stay that way.

I KNOW my limits. I KNOW what might be a bad decision and I RESPECT the gut instinct that tells me: this is not the time, nor the place.

Unfortunately, I (we) have seen a bit of retrobolting happen on many classic testpieces because people 'wanted to be safer,' or because there is a guide service/author that wants to exploit a climb done by so-and-so.

If you don't have the balls or ability/agility to do a climb in the style that the FAist(s) did it in then maybe you need to work some more and return when you might be able to climb it in the same style. The reasons you climb it, as Mr. Gill mentioned, may not be the same as when the climb was first done. I've asked countless people in my meager 10 year climbing career why they do it. Know what? Everyone has a different answer.

What motivates us to be attracted to these runout and often poorly protected climbs is that it scares us and because we now live in a pussified world we need things to be safer. If that's the case, then maybe you need to rethink your hobbies.

Maybe you need to work on attaining a level where YOU can make that FA and set the 'unwritten' rules pertaining to your climb. I'm with Dingus on the spew thing. It's an ethos to climb it as is and leave it with as little impact that you were there. I think that if I were to run across one of them routes, I wouldn't even know that it had seen an ascent. I too am not telling.

if i (a solid 5.5 climber) put up a runout 5.2 in the meadows, and i stamp my little feet and insist that i don't want anyone to add bolts, guess what?

Re: south crack. Don't know, haven't done it. But I would hazard a guess that a fall up there would be survivable. Not the case on the other climbs we've been discussing. Besides, I think it gets onsighted daily.

epoch, some questions:

if i put bolts every 3 feet on that 5.2 not for any good reason but because i'm an idiot, must they be left in place? i'm guessing you'll say no. right?

what if i left a part unbolted not for any good reason but because i'm an idiot? maybe i protected all the 5.0 stuff but not the heinous 5.2 crux, leaving a long G route with an X crux.


Is this meant as a qualification of your initial claim, i.e., that not necessarily *all* fa's are to be left alone, just the ones done with "impeccable style"?

epoch, some questions:

if i put bolts every 3 feet on that 5.2 not for any good reason but because i'm an idiot, must they be left in place? i'm guessing you'll say no. right?

what if i left a part unbolted not for any good reason but because i'm an idiot? maybe i protected all the 5.0 stuff but not the heinous 5.2 crux, leaving a long G route with an X crux.


Is this meant as a qualification of your initial claim, i.e., that not necessarily *all* fa's are to be left alone, just the ones done with "impeccable style"?

I like how Tuolumne always comes up in these discussions, as if it is some bastion of unprotected, death routes. I’ve climbed there a lot – less than some and more than others – and have never, ever, ever, ever, never, ever, never had trouble finding high quality, well-protected climbs. Sure, Tuolumne is known for it’s slab runouts, but it ain’t short on well protected climbs for the under 5.10a climber. Top that off with the fact that very, very, very often the technical crux is well protected (Hoodwink, for example) and the run out or X portions of the climbs are those pitches with a significantly lower rating than the crux pitch.

I can’t think of any climb in Tuolumne where the FA party took anything away from anyone.

See, no one knows what his position *is*, because he has not stated it at all clearly.

What others are doing, and what I have tried to do, is to consider various possible positions, clearly stated, on clearly distinguished questions, and to consider them on the merits, with reference to Bachar's interesting Supertopo post which Dingus did us the favor of quoting.

I've never climbed in Tuolomne, so I'm going to go with degaine's description to get a sense of what it's like to be there:


So from that vantage point, this particular climb of Bachar's is an aberration.

That this is a route out of somewhat out of character for the area.

And in this case, it seems highly debatable that the line in it's current state is in tune with the local ethic, and is the best use of that real estate.

But... so what?

I mean, I've been thinking about it, and it seems to me that because of the respect due to him, I think I've come down on the side of being happy to defend that route staying there. Giving Bachar his due, at least as long as he lives.

GO

Abberation???? What are you talking about Gabe??? The Nose gone free is an abberation, shall we sport bolt that too, just because there is only one?

Why must we have a row of gym-like 9s that no one even cares to name???

Nope. I think you're purposefully missing my point. The question I was raising was whether this climb was an abberation for the ethic in Tuolomne. That's the only relevant question from my vantage point.

clearly you've missed my point.

Thanks, that's the best example of a straw man argument so far in the thread. Perfect example, thanks for sharing.

GO

FYI, I made an edit to my initial statement to clarify and added the highligted / italics portion "of well known run out climbs".

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion from my post. In Tuolumne there really is something for everyone, bold test pieces if you like or well protected climbs.

It really isn't, it's perfectly in line with the character of many FA's, as are the well protected (read cracks) routes.

What know you of the local ethic ? You wrote in the first line of your post that you’ve never climbed in Tuolumne.

What do you mean, “as long as he lives”? What if the overwhelming majority of people who climb regularly in Tuolumne prefer that the route remain as is, long after his death, your death and even mine?

I attributted that to no one (ie inserting words into someone's mouth). I didn't pretend you or anyone else said it and I didn't even answer it per se.

Its a rhetorical question in the line of thinking of how we all may go about the process of route valuation.

<snip>And as a bonus I've actually seen the route. (its a mind boggling thing to comtemplate climbing!)

DMT

It's also massive hyperbole that no-one is suggesting, but is vaguely attributed as the "alternative".