The OP is misinformed in many ways, but OldEric is just muddying the waters further, rather than clarifying, when he talks about the ethic that long predated the clean climbing revolution.
The OP is more-or-less right about one thing, that the point of a trad route is to get up it using (as much as you can) only what the rock allows for protection.
The ethical issues around rats nests of slings versus bolts versus walkoffs are certainly all interesting issues, too, but I just wanted to clarify the above point about the ethic of trad climbing.
You seem quite concerned about anchors used for descending - not quite sure why
i am not sure how often I need to repeat this but...
because bolts are permanent, and trad climbing is 'traditionally' LNT, anchors bolted on rappel with a powerdrill contradict the definition of trad climbing.
there are many aspects of trad climbing, i am focusing on bolted anchors because they represent the height of hypocracy: LNT on the climb, but bolt the end with a drill.
In reply to:
are you "taad climbing" when you thread links on webbing abound a tree? Is it the mere existence of any gear that bothers you or more specifically just gear that required that rock be drilled?
I would propose that webbing is a gray area because the webbing is going to degrade in a short time, unlike bolts that take decades and the holes that are forever. Walking off used to be the way people exited the route in a traditional style.
(This post was edited by superchuffer on May 19, 2011, 5:45 PM)
i am not sure how often I need to repeat this but...
because bolts are permanent, and trad climbing is 'traditionally' LNT, anchors bolted on rappel with a powerdrill contradict the definition of trad climbing.
You keep stating this, but have provided no evidence. LNT never originated in "traditional" climbing. There is nothing LNT about soft iron pitons pounded in place, or pin scars that permanently change cracks. Bolt holes are arguably more LNT than that.
The OP is misinformed in many ways, but OldEric is just muddying the waters further, rather than clarifying, when he talks about the ethic that long predated the clean climbing revolution.
GO
The waters were muddied long before my time. If pointing out what has happened historically gets your shorts in a knot - well just remember what they say about people who don't know history. The tendency to try and neatly compartmentalize things and relate them to only what they have experienced in their relatively short experiences is human nature and I guess encouraged by the shoot from the hip mentality of the Internet.
You keep stating this, but have provided no evidence. LNT never originated in "traditional" climbing. There is nothing LNT about soft iron pitons pounded in place, or pin scars that permanently change cracks. Bolt holes are arguably more LNT than that.
Ethics While it may be more dangerous than sport climbing, traditional climbing leaves little or no trace of climbing which preserves the natural environment of the cliff face (though many significant first ascents in the U.S. done with a combination of permanent anchors or bolts and crack fitting hardware were termed "traditional" when the term was first coined - see climbing styles). Sport climbing, on the other hand, requires bolts to be permanently drilled into the rock face providing the exclusive or primary means of protection. The difference between sport and traditional or "trad" styles has caused some periodic contention in the rock climbing community as the respective camps debate the relative merits of the differing styles.
Drilled and hammered equipment such as bolts, pitons, copperheads and others scar rock permanently. Various protection devices became widely available around 1970, which were far less likely to damage rock and much faster and easier to install, when used sensibly. Such "clean" gear, as of contemporary times, now include spring-loaded camming devices, nuts and chocks, and slings, for hitching natural features.
Contemporary alternatives to pitons, formerly called "clean climbing gear," have made most routes safer and easier to protect, and have greatly contributed to a remarkable increase in the standards of difficulty notable since about 1970. Pitons are now regarded as highly specialized equipment, needed by a small minority of climbers interested in routes of peculiar difficulty.
Even clean gear can damage rock, if the rock is very soft or if the hardware is impacted with substantial force. A falling climber's energy can drive a camming device's lobes outward with great force. This can carve grooves into the rock's surface, or, if the cam is in a crack behind a flake, the expansion can loosen the flake and eventually (or suddenly) split it off. Wedges (nuts) can also be forced into a crack much harder than the leader intended, and cracks have been damaged as cleaners try to chisel or pull stuck nuts out of their constrictions. In very soft rock, nuts and cams both can blow right through the rock and out of their placements, even with forces as small as those generated by tugging to "set" the piece. Although hooks are often categorized as clean, they easily damage soft rock and can even damage granite.
Drilled and hammered equipment such as bolts, pitons, copperheads and others scar rock permanently. Various protection devices became widely available around 1970, which were far less likely to damage rock and much faster and easier to install, when used sensibly. Such "clean" gear, as of contemporary times, now include spring-loaded camming devices, nuts and chocks, and slings, for hitching natural features.
Contemporary alternatives to pitons, formerly called "clean climbing gear," have made most routes safer and easier to protect, and have greatly contributed to a remarkable increase in the standards of difficulty notable since about 1970. Pitons are now regarded as highly specialized equipment, needed by a small minority of climbers interested in routes of peculiar difficulty.
Even clean gear can damage rock, if the rock is very soft or if the hardware is impacted with substantial force. A falling climber's energy can drive a camming device's lobes outward with great force. This can carve grooves into the rock's surface, or, if the cam is in a crack behind a flake, the expansion can loosen the flake and eventually (or suddenly) split it off. Wedges (nuts) can also be forced into a crack much harder than the leader intended, and cracks have been damaged as cleaners try to chisel or pull stuck nuts out of their constrictions. In very soft rock, nuts and cams both can blow right through the rock and out of their placements, even with forces as small as those generated by tugging to "set" the piece. Although hooks are often categorized as clean, they easily damage soft rock and can even damage granite.
As in "not traditional". No one is arguing that LNT isn't a good ethic to strive for in this modern age, just don't argue it from a "traditional" standpoint. It is a perfectly valid argument in and of itself.
You keep stating this, but have provided no evidence. LNT never originated in "traditional" climbing. There is nothing LNT about soft iron pitons pounded in place, or pin scars that permanently change cracks. Bolt holes are arguably more LNT than that.
Ethics While it may be more dangerous than sport climbing, traditional climbing leaves little or no trace of climbing which preserves the natural environment of the cliff face (though many significant first ascents in the U.S. done with a combination of permanent anchors or bolts and crack fitting hardware were termed "traditional" when the term was first coined - see climbing styles). Sport climbing, on the other hand, requires bolts to be permanently drilled into the rock face providing the exclusive or primary means of protection. The difference between sport and traditional or "trad" styles has caused some periodic contention in the rock climbing community as the respective camps debate the relative merits of the differing styles.
As in "not traditional". No one is arguing that LNT isn't a good ethic to strive for in this modern age, just don't argue it from a "traditional" standpoint. It is a perfectly valid argument in and of itself.
so, when did it become ok to bolt anchors and when? can you provide some evidence that it is traditional?
I wouldn't consider John Long and Yvon Chouinard 'late comers', but maybe you are comparing their 'clean climbing' movement they started in responsed to the earlier 'trad' scene when pitons in cracks were ok?
You have understood the historical perspective I was trying to express. LNT got started in the 1970's. This is relatively recently given the sweep of history involving climbing in the US. Long and Chouinard, as much as we stand on their shoulders, are more or less modern represntatives in that history as is LNT.
Threading chains may reduce your personal sense of adventure, but you yourself pointed out that there is a tradition that predates what you are calling tradition.
In another thread (overheard at the crag) there was a comment regarding adventure climbing... a term Long and Leuben are credited with making popular. Possibly there is a distictionbetween adventure and trad that could help you express your point of view more clearly. Just thinking out loud... well online anyway.
The OP is misinformed in many ways, but OldEric is just muddying the waters further, rather than clarifying, when he talks about the ethic that long predated the clean climbing revolution.
GO
The waters were muddied long before my time. If pointing out what has happened historically gets your shorts in a knot - well just remember what they say about people who don't know history.
No, I have no problem with you pointing out history. I'm well aware of the history. My problem is with you equating everything that came before the advent of sport climbing as "trad". That's silly. Trad is as specific as sport, and describes a fairly narrow range of routes and ethics within the context of the history of the last 100 years of rock climbing. Of course I'm also aware that what is meant by the term "trad" is still evolving. That's why this discussion keeps popping up. Your insistence that the term is essentially meaningless doesn't really add much to the discussion, though.
In reply to:
The tendency to try and neatly compartmentalize things and relate them to only what they have experienced in their relatively short experiences is human nature and I guess encouraged by the shoot from the hip mentality of the Internet.
I dunno if that's directed at me? If so, I think you're way off base. I'm quite aware that the term, even when appropriately applied (which it's often not) has a lot of gray area, subtlety, and breadth of meaning inherent in it.
bolts drilled on lead are also a slippery slope to rap bolting. if you are hand drilling from a stance, that is not 'leave no trace', but it is ground-up. however, off of hooks or gear... what is the difference between that and putting it in on rappel with a bosch?
In reply to:
so Ed, explain the 'huge' difference to me. On lead you are hanging on gear and drilling. On rappel, you are anchored at the top of the climb and drilling.
In both instances, you are hanging on gear, just at a different distance. Not a 'huge' difference except in some twisted 'ethics' logic.
... is very silly and shows no understanding of one aspect of trad climbing.
in trad, however, putting in the gear is the essence of the trad experience.
As we are now discussing simultaneously in three threads, that simply is untrue. It cannot possibly be true because onsight free soloing has always been held up as the gold standard traditional ascent.
You seem quite concerned about anchors used for descending - not quite sure why
i am not sure how often I need to repeat this but...
because bolts are permanent, and trad climbing is 'traditionally' LNT . . .
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it; it will still be wrong. The question is, how many people will have to tell you it's wrong before you stop repeating it.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on May 19, 2011, 8:08 PM)
You keep stating this, but have provided no evidence. LNT never originated in "traditional" climbing. There is nothing LNT about soft iron pitons pounded in place, or pin scars that permanently change cracks. Bolt holes are arguably more LNT than that.
Ethics While it may be more dangerous than sport climbing, traditional climbing leaves little or no trace of climbing which preserves the natural environment of the cliff face (though many significant first ascents in the U.S. done with a combination of permanent anchors or bolts and crack fitting hardware were termed "traditional" when the term was first coined - see climbing styles). Sport climbing, on the other hand, requires bolts to be permanently drilled into the rock face providing the exclusive or primary means of protection. The difference between sport and traditional or "trad" styles has caused some periodic contention in the rock climbing community as the respective camps debate the relative merits of the differing styles.
See above
Drilling bolts on lead from stances is still termed "traditional" today. The author of that Wikipedia passage is wrong to imply otherwise.
Given you posted on the other thread, I'm having a bit of a hard time concluding anything about this one other than you have reading comprehension issues.
Given you posted on the other thread, I'm having a bit of a hard time concluding anything about this one other than you have reading comprehension issues.
19 /
59%
