Have you ever heard of the "pizza cognition theory"?
Well, it states that the first pizza you eat becomes, for you, pizza.
Climbing is the same way.
With gym climbing and rap-bolted moderates (lets be serious, its not real sport climbing) people's first taste of climbing is one of a certain level of convenience.
That's what climbing becomes for those people.
...or something.
Are you talking about single pitch routes or big multpitch adventures?
Can you give some real world examples for some perspective?
Well, superchuffer ... back in the day - and I'm talking '70s here - we climbers, upon encountering an expanse of stone devoid of natural protection, would climb as high as we dared, find a tiny stance, and spend 30 minutes drilling a hole in which to place a 1/4" bolt. This was done with a hand-drill and a hammer, mind you. Burly to be sure. Climb an old school, bolt-protected route route and you'll likely first notice long runouts between bolts. It was nothing like today's rap-bolted, put-'em-in-every-six-feet sport climbs (please do not construe that as my in any way disparaging sport climbing). If there was no stance from which to drill we would just keep shakin' along until something presented itself. So remember: bolts were an accepted tool long before sport climbing came to be. They were good times, those; climbers had big sacks.
(This post was edited by crustyclimber on May 17, 2011, 10:53 PM)
I have truly never understood how drilling bolts for convenience, not even safety, is 'traditional'
I agree. A tree is a fixed anchor for convenience.
For piton, I must say that before the climber have to use a lot of energy to place it in some hard spot. The result was that the trad climber use as less piton as they can. the run out are normal, but close enought to avoid an injury. An other point is the cost of the piton. To avoid to bring to much of it (4 pitches, 10 piton per pitch= 40 pitons. they remove it. So, what they call fixe anchor is a land mark to say that they had done the route first or the second can not remove it.
For bolt, some climber place so much of it that we are pratically in top rope. When place on lead, trad climber place one or two bolt in the same way that the piton trad climber did in the early time.
So, I don't think that the poll can proove anythink.
Are you talking about single pitch routes or big multpitch adventures?
Can you give some real world examples for some perspective?
I am talking about chain anchors on 'trad' climbs. my understanding of trad climbs is 'leave no trace.' chain anchors definately leave a trace.
chain anchors for safely bailing on a multi-pitch route are a grey area because it is safer, but even that is a slippery slope to convenience.
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?
Are you talking about single pitch routes or big multpitch adventures?
Can you give some real world examples for some perspective?
I am talking about chain anchors on 'trad' climbs. my understanding of trad climbs is 'leave no trace.' chain anchors definately leave a trace.
chain anchors for safely bailing on a multi-pitch route are a grey area because it is safer, but even that is a slippery slope to convenience.
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?
I am talking about chain anchors on 'trad' climbs. my understanding of trad climbs is 'leave no trace.' chain anchors definately leave a trace.
The counter argument is that without the bolted/chained anchors people will rap off a tree - or walk off, compacting the soil, impacting root systems, trampling the rare and fragile this and that. Is that more LNT then a couple of holes in a rock? Having no permanent man made objects might be better as far as your sense of adventure experience but it is hard to justify in terms on a LNT philosophy. Just about all climbing activity is.
Part of your problem is your supposition that trad climbing means "leave no trace". Trad climbers have always left behind slings or gear in order to rap off (if necessary). Bolted rappel anchors on a trad route (protected by removable gear) are a more modern development and are for convenience only. I prefer them over the ratty nest of slings we used to end up with.
There is a HUGE difference between bolting a route on lead (even with a power drill, hooks, etc) and rap bolting. You prolly won't understand until you've experienced it youself.
my understanding of trad climbs is 'leave no trace.' chain anchors definately leave a trace.
chain anchors for safely bailing on a multi-pitch route are a grey area because it is safer, but even that is a slippery slope to convenience.
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?
Your understanding is sorely misinformed and incorrect and kind of ignores many aspects of 80 years of climbing history in the US.
Did you ever consider that chain anchors may be installed to leave 'less trace' than a climb without them. In many areas, like here at the New, we install bolt anchors on old trad routes that traditional hard men used to top out, trample through the brush crushing fragile cliff-top plant species, then tie bright red webbing around a tree and leave it to rappel off. That red webbing would weather and get chewed on by mice increasing the risk that someone would rappel off it and it would break and they would die. Trampled cliff top vegetation results in dead plants, the roots of which hold together the soil and prevent it from running down the nice route below after every rain storm. Over the past decade we have seen dramatic recovery of the cliff top environment due to bolt anchors. As a bonus the routes are less dirty. Like it or not climbing is enjoyed by thousands of people in a condensed area. It is not 1980 when it made sense to go ground up and rappel off a tree. Now the game is people and land management with MINIMAL impact. There is no 'leave NO trace'.
There is a HUGE difference between bolting a route on lead (even with a power drill, hooks, etc) and rap bolting. You prolly won't understand until you've experienced it youself.
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.
Did you ever consider that chain anchors may be installed to leave 'less trace' than a climb without them.
In reply to:
Now the game is people and land management with MINIMAL impact. There is no 'leave NO trace'.
This is exactly my point. Leave no trace can, by human traffic, create more impact, but IT IS NOT traditional! The orignal tradition is leave no trace. period.
In a million years, which will leave more impact: the bolts or vegetation trampling? the answer is obvious. call it minimal-impact-gear-climbing or whatever, but it is NOT traditional.
Analogy: many forest roads gear rutted by trucks in the rain. The logical thing to do is pave a heavily trafficed area. In short term, impact, erosion, etc are reduced. But, in the long term, after humans are dead from ebola or something, the road has grown over.
Sure, it all comes down to semantics, but don't call a bolted anchor a trad climb cuz it just ain't.
(This post was edited by superchuffer on May 19, 2011, 3:40 PM)
I am talking about chain anchors on 'trad' climbs. my understanding of trad climbs is 'leave no trace.' chain anchors definately leave a trace.
This seems to be the essence of your issue - correct? If so then I think you need to realize that this attitude is a relatively recent one. Historically the essence of climbing (before climbing had to be qualified with "trad") was to get to the top - with little concern about what was left around afterward. In the cases where the attitude was to "blaze a trail" this to things like the cables on Half Dome and Longs Peak, fixed ropes in many spots, carved holds and so on. In cases where there wasn't a particular concern about those that came later it was even worse - throw the tin cans in the fire in the Canadian Rockies, leave the empty O2 bottles on the S. Col etc.
Your LNT issue no doubt is an admirable one - just don't base your argument on "traditional" logic.
This seems to be the essence of your issue - correct?
correct.
In reply to:
Your LNT issue no doubt is an admirable one - just don't base your argument on "traditional" logic.
good point. so there is no 'traditional' climbing LNT ethic? i'm good with that. just want things to things to be called what they are.
but then definitions change over time, like no one calls a red point a pink point anymore on a sport climb if the draws are hanging. in trad, however, putting in the gear is the essence of the trad experience.
(This post was edited by superchuffer on May 19, 2011, 4:12 PM)
but then definitions change over time, like no one calls a red point a pink point anymore on a sport climb if the draws are hanging. in trad, however, putting in the gear is the essence of the trad experience.
Well actually I still do - refer to pink point - although I know I am a dinosaur with that (although one could argue that in a trad context it might have more significance - although your definition doesn't allow for that). I think your definition works but I would amend it slightly to say that trad climbing means that you are capable of dealing with whatever gets thrown at you. If there is fixed gear you might use it - either going up or down - but you are not dependent on it and can cope regardless.
in trad, however, putting in the gear is the essence of the trad experience.
I think that part of the difficulty lies in that there is no clear-cut definition of traditional. In the quote above, I understand you to be saying that trad is about the gear. If that is your point, I would disagree.
Trad, for me, is getting to the top starting from the bottom and not dying in the process. The essence of it is more in the adventure. Not dying brings in risk management which means gear. LNT is a late comer to the game (although a welcome one) born of the desire to preserve the possibility of future adventure either for selfish reasons or from altruistic sentiment for future adventurers.
I could argue my point all day long and others would come in with other valid points of view. Insisting on a definition for what you mean by "carabiner" might be justifiable, but it seems pretty pointless to insist on a consistent definition of tradition since it gains new definition with every innovation.
What is it you want to accomplish? For example: Do you want people to bolt less because bolting interferes with your experience of placing gear? Then say so, but don't insist on basing your argument on the vapor of defining "tradition."
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?
In reply to:
What is it you want to accomplish?
People to think about what they are calling themselves when they proadly proclaim themselves to be trad climbers because they put some gear in a crack then threaded a chain anchor, most likely put in with a bosch on rappel.
In reply to:
What is it you want to accomplish? For example: Do you want people to bolt less because bolting interferes with your experience of placing gear? Then say so, but don't insist on basing your argument on the vapor of defining "tradition."
Bolts don't bother me, but I don't consider myself climbing in a traditional manner, including ethics and style: 'trad climbing', when I thread chains.
(This post was edited by superchuffer on May 19, 2011, 5:13 PM)
Bolts don't bother me, but I don't consider myself climbing in a traditional manner, including ethics and style: 'trad climbing', when I thread chains.
You seem quite concerned about anchors used for descending - not quite sure why, but answer this - 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?
19 /
59%
1
