Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
DavidRoberts
climber
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2013 - 03:38pm PT
|
Largo said
I have actually changed my position on all of this...
LOL. You sound about as sincere as a used car salesman.
For the record, I personally love the "head game." For me, climbing has always been about pushing my own limits, both mentally and physically. I have done Stoners Highway, found it to be close to my limit, was scared and loved it. I tried BY, and backed off at the first bolt. I could not do it, and probably never will. I was scared and did not have the level of commitment necessary complete that climb. I don't want to see it retrobolted. As I have said before, I respect your climbing accomplishments. Although I climb at a much lower level of difficulty than you, I think that you and I are playing similar head games with the rock.
Here is where we differ. I recognize that not all people that climb are playing the same game. Some climb for fun. Some climb to challenge their limits and master fear. One is not better than the other, just different. I respect that. I respect other climbers right to play a different game.
You seem to think that your game is inherently superior. You seem to think that because you have more climbing "sac" that you have the right to demand that others play your game. You feel that you can deface the rock and dumb down the climb to your level, and others need to match or better your "standard." For you, there is a huge element of ego and competition. Since you are better at your game, you believe that it is ok for you to condescend to those that choose not to play; if they aren't willing to play the "sac" game, then they are just a bunch of "shameless poser and poultroon" in your eyes. I find that to be arrogant.
You intentionally play the BY card because you know it is absurd. I will not alter BY, never promoted doing that and hope it no one ever changes that route.
I will continue to do what I have done; play my own game. I respect some FAs, and alter others as I see fit. I recognize that this is selfish, but no more selfish than the FA "law" you promote. I believe that neither of us own the rock and that there are a lot of grey areas between free solo and 8' foot between bolt clip-ups. I also recognize the hypocrisy and compromise that we both share the second we drill a bolt. I use them sparingly. Not all routes are for all people, but the FA doesn't get to decide the style in which future parties climb the route. Not every route should be dumbed-down to sport climbing standards. Cracks that take gear should not be bolted. A three star 5.9 pitch that was soloed by a 5.13 climber should not be off limits for a party willing to put in the work to bolt it. Dogmatic adherence to the "law" of FA ownership is flawed.
That is what I believe. Others see things differently. The rock where we all come together is a public resource. Neither one of us owns it. We need to work through our disagreements with respect, dialogue and compromise. I expect that this thread will go past 2000 posts with no resolution.
David Roberts
Alpine, CA
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2013 - 03:39pm PT
|
JL wrote: I have suggested trying the rebolting strategy on a couple routes that, if they had decent pro, would probably be mega classic
So go do it..if you have a change of thoughts/heart on this issue. You need to act. Just go do it.
You are being dishonest and you know it.
|
|
Hawkeye
climber
State of Mine
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2013 - 03:44pm PT
|
thanks ron for the response.
kris, i very much appreciate your insight and thoughts...
reasonable consensus
but this strikes me as somewhat unlikely given the posts on this thread.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2013 - 04:06pm PT
|
As one of the dinosaurs here who started climbing before Robbins publicized or adhered to the "first ascent principle," I find this thread particularly ironic. Robbins suggested the "first ascent principle" as a way to give climbers freedom to create a route in the style they preferred. He propounded his principle as one for tolerating climbs that others considered insufficiently bold and excessively bolted. It was a sort of mea culpa for his actions on the WEML.
Now, in this thread, we have supporters of a principle designed to discourage climbers from erasing routes by removing bolts, relying on that same principle to prevent bolts from being added. It appears that climbing fashion, like all other fashion, travels in circles.
Meanwhile, for all the cacophony, the almost total lack of discussion of specific routes demonstrates this "controversy" means rather little in real life. The one place I climb that did seem to run out of rock resources is Pinnacles, but we were able to reach an agreement about FA styles. The process wasn't painless, but it shows that it is manageable.
By and large, there's still enough rock resource most places to allow different styles of climbs to co-exist, with a very few exceptions such as those noted by Kris and Ron. On that score, I admit that I come down on the side of the first ascent principle, but I also admit that both areas are large enough that they have no need to add chicken bolts to existing routes. There are enough better-protected climbs nearby.
I also reiterate my objection to the argument that "you can simply choose to ignore the retro-bolt." That may be true in Kris's example, but it is not true in Ron's. Inability to use protection creates a "must not fall" situation. When the wall becomes grid-bolted, a leader starting out on what was originally a boldly committing route can always bail by clipping in. If the bolts aren't there, the only options are to finish the lead, climb down, fall or not start up.
John
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2013 - 04:15pm PT
|
Why do the trad crowd always bring up BY...wouldn't Perilous Journey near Eldo be a better example...done in much better style and if fall you are more than likely going to die, or wish that you did.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2013 - 04:31pm PT
|
I actually am not kidding. And the charge of being dishonest is laughable. I'm not anxious to bolt up the old run out routes - it was not me who said this must be done - so to hold me responsible for doing so seems mildly amusing. What's more, after a double compound fracture of my leg, I can barely walk.
What I am willing to do is buy the bolts and drive the rebolting team to the base of the routes they want to bolt up. I suggested the Bacher Yerian because it what everyone is saying it true, that no one owns the rock, and that mega run out routes are largely irrelevant to modern day climbers, than why not try out the strategy on what would result in a huge classic?
And if that route feel too hallowed, then shift it to Middle Cathedral and Black Primo. At 5.12a, on super good black rock and way the hell up there on the steep face, that route would be a show stopper with bomber pro. As is it gets led maybe once ever three or four years.
If we are merely talking about bolting up "A rarely if ever repeated, run-out, 5.9 or 5.10 in a fairly trafficked area," then what gives with all the personal attacks.
And Roberts, what the f*#k are you talking about. I have never promoted a "law," but merely mentioned that our generation viewed tradition as a low TO US. Use of "poultroon" and other terms was merely to pull chains that were so easily pulled. If you can name one person in the entire climbing world who had spent time with me who honestly thinks I am arrogant, I'll kiss your ass. I don't believe in my own jive enough to believe it - at all.
When I put up a case for sacing up and going for the headpoint leads, I never said that I or anyone else was any "better" than anyone else for doing so. We tried to maintain an elite level of performance as we understood it and I defy you to find the committed faction of any sport who do not try and do the very same, and I'm not about to apologize for putting my self out there as far as I could manage. This is a threatening thing for some and so we get branded as frauds, and cheats and arrogant has-beens but we did have the pleasure of giving the sport all that we had. I understand that this approach is thought quaint these days, and so I now encourage that a few highly visible , potentially classic routes get bolted up just to see what happens. If you feel the BY is too much, then go to Black Primo, a great route in a world leading area. Put in bolts every ten feet. Or less if you want. If you're going to go to all the trouble to make a huge case for safety and utility, then at least be willing to do the work.
That only seems reasonable.
And Bob, Perilous Journey, while an amazing solo by The Kid, hardly takes the sweeping line that BY takes. And do you rally think that Bachar using hooks to put in those bolts was "bad style?" That's some nerve wracking work if you've ever tried doing that out on the lead. But why not bolt up Rain, and a few others that I recall were headpoints? Let's see how this plays out. Otherwise we're just yelling at each other.
JL
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2013 - 04:34pm PT
|
John Long wrote: What I am willing to do is buy the bolts and drive the rebolting team to the base of the routes they want to bolt up.
Funny...let's reverse it. I'll drive you and buy the bolts and you put them in. You in?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2013 - 04:44pm PT
|
The burden of proof rests on those imposing the prohibition.
--
Bollocks. I have officially said I am all for lifting this so-called prohibition, but that in no wise makes it my responsibility to fix these routes. This is incorrectly throwing the onus back on the those who took action in the first place.
If you believe the routes need bolts, then get to bolting. I am honestly curious to see how this strategy would work on what were once considered to be great routes but owing to scant pro, have been virtually forgotten now. They really do serve no purpose as is. Bolting up a few obscure 5.9s seem like a waste of time and it won't add much in terms of updating what might prove to be mega classic routes.
People snigger and laugh at the idea of bolting up the BY but think how many climbers would line up for it if it had bolts ever dozen feet. Why not bot it up? I'll bet it gets done no more than a few times a year.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2013 - 05:11pm PT
|
The problem today is that everybody wants it easy. Besides not knowing who
Samuel Beckett is few embrace his words:
"Try again. Fail again, fail better"
|
|
DavidRoberts
climber
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2013 - 05:12pm PT
|
Largo said:
Use of "poultroon" and other terms was merely to pull chains that were so easily pulled. If you can name one person in the entire climbing world who had spent time with me who honestly thinks I am arrogant, I'll kiss your ass. I don't believe in my own jive enough to believe it - at all.
I actually met you once. I was 14, and my younger brother and me were working some V-easy problem by Hidden Valley Campground. We kept on blowing the top move and falling on the ground without a pad. You came by with some other dude, watched for a minute or two, then proceeded to give us some beta and encouragement. I am build like a linebacker, and you joked that sometimes us big guys have to do things a little different than the skinny wimps.
That chance meeting did a lot to inspire me as a climber. You were not at all arrogant. With a few kind words, you made a kid very happy. The man I met that day was very different from the persona posting on this thread. I will take you at your word, and am glad to hear that your choice of words in this thread was only for affect.
Best wishes to all posting on this thread. I'm out.
David Roberts
Alpine, CA
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2013 - 05:43pm PT
|
David wrote: The man I met that day was very different from the persona posting on this thread. I will take you at your word, and am glad to hear that your choice of words in this thread was only for affect.
Nice post David...funny....seems on this thread it doesn't matter what kind of human being you are, as long as you sac-up on a rock climb or lived in the valley during the 70's you are ok. Doesn't matter if you treated people like sh#t, couldn't keep a relationship or were a drunk/drug addict you are great cause you did some runout routes that the majority of the climbing population could care less about.
What a great legacy to leave.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2013 - 06:01pm PT
|
Bob, quite eating that broken glass. It's making you snarky.
Okay, here's the deal.
At the outset of this thread, people approached the subject of run out slab routes from an emotionally dishonest position. IMO. Instead of saying, "I looked up and saw the first bolt 40 feet up there and it scared he sh#t out of me even thinking about trying that route. I wondered what kind of maniac did such a thing and why I was expected to risk both my legs to repeat the thing."
In stead, we heard a breaking wave of accusations about the first ascentionists being frauds, on ego trips, macho men, chest beaters, and so forth, all of whom claimed ownership of the rock by some strange fiat.
Now what kind of reactions are such rants bound to evoke?
From my end, I simply repeated what we told EACH OTHER whenever one of us used to snivel or whine about a run out BITD. You yellow-bellied, sniveling chickenshit sissy poltroon no-count no-good poser wannabe hardman - and a million things far worse - anything to try and shame your (probably) best friend into sacing it up and going for the gold. This hazing got the very best out of boys 19-25 and the result was the very routes that are being called into question right now.
Some people, bitter by nature, or feeling done out of glory or some such thing, will miss the larger picture - basically the last dregs of the old macho trad game - and instead will keep sniping at the players. Those are the ones we used to ridicule for sacless sniveling, also a practice no longer kosher. But that's how we treated each other, and instead of taking offense, this very hazing knitted each one of us into a brother and sisterhood that none of would trade for any other style.
In other words, living by the sac, so to speak, resulted in a level of existential excitement and thrill and sense of heroic journey that no one from back then would ever trade. You'll never find an exception to that. So when I was ranting about sac and poltroons and so forth, you were getting exactly what I got and what I gave all of my best bros in the days when the run out was king. It didn't make us any better, living like this, but when we see that experience closed off to the few others who might want to taste the wild side by the old styles, some of us shrink a little knowing that a hell of a lot of high voltage huge experiences are being sacrifice for the promise of security. In some respects, this is a shame. I don't expect many to understand this, either, because more modern climbing is geared away from you ever having uncontrolled experiences. And nowadays it is decidedly not PC to ridicule folks like we used to raze each other. But man, it sure was a blast to be part of it. Walking right on the edge of the knife.
That much said, I do think that it is a good thing to sacrifice a few of the old museum routes to modern pro just to see what happens. Black Primo is a start. I still think the BY is a likely candidate. Indeed, no one owns the rock.
JL
|
|
Russ Walling
Social climber
from Poofters Froth, Wyoming
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2013 - 06:11pm PT
|
JL, if you are buying the gear, at least make sure the hangers are pink.
"No.. no... really! The bolts on Double Cross get to stay now!!!"
|
|
mucci
Trad climber
The pitch of Bagalaar above you
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2013 - 06:11pm PT
|
That much said, I do think that it is a good thing to sacrifice a few of the old museum routes to modern pro just to see what happens. Black Primo is a start. I still think the BY is a likely candidate. Indeed, no one owns the rock.
JL
Good thing nobody is going to do a goddamn thing about it.
Just a bunch of wanker talk on this thread.
Keep it in the gym, or let the bodies pile up.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2013 - 06:13pm PT
|
Keep it in the gym, or let the bodies pile up.
YOSAR is ready ....
We have body bags .... :-)
|
|
Greg Barnes
climber
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2013 - 06:19pm PT
|
Or at the top of Nevada falls, with a sign "zip yourself in one of these if you want to play in the water"...
|
|
rmuir
Social climber
From the Time Before the Rocks Cooled.
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2013 - 06:53pm PT
|
It all comes down to issues of rights and obligations, IMO.
A few here really do have their panties in a bunch at the notion that someone else can establish a new route in a style which suits the FA party, but doesn't suit others who come thereafter. They observe that there is often a long-established practice of deferring to the FA party that unjustly seems to prohibit their desire to climb that route in a safer manner. They rail against a tyranny imposed by others which they perceive as impinging on their freedoms.
They see an evil in the world and they want right it. To do so, they demonize the FA party, and anyone who might agree with the past-- and presumably--current social belief system which celebrates some intrinsic rights afforded to the FA party. One way to demonize any who might disagree with their position is to posit "emotional", "arrogant", "adolescent", or "illogical" beliefs to any who disagree. (In doing so, they make it abundantly clear that they too marshall all these qualities.) The vehemence exhibited in their arguments shows just how emotional they are. Clearly, I have disagreements with those who would reject the "law" of the first ascent.
I'm reminded of Ted Cruz...
Perhaps your position is doomed to fail in certain climbing communities. You've tried again and again to vote against the settled law of the land. You have managed to alienate many of the august members of even your own party--who view your position as extreme and an exercise in futility. And you're willing to spite many across this country who disagree with you, just to make your point. In the end, perhaps, your filibuster won't amount to a hill of beans.
In all of this, you have boxed yourself into a philosophical position which demands that your rights override the rights of others.
I am not so troubled...
I said,
I'd like to introduce a subtlety that will be lost on a few here...
Let me propose that there is a distinction between the route and the rock upon which it exists. Now, of course, rock is the physical object that does exist and was here long before--and probably long after--we tailless monkeys started playing here. It cannot be rationally owned but we agree that it is often held in common trust for all us monkeys.
The rock is a mental construct of a physical object which we all agree is public property and, as such, is unownable yet "owned" by each of us. We, usually, agree that it is be conserved, protected, and yet be accessible to all. Individual ownership is anathema in this regard.
Now, a route on the other hand is also a mental construct, but one that is not strictly physical. Sure, in our monkey minds, we know that it "exists" on physical rock, yet we imbue it with something more. Over the years, we have generally and collectively agreed that climbing routes also reflect the times, skills, the mental makeup, and the values of the FA party. They "created" the route; it wasn't there before it was climbed. It wasn't included in any monkey's guidebook beforehand, and as such it reflects many aspects of first ascender. A route in this sense is inseparable from the creator. We can say, without equivocation, that the route is owned by the FA team. Of course, you silly, they don't own the rock!
You can--if you choose--disregard the style of the first ascent and claim some higher right to do as you will. After all, you do own the rock. Just don't forget that we own it too, and Martin Buber might have a few words for you. The tragedy of the commons, indeed...
The fact is, I do own the god damned route. It is the FA's creation and it exists in a mutually-agreed space in our monkey minds. You can propose that you have the right to dumb down the route for whatever self righteous and arrogant, harebrained reason you might have, but the fact is you can't alter the route. You don't own it!
Rail all you want, it won't do you a bit of good. The route exists, and it is "owned", Joe. Maybe after us toothless olde tykes of yesteryear are gone to dust, and everyone who ever knew us has forgotten, a new route will rise in some monkey's mind.
But in the meantime, the route exists and the rock abides. Deal with it.
And Lord Joseph replied,
Sorry, I can't even read this fundamentalist stuff anymore. It's just abstract theoretical constructs based on anthropomorphism. You might as well be worshipping The Granite Gods at this point, and proclaiming your religion as The True Faith, and all others as heretics.
I'm out.
You really can't handle anything challenging, so you dismiss it out of hand. (It's just too risky; it's too hard! La, la, la, I can't hear you!)
I'm not so troubled about any of this because, in my world, the "law" of the first ascent works. The route was established by climbers often committed to maintaining an "elite level in their sport." No one can deny the primacy of their creation--that's part of the "law." (Of course, future generations will ultimately decide if it was good art or bad as is their prerogative.)
But I'm not ready to abandon seventy or more years of settled law. The route stands as testimony to prior generations of climbers.
Some of us have no problem with you retrobolting the sh#t out of any rock you choose, you too own the rock. Johnny will buy you the gear and drive you to the base, and I'll buy you dinner and beers. It will be a grand experiment to see if you're really in tune with the modern sensibilities you claim you represent. Just don't expect that what you may do will be any part of the original route--that, you don't have any claim to. Just remember that those that disagree with you--and have respect for both the rock and the route--will have the selfsame right to undo what you have done.
BTW, I don't think you have any clue about the meaning of "anthropomorphism". And, you're right, this whole thread is "just abstract theoretical construct", since you'll not get off the couch to do anything, anyway.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2013 - 07:50pm PT
|
Ahhhh....the wonderful Yosemite-centric flavor of ST.
Beautiful, pollution free, day here in Bejiing, off for some touring and then Chengdu and the mountains tomorrow!
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2013 - 07:54pm PT
|
Koss, bite me. Contrasting rock climbing with the slaughter that goes on in war, and ascribing the "true sac" to those firing off the rounds, is the very quintessence of the ignorance you so so roundly denounce.
Fact is, everyone has sac (courage) equated with different things, usually things they know and came to value. Many equate courage with killing people and only killing people - especially "in the preservation of our freedom." Times 50 when Semper Fi and the military are involved.
FYI, some of the Stonemasters you diss are the very people who trained the SEALS who took out Bin Laden and various other high visibility targets. I won't go into more details but let it be known that the Stonemasters and the SEALS go back to the mid-1970s, and their involvement together was not what you are thinking.
But none of those involved would consider their military experiences as requiring some unprecedented quotient of sac, and I can tell you from first hand experience that "recreation" was not the opinion the SEALS had when we took them on Yosemite walls. "Recreation" is what you and your bum-scuttle boys were doing on those air mattresses down on the Merced. You remember. Sure you do.
You asked for that, chump.
JL
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!