Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
deuce4
Big Wall climber
the Southwest
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Aug 11, 2006 - 01:46pm PT
|
Re: Ethics
On other threads, the topic of ethics on the big stones has come up. There seems to be incredulitiy among some of the climbers on this forum that using a hammer and chisel to rock has not always been an accepted and widely practiced technique for everyone on big wall first ascents.
In my big wall book, I wrote a few short paragraphs about ethics. In it, I discuss the concept of rock sculpting as "poor style in any case."
To me, there is a big difference between scraping a seam with a chisel or a Lost Arrow, or tapping a loose flake with a hammer, and actually using both tools at once: the hammer upon the chisel upon the rock. It something my peers and I just did not do as a general practice. The chisel I carried on the big stones was purposely blunted with a grinder. It's purpose was to mash in heads, not to sculpt the rock.
I can't recall each and every placment I ever made, but I am certain that I never created a hook placement with a hammer and chisel to create difficulty, much less a series of hook placements, just so I could get a higher "rating". It's an absurd concept to me, and not in the realm of what the sport of big wall climbing meant to me at all. And I can speak for many of my peers of the 80's, some of whom are no longer with us.
Regarding copperheads, I do remember trenching a head in a blank piece of rock once. Walt and I were climbing the initial pitches of the North American Wall. We had been hired to fix ropes for the peregrine falcon folks so they could go gather some eggs (this was after the peregrines moved their nest from the El Cap Tree area to a small ledge near the NA) . We didn't bring a bolt kit, and a large flake on one of the first pitches had fallen off, creating a five foot blank section with no placements. To get past the blank section, I chisseled a #2 head placement in completely blank rock. It took less time and effort than to drill a rivet, and it held fast for us to get by.
But it felt really bad to do so; clearly it was defiling the rock. I knew the head would soon get chewed up by subsequent ascents, and become a big mess, so Walt and I went back later and replaced the chisseled head with a rivet.
On the other hand, I do remember times when I had the opportunity to enhance the rock to maintain difficulty on the first ascents, but didn't. One was on the Flight of the Albatross, on the pitch above the Canoe. After a series of shallow beaks and lousy heads up a 2" corner, with a bad fall potential onto the Canoe ledge, I came to a section of the corner with no seam at all. It would have been a simple matter to trench a single head placement in the shallow corner to get past the section, and it would have been quite secure. For me, that is. It would have been much more secure, in fact, than any of the other garbage placements that I had been ascending on. Continuing above the placement were another string of body weight placments. But with future ascents, the manufactured placement would have gotten more and more ratty, and the pitch would become more and more dangerous and difficult. So I drilled. Without the drilled placement, I could have probably given the pitch the "coveted" A5 rating. But that's really bullsh#t, don't you think? The placement was not a natural one, so the difficulty would have been completely manufactured.
Another time I was tempted to use the hammer to chisel to rock was on the Kali Yuga. But with Walt, a stickler with purity, there was no chance. It was on a pitch up high on the route, below the Snoopy, a shallow left facing corner with sporadic natural grooves in the seam. It would have been fun and easy (AND secure, mind you) to line the corner with #1 and #2 heads, but every third one (or so) would have had to be trenched with the hammer and chisel. So instead there is now a rivet every third or so placement. The rivets on the pitch bothered me, but for the longevity of the route, it is a better thing, methnks (higher on the same pitch there is a few rivets in a row where there are natural placments, but on the FA there was a 15 foot high, five inch think vertical detached piece of rock that I couldn't even touch, lest it fall and kill Walt directly below. When he let it fall while seconding the pitch, some natural placments in the corner were revealed).
I can say with confidence that I WOULD remember crafting any placements with a hammer and chisel on difficult pitches. It never happened, because it was a established and recognized taboo, especially on first ascents, where we felt we had the responsibilty to create a route that would last, not be artificially more difficult for future ascents, and utilize the natural features. The hole count concept reflected the fact that we were looking for natural lines, and assumed an integrity on the part of the hole counter that we did not "cheat" by not counting other manufactured placements.
Some people have mentioned, quite correctly, that big wall ethics are esoteric and can only be understood by participants. In reality, it is a deep personal question, and reflects a core respect for the rock and for what it naturally offers.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 01:51pm PT
|
Once again John you have failed to address the issue of long term viability of a route that continues to require a hammer and therefore is persistantly eroded.
For you ethics are a short term consideration. You are only concerned with your own ascent.
Ethics is a term that recognizes how your actions affect others.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 01:57pm PT
|
Ethics is a term that recognizes how your actions affect others.
I like that ..................
|
|
deuce4
Big Wall climber
the Southwest
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 11, 2006 - 02:06pm PT
|
Ethics to me involves the question of what is right, and what is wrong.
Minimum impact seems right, contriving difficulty on a piece of nature so others will think you are a bad-ass seems wrong.
To me, anyway.
|
|
John Vawter
Social climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 02:16pm PT
|
Thank you John for that eloquent statement. It clarifies for me my uneasiness with the thought of using hammer and chisel to take crystals out of the rock to create or enhance a hook placement. I always thought, as you state, that the gray area isn't that gray, though it may take a few minutes of thought sometimes to sort it out.
What we sometimes lose sight of is that the temptation to alter the rock by creating a placement is not always to reduce our anxiety. Sometimes we are tempted to increase our anxiety by foregoing the rivet or bolt, and to make the route "harder." That is just as unnatural, contrived, and therefore undesirable, as placing a chicken bolt. The bottom line "rule", if you will, is not to use the hammer and the chisel at the same time to alter the rock.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 02:25pm PT
|
John,
Do you believe a line up the apron in the vicinity of WoS could be climbed otherwise? Given they climbed SoD and the pitches above WoS "conventionally" I still can't escape the impression that the line dictated the means. I certainly can understand people not deciding/believing no line there could be legit, but that's very different than saying those lines are legit and the problem is simply the way they did it - that unavoidably begs the question of could anyone do it substantially different. Seems like the most important distinction of all to me. My impression from Ammon's and Christian's comments is the answer is no - anyone making that journey is going to be forced to make pretty much the same [ethical] decisions Mark and Richard did.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 02:28pm PT
|
thanks for those clarifications john, but i still don't really understand-
what about the fact that you can alter on a "microscopic" level, and therefore on susequent ascents, nobody will be able to visually identify when, or whether, the rock has been altered?
after all, isn't what really matters most whether or not other people can tell what you have or have not done?
...cause when i read pete's posts in those threads (where he talks about how hard and scary the hooking on WoS is, and he says you can't see any evidence of the microscopic enhancements anyway, and he repeatedly says that R&S have been "too honest" wrt the climb), that's what i am hearing about what he seems to think.
[note: this post was slightly enhanced after the fact- just being honest...]
|
|
John Vawter
Social climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 02:42pm PT
|
Matt, it's just as bad because it's a contrivance, and because the next party can't find the placement. In fact, the alterations may have weathered away by now. If they can't find them, what does the subsequent party do? Do they create a new hook placement or place a rivet?
And to Healy, although I think you were addressing your comment to JM, of course it can be climbed in different style. A bolt or rivet can be placed instead of an enhanced hook. There were only, what, 2 to 8?
|
|
golsen
Social climber
kennewick, wa
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 02:49pm PT
|
Deuce brings up a good distinction, whether it is right to alter the rock with hammer and chisel. I believe that Ron is saying if you are not making each and every placement, hammerless for future ascents, then you truly are not looking out for the future. Both good points.
What is interesting to me is this. 25 years after the WoS ascent there are NO visble signs of modification, and the only evidence of their passing, except for the bolts and rivets. Nobody can say whether this would have been the case, say shortly after their ascent. But aside from right and wrong isnt this what we are striving for? Reduced signs of our passing?
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 03:01pm PT
|
what is the point of saying "except for the bolts and rivets" there is no sign of their passing?
are you trying to be ironic?
did you want them to leave an educational sign for tourists, like in the "do we need really this" thread?
|
|
deuce4
Big Wall climber
the Southwest
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 11, 2006 - 03:04pm PT
|
healyje-
It is not my place to comment on other people's ethics, and my statements regarding Wings of Steel in other forum topics are primarily an attempt to let others understand what the framework of the route's criticism were at the time.
A natural path up any piece of stone is only in the eyes of the beholder, different for everyone. A featureless spire in the desert may offer a tempting ascent, but what if it requires a bolt ladder from bottom to top?
On the other hand, if it only entailed natural climbing with natural stone bollards for the rappels (the three pitch Organ Rock in Utah was like this), the questions become easier to answer.
Still, it's all grey, isn't it?
Your question about the appropriate style can only be answered by an individual. For me, I would have left the slab on El Cap alone until I could have climbed it without so many artificial placements.
|
|
TradIsGood
Trad climber
Gunks end of country
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 03:07pm PT
|
If it is only individual, it is not ethics.
|
|
deuce4
Big Wall climber
the Southwest
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 11, 2006 - 03:16pm PT
|
Perhaps it is possible (for some people) to include inanimate elements of nature such as a big chunk of rock in the grouping of "others", if the concept of ethics necessarily includes others.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 03:16pm PT
|
John,
Good points. I guess in the end, after Pete and Ammon's comments (relative to the hooking alone), I personally still question whether anyone could have really done things much different on any route up the apron so it seems to me that the real question is more about whether anyone should be climbing the apron at all. I'll be the first to admit not getting the whole Valley hole/rivet/machinehead/bolt thing but I have to wonder what the fixed protection would look like on the same line if you, Walt, the Bird, Eric, or some of the other luminaries had gotten obsessed with the line instead of Mark and Richard - skipping the hooking part, would the anchor/rivet/bolt "arrangement" have likely been all that different?
[Note: Again, I think the whole hole/rivet/machinehead/bolt thing is certainly one of the more fascinating aspects of the Valley for some of us outsiders. I honestly can never tell whether all the rainbow distinctions of what fills a hole are about technology, expediency, efficacy, legacy, long considered evaluations or simply a matter of a bunch of lazy, broke, eccentric, and/or cheap bastards - pretty strange business on the w"hole"...]
|
|
Ultrabiker
Ice climber
Eastside
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 03:41pm PT
|
PR:"Once again John you have failed to address the issue of long term viability of a route that continues to require a hammer and therefore is persistantly eroded.
For you ethics are a short term consideration. You are only concerned with your own ascent.
Ethics is a term that recognizes how your actions affect others."
Interesting comment coming from someone who drills Bolt Ladders 12' from an obvious and well protected 5.8 crack!
I have been on many of both PR's and Duece's Desert and Big Stone routes. Done several of Dueces Big Stone routes and climbed with one of Dueces partners on several occasions, JB. My personal opinion stands that Duece's Desert work was better thought out as far as thinking of the "Future" goes! Examples, Swiss/American and Days of No Future were done in style, great easy "Walk-Offs", cleaned with proper "Clean Ascent" seconds in mind, and the belays were bolted & positioned right on track. Also, Tricks, Tao of Light and The Fang are incredible Classic's with only future "Clean Ascents" written into the FA's. As far as Duece's comments about Heading etc, I concur with his basic philosophy and style. I have yet to be on any of PR's routes that required any "heading", including Dorn Direct. Nor do I know of any that he has put up that had any. I think that Duece's record speaks for itself as far as FA's and their looking out for the "Future" thought process goes. And please show some discipline and respite on your feedback RP.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 04:23pm PT
|
Ultrabutthole,
you nearly let a week go by without another fan post.
You can past post better than that can't you? lol
For the rest of you ubh has editted out some of the more inane selection of blithering.
Matt, how do you like PDHMAN's new,..uh,..er,..handle?
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 04:33pm PT
|
ultrabutthole
thanks ron-
i really need that image swirling in my (admittedly already twisted) head
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 04:34pm PT
|
So far, everybody is missing/ignoring Trad's most perceptive points. Everybody is using terms like they know what the terms mean. But what is the nature of these "ethical facts" that you are talking about? What is the metaphysical ground of these "facts?"
John, I appreciate what you're trying to say here, and I appreciate you stepping up to the plate as you have done. I would like to point out, though, that historically speaking, you have missed Mark's earlier point. Native Son was "a route worth drilling for," in Robbin's earlier terms. You draw a totally arbitrary distinction between chipping and cleaning with JUST a hammer and even less of that actual rock-removal that happens when "hammer and ????" come together (where that ???? can be replaced by "drill," or "chisel," or some other tool. But this IS just an arbitrary line, despite the fact that some others seem to think that it makes the "ethics" oh so clear.
You have treated your "ethical" stand as one of great "purity," yet it is just ONE among many EQUALLY "valid" points on a grand continuum of practices (notice I did not say "ethics") of the time. I'm sure that Robbins, back in the 60's would have been horrified by the Machine Headwall, but, somehow in your own minds that level of full-on drilling is somehow more "pure" than putting hammer and drill together to knock a single crystal off of a flake. Ok, whatever.
The PUREST thing is to FA no big wall unless you can do so utterly naked, free solo, having done something to ensure that you leave no traces of your own body oils (and/or other bodily fluids) behind to "deface" the route. The other end of the spectrum is a route where each and every placement has resulted from hammer blows of some sort. In between is a vast continuum, and NONE of it constitutes "ethics."
|
|
Jerry Dodrill
climber
Bodega, CA
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 04:38pm PT
|
This all seems dumb to me. Why do these "Ethics" apply to big walls, but not free climbs. Take Crest Jewell for example. It has as few features that take gear as the apron on WoS. It has what, 6 or more bolts per pitch, including anchors? Nobody's bitching about that. Why would it matter if stone is frictioned up, or hooked? That is, unless the placements/holds are all drilled/manufactured. Is El Cap really the only sacred piece of rock and thus subject to it's own distinct set of ethics? If WoS had been free climbed, drilled on lead with a bunch of fat bolts using hooks would there be an issue?
How many of those engaged in the WoS debate have taken a sledgehammer, crow bar, auto jack, or worse up on a proposed new free route? Reinforced a hold with glue or epoxy? Cut a tree down? Excavated a new sit start or scrubbed moss off a boulder? Used a power drill in wilderness (Shame! Shame!)? I bet a surprising number of people modify their ethics based on what they can get away with and is acceptable at different locations. Do ethics start when you step into your aiders? Not sayin' I'm innocent, just making a point. Where do the rules start and stop in this game? It seems like every ethical consideration is just a question of common sense and an assumption that you should apply a minimum impact methodology while staying alive, not getting shat upon by peers, and looking out for the future. Ethics are relative and subject to change. As a well know environmentalist once honestly told me when questioned about blatantly cutting through eroded switchbacks: "Yeah, I'm an environmentalist... when it's convenient."
-My worthless $.02
(fastening my bullet proof vest and ducking now.)
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Is it just what common practice has been, and thus ever immutable? For example, is cannibalism ethical - only for cannibals, for anyone, or nobody.
Let us know!