Warbler Appreciation

I don't know why those types of women don't concentrate the energy they waste writing about it and just go out and do their thing.

Aug 16, 2008 - 02:07am PT
Roger, Kevin and Roy…great read. I think it’s important to see the building blocks of free climbing through a respectful eye toward those who
brought the sport to the next level in our prior generations. Roger your words were very thought provoking and seemed to hit the nail on the head
for the mid-seventies era. I remember climbing with CF one day on this little 5.9 overhanging lie-back (Kat pinnacle???) that was by the days
standards easy. Chris mentioned that the first free ascent was protected with pitons placed on the lead. As I pondered this, I was extremely
humbled. Even though my climbing ability was several grades higher at the time, I really couldn’t picture leading it and hanging in there to place a
pin, draw the hammer, beat it into submission, replace the hammer, clip it and then continue on to do this all over again several times while steadily
getting pumped on the overhanging lieback.
Fast forward to the first prototypes of friends that Ray graciously lent us on several occasions and the doors they opened. Protection went from a
fairly intricate ordeal that needed a strategic, well thought out plan to…blam, it’s in. So of course the standards were pushed but what really struck
me at the time was how many more climbers stepped up to the plate and were doing hard routes for the first time. Were the standards pushed
proportionally or was the learning curve just shortened for the masses?
Now enter the tactic of hang-dogging. Although it seemed like an insult to the purer styles of the day, the reality was that many of the harder routes
were “worked” repetitively before they were sent. The difference was that traditionally they were not worked section by section but from the ground
up. Butterballs was tried numerous times by many prior to Hot Henry firing it off. Does that imply a decline in aesthetic style? Within just a couple of
years of the first ascent it had been done by perhaps hundreds and in good style with essentially the same gear for pro. In fact it was hard to
imagine why some of the more talented climbers of Yosemite didn’t do it first after it became a well traveled climb. What changed? Perhaps it was
only the vision of what was possible.
Hang-dogging IMHO was nothing new to the mid 70’s if you broaden the definition to include top-roping (Short-Circuit, Bad-ass Moma and
numerous other technique-inspiring climbs of the day) and working to free bolt ladders (The Calf & several TM classics). Tales of Power and
Separate Reality were certainly worked repetitively prior to completion by Ron and same thing with the Cosmic Debris when Bill did it. The one
difference with Ray’s routes was that he was rather secretive about his ascents tactics and that really didn’t set well at the time with the Yosemite
boys. Most of the harder bouldering problems were certainly worked but again, from the ground up.
But then, John Bachar and Peter Croft made many of the classic hard routes... into mere boulder problems!
Enter the era of sport climbing. Although I checked out of climbing for years due to physical reasons when I was able to get a glimpse again of
where climbing had gone, I was stoked about the quality and sustained nature of climbs that were being done both in the sport and trad venues. My
first introduction to modern sport climbing was walking into an ancient Roman stadium in Nimes France where instead of gladiators pitting their
skills against lions, there were masterfully-set artificial climbs set for a competition being televised on French TV with the same enthusiasm as our
Superbowl. It was a very surreal experience.

Aug 17, 2008 - 04:04pm PT
Hi Dave,
You make some good points, but I beg to differ on a few...
"Now enter the tactic of hang-dogging. Although it seemed like an insult to the purer styles of the day, the reality was that many of the harder
routes were “worked” repetitively before they were sent. The difference was that traditionally they were not worked section by section but from the
ground up. Butterballs was tried numerous times by many prior to Hot Henry firing it off. Does that imply a decline in aesthetic style?.....Hangdogging
IMHO was nothing new to the mid 70’s if you broaden the definition to include top-roping (Short-Circuit, Bad-ass Moma and numerous
other technique-inspiring climbs of the day) and working to free bolt ladders (The Calf & several TM classics). Tales of Power and Separate Reality
were certainly worked repetitively prior to completion by Ron and same thing with the Cosmic Debris when Bill did it. The one difference with Ray’s
routes was that he was rather secretive about his ascents tactics and that really didn’t set well at the time with the Yosemite boys. Most of the
harder bouldering problems were certainly worked but again, from the ground up."
I think it's important not to blur the line between "hangdogging" and "working" or toproping a route, at least when discussing history/evolution of
Yosemite freeclimbing. First of all, we didn't use the term "working" to describe the pre-dogging method - it was called "yoyoing". Also, I don't think
you can "broaden the definition (of hangdogging) to include toproping" - toproping an unclimbed lead was a different sort of ethical compromise.
Before dogging became accepted, toproping a new climb to prepare for leading it was also considered cheating, and like hangdogging, just wasn't
done, at least openly.
By the earlier ethical standards, a failed lead attempt was followed by immediate lowering of the leader to the belay or a no hands rest - repeatedly
doing this was "yoyoing". After pulling the rope, the sharp end was usually then handed to the other climber, and he gave it a go while his partner
belayed and rested. I think, and it seems we all thought at the time, that it was certainly a compromise of style to resort to yoyoing, but resting on
the rope, or hangdogging, wasn't a compromise that was acceptable.
The ethic of not using the gear to rest on to repeatedly attempt a section, usually the crux of the pitch, and often a section arrived at after many
forearm pumping moves, was the critical ethical dividing line between hangdogging and yoyoing. Adhering to that arguably small ethical distinction
had the effect of slowing down the evolution of upper end crack pitches, especially because it went hand in hand with the challenge of fiddling with
hexes and stoppers, on lead without hanging, usually on very parallel sided cracks.
Ray's potent, and initially secret, combination of dogging and Friends was, therefore, a doubly "revolutionary" approach to crack climbing, giving the
leader a huge new advantage, and IMO defines the end of an era.
KW

Aug 17, 2008 - 11:36pm PT
Kevin... good points...you know I'm really just a yoyo yahoo at heart!
(-;

Aug 17, 2008 - 11:58pm PT
Dave,
I didn't mean to be judgmental in any of that, towards you, Ray or anybody really. Just trying to follow through on Roger's OP theme as I saw
things back then.
I like the positive attitude that runs through your perspective, I try to look at all of climbing's evolution with an open mind also - more now than
back then - it's easier to do from a firsthand retroperspective (how bout that word) gained by many decades in the game. The end of an era is the
beginning of a new one.
I'm psyched to see some incredible new freeclimbing happening recently in the Valley, particularly on El Cap, after the long slow spell that followed
the period we discussed above.

Supertopo doesn't have free speech. That sounds like a bad thing, until you have free speech. Voat (http://voat.co/);; is an example of allowing people the full freedom of expression, and it's not everything one would think.

"We were wrong, terribly wrong. We owe it to future generations to explain why." — McNamara, writing in his 1995 memoir, In Retrospect, on the management of the Vietnam War

Aug 21, 2008 - 11:24am PT
interesting to look at the next 5 years
Notable FAs and FFAs from 1980 to 19 85
Alien 5.12b FA 1980 Tony Yaniro
Controlled Burn 5.11a FA 1980 Do n Reid Grant Hiskes
Cosmic Debris 5.13b FA 1980 Bill Price
Energy Crisis 5.11d FA 1980 Bill Price R andy Grandstaff
Goldfingers 5.12a FA 1980 Chick Holtkamp Eric Zschiesc he
Mary's Tears 5.11b FA 1980 Bill Price Mike Borris
Pegasus (East Quarter Dome, North Face) 5.12 FA 1962 Yvon Chouinard Tom Frost FFA 1980 Max Jones Mark Hudon
Quarter Dome; North Face (Pegasus) 5.12 FA 1962 Yvon Chouinard Tom Frost FFA 1980 Max Jones Mark Hudon
Crest Jewel 5.10a FA 1981 Dan Dingle Michael Lucero
Soul Sacrifice 5.11c FA 1981 Werner Braun
Essence 5.11b FA 1983 Werner Braun Don Reid
Lost Arrow Tip 5.12b FA 1946 Fritz Lippmann Jack Arnold Anton Nelson Robin Hansen FFA 1984 Dave Schultz
Autobahn 5.11d FA 1985 Charles Cole Rusty Reno John Middendorf
The Crucifix 5.12b FA 1973 Jim Bridwell Kevin Worall FFA 1985 Pete r Croft
The Rostrum, The Regular North Face Route FA 5.11c 1962 Glen Denny Wa rren Harding FFA 1985 Ron Kauk John Yablonski Kim Carrigan

Aug 21, 2008 - 11:36am PT
Yet another good route collection, Ed.
I would add the FFa of the Rostrum (to the roof) in '77 by Ron and Yabo.
It seems like new freeclimbing development slowed considerably after that period - I know stuff was happening in the Meadows, but it would be
interesting to see a breakdown of the Valley evolution through the 80's and 90's to present while we're at it.
The focused surges of freeclimbing that I can think of after Ed's list are the Mecca area, El Cap, and bouldering.

Aug 22, 2008 - 10:22am PT
It is interesting to see the slowdown of new route exploration in the 80's laid out like that. I think for purposes of looking at trends or evolution, the
term "notable" needs to be defined. The first free ascent of The Rostrum, for example, or what most parties call The Rostrum, was done in '77, most
likely ground up, and avoiding the last roof pitch by climbing a different easier pitch to the top. Kim Carrigan freed that roof pitch in 1985, almost
certainly by approaching it from above, and likely after checking it out on rappel. The ground up approach to freeing the route in '77 versus the top
down (if in fact that was the method) in '85 is notable as far as evolution is concerned.
Those two different steps forward each were notable, but had different significance as far as the evolution of Yosemite free routes goes.
To really analyze what was happening, new routes need to be put into two categories. A "notable" route should be one that was at or near the outer
levels of difficulty and/or boldness when it was first done, the a FFA or FA of a major line, or a route that pioneered freeclimbing in an area of the
Valley that went on to become popular.
First ascents that were not notable by that definition are relevant, and essential information for a meaningful analysis, but only when juxtaposed
with the notable ones. For example, the FA of Controlled Burn in 1980, wouldn't be notable compared to the FA of it's neighbor, Cosmic Debris, the
same year.

Aug 22, 2008 - 11:10am PT
there are inherent problems with any selection of climbs as "notable"
I have used a rather simple criteria: is it a climb I know about.
Further, I have used only documented climbs, and the rather limited identification of "First Ascent" or "First Free Ascent." Climbs that are not
identified as such are not a part of the selection process. So significant free climbing projects, such as the West Face of Sentinel a long time,
unsolved free climbing project are not represented.
However, given the state of communication regarding climbing, it is difficult to use any other method. For instance, Sean Jones has put up about
100 new climbs in the Valley, I can name only two: Gates of Delirium and Growing Up, are any of the others notable?
So when I look at the list of Yosemite Valley climbs by year I have to think whether or not I have heard mention of it. Don Reid asks the FA teams
that submit climbs for a "star rating," so just looking at the stars is of dubious value, who wouldn't think their climb is a "137.75 star dick wrenching
mega-classic"?
What seems to have happened is that Yosemite Valley ceased being a place to develop higher standards and more a place to train. The style
developed in the Valley, rapid ascents of long technical routes, has been applied to many other regions. The proximity of long technical routes, the
simple logistics of visiting the Valley and the ease of getting there make it a natural place to train for climbing projects elsewhere in the world. An
ambitious climber will get more mention of pushing a new wall on some Baffin Island fjord than squeezing another line onto the already crowded
walls of the Valley.
The additional constraints imposed by the now enforced rules limiting time in the Valley have also greatly reduced climbing activities.
Finally, the magazines, in their quest for satisfying their reader's thirst for "the new" have long ago moved beyond the Valley, relegating it to
"museum" status, where they feel that there is nothing of interest to the current equipment-buying generation of magazine readers... after all,
every young Valley first timer complains that the route ratings are incomprehensible, they can pull 5.12 at their local gym yet get shut down on a
5.7 in the Valley, what is there to spray about to the local gym crowd.
Bouldering in the Valley has a long history, I haven't delved into Reid's new bouldering guide, I'm not sure it has the historical information
necessary to attribute dates and FAs, though bouldering was a notoriously solitary activity when done seriously back in the day, sort of in the mold
of Gill. When done socially then, I suspect it wasn't serious, more like party games to establish hierarchies, and something that could be dismissed
as "just training" or "just trickery" but not "real climbing." Those days have passed, and we find climbers who are in the Valley just for the
bouldering. It still boggles my mind, but there you have it.
A history of Valley bouldering is probably still possible, but as it continues to be an oral tradition, the stories should be captured before the primary
historical sources cease to be. Gill has done some of this, but the Valley scene is most colorfully rendered by the Stonemaster set.
Then there are the numerous stories of excellent climbers coming in from far away places, like Wyoming, who have a quite different point of view of
climbing in the Valley. The parallax they offer is quite refreshing, as the stock Valley stories told from the Valley local perspective can be cloying at
times. These voices are aging too, and cultural inhibitions have prevented them from providing their stories in the past, after all, they didn't really
"know" what was going on, did they? But their stories adds a richness to the history, and they were often more aware of the currents of the times
than the locals, who were caught up in that fast moving stream, the world is different if you arrive at it from the banks than if you are in the
current.
ANYWAY, it would be wonderful if a lot of this could be captured. Most young people will yawn, just as we did, but they will be as appreciative as we
are when they get to be our age.
It doesn't really matter in the sweep of history whether or not this story gets written. But it will most assuredly be lost if it does not. Many of you
will have spent a large fraction of your life living this story, it must have had some importance to you, perhaps important enough to communicate to
those who might follow your path.

Aug 23, 2008 - 02:28am PT
Ed,
I feel I have to address some statements you made in your last post - I know you have a strong interest in the history of Yosemite, but my
perspectives on a few of the things you talked about are a lot different.
"there are inherent problems with any selection of climbs as "notable" ...
I have used a rather simple criteria: is it a climb I know about."
When discussing freeclimbing history or evolution in the Valley, "notable" has to mean more than that. Unless notable means you are able to put
notes in your guidebook about the route because you've done it or know about it. When I see the word associated with a particular ascent in the
context of Valley history, to me it means significant, exceptional, groundbreaking, visionary, ahead of it's time, standard raising - that kind of thing.
And those kinds of routes have shaped and continue to shape the history of freeclimbing in Yosemite.
"What seems to have happened is that Yosemite Valley ceased being a place to develop higher standards and more a place to train."
It seems to me the free ascents of El Cap routes in the last decade are on the cutting edge of big wall free climbing standards, and among the most
challenging freeclimbs in the world. Interesting the advancements in that arena have not been made by Valley locals. Valley rock just isn't
conducive to sportclimbing like other areas, and I agree with you that Valley sportclimbing is not generally high standard, but it's not a great place
to train for sport either.
"The additional constraints imposed by the now enforced rules limiting time in the Valley have also greatly reduced climbing activities."
Very true, and I believe probably the factor having the most negative effect on the momentum of Valley freeclimbing advances. Even more
damaging than the sport vs trad feuds.
"bouldering was a notoriously solitary activity when done seriously back in the day, sort of in the mold of Gill. When done socially then, I suspect it
wasn't serious, more like party games to establish hierarchies, and something that could be dismissed as "just training" or "just trickery" but not
"real climbing." Those days have passed, and we find climbers who are in the Valley just for the bouldering. It still boggles my mind, but there you
have it"
Bouldering was more of a social activity BITD if you mean early to mid 70's. Of course guys would wander off alone to boulder, but usually it was a
group activity, or at least two guys at the end of the day. Many were quite serious about bouldering too - Dale Bard, Mark Chapman, Mike Graham,
Yabo, Werner, John Long, Bachar, Kauk, Ed Barry, Wunsch, Bates, all were into bouldering as "real climbing", and were quite good at it. It was a
way to improve fitness for the routes, but it was more than just training, for sure. There was a definite element of horseplay involved, but I think
you are mistaken about the attitude toward bouldering of Camp 4 residents in that era. The passion you see for bouldering today in the Valley is the
offspring of the spirit of Camp 4 bouldering in the 70's.
"ANYWAY, it would be wonderful if a lot of this could be captured. Most young people will yawn, just as we did, but they will be as appreciative as
we are when they get to be our age."
I'm trying to capture it accurately here, not criticizing your perspective. You're absolutely right - when you're history, you have a greater
appreciation for it ;>). Werner was there. How was it in your eyes Wonder Brawn?
"It doesn't really matter in the sweep of history whether or not this story gets written."
History is written stories. No stories - no sweep of history.
KW

Aug 23, 2008 - 11:47am PT
There seems to be a lot that is misunderstood about the culture of 70s bouldering. To talk to many younger climbers, one might gather that
bouldering was invented in the early 90s.
Bouldering culture during the mid-to late 70s was very much about a group dynamic and was heavily pursued both as a means to training and as an
end in itself. When getting to know an area, often bouldering was the litmus test to understanding the stone and a gateway to mastering the
subtleties required of that particular style of rock.
Bouldering could be used as an introductory medium to bring a visiting climber up to speed and to test that climber’s prowess; to quickly assess
strength, aptitude, and technical maturity.
Having arrived on a scene, blending into the bouldering culture helped an aspirant to get one’s bearings. In some sense, the routes would take care
of themselves, because they were well known, listed in the guide, and ascents would slowly accrue in accord with long-term commitment. But the
bouldering experience belonged to a discrete and fervent oral tradition.
In my first full-time season in Yosemite, 1980, Bachar took me on a tour of the boulders at Camp 4. This was an introduction and a nod to goodwill
on his part; clearly he occupied a class above mine on the surrounding walls, yet he could quite easily provide the initiate with a valuable tour of the
standard problems. I remember the Titanic, Blockhead, Ament’s Prow and others. (don’t believe for a second that I actually topped out on those
things). As we moved through the circuit, John would divine sequences, tell stories related to the personalities engaged in the earlier ascents.
Mark Chapman graciously did the same on the other side of the Valley, one afternoon taking me through the standards among the Sentinel Boulders and a couple of other areas on that side; Housekeeping Boulders I recall. I remember the stiff mantel of the Purple Barrel most vividly. He gave me
a look at the Amazon Face (just a look, haha).
In the Eastern Sierra that spring, it was Vern Clevenger at Dead Man's Summit. In Southern California we would often boulder in our running shoes,
thinking that the deficit would help us to build up our finger strength. As I was fiddling about on the welded tuff at Dead Man's, Vern said to me:
"You should put on your EB's and get more serious with your footwork on this stuff..."
In May of 1980 heading up into the Sierra Nevada, on the way to Mammoth Lakes, I stopped at Wheeler’s boot repair, where Al Bard seemed to
stand as an emissary of sorts, holding forth in his signature white cap, happily dispensing directions to the storied Buttermilk Boulders. This is a
bouldering haunt I returned to many times; a particular day during that summer a bunch of us from Mammoth Lakes, Vern, probably Claude Fiddler,
Bob Finn, Marco Milano and others went down and scattered about among the problems, had a picnic, hung out and soaked it all in. That evening
we got together with bishop locals Bob Harrington, Rick Wheeler, and more Bishop locals. This was (and still is) a fairly tight knit yet sociable group
of itinerant high country regulars. Bouldering was just such a handy means to affect a casual gathering.
Midsummer in Tuolumne Meadows, Katherine Besio, "KB", showed me around The Knobs and Tenaya Boulders.
These introductions also served to provide an avenue of autonomy; to know a circuit intimately was to possess knowledge of something akin to a training apparatus which one could then pursue in one's own time, training alone as needed to fill the solitary down time which would naturally arise
over a season's course.
I enjoyed a similar experience with Yabo, although his introduction characteristically involved something more fringe, although not necessarily
uncommon: some late evening ascents and attempts on boulders out behind Camp 4 …this was done without any light whatsoever, snatching holds
on difficult problems, silently cloaked in the black of night.

Aug 23, 2008 - 12:30pm PT
Thanks for fleshing out my point about bouldering, Roy.
Bouldering really is a huge part of the Yosemite climbing experience and it's evolution. After the freeclimbing doldrums of the 80's, I felt it was
bouldering in Camp 4, particularly problems like The Dominator, that could ignite the smoldering fire in the Valley and help push Yosemite back to
the forefront of America's climbing scene.
I concluded in Rocking the Cradle, an article about Camp 4 bouldering I wrote for Climbing in 1994 -
"Yosemite is the cradle of American climbing and the undefeatable spirit that was nurtured here is as strong as ever among the boulders of Camp 4.
The new extreme problems hint at the possibilities on the countless boulders that litter the Valley floor. And what's happening now on the boulders
points to just how many routes lie waiting on the massive walls of Yosemite Valley. The recent activity in Camp 4 could well foreshadow the
awakening of a sleeping giant."

Hardman Knott, March 6, 2012 6:45 PM PT
As Chris made clear in his video, no single poster should affect the flavor of the forum so disproportionately.

Simple as that, really.

Aug 23, 2008 - 01:36pm PT
Certainly an interesting perspective on bouldering. It seems true that the skills developed by hard bouldering have been applied to big routes. I'm
less sure of the direct connection of Yosemite bouldering to freeing the big Yosemite routes, the prevalence of bouldering has raised the level of
climbing everywhere.
As far as "notable climbs," I agree that these should be everything The Warbler said, but it is difficult to label a climb as "notable" if no one knows
about it, or understands just why it is notable.
Below is the list of 1986 First Ascents. Perhaps the only one that could be termed "notable" is Phantom, but I'd like to know if there are any others?
There are a couple of Kauk climbs in there, but I'm not sure if they make the list.
Alamo 5.11a
Amoeba, The Right Side 5.11c
Anal Tongue Darts 5.10c
Apathy Buttress 5.9
Arete Butler 5.10a
Astro Spam 5.11a
Avalon 5.10b
Back to the F uture 5.12d
Bark at the Moon 5.11b
Beat the Clock 5.10c
Boogie with Stu 5.10 d
Brainbucket 5.10d
Breathalizer 5.10b
Butthole Climber 5 .10c
Catch a Wave 5.11d
Chicken's Choice 5.1 0b
Combustable Knowledg e 5.10d
Crazy Train 5.10c
Creeping Lethargy 5.10d
Crying for Mama 5.10a
Dale's Pin Job 5.13
Dancing in the Dark 5.11c
Danger Will Robinson 5.10 d
Dark Star 5.10b
Deaf, Dumb and Blind 5.10a
Delicate Delineate 5.11c
Destination Zero 5.11a
Doggie Submission 5.10 b
Draw the Line 5.11b
Eraser Flake 5.11a
Extra Credit 5.10d
Famous Potatoes 5 .11b
Fast Lane, The 5.11d
Fire Drill 5.10d
Fist Puppet 5.1 1a
Fistibule 5.11c
Flight Attendan t 5.10c
Follying 5.11c
Free Clinic 5.1 1b
Full Steam Ahead 5.11d
Grokin' 5.11b
Groundhog 5. 11b
Guides Route 5.6
Guru Crack, Right 5.10a
Heading for Oblivion 5.1 0
Hobknob 5.8
Holidays 5.8
Isoceles Rev isited 5.10b
Israeli Bomber 5.10c
Joe Palmer 5.11b
Karma 5.11d
Ken's Dream 5.10a
Kids are All Right, T he 5.7
Krovy Rookers 5.10b
Lay Lady Lieback 5.1 1a
Local Motion 5.11d
Looking for Lichen 5.10b
Loyd's Lolly Pop 5.9
Lycra Virgin 5.11d
Lynnea's Birthday Surprise 5.10a
Marvin Gardens 5.10
Minor Kinda Unit 5.9
Mirror, Mirror Right 5 .9
Moe, Larry, The Cheese 5.10c
My Rhombus 5.10a
Nanbeeb 5.10b
Neil Down 5.11 c
No Teats 5.10a
North by Northw est 5.11a
Nothing Good Ever Lasts 5 .10d
Nothing on the Apron 5.11c
On the Waterfront 5.9
Panther, The 5.11d
Permanent Waves 5 .10b
Phantom 5.13a
Pimper's Paradise 5.11d
Pit Stop
Poker Fa ce 5.10b
Prime Time 5.9
Princess, The 5. 9
Psychic Energy 5. 11b
Public Opinion 5.10c
Punch Line, The 5.10 d
Rambler, The 5.10d
Remnant, The, Cent er Route 5.12a
Rock Neurotic 5.11b
Roller Coaster 5.8
Run With Me 5.10a
Same as it Never W as 5.11b
Sons of Yesterday 5.10a
Stay Free 5.11b
Stroke (My Erec t Ear Tuffs) 5.10c
Sylvester's Meow 5.11a
Tapestry 5.9
Tennessee St rings 5.12a
Thin Line 5.11c
Through Bein' C ool 5.10c
Ticket to Nowhere 5.11c
Tooth or Consequences 5 .11b
Valley Syndrome 5.11c
Violent Bear It Away, T he 5.10c
Walk of Life 5.10d
Water Babies 5.11 a
Way Lost 5.9
Weird Scenes in the Gold Mine 5.10a
White Dike, The 5.10d
Wicked Jones Crusher 5.10b
Yosemite Pointless 5.9

Aug 23, 2008 - 01:51pm PT
Some climbs are immediately notable, some are so far ahead of their time they are only notable when looking back years later. A notable route is
not always a popular one.
Thanks for posting that list - I hope to read some opinions from different climbers as to which are notable.
As for bouldering's effect or influence on freeing El Cap Routes - it is mostly an ephemeral link, the thing they share is the drive to climb harder and
harder - something that's fueled by the power of Yosemite's grandeur, and it's climbing history.
All out effort, vision, ascents of things thought to be impossible in the boulders is inspiring to climbers in general, and opens eyes to possibilities on
the walls those boulders fell from.

EDIT: at first glance, I would say Karma, Phantom, and Punchline are notable on that list. A route that generates a lot of controversy is probably
notable, albeit in a different way.

Aug 23, 2008 - 02:08pm PT
Ed wrote:
“It seems true that the skills developed by hard bouldering have been applied to big routes. I'm less sure of the direct connection of Yosemite
bouldering to freeing the big Yosemite routes”
This would be an interesting point to debate. Perhaps subjective; perhaps not so. Given the amount of bouldering that Kauk, Dale, Bachar, Long and
others entertained, it may be difficult to sequester bouldering from the greater achievements.
I for one, though not in any way a seminal figure, definitely leveraged my self-knowledge as attained through bouldering to freeclimb some big routes. In
June of 1980, a Colorado climber, Dan Michael, approached me to partner with him on Astroman. Prior to that, my Yosemite CV from the 70s was
nothing particularly so aggressive, things like Steck Salathe, The Nose, English Breakfast Crack, first pitch of New Dimensions, Waverly Wafer and a
smattering of 5.10.
But I reasoned that the East Face of the Column, done free, would technically comprise lots of endurance 5.10, and that my bouldering skills would
get me through on the 5.11, (on things such as the “boulder pitch” for instance, down low), this given that I could retain the necessary stamina by
staying mentally cool. We swung leads and I fell only once, while leading the weird bottomless lie back which is the pitch after the Harding Slot.
That was sort of bouldery! -As is the mantle getting into the changing corners pitch. Shortly after this, Kim Carrigan and I made a free ascent of
Hotline. Although we walked across the hand traverse, no doubt dropping the grade below 5.12, that was a fairly bouldery section.

Mind you I was almost a professional.