|
|
|
|
rockync
Jan 4, 2004, 5:11 PM
Post #1 of 246
(13211 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 4, 2004
Posts: 17
|
MOD NOTE: It has been requested that clarification be made between Rebolting and Retrobolting. In modern use, rebolting means replacing like for like, while retrobolting means either adding fixed protection or in some other way changing the protection scheme of a route. These terms are not necessarily universally used in this discussion so you may have to assume that the implied use of either is meant as retrobolting in this thread unless otherwise indicated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After reading the x-rated thread I wanted to weigh in on an aspect of rock climbing is insipid. What I refer to is the quasi-ownership granted and generally demanded by those who did the FFA. What megalomaniacal ego this sport grants to those who put up the route. I respect those that do the adventure climbs that require many pitches and honor their efforts. For the 95% of the rest of the climbs that are one or so pitches, I don’t know why they need to remain R-X just because the FFA did it that way. Jees Louise, nobody forces you to clip a retro-bolt.
Lets all focus a moment on what really matters: The quality of the route is all that matters because the FFA team will someday be dead and dust. So if you put up an R-X rated climb and survived the Darwinian Theory test then great, congratulations. Why is there rare a soul that understands that his ego worship is less important than the route? Like years ago, I cannot recall the chaps name but he retro-bolted one of his Eldo X rated routes to the benefit of the public. Perhaps if sane people would retro-bolt the R-X routes with uniquely colored hangers then the following parties that attempted could by-pass the retro-protection if they choose.
There are many, shamefully many routes that stand only as a testament to the amazing efforts of bold FFA, and stand there is all they do because other climbers rare repeat them. As an example, what good is a route that is R-X 5.9 when the FFA team is capable of soloing it. I say if nobody repeats the route than it is a failure worthy of disdain rather than glory.
OK, pile on, but couch your replies with the knownedge that I am not talking about chipping or making man made improvements to lower the grade, I am only speaking about shorter routes that could easily be retro-equiped. Truth is, once the FFA team is dead and dust they wont care what happens to the route. The next generation might well make decisions about how routes should be protected and none of us well even care.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 4, 2004, 5:29 PM
Post #2 of 246
(13211 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
rockync,
Threads like your come along periodically and are usually incorrect in their premise and reasoning. First of all it is not "ego" that is being respected--it is tradition. The "ownership" to a route by a first ascensionist is akin to an informal sort of copyright.
There are reasons why it is not considered kosher to alter the work of another person, be it software, book, painting or route. Of course, if the creator of the work allows modification to his creation--that is another thing entirely.
Lastly, with the zillions of routes out there to choose from, why in the world do you think it necessary to drag a scary and/or dangerous climb down to your level. Just walk right on by, to the next route. Even if you did retrobolt some horror show like "Jules Verne" and then climbed the thing--you really didn't do "Jules Verne" you only would have done Jules Verne Lite. So what would the point be?
I have done thousands of routes over the last 25 years, have had a very full climbing career, and have NEVER felt the need to add protection to some existing "x" rated route in order to make my climbing career somehow more complete.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 4, 2004, 5:36 PM
Post #3 of 246
(13211 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: First of all it is not "ego" that is being respected--it is tradition.
I used to believe this too. But the author of a few death routes in in this neck of the woods has helped me to better understand. He has made it patently clear he intends to retrobolt them no matter what the locals say.
It seems, as it has always seemed, that the ethics are for us commoners. The Eye-Leet have always done exactly as they pleased.
Ergo (ego?) Chop chop.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 4, 2004, 5:43 PM
Post #4 of 246
(13211 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: First of all it is not "ego" that is being respected--it is tradition. I used to believe this too. But the author of a few death routes in in this neck of the woods has helped me to better understand. He has made it patently clear he intends to retrobolt them no matter what the locals say. It seems, as it has always seemed, that the ethics are for us commoners. The Eye-Leet have always done exactly as they pleased. Ergo (ego?) Chop chop. DMT
I'll stick by my copyright analogy above. If these death routes were FA'd by the fellow (AN?) intending to do the retro-bolting, he has that right in my opinion. However, I would hope that he would not totally ignore local consensus regarding any added bolts.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jan 4, 2004, 6:15 PM
Post #5 of 246
(13211 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
I'm with Curt on this one. It's simply a long-standing tradition to honor the style of the FA as long as it, in turn, honors local ethics. Sometimes change is good. But no one person gets to decide when. That would be anarchy :shock: .
|
|
|
|
|
esoteric1
Jan 4, 2004, 6:29 PM
Post #6 of 246
(13211 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2002
Posts: 705
|
Im with the copyrighting idea.
in an area like eldo, you have choices over choices...
but, in an area where i live in where the choices are somewhat minamalized...I think the death route idea should be looked at in a different way, there is a crag near where i live, and it contains good rock. its a small crag and I think that when you have a limited amount of vertical rock that is sound, you should take into consideration that if you put up a death route that rarely gets repeated you are keeping people off rock that would be climbed alot more.
although, routes like jules verne need to exist, and can exist, I dont think it woulda stayed a death route if it wasnt in an area like eldo, theres plenty of rock to go around there, all of boulder and the surrounding area has more rock than you can shake a stick at.
but in a small area, i think that people should take a look at the quantity of people climbing in the area and what would bennifit the comunity the best,
just my opinion, flame on
mark
|
|
|
|
|
pancaketom
Jan 4, 2004, 6:30 PM
Post #7 of 246
(13211 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 9, 2002
Posts: 391
|
BUT, if the bolts were safe at the time of the first ascent, then it makes sense to keep that the same and replace some of the rusty 1/8 inch button head leeper horror shows. There are a lot of death routes out there that weren't when they were first put up. Same with some of the 40 or more year old pins on some crag. They might have held a whipper for the first decade or so, but they are time bombs now.
It does seem a bit skewed that some 5.14 climber could essentially free solo all of the 5.12 and below lines at a crag, but put in one bolt on each of them and somehow that would make it so that nobody else could climb them in any other style. It certainly doesn't make sense that I could go out and do the same for all the sub 5.9 lines somewhere and remove all the potential lines for beginning leaders. Of course the more limited the rock in some place, the more of a problem this would be.
Maybe we need open source climbing routes to follow the copyright analogy.
|
|
|
|
|
ambler
Jan 4, 2004, 6:52 PM
Post #8 of 246
(13211 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 1690
|
Curt gave a reasonable and patient response to a query that comes up mighty often on this website, I think more than once per week -- and usually (as this one) headlined by a belligerent subject line declaring the author's dim view, and (again, like this one) couching it in terms of "ego" and "ownership," ignoring the many previous threads where more experienced climbers have mentioned such issues as consensus, tradition, respect or adventure level. That it keeps coming up so forcefully, again and again, seems to reflect the vast tide of gym-raised climbers now venturing outdoors, and unhappy to find routes there not designed like their gym.
But another element I see in the queries and most replies, pro and con, is that folks are generalizing from their own experience and the areas they know best. Conditions, including FA practices, do vary quite a bit from one place to another. It might help make these threads more constructive if folks could be specific. Curt mentioned Jules Verne as an example of a route that shouldn't be retrobolted. Dingus refers to "death routes" in his neck of the woods. Rockync, what particular routes, and where, did you have in mind? It might be that someone who admires Jules Verne could still agree that certain other routes were done badly.
In my own neck of the woods we have Rumney, where most of the routes are heavily bolted -- sometimes overbolted, IMHO. Not far away is another area, less well known, where recent routes have been developed ground-up on a bolts-where-needed approach; leaders should carry at least a small rack, and might have to run it out a bit on non-crux sections of the climb (e.g., 5.7 sections of a 5.9+ route). I can picture a Rumney-trained climber objecting that there aren't enough bolts for him/her to feel safe. But in my own experience, these minimally-bolted mixed routes have been far more rewarding and memorable to lead than most similarly-graded sport routes at Rumney. They're not my routes, and my opinion has nothing to do with the first ascentionists' "ownership" or "ego" -- I just think they have made better routes, with a better level of adventure, and I hope (against the tide) these routes can stay that way.
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Jan 4, 2004, 7:29 PM
Post #9 of 246
(13211 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
Jules Verne is far from being a death route. This route has been hype to death. No pun intented. A fifteen foot runout off good gear does not make for a death route in my book. The first pitch is harder and in my opinion scarier than the fourth pitch.
The best routes are often the ones that get climbed the most.
I agree with Curt on respecting the effort and ability of the FA party.
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Jan 4, 2004, 7:33 PM
Post #10 of 246
(13211 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
I have done some 30-40 foot highball Boulder Problems, that would be Sport Climbs at other crags... So if we use your logic, then just because the FA highballed it, why should the rest ??? Your logic would have us bolt the highballs so those who are "afraid" to can climb it also. (Those who are pro retrobolt would use the word "safely" instead of "also" in the last sentance.)
If you look at it this way, can you see how bolting a climb lowers the commitment level of the climb ???
Raise to the level of the climb, don't lower the level of the climb. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
boltdude
Jan 4, 2004, 7:35 PM
Post #11 of 246
(13211 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 685
|
Since we're talking about one-pitch routes, let's take a longer-term view of things.
Many climbing areas are in beautiful natural areas that are used by hikers, fisherman, bikers, etc.
Many cliffs are becoming popular enough for other users to start having conflicts.
Land managers have noticed bolts, and bolting is an issue they can use to manage climbing.
My question to this whole debate is simple: if we're talking about short routes (like rockync initially said), why bother retrobolting when you can top-rope? Top-roping used to be "sport climbing" before power drills came along.
To hazard a prediction, I'd guess that in another decade or two, climbers will be removing protection bolts on a number of cliffs, just to preserve the right to top-rope them. Don't go out and add bolts to existing climbs.
|
|
|
|
|
mdude
Jan 4, 2004, 7:41 PM
Post #12 of 246
(13211 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2003
Posts: 198
|
Back to bolts.
There are some opinions that are agreeable and some that are lame.
How about top-roping and crack climbs in Indian Creek. Am I supposed to follow Earl Wiggins? Am I suppose to climb Supercrack with hexes and those old funks passive cam things every 10 feet or can I plug in a camalot every 5 feet? Tradition???? Respect???? Honor???? Progress???
Now wonton destruction of the rock is wrong. Someone will show his or her opinion through chopping, hanger taking, or punching your lights out. Punch Line in Yosemite is an example.
Lets set the stage. There are twice as many climbers today than ten years ago. Most are enjoying sport climbing. That means more expectation that routes are safe and bolted.
Some areas are being developed with great style and others are not. Look at Jacks Canyon in AZ. The place is all about bolts every three feet, bolted cracks, glued holds, drilled and chipped holds, comfortized holds. Lots of stuff that is un-cool, yet this place sees thousands of climbers a month. It is a beautiful place and great in any weather. Roped bouldering of top-rope leading?? Believe it or not, Jacks is an international destination.
Europe is almost completely about sport climbing. And look at the via ferratas.
As in for ownership (copyright). No way. Public property. If it is private property, then you don't have say anyway. One person’s idea of how a route should be climbed is absurd. FAs do not own a route or its style. FAs move on, change their minds, die, quit, never do the route again, lack vision, are dumb, ECT. There is a reservation in AZ that requires a certain style of route development. Not ifs ands or Xs.
Tradition impedes progress.
X=DEATH What if a hold breaks, rock falls, rain, earthquake.
What if a few climbs are out of the style of the area. If there is a scary route or a gear route at the sport climbing area, it is not going to be climbed. Most likely the FA will be knocked for being a NigNog. These routes are eliminated from guidebooks and forgotten. So much for the FA ego. There are dozens of climbs just like that at The Pit in Flagstaff, AZ.
FAs should have the freedom to do a route the way they wish but should have no expectation of how it will be done in the future. It is my right to disagree with the FA.
Just one opinion. Food for thought.
|
|
|
|
|
ambler
Jan 4, 2004, 7:58 PM
Post #13 of 246
(13211 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 1690
|
In reply to: The best routes are often the ones that get climbed the most.
I think there's also a sense in which routes that get climbed a lot, get climbed a lot. Whenever anyone posts a note asking for route recommendations at climbing area Z, they get stacks of answers mostly recommending the same handful of routes (which the respondents, too, all have done). "I'm heading to Red Rock, can you recommend a multipitch 5.10?" We all know what the answer will be.
|
|
|
|
|
addiroids
Jan 4, 2004, 8:26 PM
Post #14 of 246
(13211 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 11, 2001
Posts: 1046
|
Geez, when I see arguments like this I feel like people are just taking a massive dump on the roots of our lifestyle (not a sport).
In reply to: How about top-roping and crack climbs in Indian Creek. Am I supposed to follow Earl Wiggins? Am I suppose to climb Supercrack with hexes and those old funks passive cam things every 10 feet or can I plug in a camalot every 5 feet? Tradition???? Respect???? Honor???? Progress???
You can use cams because they are a removable form of protection that do not scar the rock. If you fall and they track out, that scars the rock, but it is not intentional. Hexes can and do track out too.
In reply to: Lets set the stage. There are twice as many climbers today than ten years ago. Most are enjoying spurt climbing. That means more expectation that routes are safe and bolted.
Expectation does not mean necessity. I would also happen a guess that many/most do enjoy traditional climbing too.
In reply to: Some areas are being developed with great style and others are not. Look at Jacks Canyon in AZ. The place is all about bolts every three feet, bolted cracks, glued holds, drilled and chipped holds, comfortized holds. Lots of stuff that is un-cool, yet this place sees thousands of climbers a month. It is a beautiful place and great in any weather. Roped bouldering of top-rope leading?? Believe it or not, Jacks is an international destination.
Just because something is popular with a certain sect of people doesn't mean it should be imposed on the masses. Look at the popularity of woman-beating in certain destinations/areas/countries. Just because it is popular there, should it be forced on everyone everywhere.
In reply to: Tradition impedes progress. X=DEATH What if a hold breaks, rock falls, rain, earthquake.
THEN YOU DIE, YOU MORON!!!!!!!! NOBODY SAID YOU HAD TO CLIMB THAT ROUTE!!! LEAVE IT FOR THOSE WHO ARE CAPABLE. DO NOT BRING THE CLIMB DOWN TO YOUR LEVEL. (Good Lord, how do you get through to these people?!?!)
You say tradition impedes progress. What sort of progress are we talking about??? Is sanitized adventure considered progress?? Are bottled 6-packs of summits to be sold for such a low price???
If all the current climbers are trained on the sanitized one pitch belly-bolted lines, who will conquer the massive unclimbed faces when everyone's gonads have atrophied to the size of raisins from disuse??? Just what sort of progress are we talking about here???
You do not have the right to retro bolt something. Boldness/solidness trumps weakness. The simple fact of this prevents you from adding bolts to an established climb.
There are plenty of bolted lines all over. Leave nature for those of us who actually enjoy the adventure in climbing. Don't sanitize it into being a mere game.
TRADitionally yours,
Cali Dirtbag
|
|
|
|
|
rockync
Jan 4, 2004, 8:38 PM
Post #15 of 246
(13211 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 4, 2004
Posts: 17
|
Tradition is the same as lions pissing to mark their territory. Naming the route equals power to say what the local ethics are. Ethics are about who has the power.
What I am saying is those shorter R-X-Rated routes that can be retro-equipped might well in the future be come viable.
Take out your macro-scope and look at historical change. When one old lion dies others make their mark.
I think the debate is hinged on a disconnect between the quasi-romance with mountaineering and its clear danger and making short technical rock routes into Matterhorns.
If the route is not getting traffic, than it is either bogus or will be changed. While top roping is often and might be a viable solution, don’t expect it to satisfy as a climbing adventure.
Oh and try to discount this thread as routine only proves that the tide will not abate.
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Jan 4, 2004, 9:23 PM
Post #16 of 246
(13211 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
Luckily, the only people that join that tide are clueless newbies that like to talk.
Anybody that actually keeps climbing for a while, usually comes to the point of having an appreciation for tradition and boldness, even if they choose not to walk that path.
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Jan 4, 2004, 9:25 PM
Post #17 of 246
(13211 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
Fortunately, this argument is in the process of being rendered moot, because practically nobody is putting up R/X rated routes anymore. Why? Because they almost invariably tend to be slabs, in which there is little or no current interest, whereas the vast percentage of new route development nowadays occurs on steeper, unprotectable-on-lead rock, and putting up death routes from above/on rappel is frowned on, even by the old school. When was the last time you heard or read about 5.13/14 slab climbing? Certainly the potential is there, there are hectares of unclimbed slabs here in Cali alone (gee I wonder why?).
And as far as retro-bolting death routes are concerned, what's the big deal? Those interested in preserving the deathfall potential can just ignore the new retro-bolts, put their money where their mouth is...and simply free-solo! This way, if, or rather when Daredevil falls, he still gets to die, there's no partner to traumatize, and it's an easier clean-up. And everybody else can enjoy the route too. Sounds like a win-win to me!
|
|
|
|
|
rockync
Jan 4, 2004, 9:41 PM
Post #18 of 246
(13211 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 4, 2004
Posts: 17
|
No noobie here, been active since 79, and have a fair appreciation for long free climbs and more so the shorter recreational ones. I am however focused in this thread on those routes that were put up by 5.12 climbers in their high horse, ground up style, leaving 5.8 through 5.10 routes that deserve a revisit on retro-equiping. Often those fine folks sought to impose their ethics of ground up on short or two pitch climbs becuase they were seeking power to defeat the top down style of route creation.
|
|
|
|
|
micronut
Jan 4, 2004, 9:55 PM
Post #19 of 246
(13211 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2002
Posts: 1760
|
Although I agree with you that some easier routes could use another (or better) bolt placement, I don't think this statement is entirely accurate:
In reply to: Often those fine folks sought to impose their ethics of ground up on short or two pitch climbs becuase they were seeking power to defeat the top down style of route creation.
I've put up routes on lead simply because I didn't want to (or couldn't) first climb around to the top, rig up an anchor, rap down, top rope, etc....
I just wanted to walk up to the bottom climb to the top.
|
|
|
|
|
ambler
Jan 4, 2004, 10:04 PM
Post #20 of 246
(13211 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 1690
|
In reply to: No noobie here, been active since 79, and have a fair appreciation for long free climbs and more so the shorter recreational ones. I am however focused in this thread on those routes that were put up by 5.12 climbers in their high horse, ground up style, leaving 5.8 through 5.10 routes that deserve a revisit on retro-equiping. Often those fine folks sought to impose their ethics of ground up on short or two pitch climbs becuase they were seeking power to defeat the top down style of route creation. |
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Jan 4, 2004, 10:51 PM
Post #21 of 246
(13211 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
In reply to: Perhaps if sane people would retro-bolt the R-X routes with uniquely colored hangers then the following parties that attempted could by-pass the retro-protection if they choose.
In reply to: I think the debate is hinged on a disconnect between the quasi-romance with mountaineering and its clear danger and making short technical rock routes into Matterhorns.
In reply to: No noobie here, been active since 79, and have a fair appreciation for long free climbs and more so the shorter recreational ones. I am however focused in this thread on those routes that were put up by 5.12 climbers in their high horse, ground up style, leaving 5.8 through 5.10 routes that deserve a revisit on retro-equiping.
I don't believe you, mostly due to a number of inherent inconsistencies in your statements.
kalcs excuse can be attributed to being jaded and fa·ce·tious·ness
|
|
|
|
|
mdude
Jan 5, 2004, 2:11 AM
Post #22 of 246
(13211 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2003
Posts: 198
|
addiroids, you need to calm down. If you want to attack some one use the PM also.
Maybe I should use the quick and simple approach for you. I say that no FA owns a route and if others want to climb it different style... so be it.
In the real world bolts are small and bombs are big.
Thanks for comparing climbing to violence against women. You're the one that doesn't get it.
Reading your bio and seeing your picture I bet that you are all bark and no bite.
Hope your stress and blood pressure come down some time. Mind is like a parachute.. only works when it is open.
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Jan 5, 2004, 2:21 AM
Post #23 of 246
(13211 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
*I don't believe you, mostly due to a number of inherent inconsistencies in your statements.*
I'd love to see you call somebody a liar to his/her face, let us know if you ever plan on doing that.
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Jan 5, 2004, 2:37 AM
Post #24 of 246
(13211 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: In the real world bolts are small and bombs are big.
One of the smartest statement I have read on this site!
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jan 5, 2004, 2:40 AM
Post #25 of 246
(13211 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: Am I supposed to follow Earl Wiggins? Am I suppose to climb Supercrack with hexes and those old funks passive cam things every 10 feet or can I plug in a camalot every 5 feet? Tradition???? Respect???? Honor???? Progress???
This is different. Supercrack was climbed with trad gear, and the choice of gear available is the key aspect of a trad climb. If you don't want to use a hex, then don't. If, in your opinion, a cam would be a better option than a hex, use the cam.
But to add a bolt when one was not needed, that's wrong. It's been climbed as it is now, so respect the history and do the same. Adding bolts and saying "Clip the ones you want, don't clip those you don't," is no different, in principle, than chipping holds. "Chip some secure holds. If you don't want to use them, then don't." Would any of us approve of such actions? I certainly would not.
In reply to: Lets set the stage. There are twice as many climbers today than ten years ago. Most are enjoying sport climbing. That means more expectation that routes are safe and bolted.
It is not the fault of the climber that did the FA that there are more sport climbers now. Why should his/her work pay the penalty becuase someone can't afford a set of stoppers and a rack of cams? Hey, I'm broke... can we bolt The Naked Edge or Bastille Crack so I can climb it without gear?
In reply to: Tradition impedes progress.
Perhaps, but those that do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Respect those that climbed a 5.9 crack wearing stiff boots with leather soles.
In reply to: X=DEATH What if a hold breaks, rock falls, rain, earthquake.
And what if an earthquake hits as I'm walking up the approach trail in Eldo? Should I forgo the outdoors totally, and stay inside, where it is safe? Or should I evaluate all the possible dangers, weigh them against the safety measures I can take, and make an INFORMED, REASONABLE decision (i.e. "Gee, that's an X-rated route, and right at the upper limits of my ability. Maybe I should climb something else?")
Mdude, I respect your opinion, but I disagree. Climb the route in the style of the FA. Don't add bolts if they are not needed. And, obviously, the X-Rated routes don't NEED additional bolts. Sure, they might make lots of people feel safer, but they're not NEEDED.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
