|
kalcario
Jan 5, 2004, 6:54 AM
Post #51 of 246
(12019 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
* I find this laughable. Is a high grade on a final exam the best measure of learning if you cheated on the test?*
C'mon Curt. You remember when Wolfie and Edlinger went to the Gunks and onsighted everything. Were they "cheating" then? No. By using sport climbing tactics on their hardest redpoints they elevated their onsight level to the point where they were, undeniably, the best free climbers in the world. I mean, you were there, for God's sakes, you saw it happen...how that failed to inspire you I just don't understand...
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 5, 2004, 6:55 AM
Post #52 of 246
(12019 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: Is a high grade on a final exam the best measure of learning if you cheated on the test? Curt I wouldn't call climbing a route free regardless of its protection "cheating" by any terms. It would be more like getting a high grade because you had the crib notes from a friend :twisted:
If you had to add fixed protection to a route that others had done the route without, this is indeed cheating--you are cheating both yourself and all other future ascentionists who may come after you. And, yes, getting crib notes from a friend for a test is cheating too. Do the work yourself--you will feel better about it later.
In reply to: You seem to equate runout routes as "superior" to well protected routes. It is the same line of logic you are using against Joe's example.
You are now making things up out of thin air to bolster your poor argument. We are discussing retro-bolting here. If the original line was well protected, it may still be a great and classic line. However, an original line that was substantially run-out also may be a great and classic line. I have never posted an opinion that the latter are superior. I am suggesting, however that the latter do not necessarily need to be converted into the former to enable access for every untalented climber.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 5, 2004, 7:09 AM
Post #53 of 246
(12019 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: * I find this laughable. Is a high grade on a final exam the best measure of learning if you cheated on the test?* C'mon Curt. You remember when Wolfie and Edlinger went to the Gunks and onsighted everything. Were they "cheating" then? No. By using sport climbing tactics on their hardest redpoints they elevated their onsight level to the point where they were, undeniably, the best free climbers in the world. I mean, you were there, for God's sakes, you saw it happen...how that failed to inspire you I just don't understand...
Yes, I was there--literally there, particularly when Edlinger was in the Gunks. I saw him fire Thunderdome Arete, one of Clune's 5.13 routes. Both these guys were exceptional climbers who would have excelled and set the standards for their generation whether or not they climbed rap-bolted routes. They were simply very gifted climbers who's dedication to climbing and also (by the way) training for climbing paid off for them in a big way.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Jan 5, 2004, 7:20 AM
Post #54 of 246
(12019 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
*Both these guys were exceptional climbers who would have excelled and set the standards for their generation whether or not they climbed rap-bolted routes.*
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt babe goodnight
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 5, 2004, 7:25 AM
Post #55 of 246
(12019 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: *Both these guys were exceptional climbers who would have excelled and set the standards for their generation whether or not they climbed rap-bolted routes.* Denial ain't just a river in Egypt babe goodnight
Please offer some factual basis for your opinion that climbing rap bolted routes--and only climbing rap-bolted routes made Wolfgang and Patrick great climbers. I'm eagerly awaiting your nonsense, I mean response.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Jan 5, 2004, 7:38 AM
Post #56 of 246
(12019 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: If the original line was well protected, it may still be a great and classic line. However, an original line that was substantially run-out also may be a great and classic line. I have never posted an opinion that the latter are superior. I am suggesting, however that the latter do not necessarily need to be converted into the former to enable access for every untalented climber. Curt
So if both are classic, which line serves the climbing community best? A cowbweb covered stellar R/X or a highly traffic well protected area classic?
As for your response to my analogy between the lines of logic in your argument and Joes, I guess I misunderstood your comment below as being negative as compared to your own set of ethics, when in reality you were saying they were comparable :roll:
In reply to: And, I have already conceded that further emasculation of the sport is sure to follow, as additional hordes (with no past climbing knowledge or ethics) flow into the sport.
Once fixed protection has been placed, whether it be R/X or well protected, you are climbing on fixed protection. Runouts are placed based upon a person's own ethics. The character of the actually climbing does not change (i.e. hand holds and footholds), just the artifical mental game prepared by another human. If I want to challenge wits with someone, I'll invite them to a game of chess, not ask them to play a game of russian roulette.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 5, 2004, 7:48 AM
Post #57 of 246
(12019 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
roughster,
Since you seem to like to twist around my language to suit yourself, I will ask you a simple question that can be answered yes or no, based on this quote of yours.
In reply to: So if both are classic, which line serves the climbing community best? A cowbweb (sic) covered stellar R/X or a highly traffic well protected area classic?
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Jan 5, 2004, 8:32 AM
Post #58 of 246
(12019 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: Does every single climb have to serve the general climbing population best? Another way of putting this question is whether you think every single climb must cater to the lowest common denominator, i.e the least able climber. What is your opinion? Curt
Actually I would say your 1st question is more appropriate, the second one is I would reject because you equate rebolting to lower the climb to the lowest denominator, when in reality you are lowering the protection scheme nothing more. Lowering the entire climb would be chipping down a 5.12 to a 5.7 (figured I might as well head you off at the pass :) )
So as for your 1st question, I would majorily answer: yes. I would not go so far as to say all should be well protected, but I do believe that quality climbs should not be limited to the realm of the over achieving 5.12-13 climber putting up 5.11 and under death routes. All actions of climbers should be subject to some level of peer review. Obviously the preferable thing is that this is done up front before the climb is done, but that does not say that the peer review should not be revisited for a particular climb later in it's life cycle.
Usage and ethics change. I don't believe either to be set in stone for any public resource. If right now the climbing community accepts keeping routes R/X then thats how it should be. My point is eventually those in favor of retrobolting the R/Xs will far outweigh those in support of keeping them, especially if it is a matter of a classic moderates. I see it simply as analogous to most recreational uses, majority rules.
Now a question for you Curt. Don't you find it funny that the majority of the time that R/X routes are rebolted it is by the initial developer themselves?
I know several examples of this and it has been echo'd at many areas around the US. FA'ers who put up death routes in the 70s-80s go back later and make them sport routes. Why do you think the change of heart?
|
|
|
|
|
rockync
Jan 5, 2004, 1:17 PM
Post #59 of 246
(12019 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 4, 2004
Posts: 17
|
Thanks, I think many of the posters have a clue here. We are not talking about Snake Dike or runout slabs that are getting traffic, we are talking about those R-X rated routes that sit there dusty.
I liked the comment from one where he mentioned something about his enjoyement did not seem fazed doing a retro-equiped line as the moves where the same and I liked the russian roulet comment.
I got to beleive if you embrace the "creation" of a route and you leave it as a R-X then frankly you might find a law suit in your future. Nothing can prevent someone's family from seeking you out and filing a suite over the death of a son/daughter, if nothing more to send a message to the rest of the climbing community. Sure you will win the suit but you will not like the process or cost.
I still dont agree with the authorship / copywrite ownership of shorter recreational routes. Engineer short routes rather than think of them as "born from your soul" creations.
|
|
|
|
|
noshoesnoshirt
Jan 5, 2004, 2:18 PM
Post #60 of 246
(12019 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2002
Posts: 440
|
In reply to: I got to beleive if you embrace the "creation" of a route and you leave it as a R-X then frankly you might find a law suit in your future. Nothing can prevent someone's family from seeking you out and filing a suite over the death of a son/daughter, if nothing more to send a message to the rest of the climbing community. Sure you will win the suit but you will not like the process or cost.
aw christ, why'd you have to bring the lawyers into this?
and what's wrong with a good dose of sphincter-puckering, certain-death runout? sure puts color in your cheeks.
i guess what i'm trying to say is that climbing is, to an extent, based on the concept of risking something very valuable in order to enhance the percieved (and in a "real world" view, useless) reward. some people don't have mountains or decent walls, so they put up risky short routes. i've been on old bold lines that were viewed as a rite of passage. one had to be very well prepared, mentally as well as physically, to succeed, and the outcome was never certain. i've been on some of the same lines after they've been tamed, and yeah, they were more fun, but sometimes climbers seek more than fun. who does death aid lines for fun? it seems by your standards we should retro these to make enjoyable safe aid leads for the masses.
regards,
kerry
|
|
|
|
|
rockprodigy
Jan 5, 2004, 4:28 PM
Post #61 of 246
(12019 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2002
Posts: 1540
|
In reply to: Engineer short routes rather than think of them as "born from your soul" creations.
So if these are indeed "short" routes we are talking about, why not toprope them? I would be all for adding toprope anchors so the masses can enjoy the moves, so long as it doesn't change the character of the route for those who want to lead it.
Instead of changing the subject, please answer my question: Why no TR?
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
Jan 5, 2004, 4:43 PM
Post #62 of 246
(12019 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
I don't think there have been any successful lawsuits by anyone or anyone's family against any public entity (park, etc.) or private company, based on injury or death as a result or participation. Maybe if there is some gross negligence, but the typical scenario is a signed waiver and/or a state law about user-assumed risk.
I think on the elements of Curt's reply that has been lost is the concept of "authorship", or perhaps more accurately, an analogy to an artist. We might not all find Picasso to our personal taste, but would it be acceptable to request or require that museums alter the Picasso's in their collections to suit the tastes of the majority?
And, no, I'm not equating all X and R routes to works of art. If, in fact, some climber who is regularly climbing hard-5.12 decides to put up a 5.9X route, then I would more equate that to a finely skilled artist trying to paint and sell primitive style paintings. It would be phony, lazy, and, yes, I think it would involve quite a bit of ego. That would be someone seeking to make some elitist arrogant statement, rather than understanding and respecting the tradition of establishing routes based on the line that the rock presents and protecting it in accordance with the context in which the route is established. That means, that a 5.9 route is basically protected for 5.9 climbers, in the context of today's understanding of what that means, using today's technology, and today's (and the area's) ethical standards.
The flip side is that I urge climbers to NOT alter routes that were established in a different context, just wantonly, with no regard for the FAer and tradition.
But, that is not the case, I suspect, with most of the X and R routes that were established in the "golden age". I would hate to see most of those routes altered to meet the "safety" requirements of the masses that have been alluded to here. I don't think the climbing community is, in fact, all that homogenous. I also don't think we, as a community, should encourage by word or action such homogenization of climbing, as perceived by the non-climbing public, nor by climbers themselves. Just as there are different interests within the climbing community (rock, alpine, mountain, bouldering, etc.), I think there is plenty of room for a small percentage of golden-age R and X routes to be left for those climbers who do enjoy the participation with tradition and the psychological aspect of such routes.
Somebody here said that runout risky alpine routes should be left as is, but that it's okay to alter rock routes. That's inconsistent logic. If a policy that accepts the altering of any one kind of route is adopted, then you've started on the slippery-slope that must inevitably lead to the eventual dumbing-down of any and all routes. Something akin to that has been occurring in some places in Europe, with via-ferratas and added bolts to alpine routes, with a lot of argument still ongoing.
Another ill-defined phrase that keeps popping up is the notion of adding bolts "when needed" or "if needed". Well, obviously, the problem comes in deciding the definition of "needed". That's the crux of the original question: who decides what protection is "needed". Such a proffered solution is no solution.
It's still been left unanswered, but the routes that the original poster seems to be complaining about seem to NOT be the golden-age runout R and X routes. If they are, then my response would be that tradition is indeed a valuable element of our sport, and we would be much poorer without it and without an appreciation for the history that precedes us. Just glance around at some of the posts and activity on this site, and at the behavior and conversation of the climbers you meet who don't have a sense of it, and you'll get an idea of the dregs to which climbing would sink if we all just practiced self-interest, and reduced all routes to our mental and physical ability.
|
|
|
|
|
rockync
Jan 5, 2004, 5:04 PM
Post #63 of 246
(12019 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 4, 2004
Posts: 17
|
Hiyas,
TR is not viable on many routes and here I am talking about 1 and 2 pitch climbs that could quite easily be retro-equipped.... IF they are not getting the traffic the route deserves.
Heck ta judy, here in NC the ethics police get bent if you talk about putting in rap stations preferring to kill trees. I can imagine the hew and cry if TR anchors started showing up. Even so, TR is good for shorter pitches provided the access is viable.
Let’s breathe deep, calm Blue Ocean. This thread is both a debate & discussion about those routes created bottom up that used either bolts and natural protection but have R-X ratings. In every area you and I have climbed there are some of these that just never see traffic. The odd 5.9R&X or even 5.11R&X sitting there. Those people that might at that level enjoy the movements are rare going to test themselves on obvious risks, preferring to gather abilities tested on safer efforts and move up the scale.
What I see in many dome routes are ground up mid-level routes put in by accomplished climbers to be certain and bold too. What irks me is they put in a line, name it, own it but don't consider the risk they have build into the route based on their abilities over the aspiring climber that might be attracted to that route. 5.12+ climbers putting in 5.9-10 R&X routes ought to have consideration for fellow climbers.
I would bet the trend in FFA ownership will change in the future preferring to remain anonymous from legal issues. Don’t shoot the messenger if you don’t like the message.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Jan 5, 2004, 5:05 PM
Post #64 of 246
(12019 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
Since nobody's listening anyway, I may as well throw my lot in.
I was climbing with my buddy from Rifle just before christmas in Eldo. We went up to do Your Mother (5.12c-d) as neither of us want to lug around that much gear just for a single pitch climb (it was bloody cold after all). He asked me what other sport routes were in the canyon and one that came to mind was N.E.D. which has fixed pins for pro. He wondered why no one had ever taken the time to replace them with bolts. I explained the bolting committee and how it worked. He said that was bullshit. Different areas, different ethics.
My issue with retro bolting to make a route "safe" is the slippery slope issue. One retro-bolter might want a bolt every 12 feet, another 12 inches, but eventually we end up with gridbolting, bolted cracks, and other monstrositys because some idiot with a hilti is too afraid to take a real fall. I got a stick clip for christmas, and my first response was "great, now I can do every route in the arsenal without becoming a better climber!" You rise to the level of the route or you do not get on it. And besides, will your life somehow lose meaning if you never do the uninteresting 5.8 that has a 100' runout after one lousy stopper? How would we feel if every runout route had a chicken bolt the instant things started getting scary? If climbing becomes a strictly physical exercise because everything is bolted into soft, squishy, pink friendliness, I guess its time to take up jogging for my exercise.
I feel distinctly sorry for anyone who thinks real danger -real limb breaking, life threatening danger- is a bad thing. It is in the moment when everything falls away, when all that exists is that next clip, that next stopper, that next hold, that climbing is fun. I often joke that we as climbers are keeping confidence in bags at the small of our backs, and tying into courage, because lack both within ourselves. Don't make me right.
|
|
|
|
|
jv
Jan 5, 2004, 5:20 PM
Post #65 of 246
(12019 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2003
Posts: 363
|
In reply to: My issue with retro bolting to make a route "safe" is the slippery slope issue. One retro-bolter might want a bolt every 12 feet, another 12 inches, but eventually we end up with gridbolting, bolted cracks, and other monstrositys because some idiot with a hilti is too afraid to take a real fall. . . . I feel distinctly sorry for anyone who thinks real danger -real limb breaking, life threatening danger- is a bad thing. It is in the moment when everything falls away, when all that exists is that next clip, that next stopper, that next hold, that climbing is fun. I often joke that we as climbers are keeping confidence in bags at the small of our backs, and tying into courage, because lack both within ourselves. Don't make me right.
Amen brother. Well said.
JV
|
|
|
|
|
okinawatricam
Jan 5, 2004, 10:45 PM
Post #66 of 246
(12019 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2003
Posts: 420
|
I wonder, would Snake Dike get more traffic if it were better bolted?
|
|
|
|
|
okinawatricam
Jan 5, 2004, 10:59 PM
Post #67 of 246
(12019 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2003
Posts: 420
|
When hard routes went up during the gunks early climbing history, the second often didn't take the energy to remove the pitons. This basicly meant that the hard routes where only sport climbs. The easy routes, which hard good stances hard pins removed evry time.
|
|
|
|
|
bhilden
Jan 6, 2004, 12:11 AM
Post #68 of 246
(12019 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2003
Posts: 50
|
I think the bottom line here is that not every climb is for everybody. Besides the
gymnasitic component to a climb, there may also be a risk component. I think both
of these components are valid. I have been climbing for over 30 years and have visited
climbing areas all over the world and almost every area I have visited had some, at least to
me, reasonable balance of climbs involving both the gymnastic and risk components.
Adding fixed protection to an established climb to diminish the risk component diminishes
the climbing experience for those climbers who value risk as part of their climbing
experience.
As I said above, it has been my experience that there are enough low risk routes at the climbing areas I have visited that there is no reason, IMHO, to have to add fixed protection to extablished, "high risk" routes. I can't climb every route at any of the climbing areas I have ever visited nor do I expect to be able to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
ricardol
Jan 6, 2004, 1:47 AM
Post #69 of 246
(12019 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 1050
|
In reply to: I wonder, would Snake Dike get more traffic if it were better bolted?
snake dike gets tons of traffic ..
.. i would do it more often if it was closer to the road! ..
.. whomever thinks that R and X ratings are unnecesary, needs to go get on an R or X climb (well below their level) and experience that sort of adventure .. the experience would not be the same if there was a retro-chicken bolt along the way (even if i chose to not clip it -- which i would not! -- i'd clip it all day long!) ..
-- ricardo
|
|
|
|
|
mdude
Jan 6, 2004, 8:47 AM
Post #70 of 246
(12019 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2003
Posts: 198
|
Jim Bridwell mentioned that the FA team should have done a better job of protecting the route considering who might want to climb it and how classic it would become. IE more bolts.
I am not into bolting everything. Far from it. There are times when the FA was too cheap, poorly engineered a route, sport routes that should have top anchors and some thing should be done to help.
There are many climbing areas that top-roping is a poor plan. Jacks Canyon in AZ is very loose on top. Dropping rocks on other climbers is no good or taking the plunge off the top. It has happened. Moderately overhanging routes, routes that only go mid face(Virgin), multi-pitch, ect.
Keep up the good discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
ricardol
Jan 6, 2004, 8:56 AM
Post #71 of 246
(12019 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 1050
|
In reply to: Jim Bridwell mentioned that the FA team should have done a better job of protecting the route considering who might want to climb it and how classic it would become. IE more bolts..
.. in its current state .. i'd say there are lots of places on that climb that are NO FALL situations .. the dike is less than vertical .. and if you peeled even halfway on some of the pitches .. you'd go for at least 100 feet .. and hit every part oft he dike on the way down .. ugh .. not pleasant ..
.. but then again .. its only 5.4 or 5.3 on the dike .. (unless you get off-route like i did!)
-- ricardo
|
|
|
|
|
rockvoyager
Jan 6, 2004, 4:54 PM
Post #72 of 246
(12019 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 84
|
In reply to: So as for your 1st question, I would majorily answer: yes.
This is so wrong I can hardly believe it. "It's not my responsibility to get better so I can do it, it's your responsibility to make it easier/safer so I can do it". Dumbing down? How about the cratering of America.
How would you like someone to bolt that little tower you are climbing in your profile because they are afraid to climb that far off the deck without a rope???? I know it's privately owned and you can't bolt someone else's property but look past that to the bigger picture. What you do comfortably some 5.4 climber will find scary and dangerous. Why can't you guys get this???? Dumbing down NEVER stops where YOU think it should, it always goes to the bottom. "FA ownership" may not be a great solution but it is the only workable solution.
This argument has gone on and on. There isn't a resolution because the wave of gym rats led by those with no respect and no sense of history is unrelenting.
I am glad there are places, J-tree, Tuoleme and my local crag come to mind, where the locals will chop retro-bolts. I hope others will take up the challenge.
Brad
|
|
|
|
|
leaverbiner
Jan 6, 2004, 6:36 PM
Post #73 of 246
(12019 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2002
Posts: 482
|
While there are definitely some routes that I would love to do but probably never will have the courage or the skill to climb because of the lack of protection, my basic thought is as follows:
Climbing has all different disciplines - some like to do trad, some like to do sport, some like cracks some like steep pockets . . . scary, runout, or even death routes are really just one group's particular style . . . if these climbs aren't for you, move on and find climbs that suit your style and your preferences. There are a ton of routes at the gunks that I would love to do, and know that I could do if they were bolted. But, the gunks is primarily trad, so if I want to do them I have to have the confidence to place the gear - it's that simple - otherwise i just move on to routes that fit my preference -such at the NRG.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jan 6, 2004, 7:07 PM
Post #74 of 246
(12019 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
In reply to: So if both are classic, which line serves the climbing community best? A cowbweb covered stellar R/X or a highly traffic well protected area classic?
I can't speak for anyone else, (and by the way, I don't think any of you should be speaking for "the climbing community" either - you don't speak for me) but *I* am better served having The Eye in J-Tree R/X. Someone else with a set of quick-draws and a penchant for sport climbing might be better seved with the route if it were retro-bolted.
I think Dingus has spelled it out the best: it's a limited resource, and since you and I may want to do different things with that resource, best thing to do is to defer 1: to the FA ethic, and 2: to the local ethic. Even if it's arbitrary. Hell, especially if it's arbitrary! You can dress it up as respect for the FA ethic, but even if you strip off respect, history, ego, what's "best for people to get stronger faster", all that jazz... if you strip off all that, it's still important to defer to FA and local ethics because without that, all you have is bolt wars, and that serves no-one.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Jan 6, 2004, 7:18 PM
Post #75 of 246
(12019 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
What's so hard about, "You don't have to climb it."?
If a route has an X on it, just say no way Jose. Seems to me that the ego problem is with the ones who feel it is their right to climb anything the way they want to, even if it means adding bolts to an existing route that most people have either left alon or climbed as is.
Nobody is holding a gun to your head and making you climb an x route-- it's your decision, and your reponsiblility. There is no shame in refusing to do something stupid either hahaha.
|
|
|
|
|
|
