Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2008 - 03:18am PT
|
Steve Grossman: "If you are using a hook as a chisel albeit an odd one the same applies. If you used a carabiner as a chisel or punch, the same. Intentional impact force. Pretty clear really."
Thank you for answering my question. Whatever other differences we have, I have to give you credit for stating strong convictions.
The "invisible" enhancements are, to me, the most serious issue with the WOS route. As you point out, such enhancements make if very difficult for a party to cleanly repeat the route, without making additional enhancements. I agree that the points you make on these enhancements are valid. But I do not understand why you accuse Richard and Mark of lying about them. The only reason we know about these enhancements is because Richard told us about them. He was forthcoming about them from the beginning.
John Mittendorf has also been critical of the "invisible" enhancements. I have found his posts to be reasonable. But the Big Walls, coauthored by John Mittendorf and John Long, states, "Sometimes a slight tap with the hammer will set a hook securely on a flake." (p. 98) Might not doing this unintentionally cause some damage to the rock and create an "invisible" enhancement?
Steve Grossman: "Gclimber-You are the one misquoting Richard. I didn't bother to backcheck your statement."
You accused Richard of misquoting your book but have not been able to show where he misquotes you. Now you accuse me of misquoting Richard, when I did not even quote him. Would you please point out where I misquoted Richard?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2008 - 03:57am PT
|
Granite (Steve, John, et al) - Isn't the 'invisible enhancements' issue endemic to any attempt to climb on such a slab - that any and all FA party of good conscience would face a 'Solomon's baby' dilemma of balancing the opposing demands of minimizing damage to the stone, yet drilling large and permanent enough 'holes' for subsequent ascents? In such a situation it would seem any FA party could easily be open to grief for both drilling too little and simultaneously drilling too much.
I'm hearing more than just a bit of exactly that double-edged sword of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" in these WoS threads, but the WoS fiasco completely aside, isn't this an important question to be addressed relative to such terrain? Is there a similar conundrum of unenhanced repeatability on routes such as some of Eric Kohl's more exotic A5 heading adventures? Are they 'repeatable' using the same standard as we're discussing here for the slab?
### -- One last quick edit before dashing as I forgot where I was headed with the above when I got sidetracked off-line. Please see the two new last sentences just above. -- ###
[ Note: Gotta jam and won't be back for a few days... ]
|
|
Clint Cummins
Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2008 - 04:27am PT
|
The "required new enhancements to repeat" issue is a theory which does not match up with the actual repeat attempts. Enhancements were not needed by Pete or Ammon. "The Chief" (summitpost.org) did not report having to make enhancements when he climbed the first 9 pitches in 1996, although he noted that p9 had some shiny rivets or bolts which were apparently added after the FA (maybe even after Steve observed p9). Steve had noted that p9 looked drilled when he inspected it when he did Horse Chute. Richard or Mark said that extra drilling on p9 was not theirs, and must have been done by others in the time between the FA and when Steve was up there.
"The Chief" was able to get up the first 9 (i.e. all the slab) and he did not report problems with finding the hooking placements. The rivets in place would appear to provide some definite guidance on what direction to go for each hooking section between rivets. However, "The Chief" had a cheater stick which he may have used to skip moves near the rivets (he did not state how much he used it or when he used it).
I hope we hear about Kevin Thaw's experience on the route, especially on the middle pitches.
|
|
Clint Cummins
Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2008 - 05:06am PT
|
Steve knows what clean climbing is. He describes its nuances very intelligently.
Steve does not know about letting other people climb. He can't accept that somehow these guys that he did not know and who hadn't done El Cap, were capable of doing a difficult first ascent with "relatively few" (as judged by the first 2 pitches) bolts/enhancements. Steve's judgement of the extent of their drilling is confined to his observations of p9 (which they say must have been done after the FA), and to testimony by his friends about the first 1-2 pitches (possibly at night when the chopping of the original p1 was done).
Any argument that Steve can think of to slam the FA guys will be used, no matter how ludicrous it is. Any argument or question which Steve cannot answer favorably for "his cause" is ignored.
I am disappointed that Steve can be intelligent about some things, but blind about others. His climbs are impressive. But as a discussant or debater, he seems unable to detach himself from his (very incomplete) understanding of the climb from 20 years ago. These Wings of Steel threads seems to persist for his entertainment and delight in insulting others.
[Edit (1/17/07 11:50pm) to add clarification/reply to Neal/Lovegasoline:]
Neal, you are correct that posts using the "Steve Grossman" supertopo id have not been made to the Wings of Steel threads until just recently (12/30/07). I tend to think of the posts from Mimi's id as the same as from Steve's, although I did not state that above, so you had no way of knowing my perspective. Her account dates back to 1/13/05, and she posted on the Wings of Steel / PTPP threads starting on 8/5/06. The Mimi account had 120 posts in 1.5 years prior to that date, and 2355 in the 1.5 years since then. I have presumed (but not stated) that Steve used her id occasionally (not sure how often). I believe they live in the same house, so sharing a PC sometimes would hardly be a crime in my view. Even if I'm dead wrong about id sharing, it seems clear they share the same style of argument on this topic. Hey, it could even be the case that it was Mimi using Steve's id on 12/30/07. He seemed to use it in a friendly way except for in that thread (which I also dislike) "Ammon's House of Cards" (the 4th post from his id on supertopo, on 9/11/06; maybe he was feeling agitated on 9/11, but I don't want to drift too far here). Mimi and Steve did not start the original Wings of Steel threads. They have been active in keeping the threads alive since 8/5/06, and I dislike their style of argument.
|
|
deuce4
Big Wall climber
the Southwest
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2008 - 09:46am PT
|
GraniteClimber, first of all, I think you should let everyone know who you are, rather than insist on anonymity.
Second, I hope my writings in my big wall book are not taken as license to chip away at the rock. When I talk about a slight tap to set a hook, my intent was to imply that:
1. The hook is capable is sitting there anyway.
2. That the tap is meant to "set" the hook, not "create" the hook placement.
On an micro-exfoliating slab like the left side of El Cap, there are bound to be infinite features that naturally would be quite challenging or impossible to hook, but with a bit of a chip here and a chop there, a nice "invisibly enhanced" flat edge could quickly be created.
This really crosses the line for some folks about the nature of climbing natural rock, in the same way that chipping a handhold in a blank section to "make a climb go free" is considered unethical in the free climbing realm of things.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2008 - 10:04am PT
|
So a "slight" tap isn't the same thing as slightly pregnant?
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2008 - 10:06am PT
|
(I can see the knee jerk response coming.
I don't hide my alterations.)
|
|
deuce4
Big Wall climber
the Southwest
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2008 - 10:25am PT
|
Of course, it always "felt" (from the 'ethical' perspective) better to be able to place a hook on a natural edge, then use it, rather than having to tap on it in the hopes of helping it "stick" (tapping on a hook on a flat or sloping ledge probably never made any difference anyway, except psychologically, though it would give you a sense of its propensity to "skate"). Personally, I'd never want to hammer on a hook hard enough to actually chip away a piece of rock, because as anyone who's life's depended on a hook 30' above the last piece with certain ledge fall potential, one tends to take care of those little curved pieces of metal...
When I wrote about tapping on hooks, I was envisioning those times like when a Chouinard type hook is draped over a flake and the tap helps the springiness of the hook adjust to the shape of the flake better. In the case of a blank slab, we're talking thin micro edges, where a tap wouldn't "set" a hook in that sense. I can't recall ever trying to tap on a "Leeper wide" type hook, which you'd be using more for that type of hooking, and which doesn't have any springiness.
I think what Steve is trying to discover is more about actual "manufactured" edges on an aid climb.
|
|
the kid
Trad climber
fayetteville, wv
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2008 - 10:32am PT
|
very long and interesting post..
in the end it does not matter because Tommy and Beth will free it next spring and it will be a sport route...
ks
|
|
the Fet
Knackered climber
A bivy sack in the secret campground
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2008 - 11:09am PT
|
a) should the slab be climbed?
b) if climbing the slab is legitimate, could anyone else have put up the line with a lower steel-on-stone index?
c) were the 10-15 (I think that was what they said numbers wise) enhanced hooks placements (not manufactured, but a "crystal" removed so the hook would sit better) out of line, and what should have been done instead?
d) were/are they lying and more than 15 enhanced or manufactured hook placements were made? (to me this is where the most controversial and personal current conflict lies, to suggest this is one thing, but to claim it requires some objective proof, of which none has been offered)
e) are Zmacs B.S. manufactured difficulty? (I think so)
f) do climbers have to be experienced to put up an FA? Or should the route be judged on it's own merit?
g) do climbers have to do an FA in good style (quickly)? Or should the route be judged on it's own merit?
|
|
deuce4
Big Wall climber
the Southwest
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2008 - 11:30am PT
|
>>"d) were/are they lying and more than 15 enhanced or manufactured hook placements were made? (to me this is where the most controversial and personal current conflict lies, to suggest this is one thing, but to claim it requires some objective proof, of which none has been offered)"
Precisely, Fet.
My intial understanding that many of the hooks were enhanced came from MSmith's written statement in one of his posts that "many" of the hook placements were enhanced.
Later both MSmith and Madbolter revised their statements that 'only' 10-15 of the hooks were enhanced, and the consensus of folks on Supertopo seemed to be to believe them on their revised statement, based on some first hand accounts of people, like Pass the Pitons Peter, who actually know them personally and attest to their character. So with that in hand, it becomes more of debate on their credibility, which I wouldn't second guess until I met them personally. MSmith seems like a reasonable guy, though Madbolter appears fairly pedantic on the internet, but until I met them in person, I would hesitate to make any final assumptions on their character and integrity.
|
|
'Pass the Pitons' Pete
Big Wall climber
like Oakville, Ontario, Canada, eh?
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2008 - 11:59am PT
|
"Just curious if you think it's a good thing for these guys or anyone else to head up on a new El Cap route not having led an established A3 pitch of 100' or longer? I think you have a lot more common sense and respect for tradition than to have behaved as they did."
Hell yeah, man - it's a great thing! Whether you agree or not that climbing a blank slab is legitimate, having seen firsthand the handiwork of Mark and Richard, I am CONVINCED that nobody could have established the route with a lower "Steel On Stone Index" than they did. [I like that term!] I believe that they minimized their ethical impact on the rock - the climbing is sick, and for anyone to have even equalled their SOS Index would be a major feat of sick and inspired/manic/insane climbing. I'm glad they did it the way they did.
If anyone does not like the style in which they climbed WoS, then they can kiss my middle-aged over-the-hill life-insurance-agent lard ass, for who are you to say what style is good or bad? I think it was particularly meritorious that despite having nine ropes with them [Nine ropes?! Are you guys frickin' NUTS?!] they didn't drop any to the ground, but instead established the route in ground-up style. And if that's a bad thing, well, I already told you where to place your lips.
Neal - observations are not slander.
Granite - your arguments are valid and logical, however your credibility is only as good as your identity. We have enough nameless, faceless and often-dickless detractors around this place, and revealing your identity would add further merit to your words.
Ron - when I'm getting onto a dodgy hook, I sometimes tap it with my hammer to get it to flex as I begin weighting it. I'm not tapping it hard enough to chip or enhance the rock, just to get it to begin the bend into the position it will ultimate take when weighted.
Deuce - if a hook is sitting over top of a "rail" I might tap it to seat it, and then leave it for pro. This is particularly effective with Fish and Captain hooks, which are Da Bomb. Oh, I see you addressed that in your next post. And correct, you would never tap a hook on the WoS slab, for there is nothing there to tap it over - sheesh. You'd probably break the dimple you were trying to use.
"The "invisible" enhancements are, to me, the most serious issue with the WOS route. As you point out, such enhancements make if very difficult for a party to cleanly repeat the route, without making additional enhancements. I agree that the points you make on these enhancements are valid. But I do not understand why you accuse Richard and Mark of lying about them. The only reason we know about these enhancements is because Richard told us about them. He was forthcoming about them from the beginning."
It has been my contention all along that Mark and Richard have been "too honest" about their enhancements. If they had simply lied and said they didn't make the micro-enhancements - which are no longer visible on the first two pitches - they would have endured a lot less grief. But lying is anathema to them. I would have gone up there and not known the difference. I too wonder if the route is repeatable without a few more micro-enhancements. I wonder if this is a good or a bad thing?
Richard and Mark have painstakingly and excrutiatingly explained precisely how they made their relatively few [I forget the exact number] enhancements, and most assuredly it was not "a chip here and a chop there".
"Later both MSmith and Madbolter revised their statements that 'only' 10-15 of the hooks were enhanced, and the consensus of folks on Supertopo seemed to be to believe them on their revised statement, based on some first hand accounts of people, like Pass the Pitons Peter, who actually know them personally and attest to their character."
At the time, I didn't know them at all. However I was prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt based on what they wrote, because their posts seemed consistent and had the ring of truth to them. It was only when I went to Yosemite and gave the route a try that I got to know Mark and Richard, and was amazed that not only were they not the raving lunatics they frequently appeared to be here on McTopo, they were actually pretty stand-up guys. I felt bad about the way they had been treated over the years, and was trying to set the record straight by revealing the truth based on my own observations. Whether I like them or not is somewhat irrelevant [I do like them, and consider myself blessed to included them as my friends] but I have mostly stuck to reporting what I saw on the rock.
"So with that in hand, it becomes more of debate on their credibility, which I wouldn't second guess until I met them personally. MSmith seems like a reasonable guy, though Madbolter appears fairly pedantic on the internet, but until I met them in person, I would hesitate to make any final assumptions on their character and integrity."
I get that - fully. I felt the same way. Let me assure you they "clean up well" and are actually very cool [even if they don't drink]. I tend to be very selective about whom I consider to be my friends, incidentally.
My assessment of their characters and credibility was meticulous - it's like when you meet a girl off the internet, the first thing you do is look for discrepancies between her profile and who you see in person. [HINT to guys - check her weight, they almost all lie about that] Is she really who she has purported herself to be, or knott? Are the inconsistencies accidental, or intentional, and can they be explained? What I found in Mark and Richard were two pretty transparent guys who not only had nothing to hide, but who were willing to do their best to reveal everything about themselves. It was very brave of them to step into the glass house in front of me and Randy and Tom, as there was a lot riding on our evaluations.
After meeting them and getting to know them, they are unquestionably two of the most forthright and upstanding straight-shooters I have ever met. I have no reason to doubt a single word that they have ever said or written, because EVERYTHING CHECKS OUT.
I think you-all would really enjoy meeting Mark and Richard. I know you would be surprised to learn that they are far from the pariahs that popular myth and legend has made them out to be. In fact, they are so far removed from this, it is truly amazing to me! If anyone has ever been unfairly treated in the past, it's these two blokes, because they are truly cool. I think it would be great fun to have a get-together in the Meadows sometime during the spring Wall Season, so we could all hang out a bit. You might expect to see Richard standing on a boulder ranting, but ... well, you just gotta meet him yourself.
I agree that using Zed-macs is artificially manufactured difficulty, and I lobbied for replacing them with at least machine bolts, if not buttonheads. But Tom and I acceded to the first ascensionists' request.
"that any and all FA party of good conscience would face a 'Solomon's baby' dilemma of balancing the opposing demands of minimizing damage to the stone"
A few years ago, I sang in a production of Handel's Solomon. Handel was played by a counter-tenor, a guy who sings in the alto range in a falsetto voice. You can imagine what some of us men initially thought about such a gender bending singer. At least, until we saw the reaction of the girls - who thought he was totally hot.
Cheers,
Pete
Baritone,
Wanna-be Tenor and secretly Counter-Tenor
|
|
deuce4
Big Wall climber
the Southwest
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2008 - 12:21pm PT
|
Cheers, Pete.
Still, I would add the "Steel on Stone" index is a stylistic can of worms, as Werner aluded to in a previous post.
Once Cameron Burns took me to a 80' spire in Colorado National Monument to do the FA. When we got there, it was blank and overhanging on all sides. Personally, I would have left it, but Cam really wanted to do it, so we bolted our way up to the top, not a climb I'm particularly proud of (though it must be said that Cam has picked a number of true classics in other places). So could this particular spire been done with less bolts? Not likely, but then the question comes, was it a reasonable and just means of ascent? In the case of WOS, that many bolts to justify a route wasn't the style at the time.
But as I mentioned before, style is subjective and may change in the future. My sense of "good style" are routes like the Radiator on Abraham in Zion, which had continously difficult climbing--Walt and I climbed the 2000 foot overhanging wall in 5 days with just 17 bolts total (no other rivets or holes), and all but three were for belays (and there were no bolts placed until the 8th pitch).
|
|
Melissa
Gym climber
berkeley, ca
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2008 - 12:57pm PT
|
It's funny to me that some people can find these guys and their route such a total desacration, and yet be so dogmatic about respecting the FA that they can't consider added enhancements (understandably not what most are into), upgrading the rivits/hardware that they find to be an innappropriate way to 'fill a hole', or by doing their best to erase the original enhancements and hardware from the rock.
I also don't understand how the so-called inevitable route that they supposedly took away by rolling their travesty up that section of rock would have been less 'boring' or fundementally different in climbing style.
If and when someone is ready to put bread on their table by freeing a "variation" of it, there will be plenty of new 3/8" bolts installed. It will be interesting to see if people are still freaking out about invisible hook enhancements then.
If I start a thread bitching about practice bolt ladders, tightly bolted sub 30ft. sport climbs, and super chalked up boulders in parking areas in the Valley, would some of y'all join me there? Those are way higher impact, but people seems to use and enjoy them. Are we upset about actual impact or that someone would do a route that didn't fit the dominant standard of fun.
|
|
Off White
climber
Tenino, WA
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2008 - 01:34pm PT
|
Melissa, as I read things, the question of rock degradation is just a tool, not the central topic. In much the same way that spotted owl protection is really about saving old growth forests, the specifics of the WoS ascent are tools to ascertain the validity of the overall goal that brought up this old FA on the Taco in the first place.
Granted, this is my interpretation, but here goes:
Mark and Richard are concerned about their legacy. They want to be seen as heroes, not zeros, and in order to do that they have to persuade a preponderance of climbers to agree with their interpretation of events and abandon popularly accepted history. Opponents argue that in fact the pair are zeros and unworthy of admiration, and their tactics, style, line of ascent, experience, and attitude justify this abject position in the climbing microverse.
Is my synopsis incorrect?
|
|
Melissa
Gym climber
berkeley, ca
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2008 - 01:45pm PT
|
Perhaps you are right. I guess just as w/ the irrational protester vs. the clear cutter, both sides of the heated argument (not necessarily many of the voices in between) kinda come across as zeros to me...at least w/in the context of the way it's been conducted.
If the real goal was to keep the WOS guys' place in history obscure at best, then these arguments seem to have been rather counter productive, IMO.
And yet, to the extent that the argument is really about the rock then it seems to me that it's on the 'anti' people to do something now b/c the WOS guys have already done their bit of doing.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2008 - 01:57pm PT
|
It saddens me that people are often so narrow minded that they insist on assigning what WOULD be their motives for doing what someone ELSE did.
Why not remain open to another's account before rushing to judgment?
For example; I know that Deuce felt that he was climbing by fair means on the Radiator (even mistakenly informed by me that the Patriarch was virgin), but, were I not already familiar with Deuce's performance (as opposed to product) oriented value system, I would be ranting about his bragging about a steel on stone count while completely ignoring the steel on stone impact of his piton placements.
But between the two routes which one sets the stage for the most resource degradation?
|
|
TradIsGood
Recently unshackled climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2008 - 02:03pm PT
|
But the real question...
Did they use chalk?
Maybe it is time we held John Gill accountable for all the post-Gill damage to natural rock.
|
|
the Fet
Knackered climber
A bivy sack in the secret campground
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2008 - 02:32pm PT
|
"Mark and Richard are concerned about their legacy. They want to be seen as heroes, not zeros."
Also Mimi said earlier something about the climb being thought of as a prized accomplishment.
Aside from the book, which was targeted to a Religous audience more as a spiritual journey, not to a climber audience, I don't think the climb IS touted as being important in the grand scheme of climbing.
Sure it sounds like there's some sick hooking, but no one has really repeated it, most climbers aren't into aiding slabs, and no one has said it was a ground breaking climb. What has made the climb a hot topic is the responses of the opposition.
I just think Mark and Richard just want the truth to come out. (unless of course there are some lies on their part, but I see a lot more integrity and consistency in Mark and Richard words and actions than their opposition).
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
arlington, va
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2008 - 02:55pm PT
|
I think they should have done some schooling before jumping up there, as almost all of us have, but the fact that they didn't is kind of a testament to their yarbles.
If it was a nasty bolt ladder, people would be clipping up it for fun all the time. The fact that no one does it is not just that it's sooo distasteful. Slab or not, it's got to be pretty bad ass or somebody would go climb the damn thing.
C'mon in the land of hard men, it doesn't get repeated?
I say give those guys a break and put it to bed, or go climb it and then talk smack.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!