Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Russ Walling
Social climber
Out on the sand, Man.....
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 8, 2006 - 04:35pm PT
|
Nef writes: So now that we're past that, hopefully the intelligent conversation about the issue can continue.
Sorry mudslinger. I was just in such a good mood I was going to reveal a "shitter". Guess that is off the table now..... grrrrrrrrrrr....meanie!
|
|
John Mac
Trad climber
Littleton, CO
|
|
Could someone please post a couple pictures of where WOS starts and what the "slab" looks like.
Thanks.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
i had posted this as an [edit] to an earlier post, but now i'll move it down here to get the slander going back in the right direction again.
i do really hope these guys will respond to my earlier post and specifically, definatively, thuroughly address their techniques, severity, and frequency of "enhancements", but i am posting this before they do, because i feel like it's my honest take on tha matter, and i am tired if it already...
so w/ that,
ya know what i think?
BULLSH#T
there it is, i'm calling bullsh#t.
you guys chiseled and drilled your way up a slab.
no one liked it back then, they didn't like the way you did it, nor that it was you that was doing it, so you have decided to make your case now, decades later. well you know what? i won't ever be climbing hard manufactured hooking aid routes up a slab, but if it were an easy manufactured hooking route up a slab, i would still climb every other route in the valley before i ever got on it. no wonder people think it's a PoS.
you cannot go on and on about your life experiences as a professor of philosophy in one thread, and then arbitrarily define some level of chipping flakes on a slab to accept your hooks as acceptable, and imply the ascent was not manufactured. what limited you was not the rock itself, nor a certain acceptable level of manufacturing, but instead it was your skill or talent, in combination w/ the tools you had available to you. w/ that combination, the hard and scary slab was too hard and scary, so you brought it down a notch or 2.
you have a whole list of refrences for what was going on elsewhere in the valley or on hard el cap routes specifically, upon which you base entirely subjective claims about your ethics vs what you thought was the standard at the time (and what you assume even now, that everyone does), but you refused to go do even one of those climbs and see it 1st hand, and you are bitter that you weren't respected because of that... hmmm...
what about the slippery slope?
if you get to do that, doesn't the next guy get to do it too? who's to say the next guy can even find your enhanced flakes? who's to say they are even still there? and if every leader is going to chip the route, why can't i enhance those flakes until my shoes will stick?
and why do we call them "enhancements"?
that itself is a rather flattering term, why not "instances of premeditated and intentional destruction of organic features, or IPIDOF's, we can call them IPID's for short?
the only reason that your IPID's were small is because the hooks are small. your chipping was intended to create opportunity specifically for the tools you had. the only reason they are small IPID's is because your tools were small. if you had been limited to larger tools, necessarily then, your IPID's would have been larger as well. why should you get credit for having small hooks?
your ethics were such that you allowed yourself to do whatever you needed to, in order to get up the thing. hard scary hooking, occasional IPID'ing, and periodically drilling bolts.
you expect that you should have been given the green light to do whatever bridwell had done (or in your opinion, what eveyone else was doing, or had done). nobody seemed to agree w/ you, and neither do i.
what if you were "new" and wanted to come into yosemite and establish free routes, and you heard that bridwell had pounded out some scars on (i think) geek towers(?). would you expect to be well recieved and well rememberd 25 years later, if you had come in and done the same, on your 1st FA?
i think your position and your personal pain prevent you from seeing other perspectives, and i guess i don't even see the point in arguing about it.
EDIT-
this post may seem harsh, but i personally find it infuriating that someone can rely on carving out a spot for a hook placement through a critical section, repeatedly, and then brush it off as "microscopic". that offends me and my perception of what climbing is and ought to be, and that is where the tone in my post comes from
|
|
MSmith
Big Wall climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Russ,
The ring-angle claw was a joke. The big wall community has really benefited from the work of you guys who got the Fish hook to market. Thanks for the effort to dig up Shipley’s letter. It seems clear that although Richard and I were concurrently developing similar hooks, your initial work predates ours. (Btw, we haven’t been riding you for 20 yrs. I think the first public mention of Richard’s hook design was by me earlier this year.)
|
|
MSmith
Big Wall climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Deuce,
Regarding your assertion we are shifting our position, nice work pulling a couple of quotes out of context and forgetting the rest. (Your posts since the one I refer to here are at least somewhat better.) The biggest thing I learned here is my general stupidity for suggesting that you go find some quotes to bring back. It’s not reasonable for those who read these hundreds of posts for us to restate our previous and detailed response to your gripe. (Yes, bogus argumentative tactic of repackaging and minimizing your issue as just a “gripe”, but, hey, I’m frustrated!) If you want to hear it again, form a properly titled splinter thread and I’ll cut-n-paste my position again. Btw, so have you done PO or the Sea, or was your assertion of “carefully choosing” only non-modified routes a bunch of hog-wash?
|
|
MSmith
Big Wall climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Lois,
The number of posts since I was last on has totally overtaken me. Those following along might do well to skip this post as it is way dated.
It seems like most everyone including myself is consumed in stating a position, while you and Tarbuster are working to find a solution. You have made me pause and ask what I’m looking for here on Supertopo. I didn’t start any of the WoS threads. I was drawn in like many others to refute statements I perceive to be wrong or misguided. Cutting down our ropes was legitimately a big deal at the time, but that was almost a quarter century ago and that act alone (“alone” being the key word) doesn’t matter much now. The problem with a quasi-secret apology idea is two-fold. First, I think a bigger issue has been the bandwagon/group-think mentality that followed WoS and which has dogged me for these years. I love to climb, not as a recreational pursuit (although that too), but as a window into myself. Without climbing I wouldn’t be who I am, and that other “me” would be a lot shallower. Most times when I interact with climbers I sense a cloud hanging over me. This was well evidenced by the early-on post of the guy who directs the climbing camp that I once directed who, when teens mention that Jensen and Smith once worked there, just grins and keeps it to himself that Jensen and Smith are really just a huge climbing joke. The cutting down of our ropes helped kick the snowball rolling, but it has been the oral culture of a few local climbers greatly aided by the Grossmans of climbing who have used his pen to create a unflattering mystique of who I supposedly am. Those who have actively fostered an unbalanced view of not just the climb but of Richard and I should step to the front of any apology line. Asking for an apology from those who cut down our ropes wouldn’t address the deeper issue. (Btw, one of the three did many years ago.)
The second point is that those who advanced imbalanced views against us and protected those who vandalized us have given a bad rap to all the Valley climbers of the 80’s. Unlike the Robbin’s affair which reflected poorly on RR, WoS has reflected poorly on an entire climbing sub-culture of which I am (sort of) one. An anonymous apology does nothing to address this hurt which is much more important that any hurt I have suffered.
The utilitarian side of me calls to give it up because no one is going possibly step forward and accept any responsibility. The principled side of me says that every community should be based on certain basic principles of conduct, that something really dastardly happened here, and that members of the community should expect and demand responsibility of its members. Therefore, we collectively devalue ourselves to let water under the bridge carry away our integrity.
So for me getting the ropes cut down is not a big deal in the long run. Getting an apology would be nice but isn’t that important or necessary for my well-being. I personally (in my ideal world) would like two things. First, that the climbing community shows itself to be a group which expects that basic standards of conduct be a necessary part of the community. Apologies to the climbing community as a whole from those who misrepresented the Valley sub-culture of the 80’s are offered. Second, and more selfishly, to get some respect. To be able to check into C4 and be viewed as one of a group of the 80’s Valley climbers who were trying to push the envelope, rather than trying to register for the site in the far corner of the camp.
You, Lois, and others have given me a lot of encouragement. Thanks for helping meet my second need! Next time I check into C4, I’ll whisper a silent thanks to you.
|
|
MSmith
Big Wall climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Tarbuster wrote (http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=233119&f=0&b=0#msg233424);: “let Richard and Mark concede that they may well have been doing something unorthodox for the times …”
Tarbuster, consession granted. I’ve never claimed that WoS should be viewed as a great or admirable route. I think there is much to recommend it, but other reasonable minds will have an entirely different opinion. Many of the Supertopo criticisms have been total trash, IMHO, but a number of criticisms have merit. Richard and I accept that.
|
|
Russ Walling
Social climber
Out on the sand, Man.....
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 8, 2006 - 04:59pm PT
|
Mark... yeah I know... that was a joke. The whole thing really. Just pulled out the letter as I was curious. We do that on here pretty regular... everyone has invented everything before the other guy..... that and the ™™™™™ joke as every phrase and product name is ™™™™-ed by someone years before anyone else.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
Sorry for the delay posting. My Net connection went down and seems to be down for some unknown time. I had to go to my wife's office to get this, but I can't stay there indefinitely.
Ok, are we back to the early damned if we do respond and damned if we don't situation? If so, then I guess we've come full circle and it's game over.
Assuming not, there's a lot to respond to.
Mimi confidently asserts that: "This story is such a classic example of revisionist history. No amount of whining and chestbeating will change the fact that what you did and how you did it was wrong." I am honestly baffled.... How did WE do any "revising" of the tale. The fact is that the Valley boys accused us of doing something we simply weren't doing, and the fact of that matter has now been firmly established in the VERY way that hundreds of posts suggested. They then used that ongoing lie to justify a number of assults and to maintain the same old lie over decades of public media. These points are indisputable, so I don't see where the alleged revision is. Real name, Mimi? It would be nice to know who really is asserting revision here.
As past threads (including references to bat-heading) clearly show, I/we have repeatedly demonstrated the "depth of character" to admit mistakes. But I haven't seen anybody yet get the case off the ground that we engaged in "a colossal mistake" by just showing up and doing the route the way we did. Your mere assertions don't offset the undeniable facts of the matter as they have been reported by SA teams of your (collectively) own choosing!
Russ, we've never been after: "shitters tied to a stake with fire under their heels" or that all opinions be changed. You here make us seem utterly unreasonable, even when Mark, Randy, Pete, and I have all clarified repeatedly that the FA team is not after anything like what you here suggest. Is the game now going to revert to the juvenile straw-man tactics that we saw so much of at the rescue cache? I have said that I think LEB's idea has much merit and that something like it could be more than satisfactory. So why now put words in my mouth that I have never spoken or even suggested, when LEB might well have been onto something?
Matt, you have much to say, so I'll try to take it point by point, just as you suggest.
You say, "You see yourself in this place of vindication, and everyone else is just making excuses for not being there with you." All Mark and I have ever been after in ALL of these hundreds of posts is that the truth come out. Hundreds of posts ago, the prevailing wisdom was the WoS was a POS BECAUSE it was an overdrilled bolt/rivet ladder up a blank slab. YOU (speaking collectively) urged two teams to go up and bring back the "real story," and they did. Ammon and Pete are well known to not be "best buds" or anything like that, yet their independent reports are strikingly similar. The truth, as reported by your own chosen people, was that the route is no bolt/rivet ladder, doesn't appear to be overdrilled, and that there is insane, sick, bold, run out hooking at least two grades harder than you have considered other hard hooking routes.
Furthermore, the whole history of climbing supports that people don't go up and chop a route they haven't even climbed. Yet this was done, based upon what is now clearly seen to be an intentional misrepresentation of reality.
When we kept silent for many years and could not get a voice, then we were accused of "not setting the record straight." Now, when we DO fight to have the truth come out, we're accused of "whining" or being "in a place of vindication," as though the latter is a bad thing. Of course we want vindication; we've been lied about for 24 years! There's no bitterness, whining, self-pity, or hand wringing in that simple fact. Mark and I have moved on with our lives, and we have responded here as we can because the issue just keeps coming up. So, we decided, "Let's give this our best shot at closure now."
When we are forceful (rather than straw-manning or name calling, as has been the most common tactic here), we are perceived as "ranting or otherwise being what can fairly be described as bitter or defensive." We HAVE been "defensive" in some sense, but have you ever stopped to put yourself in our shoes over these last eighteen months? We have NOT been bitter, and our (mostly my) rants have been controlled and quickly followed by obvious good humor, which I have honestly felt.
You make much of the term "microscopic," yet this is actually not my term, but Pete's. I have simply adopted it as being the closest term to describe the TINY bit of a crystal we removed in a few instances. You ask what we used to do this, so here is that answer as well (again, with us being more forthright and honest than you will ever get any other big wall climber to be on such a topic).
We were sharpening our drill bits on four sides, which created a fine point. At that time, drill bits even came from the distributors that way, and we didn't know (as everybody does now) that a flat, chisel tip drills faster. So, our drill tips were sharpened to a very fine point. Now imagine a dime glued to the wall. You could just hook the top rim of the dime, except that there is one crystal about the size of a period printed at 12 point (accurate enough?). This crystal keeps the tip of the hook from seating down onto the "ledge."
Perhaps we should "remove" it by just putting the tip of the hook in place and weighting it, but, as Pete will attest, the risk of that hook blowing in the attempt is pretty high. Now, of course, if we did THIS, it wouldn't count as "modification," even though most of our hooks "seated" and "chipped" their way in on most flakes (such is the nature of Leeper narrows). But in this particular, rare instance, you can't even get the tip of the Leeper to begin to sit there well enough to risk weighting it.
So, we would (again, since this point seems to get lost) VERY rarely take the tiny tip of our drill, place it against the side of that crystal, and tap (and I mean, lightly tap) the drill to pop that crystal off the rim of the edge.
We weren't creating any ledge that didn't already exist, we didn't drill straight in to make a nice "pit" to help the tip of the hook hold better. We didn't "manufacture" a placement in anything even remotely resembling what has been commonly done on so many of the "great" aid routes.
So, I'm sorry if I'm just "missing the point" as you see it, but I just fail to understand how removing period-sized crystals maybe eight or ten times in 1800 feet invalidates the route on that ground alone! And, I stand by my claim that THIS level of "modification" or "manufacturing" is done constantly by even the purest of the pure, because if you EVER use the pick of your hammer to remove ONE loose flake or scrape away some loose crud in a copperhead seam, then you have already intentionally removed FAR more rock to "make your placement better" than we ever did!
You then say, "We have to take your word for it, and given your choice of language, we can surmise that you might be inclined to continue to unintentionally minimize, w/ language, it extent of said impacts." I really don't understand this statement on many, many levels. First of all, we have been clearly and obviously honest throughout this whole discussion. As Pete has himself noted, we would have done FAR better for ourselves to just not mention our batheading and our (again, RARE) "enhancing." In the latter case, had we not mentioned it, nobody would ever have known. So, I ask you, "Why would we be honest enough to bring the matter up, and then start lying to 'minimize' the reality of what we had done?" And, I really can't minimize it enough, because, as YOUR own chosen teams have noted, there is NO "enhancement" visible. So, again, you don't have to "take my word for it" (although you have no reason to doubt my word and every reason so far to have confidence in it), you have objective voices saying the exact same thing.
So, I see this whole "modification" thing as a ridiculous tempest in a teapot to divert attention from the real issues of this debate. If there are those who think that we were bad, bad boys for doing even this level of "enhancement," then I submit that there is simply no way to convince such people of anything about the route, and I don't propose to try. However, what I have seen in hundreds of past threads is that people do realize what a blind alley this aspect of the story has been, and it is to those people I continue to try to explain the more significant issues.
You say, "If you remove yourself from you deep rooted emotional involvement in all of this, simply as an exercise in logic, can you not see my point at all? or are you just being unfairly attacked again?" I think I've just demonstrated that I can both see your points and unemotionally respond to them. The fact that there is disagreement does not mean that anything "unfair" is taking place. On the contrary, with some rare exceptions, I have felt that most of these hundreds of posts have been honest attempts to discuss in a rational manner. That doesn't mean that there have not been strong emotions on both sides. But strong emotions don't HAVE to sully the search for truth either.
It is impossible for me to not be emotionally involved in this debate. But is IS possible for me to consider people's views on their merits. I have done my best to do so, and I know Mark has also. The fact that we continue to disagree with a few people on a few points does not negate my impression that a lot of progress has been made.
At this point I am increasingly disinclined to continue hashing over the same old points over and over in slightly new ways. I think that to reasonable minds the truth has come out at this point, so I grow weary of trying to "make a case" that to some people simply cannot be made. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt (literally). My goal was to come away from this whole effort feeling that we had done the best, most thorough job we could at setting the record straight and giving people the opportunity to respond to an obvious injustice. As I just said to LEB, I believe that has been done at this point. Regardless of what happens in the future, or what venue further discussions utilize, I think we've about reached the limit of what these forums can possibly accomplish. So, movin' on.
You say, "Let me tell you about what happens once these posts drop off the page for a week or two." Regardless of that happening, as past history shows, Russ is more correct on this point than I take it that he intended: "This thing ain't going anywhere," and that includes "away."
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
Sorry, LEB, my attempt at a humorous response to SueV's hilarious picture fell flat. After that picture, I was saying that compliments were being "misunderstood," but I was entirely kidding. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
|
|
Gene
climber
|
|
Richard,
Are you asserting your 'modifications' other than filled holes are limited to trimming a crystal the size of a 12 point period?
.
Wow.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
richard-
that was a well reasoned and non-ranting post, and i commend you. if you are being entirely accurate and what you removed each time you used the drill bit was in fact the size of a period in 12 point font, then there is certainly merrit to your arguments, but it does also add merrit to JM's arguments about hard hooking and 2nd ascents (i.e. does everyone get to go up there w/ a drill bit?)
also, it seems clear enough, also from what JM posted, that some climbers would have viewed it as a less than noble. i'd agree that many weighted hook placements probably do more damage, perhaps then, the difference is in one's intent? i could repeat what i have said about having been willing to repeat other routes, but i'd guess you have been around and around on that one over the years.
i don't think anyone hand picked pete or ammon, rather some people encouraged them once the suggestion was made. i personally thought it was odd that pete was goin on a route that would likely mean 50' sliders, didn't he just break both ankles a year ago? and isn't he 45 or 50? that seems like a bad idea from the get go, no wonder he didn't lead any of it. i still feel that a modern climber cannot see it in the context of the 80s, period.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
Yes, Gene, that's what I'm saying--all somewhere less than a dozen of them over 1800 feet. WOW is right! What a ridiculous tempest in a teapot! Matt and JM scrape more rock off than that in half a pitch just trying to get better footing. This whole issue is just a complete smoke screen. But, you know, so be it. As I said just a moment ago, I think this has about played itself out.
BTW, I'm trying to track down a guy who is the long time friend of another guy who has emailed me. It's been something like four years since they saw each other, but the friend tells me that this guy he knows got up the slab on WoS years ago and thought it was really hard and legit. Not at my computer right now, so can't even get his name, but, as soon as I have a Net connection again, I'll see what I can find out. The guy who emailed me said to post something about this because, as he put it, it substantiates what we've been saying, and this guy's been all the way up the slab. So, we'll see what we can find out. Of course, if he's not "known" in jussstttt the right way, then I guess HIS views will be taken as crap as well. After all, Slater's opinion couldn't get it done, and Pete, well, from what I hear now, HIS opinion is TOTALLY worthless because he didn't get it done.
Moving target again, and I should have anticipated this one: no matter who does the route, there will be some "taint" to them personally or to their ascent, such that even that will not be sufficient to tell the "real story." It's actually getting pretty funny now. "Revisionist history???" It's more like revisionist present.
Anyway, if I can unearth anything in the next couple of days about this alleged slab ascent, I'll post. Otherwise, I've said about all I can imagine is worth saying.
Cheers to those who have contributed with integrity.
|
|
Mimi
Trad climber
Seattle
|
|
Beating the rock into submission wasn't good ethics in the 80s just like it's not good ethics now.
Edit: Revising history is exactly what this is. Your propaganda and younger climbers entering the picture without a complete understanding of the ethics of the day in the Valley have resulted in skewed facts. You and your submen have put more emphasis on the local "perps" than your own actions. And this moot issue of repeating the route. The line is marred by your incompetence. Now, whoever goes up there will inadvertently "vindicate" you which is why many respected climbers haven't gone up there. The difficulty of the route is irrelevent. Your legacy should not be to encourage bad tactics. Therefore, you owe an apology just as much as you and your submen believe the perps owe you one for chopping, etc.
You completely disrespected El Cap, nevermind the local climbing community, and flailed for 39 days with a shameful amount of gear, and chiseled your way up the route. I really love this 12 pt font angle. You are delusional and a liar. You've continued to downgrade the amount of rock bashing. And then, to prove what great climbers you were, you spent how long on Sea? Way longer than the first ascent party, right, like two weeks? And then you or Rubberhead, I get you mixed up, soloed Horse Chute. What else did you do up there, not that I'm requesting your climbing resume, but it points to a level of incompetence and arrogance that resulted in you two going up on a pristine portion of the Captain and basically shitting your way to the top. Utter disrespect and shameful, hence the symbolic response; defecating on your gear.
|
|
Nefarius
Big Wall climber
Fresno, CA
|
|
OK. Back from lunch, had a smoke, hell, I even had a drink! Feel so much better! So, I *have* been having a shitty day, but went and has a side of "sense of humor" for lunch.
While driving to lunch, I kinda gave myself a hard time. For, while I have my own personal reasons for taking great offense to anything I ever perceive as an attack, and being pretty quick to head it off, I'm usually pretty adept at not being an as#@&%e, be it in return or not. So, as to that matter I apologize. To Russ, and anyone else who took offense. I'm sorry. I probably went a bit overboard.
As to the all the jest about being a rack-caddy and sub-man. Wow! At least, now I know what sub-man is. I'd never heard that term used prior to mimi, higher up. Rack caddie... I think it's a funny term, if nothing else.
Pretty much, up front, I'll gladly be *anyone's* rack caddie who's going to do a decent climb and will allow me to photograph them. Sometimes I climb with them on the route, sometimes I prefer to climb the route ahead of them and make a station, or sometimes I hike ahead and rap down and setup some rigging... All depends on the climb. Carrying their rack is the least I can do. If this makes me a rack-caddy on these projects, OK. Cool. I bet I'm pretty damn good at it, as I'm carrying my rack, on top of yours, my rigging and my camera gear. This might also make me a food and beer caddy too, as I try to repay people in some way for allowing me the shoot! While being a rack caddie, instead of pursuing my own climbing projects, if you're kind enough to let me lead a bit, I usually buy you more beer.
As far as defending a friend, you betcha. That won't change.
|
|
deuce4
Big Wall climber
the Southwest
|
|
Context or no context, I am still baffled how the modification claims of Wings of Steel went from "many enhancements", to 10-20 percent of all placements, to "FEW", and now only 5-8 grains of sand...
Perhaps some Supertopo statistician can help by compiling a complete list of all claims, with date and context?
EDIT: Whoa! Is it just me, or did the claim just get upgraded to 8-10 grains of sand with an edit?
|
|
deuce4
Big Wall climber
the Southwest
|
|
Madbolter writes:
"So, I see this whole "modification" thing as a ridiculous tempest in a teapot..."
Perhaps it is, but perhaps it isn't.
If you could consider for a brief mili-moment that it could quite possibly have been an issue for climbers of the time, you might begin to understand the position of the "valley conspiracists" (and your "persecutors").
---------------------------------------------------
EDIT: By the way, the enhancements by no means "invalidate" the ascent, as you so strongly claim, it just suggests that the route was done in "questionable style", to put it nicely. You don't seem satisfied that this may have been the reason why your mug wasn't on the cover of every climbing mag, but that may in fact be the truth.
And just in case you go comparing yourself to Bridwell again, please note that Bridwell's reputation as a great climber comes from a wide repertoire of cutting edge routes over a lifetime, not just his prowess on the Sea of Dreams.
Also, by the way, I had never heard the term "1000 bolts to Horse Chute" until I read it on your website. I think you must enjoy repeating the most extreme comments you hear, and state them as the widespread opinion.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
Ooo, ooo, that was a good one, John. Just have to jump back in here since there's finally something new going on. And, finally we have Mimi for the first time I'm aware of on all these threads actually coming right out and saying it: Shitting on the ropes was appropriate, for it made the exact right statement that had to be made! Excellent, now we're actually getting somewhere, and it's really exciting!
John, the whole enhancement thing really is totally retro, but your take on it has this slightly different twist: look, the Mad Bolters are totally inconsistent in their claims. Perhaps you, as the master of taking our quotes out of context, should be the ONE (as in Jet Li) to compile just such "proof" that we're totally inconsistent. You're going to have just one little, bitty problem with that, though. Mark and I have repeatedly admitted that we don't remember clearly or even the same about this detail, which was as trivial in our minds then as it is now. Mark remembered more at one point, but in thinking back about it more carefully (since accuracy on this bit of trivia seems SOOOO important to a couple of people), he started thinking that in his rush to "bare all" that he perhaps gave us "credit" for more than he should have. His range was 10 to 20 percent, as you yourself just quoted. Let's assume his lower range, which is certainly consistent with even his most "bare all" memory you can find. We placed 151 hooks to get up the route. So, at 10 percent, that comes to 15 "enhanced" placements.
Amazingly, after all these years, I remembered the number as being "certainly less than a dozen." Hmmm, pretty close correlation there already! Where do I ever ASSERT five? I have always said that I believed the total to be somewhere between five and less than a dozen. That is certainly a reasonable range, given that we weren't keeping close track and given the intervening years. And, notice that it actually does correlate closely with Mark's independent memory of events.
So, while you make a tempest in a teapot, John, you still have not looked us, the community straight in the eye, and answered my earlier question: Do you really expect us all to believe that you have NEVER, not ONE time moved a tiny little, dangling, offending flake or even bit of crud ANYWHERE on ANY of your climbs? Are you really prepared to try to float that level of purism? If so, I say again, count me out of the "believers" in that pile of horse byproducts.
I agree that "beating a route into submission" isn't ethical at any point. However, be careful with your filters, because whatever one you use on WoS, you're going to find that it has some VERY respected routes getting "beaten into submission" by your own gods! This will occur both in number of holes per foot, per pitch, and number of "enhancements" per foot and per pitch.
Oooo, oooo, then there's the OLD, "They were absurdly slow" line! Oh yes, that CLEARLY shows that we dissed El Cap! I guess that being slow really IS a crime now. Not sure how, but it IS! Clearly! Just assert and believe, assert and believe; breathe in and assert; breathe out and believe. Ahh, it's good now. Hmmm... just remember that former speed demons (Slater: P.O. wall solo in five days; Ammon: Native Son in sub-24 hours) were, uh, well, quite a bit SLOOWWWEEERRR on WoS. The route doesn't lend itself to speed, and we did have to drill ALL THOSE HOLES. Then there were storms, running water, and (oh, heeeerre we go again) ALL those Sabbaths! Yup, we just CLEARLY dissed the route!
Nah, now that I think about it, these "points" really are just the same old garbage that the rabid have been frothing at the mouth about since we got into these threads. Again, nothing like the enhancement "issue" appeared prior to these threads, so, I still haven't heard any justification that most are going to buy for the shitting. It IS exciting, though to hear something SO close to an admission from one of the (apparent) players. I'm just WAITING now to hear Mimi admit to shitting, or saying that he/she would have done so, given the chance. Then, ALL we would need is a name, but, of course, cowardice being what it is, I guess I'll be waiting a long time for that, huh?
Easy to spew... harder to stand up and face the music. What are ya made of, Mimi?
This has become so pointless and retro now.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
Nope, John. No edit. I don't play that game. Perhaps your OWN memory (from a few posts ago) isn't as good as you would like to demand of us from more than two decades ago.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!