|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Oct 3, 2007, 11:31 PM
Post #76 of 202
(6753 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
surgeon1 wrote: This is a timely thread, having just returned from the Gunks this past weekend. My wife and I were just starting to lead a "classic" 5.7 when some lard ass suddenly comes down on his top rope from the adjacent climb and basically forced us off the climb after my wife had started climbing. She had to down climb to get off the route. He and his buddies claimed they had been waiting a "long time" to get on the route, but really they had been enjoying the adjacent route while we waited for the party ahead of us to finish leading the climb. I didn't feel like getting into a big argument but clearly they were now tying up two classic climbs with their dam top rope and I don't think that is fair..if a party has started to lead a climb you can't just lower down from an adjacent climb clipping gear as directionals from the top down and claim the climb for your own. I have no problem with people toproping climbs but people need to be reasonable..if a party has started to lead a climb you can't bully them off of it by lowering of the adjacent climb! If you read Williams' guide book he is quite specific about what to do in this situation: "Because this is a trad climbing area, custom dictates that the party that plans to lead has the right to go first. This means that no party that is climbing one route in order to top rope an adjoining route should try to claim that route and stop another party from leading it" nuff said
Wow. Yeah, that's just wrong. That's a fight waiting to happen.
|
|
|
|
|
piton
Oct 4, 2007, 1:12 AM
Post #77 of 202
(6713 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 1034
|
i pee my pants when i top rope. this thread is dumb
|
|
|
|
|
funnelator
Oct 4, 2007, 1:42 AM
Post #78 of 202
(6700 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 83
|
The Preserve doesn't maintain gear anchors for liability issues but inexplicably they seem to think it's ok to install and maintain bolt anchors, despite liability issues. It doesn't make sense but that's the way it is.
First come first serve is Preserve policy. People should nonetheless play nice. Beyond Preserve policy, if climbers aren't certain what the appropriate local etiquette is, asking usually works. Placing gear while rapping down onto a leader just starting up, to claim a route, certainly isn't appropriate etiquette, but neither is getting in a fight over it. Better to simply remove their gear on the way up. 
As for manky anchors I'm all for removing them. Some will pop back up in less than a week and if they get removed again from time to time so be it.
Someone mentioned there are many well protected climbs here at grades up to 12. Wind that back down to 10 and it's right on. There are very few well protected 11s here at the Gunks if you exclude Skytop, which is closed. Even fewer 12s.
Suggesting everyone adhere to the style of the first ascenders is just silly. There are those of us who climb a lot and are insane enough to like scaring the crap out of ourselves by being on the sharp end at the limit of our ability and well above our gear. There are many others who climb less frequently, or less than they once did, or maybe they have less testosterone to begin with (or they are just generally emotionally better adjusted), and so they aren't so ready to dance with death. They have every right to climb beyond their 5.5 lead head abilities without worrying about offending someone else's ethical or stylistic sensibilities or those of the first ascentionists. Self aggrandizing climbing ethic evangelicals don't own the cliff. Neither do the FAs. The Preserve does. See paragraph 2.
Brad, about TR gangs. Guilty as charged. On weekends, some of us break off into pairs for most of the day and then convene back at the Mac Wall, or Workout Wall, or wherever, later in the afternoon to meet up with friends. And yes, in large groups, we sometimes then set up many adjacent TRs. We are also more than happy to defer to anyone who wants a ride or, even better, wants to lead. To overcome shyness on the parts of passers by we usually ask "do you want to get on this?" or "if you want to lead this we'll pull". If that's not enough for you then tough. We live here. In many regards we "write" the "rules", when they don't violate Preserve policy anyway. Get used to it.
The trick to having fun climbing on a crowded Gunks weekend is to work the crowd rather than letting the crowd work you. It's like a very large climbing party. And like all good parties there are lots of eye candy opportunities, fun people to meet, and new perspectives to be had. And most climbs are open. The hard men and women among you complaining about the crowds on super classics have all manner of poorly protected and open hard climbs to choose from. Damn interesting ones too.
Have fun all.
(This post was edited by funnelator on Oct 4, 2007, 1:46 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
ant_zacchino
Oct 4, 2007, 1:45 AM
Post #79 of 202
(6694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 4, 2007
Posts: 53
|
trad climbing in the gunks is like jerking off in a whore house with a pocket full of cash. BOULDER! 
|
|
|
|
|
gregpphoto
Oct 4, 2007, 1:53 AM
Post #80 of 202
(6684 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2007
Posts: 35
|
forgive me if im wrong but isnt it unethical to remove protection and other equipment already in place unless that piece is dangerous to use?
I have no problem with someone top roping. Maybe theyre not as serious about climbing as you and are there to enjoy an outdoor activity they find fun. As long as it doesnt interfere with what youre doing let them have their fun. If theyre just dicking around, i can see what all the animosity is about. In a similar situation, i have to deal with 20 little kids sitting on the ledge i want to skate at the skatepark. Ill ask them politely to move, theyll usually say no, so once in a while ill let my board "accidently" fly towards them.
Please dont do that on a climbing wall i do not want to be responsible for having bodies piling up at the bottom of the wall cuz you cut their ropes 
(This post was edited by gregpphoto on Oct 4, 2007, 2:03 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
piton
Oct 4, 2007, 1:56 AM
Post #81 of 202
(6677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 1034
|
funnelator wrote: Someone mentioned there are many well protected climbs here at grades up to 12. Wind that back down to 10 and it's right on. There are very few well protected 11s here at the Gunks if you exclude Skytop, which is closed. Even fewer 12s.
i think there are many well protected climbs up to 12 also.
(This post was edited by piton on Oct 4, 2007, 2:13 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
unabonger
Oct 4, 2007, 2:04 AM
Post #82 of 202
(6673 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2003
Posts: 2689
|
BradP wrote: The Gunks is supposedly a climbing destination ensconced in traditional ethics.
Climbing as adventure has left your proud area.
Get up earlier next time. Go on a Tuesday.
And top roping, despite what old Dick might say, really is the purest climbing form: No ego, no fall, no danger, just you and your ability to stick on the rock. You might not like it, you might think risking life and limb is somehow more significant, but its not, really, its just another moment in time where someone did something that scared them. BFD, thousands are living their whole life in fear, in terrifying conditions of all sorts.
In reply to: The 80's saw a cadre of hard climbers out to demonstrate that difficult routes could be climbed ground up and without the use of pre-placed protection.
Not really, they were just trying to impress the few women that were around, since their game sucked. Yeah it led to some legendary ascents, but it was still just folks hanging by their fingertips, a trivial game at best.
UB
|
|
|
|
|
funnelator
Oct 4, 2007, 2:07 AM
Post #83 of 202
(6668 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 83
|
Greg, bolts, pins, and other fixed gear resident as of 1987 or 89 (I think) can remain or be replaced. The Preserve bolt anchors are installed and maintained by the Preserve. All else is fair game for removal. It's not that a good webbing anchor here or there is a problem but rather that webbing anchors tend to reproduce like Tribbles and sometimes, as they age, are about as reliable as Yugos. It really does become cliff trash.
It is my opinion, in keeping with a sort of home rule, that gunks local residents, every day climber types, should be making decisions about manky anchor removal, rather than weekenders. It's not as though we come down to the city and tell city folk about how or whether to set their blankies out to reserve spots for the movies in Bryant Park.
(This post was edited by funnelator on Oct 4, 2007, 2:16 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
funnelator
Oct 4, 2007, 2:14 AM
Post #84 of 202
(6661 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 83
|
piton wrote: funnelator wrote: Someone mentioned there are many well protected climbs here at grades up to 12. Wind that back down to 10 and it's right on. There are very few well protected 11s here at the Gunks if you exclude Skytop, which is closed. Even fewer 12s. i think there are many also.
11s and up, here at the Gunks, are what most consider "necky". People leading trad at that grade here will sort it out for themselves no matter our disagreement. I'm getting sweaty palms just thinking about some of the 11s. More power to you Piton if you think they are well protected.
(This post was edited by funnelator on Oct 4, 2007, 4:35 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
paintrain
Oct 4, 2007, 2:44 AM
Post #85 of 202
(6641 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2004
Posts: 184
|
Gaggling an area is setting a bad example for the noobs. They will probably miss the nuance of you being friendly with your TRs since they aren't leading anyhow (though I appreciate you doing at least that). It sounds like you all just treat it as another sport climbing area without the bolts.
In reply to: If that's not enough for you then tough. We live here. In many regards we "write" the "rules", when they don't violate Preserve policy anyway. Get used to it. - Funnelator
Just say LOCALS RULE!, flick the long hair of your mullet, and squeal your tires as you pull out of the parking lot in your rusted out '87 firebird (don't forget to huck the beer can out the window too).
So much for thinking beyond your backyard.
PT
|
|
|
|
|
gunkiemike
Oct 4, 2007, 2:48 AM
Post #86 of 202
(6635 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2002
Posts: 2266
|
To the OP - The answer is simple: cut the offending TR anchors while the gumbies are actually climbing on it. That'll solve both your problems.
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Oct 4, 2007, 3:37 AM
Post #87 of 202
(6606 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
Just click your ruby slippers together and repeat 3 times,
"There's no place like the Gunks 20 years ago."
This is a one time only deal. No refunds or replays. Not responsible for magic not working in slippers or a malfunctioning time machine.
|
|
|
|
|
funnelator
Oct 4, 2007, 4:28 AM
Post #88 of 202
(6587 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 83
|
In reply to: Just say LOCALS RULE!, flick the long hair of your mullet, and squeal your tires as you pull out of the parking lot in your rusted out '87 firebird (don't forget to huck the beer can out the window too). So much for thinking beyond your backyard. PT
The name of Peter Darmi's fairly new climb "Into Thin Hair" should give you an idea of the inability of most of us to maintain a mullet. So too we tend to drive Subarus and hybrids these days with the occasional yota pickup still thrown in here and there. And a beer can out the window? Maybe a couple of seeds.........
We do think beyond our back yard. When home here at the Gunks we defer to Preserve policy and the local ethic. When traveling we think about and defer to the local ethic wherever we are, whatever that may be. If not, we'd be traveling with our storied clean climbing ethic, and ripping bolts across the west.
(This post was edited by funnelator on Oct 4, 2007, 4:54 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Oct 4, 2007, 5:19 AM
Post #89 of 202
(6572 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
funnelator wrote: piton wrote: funnelator wrote: Someone mentioned there are many well protected climbs here at grades up to 12. Wind that back down to 10 and it's right on. There are very few well protected 11s here at the Gunks if you exclude Skytop, which is closed. Even fewer 12s. i think there are many also. 11s and up, here at the Gunks, are what most consider "necky". People leading trad at that grade here will sort it out for themselves no matter our disagreement. I'm getting sweaty palms just thinking about some of the 11s. More power to you Piton if you think they are well protected.
funnelator,
Piton likes to pretend he's a hard man. Rich Goldstone, I am quite certain, will agree with you--since he and I have had that exact discussion before.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
josephgdawson
Oct 4, 2007, 5:50 AM
Post #90 of 202
(6567 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 20, 2004
Posts: 303
|
BradP wrote: The Gunks is supposedly a climbing destination ensconced in traditional ethics. That is, a climbing area where routes are led from the ground up and ideally without permanently placed protection. In fact, many routes have been put up in the Gunks in impeccable style; hundreds of fine examples abound. Jacob's Ladder is quintessential. In 1960 Phil Jacobus on-sight led the first ascent of the Gunks' first 5.10. Jacob's Ladder is now rated 10b X. The 1970s saw the firm establishment of 5.12 in the Gunks, routes such as The Throne, Kama Sutra and Kansas City were established - the first ascentionists adhering to a staunch traditional ethic. Meanwhile Rich Romano developed Millbrook in the purest of style, forcing the creation of many R and X rated testpieces. In 1975 Creature Features saw its FA, only to have its first first ascentionists berated by Henry Barber as they had "Violated the high stylistic standards of the day by previewing the route... [on] toprope" (Dick Williams). Mark Robinson of Creature Features' FA party repented after Barber's chastising. The 80's saw a cadre of hard climbers out to demonstrate that difficult routes could be climbed ground up and without the use of pre-placed protection. This past weekend I saw countless top-ropes obscuring the rock at the Nears and Trapps alike. Routes with proud histories are now being top-roped by 5.8 climbers (just because you can top-rope 5.11 or 5.12 does not mean you are a 5.11 or 5.12 climber). This undermines the potential for a 5.11 or 5.12 leader to repeat a route in the style of the FA. A progressive mindset dictates that one repeat the past with the minimum being the manner of the first ascent. No reversionism please. Worse than top-roping routes into submission however is the unnecessary clutter of flashy nylon adorning the gray quartzite as fixed top-rope anchors. With the dictums established by past generations of Gunks climbers and leave no trace ethics in mind, I chose to begin the task of eliminating unnecessary clutter from the rock. I took a first step by removing years of slings off of the classic Bonnie's Roof. Many arbitrary anchors as these abound throughout the Gunks which serve no purpose other than to facilitate the ease of a top-rope ascent of a nearby route. Most of all climb safe. I'll see you out there, Brad
What a load of elitist shit.
|
|
|
|
|
piton
Oct 4, 2007, 11:57 AM
Post #91 of 202
(6541 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 1034
|
curt wrote: funnelator wrote: piton wrote: funnelator wrote: Someone mentioned there are many well protected climbs here at grades up to 12. Wind that back down to 10 and it's right on. There are very few well protected 11s here at the Gunks if you exclude Skytop, which is closed. Even fewer 12s. i think there are many also. 11s and up, here at the Gunks, are what most consider "necky". People leading trad at that grade here will sort it out for themselves no matter our disagreement. I'm getting sweaty palms just thinking about some of the 11s. More power to you Piton if you think they are well protected. funnelator, Piton likes to pretend he's a hard man. Rich Goldstone, I am quite certain, will agree with you--since he and I have had that exact discussion before. Curt
go back to drinking your whiskey you bitter old ass
here are 4 well protected 11's just at the slime wall alone: April showers, Golden showers (5.8 if you are 6'1" or taller), Comedy 3 acts, and Rich Goldstone's route The Stand.
do i need to continue
btw i far from a hard man. there are days i like to top rope
(This post was edited by piton on Oct 4, 2007, 1:08 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
chossmonkey
Oct 4, 2007, 12:23 PM
Post #92 of 202
(6527 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414
|
tomcat wrote: Greatest selection of easy leads in the world.If you can't lead there....give up!!!
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Oct 4, 2007, 12:52 PM
Post #93 of 202
(6514 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
BradP wrote: cracklover wrote: But why is it right for a paid guide (with 5+ clients) to toprope the first pitch of a *** multipitch climb that is a perfect testpiece for a 5.5 leader? How is this any better than a non-professional party with one or two competent leaders tying up a route? GO No, you are correct, it isn't right. In response to the statements I made which you quoted, I was unaware that this was happening on 5.5s too. I suppose I should have inferred. There are other chosspiles (with different values) to TR at. The Gunks isn't the place - 5.5 or 5.12.
Well, the conversation has more or less moved on from this point, but just the same, at the request of a guide who would like to remain nameless, I'd like to clarify my earlier point. While some guides do the above, there are other guides who go out of their way to only TR at specific toprope areas (not Trapps or Nears).
Cheers,
GO
|
|
|
|
|
tomcat
Oct 4, 2007, 1:22 PM
Post #94 of 202
(6486 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2006
Posts: 325
|
Guides,Topropes,Gunks.
Last trip I suggested to Tradchick we climb Frog's Head as it's a classic.Sunday am,the Guide from the Monogrammed polo shirt company has a family party of three or four toproping City Lights.Ahead of us are two Canadians who are struggling a little with Frogs Head.When the second is just about to the ledge I start up.They have a slight panic thing going as the leader leads off up P2 of FH,so I move to the left and make a gear anchor.The second has their rope wound completely around himself and the leader is sketching so seems like a good idea to stay out of it.
Leader makes it,I tell Tradchick we'll just wait until the second shoves off and then she can get on the bolt anchor,all my gear is at the ledge level and it'll be more comfortable.Guides clients can't all climb CL so he asks if he can traverse behind us and make an independant anchor over to the right....ummmm...yeah Ok.He traverses behind us,discovers there really is no such anchor and slings in to the bolt anchor with the mummified Canadian,erstwhile explaining how it's all OK.He then pulls all his remaining rope across Tradchick and I.
|
|
|
|
|
jgloporto
Oct 4, 2007, 2:25 PM
Post #95 of 202
(6444 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2006
Posts: 5522
|
surgeon1 wrote: This is a timely thread, having just returned from the Gunks this past weekend. My wife and I were just starting to lead a "classic" 5.7 when some lard ass suddenly comes down on his top rope from the adjacent climb and basically forced us off the climb after my wife had started climbing. She had to down climb to get off the route. He and his buddies claimed they had been waiting a "long time" to get on the route, but really they had been enjoying the adjacent route while we waited for the party ahead of us to finish leading the climb. I didn't feel like getting into a big argument but clearly they were now tying up two classic climbs with their dam top rope and I don't think that is fair..if a party has started to lead a climb you can't just lower down from an adjacent climb clipping gear as directionals from the top down and claim the climb for your own. I have no problem with people toproping climbs but people need to be reasonable..if a party has started to lead a climb you can't bully them off of it by lowering of the adjacent climb! If you read Williams' guide book he is quite specific about what to do in this situation: "Because this is a trad climbing area, custom dictates that the party that plans to lead has the right to go first. This means that no party that is climbing one route in order to top rope an adjoining route should try to claim that route and stop another party from leading it" nuff said
Wow... wow.
I would have pulled their rope... then beat them severely about the face and neck with a #9 hex all with a spew of profanity all the years of living in NJ has trained me for. You Canadians are too easy going...
Everybody keeps saying, first come first serve...
That is NOT the case. Top Ropers yield to lead climbers, then when they get their chance, two burns, then either move the line or move along.
This is why I don't go south of the Arch...
and why I hate the turning of the leaves...
and why I love the Daks...
and why ice climbing rules, since gymbies typically lack the sack to climb ice.
I too am moving to Alaska.
|
|
|
|
|
jgloporto
Oct 4, 2007, 2:34 PM
Post #96 of 202
(6429 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2006
Posts: 5522
|
P.S. This thread should be moved to 'General.'
|
|
|
|
|
funnelator
Oct 4, 2007, 2:36 PM
Post #97 of 202
(6428 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 83
|
First come first served is the case. It's Preserve policy. Their land. Their rules. Beyond that we should all share and be as courteous and as respectful as possible. Leaders do not have the right of way.
(This post was edited by funnelator on Oct 4, 2007, 2:42 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jgloporto
Oct 4, 2007, 2:40 PM
Post #98 of 202
(6421 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2006
Posts: 5522
|
funnelator wrote: First come firt served is the case. It's Preserve policy. Their land. Their rules. Beyond that we should all share and be as courteous and as respectful as possible. Leaders do not have the right of way.
Alaska, here I come.
FA's galore.
|
|
|
|
|
funnelator
Oct 4, 2007, 2:50 PM
Post #99 of 202
(6409 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 83
|
Joe, Alaska is a long haul from New Jersey. Just go down to Millbrook. None of these issues come up there. The walk is quite beautiful, especially now where in some places the trail through the lowbush blueberry on top of the ridge is covered with a carpet of fallen deep red tupelo leaves.
(This post was edited by funnelator on Oct 4, 2007, 3:00 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jgloporto
Oct 4, 2007, 2:59 PM
Post #100 of 202
(6390 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2006
Posts: 5522
|
funnelator wrote: Joe, Alaska is a long haul from New Jersey. Just go down to Millbrook. None of these issues come up there. The walk is quite beautiful, especially now where in some places the trail through the lowbush blueberry is covered with a carpet of fallen deep red tupelo leaves.
You're telling me? I've been preaching about Millbrook for weeks!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
