|
kazu
Oct 15, 2012, 7:01 AM
Post #1 of 83
(14411 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2009
Posts: 4
|
This area has seen a significant development these days. Yesterday, I climbed a new line on the upper falls that traverses the lip above the roof on the main face. It’s a great exposed line probably within 11+-12- range. But unfortunately this route was extremely manufactured. I really appreciate the developers of the area but I’m not sure if this kind of chipping is appropriate here. This place is not a man-made quarry…
|
|
|
|
|
kennoyce
Oct 15, 2012, 2:10 PM
Post #2 of 83
(14343 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2001
Posts: 1338
|
kazu wrote: This area has seen a significant development these days. Yesterday, I climbed a new line on the upper falls that traverses the lip above the roof on the main face. It’s a great exposed line probably within 11+-12- range. But unfortunately this route was extremely manufactured. I really appreciate the developers of the area but I’m not sure if this kind of chipping is appropriate here. This place is not a man-made quarry…
No, it's not acceptable there. The route that you are talking about is now being affectionately called "Castration" by many of us locals. A little background on it, it was originally bolted by Louie Anderson several years ago and was thought to be about 5.14b. It was an open project, but nobody ever redpointed it, so a couple of weeks ago, Louie deided that he would rather have it be an easier route so that it would actually get climbed. He went back up and both chipped it and glued some additional holds onto it. I haven't climbed it yet, but Louie rated it 5.12a.
As someone who is doing some of that new development up at frustration creek, I am sadened that this happened, but at least all of the other developers that I know up there are also saddened by this act. While I do appreciate all of the work that Louie has done for the climbing community, I think that he has spent too much time at the quarry and really needs to think about what he is doing when he develops other areas.
Edited to add: I have no knowledge that the route would have gone at 5.14b. Louie says that it wouldn't have gone at all and was too blank, but I guess now we'll never know.
(This post was edited by kennoyce on Oct 22, 2012, 2:52 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Oct 15, 2012, 2:32 PM
Post #3 of 83
(14335 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
kennoyce wrote: kazu wrote: This area has seen a significant development these days. Yesterday, I climbed a new line on the upper falls that traverses the lip above the roof on the main face. It’s a great exposed line probably within 11+-12- range. But unfortunately this route was extremely manufactured. I really appreciate the developers of the area but I’m not sure if this kind of chipping is appropriate here. This place is not a man-made quarry… No, it's not acceptable there.
|
|
|
|
|
kennoyce
Oct 15, 2012, 3:23 PM
Post #4 of 83
(14319 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2001
Posts: 1338
|
marc801 wrote: kennoyce wrote: kazu wrote: This area has seen a significant development these days. Yesterday, I climbed a new line on the upper falls that traverses the lip above the roof on the main face. It’s a great exposed line probably within 11+-12- range. But unfortunately this route was extremely manufactured. I really appreciate the developers of the area but I’m not sure if this kind of chipping is appropriate here. This place is not a man-made quarry… No, it's not acceptable there. Or any place else. Chipping is never, ever acceptable or appropriate - anywhere. If anyone is doing that kind of manufacturing, they need to go back inside.
It would probably help if you knew a little bit more about the local climbing areas here. The chipper is the main developer of a quarry that has a couple of hundred routes at it. Being a quarry, Technically all of the holds are man made, but a couple of the developers (mostely Gary Henning and Louie Anderson) have also done quite a bit of manufacturing further than what the quarying did.
Generally I agree with you that Chipping is never acceptable or appropriate, but in the case of the quarry, chipping has allowed the existance of routes that would never have been climbed at any grade on rock that has already been altered from it's natural state by human hands. In my mind, this is kind of a grey area, but on natural rock it's very black and white. The problem comes when these chippers decide that all rock should be treated like a quarry.
For an Idea of what I'm talking about check out The Fun Factory. All of the routes there are completely manufactured, pretty much none of them would have ever been climbed at any grade due to poor rock quality and a completely blank slightly overhanging face. Now the area offers around a dozen fun moderate routes on rock that was already "chipped" and defaced by man.
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Oct 15, 2012, 4:39 PM
Post #5 of 83
(14266 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
kennoyce wrote: marc801 wrote: kennoyce wrote: kazu wrote: I really appreciate the developers of the area but I’m not sure if this kind of chipping is appropriate here. This place is not a man-made quarry… No, it's not acceptable there. Or any place else. Chipping is never, ever acceptable or appropriate - anywhere. If anyone is doing that kind of manufacturing, they need to go back inside. It would probably help if you knew a little bit more about the local climbing areas here. The chipper is the main developer of a quarry that has a couple of hundred routes at it. Being a quarry, Technically all of the holds are man made, but a couple of the developers (mostely Gary Henning and Louie Anderson) have also done quite a bit of manufacturing further than what the quarying did. Generally I agree with you that Chipping is never acceptable or appropriate, but in the case of the quarry, chipping has allowed the existance of routes that would never have been climbed at any grade on rock that has already been altered from it's natural state by human hands. In my mind, this is kind of a grey area, but on natural rock it's very black and white.
kennoyce wrote: The problem comes when these chippers decide that all rock should be treated like a quarry.
|
|
|
|
|
gratefuljoe
Oct 15, 2012, 5:16 PM
Post #6 of 83
(14233 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2005
Posts: 27
|
Louie Anderson has been chipping for years not just at Riverside Rock Quarry, look at apple valley,Williamson Rock, Keller peak,devils punchbowl and his new work at mount baldy and possible jtree. this in not new news just a new climbed that has been robed for all future and stronger climbers to get the FA. the sad thing is he has a cult like following with the younger climbers so they think this is acceptable to chip or glue lines that are over there climbing grade. he has given us a lot of good line over the years but chipping natural rock should be punishable by a good old fashion ass kicking just a thought.
|
|
|
|
|
kennoyce
Oct 15, 2012, 5:36 PM
Post #7 of 83
(14210 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2001
Posts: 1338
|
gratefuljoe wrote: Louie Anderson has been chipping for years not just at Riverside Rock Quarry, look at apple valley,Williamson Rock, Keller peak,devils punchbowl and his new work at mount baldy and possible jtree. this in not new news just a new climbed that has been robed for all future and stronger climbers to get the FA. the sad thing is he has a cult like following with the younger climbers so they think this is acceptable to chip or glue lines that are over there climbing grade. he has given us a lot of good line over the years but chipping natural rock should be punishable by a good old fashion ass kicking just a thought.
I couldn't agree with you more.
|
|
|
|
|
USnavy
Oct 15, 2012, 9:57 PM
Post #8 of 83
(14089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2007
Posts: 2667
|
marc801 wrote: kennoyce wrote: kazu wrote: This area has seen a significant development these days. Yesterday, I climbed a new line on the upper falls that traverses the lip above the roof on the main face. It’s a great exposed line probably within 11+-12- range. But unfortunately this route was extremely manufactured. I really appreciate the developers of the area but I’m not sure if this kind of chipping is appropriate here. This place is not a man-made quarry… No, it's not acceptable there. Or any place else. Chipping is never, ever acceptable or appropriate - anywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Oct 15, 2012, 10:32 PM
Post #9 of 83
(14070 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
USnavy wrote: I am not so sure about that. Aid climbing is for all practical purposes chipping. Pounding pins into the rock and reinforcing hook placements would count as chipping IMO. Granted, the motivation is different, but the effect is still the same - damaged rock. I have encountered tons of manufactured hook placements on El Cap and there are pin scars on every route on El Cap. But yes, chipping holds on a free climb is silly.
|
|
|
|
|
kazu
Oct 16, 2012, 12:02 AM
Post #10 of 83
(14035 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2009
Posts: 4
|
Kennoyce- thanks for the info about the route.
The issue I wanted to raise here was not actually “chipping”, but an extreme manufacturing of a route. If the chipping was done in a small scale just to fill up a blank section, it might have been understandable if not acceptable. At least I wouldn’t have raised an issue. What I was talking about is something like creation of an entire route from nothing like putting holds in a climbing gym. It was complete transformation of the natural wall and I had a very odd feeling when I was on the route, even though the climb was fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
papapetro
Oct 16, 2012, 5:06 AM
Post #12 of 83
(13930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 14, 2012
Posts: 14
|
A lot of creativity goes into manufacturing routes. Michelangelo chizzed out a 20 foot piece of marble and I don't believe it has ever seen an accent ( the crux is leaving the pinch). A good climb is just that. I cannot judge an artist on his medium.
|
|
|
|
|
USnavy
Oct 16, 2012, 10:07 AM
Post #13 of 83
(13897 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2007
Posts: 2667
|
Not that I necessarily agree with chipping, but I have never really understood why it can piss some people off so much. What is the deal with it? Is it an issue of modifying the rock itself? Because if so, bolting modifies the rock, as does cleaning the route and an number of other things. If it is an issue of climbing on manufactured holds, how is that much different from the gym? Is it an aesthetics thing? Does chipped routes look bad? If so, one could argue that bolts and chalked up holds look a lot worse. Is climbing on manufactured holds in a gym okay because it is indoors? How is that relevant? Is it an ego thing? Do climbers think that if you are not "good enough" to climb the route at its current grade, you shouldent climb it at all? If so, couldent one argue that if you are not good enough to climb a route on trad you shouldent climb it at all (i.e. sport routes shouldent exist)?
(This post was edited by USnavy on Oct 16, 2012, 10:10 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
socalclimber
Oct 16, 2012, 10:59 AM
Post #14 of 83
(13888 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 2437
|
kazu wrote: This area has seen a significant development these days. Yesterday, I climbed a new line on the upper falls that traverses the lip above the roof on the main face. It’s a great exposed line probably within 11+-12- range. But unfortunately this route was extremely manufactured. I really appreciate the developers of the area but I’m not sure if this kind of chipping is appropriate here. This place is not a man-made quarry…
"Gluie" Anderson has a very long and very sordid history in the climbing community regarding exactly the behavior you speak of. No, it's not acceptable.
Big wall climbing is a whole other venture.
(This post was edited by socalclimber on Oct 16, 2012, 11:06 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
socalbolter
Oct 21, 2012, 6:04 PM
Post #15 of 83
(13703 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 27, 2002
Posts: 796
|
Just got back from climbing in Yosemite and saw an email from a friend pointing me to this thread. I'm not really active on this site anymore and may have missed it otherwise.
What I did to establish this line (Groove Dynamics - 12a) was certainly heavy-handed, and I knew when it was done that some would respond this way. The truth is that this was always the intention for this particular route. The Upper Tier at Frustration is full of chipped holds and glue (from the hands of multiple people). The crag has had a history of this type of activity from it's first bolts. Does that make it right? I guess that's a question you have to answer individually for yourself, but it is certainly consistent with other development in the area.
As for the post upthread about me chipping at other areas: of the areas listed in that post I have only chipped here and at the Quarry. Some areas have a pre-existing tolerance of this type of action and others do not. I respect that line. The extreme chipping, etc. at Baldy is not my work - in fact I have placed no bolts there at all.
When we first began bolting at Frustration in the early 90's there was no one climbing there at all. A massive amount of work has been done to turn the area into a climbing resource and I'm happy to see it getting the attention it deserves. That said, I was very surprised when I returned this year after having not been there for some time and saw perma-draws on virtually every bolt on the Upper Tier. Every possible link-up and variation seems to have been bolted and I cannot think of a crag anywhere in the world that I have seen more grid-bolted. Seeing this transformation allowed the justifictaion (in my mind) for what I did on this new route. For those climbing on the Upper Tier, there is a huge jump in difficulty from climbing Deulsions to just about any of the harder lines. My goal for this route was to create another, slightly harder transitional warm-up for those wanting to project the harder lines. I think this new line fills that void nicely.
- Louie
|
|
|
|
|
newrivermike
Oct 22, 2012, 2:20 PM
Post #16 of 83
(13580 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 24, 2010
Posts: 36
|
Seems like nature had provided a 5.14b and the 'harder lines' would have provided nice warm-ups for it. I can't believe this shit is still happening in 2012, a time when a 5.14b gets climbed everyday. Louie, your justifications are pathetic. Stop chipping.
|
|
|
|
|
socalbolter
Oct 22, 2012, 2:37 PM
Post #17 of 83
(13571 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 27, 2002
Posts: 796
|
I did not clarify something in my original post, so I will do that here:
As I said, this line was bolted by me with this in mind. Not sure who decided that it would have gone at 14b naturally. Prior to my placing the bolts it was looked at by a number of 13+ and 14 climbers and deemed too blank to climb.
To now say that it was possible at 14b is simply not true.
|
|
|
|
|
kennoyce
Oct 22, 2012, 2:47 PM
Post #18 of 83
(13566 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2001
Posts: 1338
|
socalbolter wrote: I did not clarify something in my original post, so I will do that here: As I said, this line was bolted by me with this in mind. Not sure who decided that it would have gone at 14b naturally. Prior to my placing the bolts it was looked at by a number of 13+ and 14 climbers and deemed too blank to climb. To now say that it was possible at 14b is simply not true.
As the person who said it would have gone at 14b let me just clarify that I personally have no idea if it would have gone at 14b or at all. I was just told by someone (I honestly don't even remember who told me) that some people thought it would go at around .14b.
Again, I appreciate all of the work that Louie has done over the years, I understand that chipping has happened at Frustration Creek in the past, but I think it would be nice if we could just leave natural rock natural regardless of what has been done in an area previously.
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Oct 22, 2012, 3:26 PM
Post #19 of 83
(13540 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
socalbolter wrote: As I said, this line was bolted by me with this in mind. Not sure who decided that it would have gone at 14b naturally. Prior to my placing the bolts it was looked at by a number of 13+ and 14 climbers and deemed too blank to climb. To now say that it was possible at 14b is simply not true.
|
|
|
|
|
ianmeister89
Oct 22, 2012, 6:20 PM
Post #20 of 83
(13482 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2009
Posts: 140
|
marc801 wrote: "it can never be free climbed otherwise" has been proven to be blatantly incorrect logic numerous times in numerous areas.
True, But in the case of this particular route, This portion of the wall was literally devoid of holds. If you don't like it, don't climb it.
|
|
|
|
|
hasbeen
Oct 22, 2012, 6:51 PM
Post #21 of 83
(13468 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 17, 2003
Posts: 543
|
And had that kind of attitude persisted before 5.13 (or 5.12, or 5.11) was established, there wouldn't be those harder routes because they would have been chipped to bring them down to a 5.12 level. The point is to chip a route into existence because "it can never be free climbed otherwise" has been proven to be blatantly incorrect logic numerous times in numerous areas.
Most of these areas (not all) the question is not about making the route climbable at a given grade but making it climbable at all. The Quarry, Frustration, and many of the SoCal areas were simply unclimbable at any grade, not because of lack of holds but because the rock wasn't solid enough to begin with. There are egregious examples of chipping that have occurred but, mostly, these guys have been making crags out of junk that would have never been climbed at all--not due to lack of ability and/or vision but because of gravity. The rock was simply junk. Anyone who's had the pleasure of establishing routes on suspect rocks knows what I mean and most people, faced with this challenge, simple go away. If it wasn't for Louie and Jack (who gets similar backlash) there would be almost nothing to climb in Southern California. If you don't like the areas they've spent countless hours (and dollars) working to develop, climb somewhere else.
|
|
|
|
|
kennoyce
Oct 22, 2012, 7:48 PM
Post #22 of 83
(13450 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2001
Posts: 1338
|
hasbeen wrote: And had that kind of attitude persisted before 5.13 (or 5.12, or 5.11) was established, there wouldn't be those harder routes because they would have been chipped to bring them down to a 5.12 level. The point is to chip a route into existence because "it can never be free climbed otherwise" has been proven to be blatantly incorrect logic numerous times in numerous areas. Most of these areas (not all) the question is not about making the route climbable at a given grade but making it climbable at all. The Quarry, Frustration, and many of the SoCal areas were simply unclimbable at any grade, not because of lack of holds but because the rock wasn't solid enough to begin with. There are egregious examples of chipping that have occurred but, mostly, these guys have been making crags out of junk that would have never been climbed at all--not due to lack of ability and/or vision but because of gravity. The rock was simply junk. Anyone who's had the pleasure of establishing routes on suspect rocks knows what I mean and most people, faced with this challenge, simple go away. If it wasn't for Louie and Jack (who gets similar backlash) there would be almost nothing to climb in Southern California. If you don't like the areas they've spent countless hours (and dollars) working to develop, climb somewhere else.
This isn't what we are talking about at all. When we are talking about glueing holds on to the wall we're not talking about reinforcing existing holds, we're talking about literally picking a rock up off the ground that was never a part of the route, and gluing it onto the blank face. When we're talking about chipping, we're not talking about cleaning loose rock off the face, we're talking about drilling new holds into the rock that were never there to begin with.
As I have said several times in this thread, I appreciate the work that Louie has done, but that shouldn't give him the right to manufacture routes on a natural cliff face.
Just an FYI, this past weekend I trundled 100's of pounds of loose rock off a route that I'm putting up at Frustration Creek, so I certainly understand the many hours that go into developing routes on junk rock.
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Oct 22, 2012, 8:00 PM
Post #23 of 83
(13437 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
hasbeen wrote: And had that kind of attitude persisted before 5.13 (or 5.12, or 5.11) was established, there wouldn't be those harder routes because they would have been chipped to bring them down to a 5.12 level. The point is to chip a route into existence because "it can never be free climbed otherwise" has been proven to be blatantly incorrect logic numerous times in numerous areas. Most of these areas (not all) the question is not about making the route climbable at a given grade but making it climbable at all. The Quarry, Frustration, and many of the SoCal areas were simply unclimbable at any grade, not because of lack of holds but because the rock wasn't solid enough to begin with. There are egregious examples of chipping that have occurred but, mostly, these guys have been making crags out of junk that would have never been climbed at all--not due to lack of ability and/or vision but because of gravity. The rock was simply junk. Anyone who's had the pleasure of establishing routes on suspect rocks knows what I mean and most people, faced with this challenge, simple go away. If it wasn't for Louie and Jack (who gets similar backlash) there would be almost nothing to climb in Southern California. If you don't like the areas they've spent countless hours (and dollars) working to develop, climb somewhere else.
Reread my earlier comments up thread. I'm not talking about these specific areas since I've never even seen them let alone climb there - as such I'm not qualified to comment.
However, the bigger concern is that new and/or clueless climbers aren't necessarily making that distinction and arriving at the idea that maybe chipping/manufacturing is basically OK. Look at the post from USNavy which demonstrates a total lack of understanding of our impact on rock - not understanding that it is a continuum and that some impacts (chalk) are relatively fleeting while others (chipping) permanently impact all future generations of climbers.
|
|
|
|
|
kazu
Oct 22, 2012, 9:27 PM
Post #24 of 83
(13403 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2009
Posts: 4
|
Hi Louie,
First of all, I greatly appreciate what you’ve done for our climbing community as hundreds of local climbers do. Thank you.
What we are asking about chipping may not be a yes-or-no type of question. Cleaning rocks, installing bolts/permas, chalking up holds, all climbing activities more or less affect the nature of rock, hence the nature of climb. The question is how much we should try to minimize the human impact to the rocks. I don’t think there is a universal answer for that, but decision has to be made upon the nature and history of the area. This said, in my personal opinion, what you did to this particular route in this particular area was a bit too much.
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Oct 22, 2012, 10:02 PM
Post #25 of 83
(13379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
Chipping is weak and lame. If you CAN'T climb it you don't NEED to climb it. If nobody can climb it, then it doesn't need to be climbed. Simple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
