Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Matt
Trad climber
primordial soup
|
|
not taking one side or the other, just being a devil's advocate-
so it's ok for an aid climber to drill and chip whatever they need to, in order to ascend blank-ish granite walls, so long as it's done on lead?
meanwhile, a free climber, if unable to AID the terrain, has to CHOOSE to drill/chip superfluous holes in order to establish the route ON LEAD.
one point of view in that relationship would be this:
a free climber ought to "leave the climb to someone else who can climb it in better style, sometime in the future".
meanwhile an aid climber does whatever they do, and if it's done on lead, that itself makes it proud (regardless of whether or not "someone else ... can [aid] it in better style, sometime in the future".
so, is that or is it not a contradiction?
from a free climber's perspective, and from an aid climber's perspective, we'd all prefer to climb the terrain that does not need to be drilled at all, isn't that true?
i guess it's the same discussion for a route that won't take any gear and that is first done as a free solo / X route- so that means nobody ever gets to climb that real estate if they won't do it as a free solo? is that reasonable?
if you say it's not reasonable, then isn't it a slippery slope? (i.e. doesn't the same argument naturally extend into the acceptance of retro-bolts on runouts? and who would draw the line? such an argument is the only one i accept for leaving X routes in place, but it's tenuous IMO)
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
primordial soup
|
|
re:
Would you "like" to see 6 or 8 more rap bolted routes back there? Would that be a good thing?
what about if we ask this:
would you prefer to see 6 or 8 more runout and very difficult routes back there that never ever see a 2nd ascent? (or see one ascent every 30-40 years) would that be a good thing?
good for whom?
(edit: i am conflicted and do not agree entirely with either argument, but there is a feeling i have that is hard to explain entirely, in which i am particularly offended by 'needless' or unwarranted damage or impact upon the rock itself, and i see an unrepeated route, or an unrepeatable route, or a route nobody has any interest in repeating, as a whole lot of impact upon the rock for very little benefit overall, where as impacts like drilling huge anchor bolts or installing rappel routes in certain locations can be seen as impact which is spread out across all the use they get from the many climbers who will benefit from them over time, and yet i am against any bolt placement that is not "necessary", and my favorite thing about yosemite is the fact that you can go climb so much rock without bolts at all)
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Thank you, Jennie! I tossed out a softball (Russ-friendly analogy) about 40 posts back, and you helpfully gave it a good wallop. Climbing does sometimes suffer from a testosterone surplus, certainly this thread.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
the sad thing about this thread is that it appears to be a justification
for all out rapp bolting of big walls in yos.
This is the crux of the argument--that this route will promote this style of
climbing on this and other walls.
I just don't see it happening. The Growing Up FA team spent months
establishing their route. Not many people have that type of time or skill level
to open big wall routes. If they do, they won't spend it blindly rap-bolting
everything in sight.
How can I say this? Empirical evidence. Peace was rap-bolted.
Lemmings did not descend over The Meadows and rap-bolt every last face.
And those domes have a lot easier access than any wall a rap-bolter
might attack.
Folks with the time and skill to "open" big wall routes know what's at stake.
The Growing Up team knew what was at stake, and they made a decision after
much consideration. There is a reason for the style of Growing Up.
I don't endorse the style, but I do understand it. I don't view this as the
beginning of the end.
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
John brings up several points that need to address.
Can climbers actually control their emotions and do what is best for the community and not just their personal views and needs.
Some time I really doubt it.
The Flatirons bolting issues of the late 80's and early 90's was/is a great example. I when to two of the meeting keeping low keyed and just watching. It was f*#king hilarious...instead of addressing how to use bolts the sh#t-flinging began and that was the beginning of the end...the government officals...seeing how un-civil and vile they were to each other...close the Flatirons to all bolting.
Basically a lose-lose to all except the most extreme anti-bolters.
Beware what ask for getting the government involved...instead of addressing the issue...you might get what you didn't ask for...complete closure.
Bolts are a part of Yosemite's history and will continue to be so...they have open up climbs and walls that were considered un-climbable by other means.
Responsible use by experienced climbers may be the salvation that both sides can digest and this route my be the start of it in the Valley.
This thread is a good indication that there may be hope for us climbers to express both sides of the view without the typical name-calling and useless drivel that prevails on this matter for the previous 30-40-50 years.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
primordial soup
|
|
"Bolts are a part of Yosemite's history and will continue to be so...they have open up climbs and walls that were considered un-climbable by other means.
"Responsible use by experienced climbers may be the salvation that both sides can digest and this route my be the start of it in the Valley."
the irony is that you see the above statement as a good thing, while you fail to recognize that the above statement is exactly what so many people are afraid of...
who decides what "un-climbable" means?
who decides what "reasonable use" means
who decides what "experienced" means?
edit
"Basically a lose-lose to all except the most extreme anti-bolters"
again, what i think you fail to recognize, is that many many people who are NOT the "most extreme anti-bolters" would rather see no bolting than too much bolting, and in particular with the rise of climbing gyms as the new training grounds and the growing popularity of rock climbing as a "sport".
|
|
yo
climber
The Eye of the Snail
|
|
Rick James does, bitch.
(Nothing to add.)
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
Matt wrote: who decides what "un-climbable" means?
who decides what "reasonable use" means
who decides what "experienced" means?
Matt...that would be the FA party. Was it reasonable for the FA party on Karma to use that many bolts...looking at the FA party background...one would have to say yes. Not every climber will agree.
No one get a hit every time at bat!!!!
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
primordial soup
|
|
Matt...that would be the FA party.
that you don't forsee a problem, is itself the problem.
EDIT
(responding to the post below but not wanting to add more posts by me...)
i think it elevates them, but i also worry that it makes it more likely that someday, someone will see a justification to retro-bolt those lines on rappel, so that more climbers can enjoy the real estate.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
[sluffing work here...]
A question to ponder:
Does Growing Up denigrate or elevate Southern Belle and Karma?
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
Matt wrote: Matt...that would be the FA party.
that you don't forsee a problem, is itself the problem.
No Matt...people like you who ask nothing but questions and only criticize and offer no solutions are problem.
Did you read this from my above post...Responsible use by experienced climbers may be the salvation that both sides can digest and this route my be the start of it in the Valley.
It the best I can think of...the ball is in your court.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
primordial soup
|
|
"No Matt...people like you who ask nothing but questions and only criticize and offer no solutions are problem."
really?
i challenge you to scour this whole thread and post all the links to every comment YOU have made that suggests any limit whatsoever to the complete grid bolting of all climbable terrain.
yours is not the only 'reasonable opinion'.
regarding the ball and my court, the ball has rolled away, down your all too slipery slope.
i am going back to work over here, it's your court.
|
|
Doug Robinson
Trad climber
Santa Cruz
|
|
To the question of what's now acceptable:
Several of you have been asking that for awhile. The first round, my answer was: There's our route. It speaks. This time around, I'll amplify on that answer and give you an interpretation of what Growing Up says:
It says put a lot of work and a lot of thought into your FA. Listen to the stone with respect.
It says start out on the ground and probe the wall.
It says begin by traditional means. The oldest techniques are the least controversial; start there. Bouldering barefoot doesn't get you far, though.
Our first probe of the wall got us 60 feet and was shut down. Since we could reach that 60 feet from another line, we found that out on top rope so didn't have to set any pro.
Then Sean went up Southern Belle a ways to look around, feel the stone.
The second major probe was more successful, trying to free the original South Face aid line. It got I think 5 pitches before confronting rock that was too difficult and somewhat grainy. Good photos of Sarah Watson leading pitch #3 are in the article. Again all trad. Again a failure.
Ponder some more.
For round three, Sean chose the unclimbed crack line that became Growing Up. Again he started up all free, all trad.
Are you hearing this? Months have now passed. Months of total respect and traditional means.
The climbing has now gotten pretty damn hard and continuous and is still trad, still ground up.
A dike appears, offering 5.11 free climbing left, out from under the arch. Bolts get placed, still on lead.
The dike ends. The rock is steep and blank. Above it is a thousand feet of subtle and ambiguous headwall.
Sean retreats and we spend weeks thinking and talking about what to do. Actually, that discussion was already well underway, because the higher Sean got up the arch, the more we could see of what it would be like beyond. But we pondered and talked for weeks more.
Finally, we made the decision to go beyond trad and come down from the top. We've explained a lot about that decision already, so I won't repeat it.
Once we confirmed a line, we also confirmed that the difficulty and danger of climbing it on lead would be approximately equivalent to the very runout routes already on the wall. We agreed that such runouts were not what we wanted to climb and not what we wanted to leave behind as a route for others.
Only then did we finally start drilling.
This much respect for the rock and care for our safety and that of the climbers to follow is what I see our route saying.
This much exhausting of traditional means before reluctantly stepping beyond them is what I see our route saying.
I will be out of internet range for the next day now, so unable to answer questions or make replies. Sorry.
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
Matt wrote: yours is not the only 'reasonable opinion'.
Never said it was...just stated my opinions based on 38 years of climbing and FA's
Matt wrote: i am going back to work over here, it's your court.
Good thinking!!
:)
|
|
Hawkeye
climber
State of Mine
|
|
doug,
sounds a whole lot easier to just frickin start on top and see if it goes from there
Oh thats right! thats the issue!
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
Fatty, you are so missing your queue.
I can't wait any longer.
It's a religious war!
|
|
chossyslab
climber
|
|
I hate to say this Doug, especially to you, but i have a sneaky suspicion that you guys rap bolted because you guys werent prepared to climb the scary and potentially deadly runouts that would have been necessary to finish GU ground up. Then i think you, whether conciously or not, convinced yourself that you were rap bolting for others (so they could be safe) and use that as a reason why this is all ok. Just what my gut is telling me but who knows, its been wrong in the past.
whats done is done and i dont think GU should get chopped but i do think it was put up in poor style (and the reason i post is because i think you guys should know some people think this way) and i hope others dont see it as an excuse to repeat your methods anywhere else in the valley.
i need to stop. this thread is taking over my brain. i should be studying for a midterm right now.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
yeah, what he says, repeat the route, but not the style.
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
Choss wrote: I hate to say this Doug, especially to you, but i have a sneaky suspicion that you guys rap bolted because you guys werent prepared to climb the scary and potentially deadly runouts that would have been necessary to finish GU ground up.
Why would they have been scary or dangerous...ground up??
|
|
Hawkeye
climber
State of Mine
|
|
chossyslab may have been ass-u-me-ing that it would be a chossy slab...
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!