Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Off White
climber
Tenino, WA
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2011 - 11:32pm PT
|
Werner, I freely admit I made it up because I couldn't understand what you meant, so its hardly surprising I got it wrong, and your obtuse response does nothing to clarify things. Bagwhan, methinks you have a motif of one sort or another.
With regards to your towering reputation, it's a thing that exists outside yourself as a person, and I'm hardly the only myth builder involved. There's Werner who's married to Merry and works in the Valley and WERNER BRAUN who is an enduring comic book icon from the classic "A Climber's Life" Issue #2, a real collector's item. Supertopo is rife with legends stalking the earth with feet of clay, its part of what makes this site charming. I of course can discern the difference between the two Werners by looking through the magic glasses I inherited from Joseph Smith.
|
|
Greg Barnes
climber
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2011 - 11:33pm PT
|
The difference with the Super Chicken runout - in comparison to, for instance, the Dike Route - is that you won't just slide down a slab. On Super Chicken - particularly at the top of the runout pitch - if you fall you will go off the right edge of the arete onto much, much steeper terrain (but not overhung - maybe 75-80 degree terrain with features). So it is much more serious than a very long fall on a slab.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
A Token of My Extreme
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2011 - 09:00am PT
|
^Nanny state for climbers?
Kinda like bears in June Lake. Now you're being a smart*ss.
3-4 bolts, 40-50 ft runouts, is hardly a nanny state. RA himself asked this question, it's a good question.
When we did an early ascent of Chartes, there was no fixed gear anywhere, not one. But we were also able to find some pro on every pitch.
A 150 ft pitch with nothing is irresponsible IMO.
|
|
drljefe
climber
El Presidio San Augustin del Tucson
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2011 - 09:20am PT
|
Oh no you di ent! ^^^^ (bear ref. )
Rick. The route is run cuz you were broke, baked, and ballsy. Fine.
If you choose to return, make it safe, not intentionally super run.
I, as usual, am on the fence here.
|
|
JPster
Ice climber
colorado
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2011 - 10:55am PT
|
At long last, a first ascentionist with some intelligence and humility. I applaud adding bolts to older routes that are classic but seldom climbed due to the risk of injury or death. Many ground up first ascentionists will not repeat their own routes due to unacceptable risk. Why..? Well on a gournd up, first ascent, the first ascentionists have no choice but to risk injury or death to get the first (and possibly only) ascent. I know many ground up first ascentionists that WOULD WELCOME RETRO_BOLTING their routes to make them reasonable to climb.
Look, if Superman soloed every route in the world would all others also need to solo those routes..?? I say hell no...!!
As to the previous comment about re-writing Shakespeare --- poppycock. Super Chicken and many routes can and should be retro bolted with the permission of the first ascentionist. Of course, there are many classics that should remain in original conditions like the Bacher-Yerian or the Compressor route in Patagonia (i.e. to remove the bolts on this classic would be as bad as adding bolts to the Bacher-Yerian).
So, kudos to you for proposing the addition of bolts to the 5.7X pitch on a great 5.9 route.
JP
|
|
Mangy Peasant
Social climber
Riverside, CA
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2011 - 11:09am PT
|
To bolt climbs so that EVERY climber out there can get on it, is to re-write Shakespeare so that EVERYONE can understand it.
Not an accurate metaphor. What seems to be often lost in these discussions is that God created the route, not the FA party. The crack/knobs/whatever on this route aren't beautiful to climb because of anything the FA party did.
It's only a climbing route. Life will go on for you.
That claim could be used to argue the other side just as well, no?
|
|
Matt M
Trad climber
Alamo City
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2011 - 11:22am PT
|
There are climbs out there that are NOT for everyone. To bolt climbs so that EVERY climber out there can get on it, is to re-write Shakespeare so that EVERYONE can understand it.
This is a crappy argument. With books, there are PLENTY of alternative for someone to "Read" such that there is no reason to "dumb down" Shakespeare.
In TM and other places, the debate is whether there are enough routes available to the everyman. It's easy to establish there are more than enough runout, bold "Shakespeare" routes. TM us full of them. It's the other routes that are in scarce(r) supply. It's why you see such crowding on select routes and other (most?) fall back into obscurity.
If there were enough "Everyman routes" out there I'd agree that you leave test pieces alone for people to aspire to.
In this case (and many many others)
1) It's not a "Shakespeare" route. Good, sure but an über classic like B-Y or Dike Route? Probably not. So you're not re-writing Shakespeare.
2) It gets little traffic and sounds pretty obscure. You don't hear about people aspiring to climb P3 of Super Chicken.
3) Aspirational 5.7? Really? That just sounds stupid to me. Climbers who are "maxing" out at the 5.9 grade sure as hell aren't "aspiring" to climb 5.7X. They're aspiring to climb some aesthetic rock and get home to their family at the end of the day.
Are R/X routes an endangered species in TM? Hardly. When they start to become the vast minority then I'll join you in staying we must preserve the "bold traditions". But preserving a bilk of routes that NO ONE will climb seems silly. As posted above, it makes sense on the Gritstone etc. Elsewhere, not so much.
|
|
Rick A
climber
Boulder, Colorado
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 28, 2011 - 12:24pm PT
|
Have only time for a quick comment right now, but I wanted to respond to Flouride about the first, “grungy” pitch.
There are several ways to go on the first pitch and apparently there is confusion about which is best. On the first ascent, I happened to choose the far left crack, the large slot with what looks like a roof at the top of the slot. It looks hard from the bottom, but it is not. In the OP picture, it is left of the line of the 2nd pitch crack. It turns out to be easy, well protected and of reasonable quality.
|
|
Byran
climber
Merced, CA
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2011 - 12:32pm PT
|
If there were enough "Everyman routes" out there I'd agree that you leave test pieces alone for people to aspire to.
How easy does a climb need to be to qualify as an "everyman route"? Can an everyman climb a 5.7R but not a 5.7X?
|
|
mike m
Trad climber
black hills
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2011 - 12:34pm PT
|
Rick A., would it be possible to put in a different 3rd pitch that might be well protected and leave the old one as is? If yes is that something that you would think to be a good compromise?
|
|
Matt M
Trad climber
Alamo City
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2011 - 12:53pm PT
|
How easy does a climb need to be to qualify as an "everyman route"? Can an everyman climb a 5.7R but not a 5.7X?
Up for debate of course (hence threads like this) but I consider an "everyman route" a mix of lower difficulty and lower risk factors. Weekend Warrior-with-kids territory. For me this is some mix of PG pro and a difficulty below 5.10b. The closer to 10b you get the more "G" it needs to be. 5.7R MIGHT fit but I'd rather it be better protected. If a knob pops on you (and you could be a solid 10b Weekend Climber) you're gonna get hurt. Period. Not exactly what an "everyman" is looking for.
I think a lot of this debate comes down to risk mitigation. What is an acceptable LEVEL and Frequency of risks in the climbs we have available to us. To some, having a fair amount of risk in EVERY climb is an integral part of all climbing. Minimization of "risk" in climbing to better suit the "masses" is anathema. (A perforative term I despise - I took big risks once but because I now have family responsibilities my seeking of less risky climbs somehow makes me a "lesser" rock climber? I think not).
I see absolutely NO problem with going back and looking at the "bell curve" of climbs and their riskiness. If the curve is massively skewed in one direction (R/X) and yet the climbing population curve is skewed somewhat more in the middle (PG-13 or PG) than why not reexamine where climbs fall (especially if there is a large amount of climbs to work with)
I'll temper my "pro retro" stance with a big CAVEAT. I too dislike in influx of "gym climbers" with a huge expectation of "safe" climbs across the board. For these folks, the curve should be skewed massively to the "G" side of risk. I STRONLY disagree with this and if I thought or observed a huge shift in retro bolting to accommodate this, I'd be right there with all the pissed off folks saying "If you're not up for it, aspire to do it or do something else."
As it stands, I don't think there is ANY risk of some huge dumbing down of the R/X world. Just a wider world view of what a climb and it's risk factors should be...
|
|
selfish man
Gym climber
Austin, TX
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2011 - 01:02pm PT
|
To follow up on this analogy, if Shakespeare decided to go back and change a few lines in his play, should he be denied such an opportunity?
To bolt climbs so that EVERY climber out there can get on it, is to re-write Shakespeare so that EVERYONE can understand it.
|
|
Matt M
Trad climber
Alamo City
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2011 - 01:04pm PT
|
@ Ron:
I'm talking in more general terms and not necessarily about Super Chicken and P3. I wonder about the claim that "many, many" people have done this or that route. Really? Far too many climbs have been reclaimed by nature to support the idea that all but one or two parties a year get on such climbs - if that.
In my approaching 2 decades of climbing I've talked with enough FAist of runout or bold routes to pick up on a few things regarding their "boldness"
A fair amount of the time, the boldness was not intentional or a "statement". Climbers were poor and couldn't afford to bolt a route well enough to reduce the risks. They climbed it anyway but years later offer up that they'd go back and "Fix" it for more to enjoy.
In other instances, the FAist acknowledges the "young and dumb" aspect. Everyone else with too much testosterone was doing it so so did I. Again, they look back and say "man, that was dumb, now very few people get on it and enjoy it."
There certainly are many cases where it was intentionally bold and meant as a statement, then and now. I'm completely for leaving those (and many others) alone.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
A Token of My Extreme
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2011 - 01:40pm PT
|
I recall hiking to the base of The Vampire MANY times in the 70's, only to realize that my skills needed work before launching. When I finally did the route in 79, I had the mindset and skills in place, and fired the thing.
Was there protection on this route that you were aspiring to?
Me thinks so.
What makes a climber accomplished is good decision making Climbers often make poor decisions, even experienced ones. Should it cost them their life?
The mindset of 'go or no-go'. So what if he gets 2/3 up and his mindset collapses to no-go?
It's only a climbing route. Life will go on for you. Exactly. That's the idea. Thanks for saying that.
Not adding bolts to Burning Down The House, fine.
It's a route only the super hard will approach, and the FA team doesn't want them.
Adding bolts to SC, fine also. It will make the route approachable, not a potential death fall for the good moderate climber. Plus, in this case, the FA guys are seriously questioning their own pitch. I applaud them.
This would not deny the 5.12 climbers around here who are advocating no bolts anything at all. There will still be plenty of X for them. Cragman, aspire to Burning Down The House. Oh, you don't wanna go up there? Wonder why....
Falling "aint" an option there in my little book.
Then why is there protection on any of them?
|
|
kev
climber
A pile of dirt.
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2011 - 01:42pm PT
|
Rick,
Great thread! If the route was 2-5 years old I would say do whatever you want. However given it's 37 years of history I believe it should be left as it is - whatever you do don't bolt it on rap though!
Regardless of this kick-ass discussion, I suspect if locals don't like it, it will get chopped. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.
kev
|
|
tolman_paul
Trad climber
Anchorage, AK
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2011 - 01:45pm PT
|
No offense to the FA team, but I’ve long had a hard time understanding the 5.11 climber who puts up an R or X 5.7 or 5.8. I don’t see how it’s some great accomplishment that should be cherished. Now a 5.10, 5.11 or 5.12 R or X route, that is something to be proud of a test piece that will stand for generations. When someone free solos the nutcracker, or the dike route, it’s a big ho hum. When someone 3rd classes the Rostrum or Astroman, we stand in awe, and rightfully so.
Doing an entire pitch with no pro is a free solo with rope drag, but, it locks up the terrain for future climbers. It’s a like an intermediate ski slope in an avalanche run out, but the ski patrol never blasts it. The expert skier can blast through the run with no fear, but the intermediate skier is putting themselves in the sight of a gun.
My two cents, add some bolts to make the route reasonably accessible and keep within the spirit of the meadows, which IMHO is 2-4 bolts in a pitch. To those that want the full experience, leave your rope at the base and sack up.
|
|
Matt M
Trad climber
Alamo City
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2011 - 02:00pm PT
|
Thanks for the good conversation Ron. A topic like this can degrade quickly. Last time I had it I was on the "anti" side with a young(ish) gym climber and it got less than polite.
I completely agree that a desire (at times) for safety exists at all levels. I too was at a point where the B-Y didn't seem completely unobtainable. That time has long since past but I would NEVER want that option to not be available to someone else to aspire to. That's true for all levels of difficulty. A 5.7R route SHOULD exist so that the 5.9 (or whatever) climber has their own "B-Y" to aspire too.
Where the debate gets murky is what's a good "distribution" of said safe vs X routes.
I truly think it needs to be examined somewhat on a case by case basis.
Never an easy task but one I hope receives a bit more consideration for "safety" than in the past.
If retro-bolts start appearing without well reasoned debate (Especially on better known routes) I'll be right there with you, pitch fork in hand.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2011 - 02:02pm PT
|
It's easy to see why Tuolumne has the tradition of heady climbs.
1 hour away you have The Valley the crucible of standard setting/traditional US climbing. A veritable training ground for top climbers. After 20+ years of ground breaking climbing in the Valley some top climbers moved out to The Meadows. So you have some of the best climbers in the world set loose on virgin territory. So 5.10/5.11 climbers were putting up 5.7 and 5.9 climbs. They created runout climbs because they could. I think that's cool and makes Tuolumne special, but I also think it's cool to have a variety of climbers for climbers of all mental/physical capabilities. Not just the superhero or the everyman, but people in between as well. So some runout climbs, some sporty, some well protected.
Although it's true that there a lot of rock out there, it is a limited resource, and really limited when you factor in climbs with shorter (less than 1 hour) approaches. There's not very many classic lines left with short approaches that haven't been done in 2011 in an area as popular as The Meadows.
The meadows kind of reminds me of the way they develop terrain parks at a lot of ski resorts. You have top notch athletes on the team creating the park features. They make 60 percent of the jumps large, 30 percent medium, and 10 percent small. But when you look at the skiers/riders in the parks it's like 60 percent use small, 30 percent use medium, 10 percent use large. So there's crowds on the easy stuff and very few or no one on the big ones.
But you have the history and style of The Meadows, which is real and should be respected. So I think that there should be routes for all climbers, but they are going to skew to the "heady" side in Tuolumne, more than in most areas.
I guess I still go back to the character of the route argument. In this case if it's tough, well protected 5.9 below, then the 3rd pitch should challenge but not repel a leader who is challenged but capable on tough 5.9. Personally I would do tough well protected 5.9, but not a full pitch of unprotected 5.7 on Tuolumne knobs that are known to break. So I guess my vote is to add a few bolts.
|
|
Mangy Peasant
Social climber
Riverside, CA
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2011 - 02:03pm PT
|
And certainly there are lots of different reasons that run out routes come to be, poor climbers, STONED climbers, BOLD climbers, CRAZEE climbers so on and so forth.
Lol, I've always wondered about the stoned part!
A huge part of who's name is on an FA is just timing. The mountains were there for many thousands of years and then sometime in the 20th century folks got serious about the notion to climb them. The technology and and craft reached a point where many things because "climbable" in the latter half of the 20th century. So the vast majority of the "obvious" lines were first done in the 60s and 70s. A very common characteristic those on FFA lists in Yosemite and other major crags was being born in the 1950s or so. Somewhat arbitrary.
Throw in the crazy advancement of rubber and gear, and it brings up the question of how come the newer generation isn't putting up even MORE crazy stuff. (run out that is..)
The argument that today's generation doesn't have as much sack as prior generations just doesn't hold.
Here's something I read on website called supertopo:
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1619713
The reason today's generation isn't putting up runout stuff is that people today generally want to create routes that are repeated. Priorities have changed, not the boldness of climbers.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2011 - 02:15pm PT
|
And this discussion isn't just about Super Chicken. It's about a precedent that could be ushered in that goes against everything that Tuolumne is about.
I'm pretty sure someone (can't quite remember who) on supertopo has told me that the precedent is that the FA, and only the FA, can decide on changing bolts placements.
Or does that precedent only apply when the FA has a "no additional" bolts point of view?
cheers
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!