Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
say-no-to-rap-bolting!
Trad climber
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2008 - 01:28pm PT
|
a rivet ladder?
god, that's IMO a very bad idea on a 'free climb'.it's not common that kind of climbing to use a huge bolt ladder.
I don't think Sean Jones ever considered that option(DR's reply is clear). It's complete nonsense.
warbler, this hypothetical style is not realistic... is there a route like that? 5.13, free, and then several pitches that are bolt ladders? Hope not! If there is such a route: no problem if anyone chops the upper part.
As I said, I think the best would have been to STOP BEFORE THEY STARTED RAPBOLTING.
What's the problem if the route doesn't go to the summit because the FA party realised that it was too hard for them to achieve it in good style? There may be someone else able to finish it without a rivet ladder of several hundred feet.
To renounce is hard but often rewarding.
cheers
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2008 - 01:41pm PT
|
A route like that already exists on the south face. Cataclysmic Megasheer. Not 5.13, but it does contain what appear to me from the topo, several pitches of bolt ladder. Should that also be chopped? Is that better than Growing Up?
|
|
bhilden
Trad climber
Mountain View, CA
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2008 - 01:48pm PT
|
I will answer Karl's question with a third option.....
When the FA party realized *they* couldn't do the route ground up without resorting to rivert ladders and bat hook holes they should have left the route for someone who could do it ground up without resorting to rivet ladders and hooks.
There are two really big assumptions floating around here that I don't buy:
1) these guys were good enough to do it(implying that nobody else could have done it ground up)
2) there were no places to drill using groud up means(stance, hooks, etc.)
I think we are all missing another huge factor in this discussion. No disrespect to the other climber who helped Sean with the FA, but it is pretty clear from reading the article in R&I and the stuff here on ST that Sean was a way better climber than any of his partners who worked on the *upper* section of the route.
One big factor in going for it on scary routes, witness the synergy between Shipley and Scultz on SB, is having at least two climbers who are competent enough to do what it takes to put in the bolts. You feed off of each other's performances and raise
your game to a higher level. Because all the difficult climbing was falling on Sean's shoulders and there was noone else to help carry the load it is easy to see why the decision was made to rap bolt.
Here's a question for Karl. If Sean had been up there with Dave Schultz or Walt Shipley would they have been able to do the route ground up? ..not only because it would have made a stronger climbing team, but there might have been enough synergy to overcome some of the mental obstacles as well.
Bruce
|
|
bachar
Gym climber
Mammoth Lakes, CA
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2008 - 01:51pm PT
|
deucey - Who is this so-called Bachar guy and why did he think he could make the rules?
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2008 - 01:54pm PT
|
This one is dead. Never make 1300 posts.
|
|
Doug Robinson
Trad climber
Santa Cruz
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2008 - 01:57pm PT
|
PTPP, you're getting offensive.
Is four months of working on a route "lazy"? That's 5-10 times more work than went into Southern Belle. Maybe I should call their lack of bolting "lazy" then? But unlike you I have some respect for those with other styles. Did you notice that I just called Southern Belle "the proudest line on the face"?
Then a new pseudonym pops up: "say-no-to-rap-bolting!"
chop it.(a local with authority...)
don't offend the guys that did the first ascent."
I would be one of those guys. I didn't climb it (injured, remember, and anyway I don't climb as hard as Sean) But I put a lot of sweat into the FA, and a lot of thought, trying honestly to weigh the options and do the right thing. I have my own authority, and I use my real name and put my reputation on the line.
Most of the major players here have put themselves out there too. The critics as well as the defenders. Anong the critics: Bachar has plenty of authority. Coz has earned his cred. Caylor is right out there for us to see. Tom Higgins has put a lifetime into style and ethics. Those guys all disagree with me, but they're putting it right out there and signing their names. There are many more.
So Mr.Pete and Mr. "say-no," stand up and show me your authority and tell me why you feel so strongly. I'm listening. A lot of us are.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2008 - 02:40pm PT
|
Bruce wrote
'Here's a question for Karl. If Sean had been up there with Dave Schultz or Walt Shipley would they have been able to do the route ground up? ..not only because it would have made a stronger climbing team, but there might have been enough synergy to overcome some of the mental obstacles as well. '
There are two options here Bruce. The FA team says the actual line of least resistance would have been their third or fourth choice from the bottom. So it's more than possible that if they had Dave or Walt with them, that they would have established a dead-end death route to nowhere or resorted to rivets or bat-hooks through areas that couldn't be freed.
The other option would be, that somehow, through perfect intuition-route-finding, if they knew the right line to take (a big if) then we'd have an x-rated route, if indeed, it's true that there were very few edges for hooking to drill.
That's answering your question. Personally, I welcome having a more doable, non-death route up there and don't insist every FA team be the very best on the planet. Sean is plenty good enough for this route.
Even the death route climbers like Dave and Coz don't play like that everyday. This kind of route can be repeated with joy. Notice that, if Southern Belle was such a great route, the FAA team didn't go back and repeat it, take a friend along to share the joy or anything like that. Too many death routes, to me, is a waste of stone resource. Others, obviously, think differently.
Peace
Karl
|
|
GDavis
Trad climber
SoCal
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2008 - 02:53pm PT
|
A lot of man-puffery in the last few pages...
Like dingus said, your time for stopping the route from being put in has passed, whats been done has been done. Chopping is about ego and nothing else... its a way of physically dominating and degrading. I'm not saying the route was done in good style, nor am I saying it was in terrible style... it was done "modern."
Modern first ascentionists that I have known do things a bit differently. It is less and less about the experience of the FA party and about the experiences of other parties... the days are gone when you can go into a classic climbing locale and pick off 5-10 plumbs as FA's. There isn't enough rock for everyone to do FA's of great lines... knowing that... I think the shift is going to be putting up routes that will get repeated. Guys like Socalbolter, Bob D., and countless others (quite a few San Diego locals as well) have often sacrificed having an adventure on their FA to put a route up that has well placed bolts, protecting the second, etc etc.
I just see things going this way... a paradigm shift if you will. Again, not that I'm pro or con. Just the way life is going, I think. Its been going, but now that its on Half Dome... we all crawled out of our caves and took a look at it.
|
|
Dr. Rock
Ice climber
Castle Rock
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2008 - 02:55pm PT
|
OK, from the horses whatever:
"As the number of climbers visiting the park has increased through the years, the impacts of climbing have become much more obvious. Some of those impacts include: soil compaction, erosion, and vegetation loss in parking areas, at the base of climbs, and on approach and descent trails, destruction of cliffside vegetation and lichen, disturbance of cliff-dwelling animals, litter, water pollution from improper human waste disposal, and the visual blight of chalk marks, pin scars, bolts, rappel slings, and fixed ropes. Many of these impacts can be eliminated or greatly reduced by following the minimum impact practices outlined in the conservation guidelines offered on this page. The impacts of your actions may seem insignificant, but when multiplied by the thousands of people who climb here every year they can have a significant, long lasting effect.
Your help is needed to ensure that Yosemite remains a beautiful and healthy place for the future.
What you can do
1. Read and follow the guidelines and regulations below.
2. If you see climbers who are not following these guidelines, talk to them. Explain how they can minimize their impact, and why it is important that they do so.
3. Clean up after others. Pick up trash when you see it, or return with friends on a rest day and do a thorough clean-up. Take part in organized clean-ups and other projects.
4. Climb safely! Rescues endanger rescuers' lives, are expensive, and cause a lot of impact.
5. Keep informed about closed areas, and respect these closures.
Conservation/Regulations
Fight litter! Don't toss anything off a wall, even if you intend to pick it up later. Don't leave food or water at the top or on ledges for future parties. Set a good example by picking up any litter you see, including tape wads and cigarette butts.
Don't leave fixed ropes as permanent fixtures on approaches and descents. These are considered abandoned property and will be removed.
Minimize erosion on your approach and descent. If an obvious main trail has been created, use it. Go slow on the way down to avoid pushing soil down the hill. Avoid walking on vegetation whenever possible.
On first ascents: Please think about the impacts that will be caused by your new climb- Is the approach susceptible to erosion? Is there a lot of vegetation on the rock? "Gardening" (i.e., killing plants), is illegal in Yosemite. Can the climb be done with a minimum of bolts? Motorized drills are prohibited."
So no real cut and dry answer like:
"Park Regulation 6.073.d states that blah blah blah, so snitch off your fellow climber."
So what they did was a judgment call, but not illegal from the strict standpoint of some obscure federal regulation.
And even the above guide mentions "Climb Safely"
Which can contradict the Sierra Club approach, so a balance is needed.
OK, thanks!
|
|
'Pass the Pitons' Pete
Big Wall climber
like Oakville, Ontario, Canada, eh?
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2008 - 03:12pm PT
|
DR,
I don't have any more or less authority than you nor anyone else. I just think it's cheating to go to the top and rap down to finish your route. I never bloody rap bolted any of my new routes - I did them all ground up. Hell, I never even bolted 'em. If I couldn't do it clean, then I left it. [Of course, eventually the rap-bolting sport-climbing pussies came along and bolted it anyway. Some of my clean lines have even been retro-bolted because the bolter couldn't conceive that someone could climb such rock without bolts!]
As for Half Dome, if you couldn't drill bolts from stances or hooks on lead, then leave it for someone else who will. Incidentally, on the top part - why didn't you drill on lead from hooks or stances? Is this not what you did on the bottom part?
If you find me offensive, that's just too bloody bad, mate. I simply do not condone the behaviour you used to put up this route. Rap bolting is cheating. If you don't want to get offended, then don't do it again.
You are the author of your own misfortune, especially in light of the high ethical stance you previously took, and wrote about extensively over the years.
I concur with say-no and bhilden.
|
|
Doug Robinson
Trad climber
Santa Cruz
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2008 - 03:48pm PT
|
Thanks, Pete.
Better tone this time. I appreciate it. And I'd appreciate a bit more about your routes. Name, place, grade? Which ones got rap retro-bolted?
You asked: on the top part - why didn't you drill on lead from hooks or stances?
I have explained that so many times now that it makes me feel like maybe you're spewing but not listening in return. It's not that the climbing got harder, as you said earlier. It got easier. 5.13a below, 5.11d above the point where we changed styles.
To repeat, we did it because it got more serious. More runout. More deadly. We didn't want to climb such a route, and we didn't want to leave such a route behind for others. Plenty of opportunity to face that much seriousness over on Southern Belle. We also wanted climbers considering going up the South Face to have a choice of seriousness. We didn't feel it was fair for the wall to be exclusively monopolized by death routes.
I know you don't agree with our choice or or reasons for our choice. I get it that you're pissed. But at least listen.
|
|
'Pass the Pitons' Pete
Big Wall climber
like Oakville, Ontario, Canada, eh?
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2008 - 04:00pm PT
|
Names - hundreds
Places - all over Ontario
Ratings - up to 11's
Bolts - zero
Free Climbing these days - retired
Ability to repeat above routes - none
My route Resplendence at Old Baldy in Kimberly, Ontario got retro-bolted. I hope the bolter removed the bolts, I'm not sure what happened.
C'mon, man - are you telling me you that you couldn't, or that you wouldn't, continue drilling on lead from hooks? So what if it got more serious, more runout and more deadly? Is that your justification for running to the summit and dropping a toprope? It's a friggin' big wall - it's supposed to be serious, runout and deadly! The Stonemasters and others created brilliant routes by really sacking up, and drilling on lead from terrifying and difficult stances. Why not you guys?
Part of your justification appears to be leaving a route that is easier for others to climb, and not so difficult. But this is not what the rock offers! If it's a death wall, then let it BE a death wall. There is nothing wrong with that.
Damn straight I'm pissed, man. Next thing you know, everyone else will be up there dropping topropes. Great, just great.
I hope the criticism you receive for this route will cause you to think, and to never do such a thing again.
|
|
bhilden
Trad climber
Mountain View, CA
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2008 - 04:09pm PT
|
Karl and others in this discussion have said that they felt the FA team on Growing Up was "good enough" to do the route. I would like to know what crieria you all used to determine that the team was "good enough".
Bruce
|
|
bringmedeath
climber
la la land
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2008 - 04:17pm PT
|
I have one question, with all this talk and endless text. Are any of you people losing sleep over this? Sure looks that way... hahahahaha... losers if so!!!
|
|
Domingo
Trad climber
El Portal, CA
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2008 - 04:41pm PT
|
"We didn't want to climb such a route"
Can't wait until that phrase gets jumped on...
Karl's got a good point that death routes are a waste of resources too. I'm only stepping in to say to PTPP: even though I agree with what a lot of your statements, I think they're a bit mis-directed. Doug has said time and time again that he wasn't the prime decision maker, and Sean (the leader) has opened himself up to conversation via email.
|
|
Hardman Knott
Gym climber
Muir Woods National Monument, Mill Valley, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2008 - 05:06pm PT
|
Screw e-mail...Let's hash it out right here!
Besides, how else will we get to 2000 posts??
|
|
Doug Robinson
Trad climber
Santa Cruz
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2008 - 05:22pm PT
|
Pete,
Yes, I am telling you, once again, that we couldn't stance and we couldn't hook. Couldn't, not wouldn't.
I've done Stonemaster routes. Big respect for them. But I can see, when I'm there on the stance, how they could stop and drill. Masterful, but not mysterious. Same for the Bruce Carson routes mentioned earlier at Dome Rock. Done em, and I get how thin the stances are. Thin but possible.
This is a different deal. Featured, but the features are scalloped and polished. And the wall is 75 degrees -- pretty steep for a slab. We were there. We checked out the stone. Hell, we rapped in and checked it out. If we had judged that there were enough stances and enough hook placements to drill enough pro for our leading standards -- not difficulty standards, but standards of neckiness -- then we could have pulled the rap rope, gone around, and started again from the bottom.
But we judged it differently from that. Just between Sean and I there is 70 years of climbing experience, and we brought it all to bear on the stone before us. (Ben was up there too. He's been around, just can't quote his years.) Then we sighed, and started drilling from above.
To repeat: This is not a sport climb. It has runouts. sporty runouts. You could take a 60 footer up there. I'd call that runout and serious.
You say: It's a friggin' big wall - it's supposed to be serious, runout and deadly!
Neither Sean nor I agree. Serious, check. Runout, check. But in the Valley most walls are not deadly. Most climbers here would not agree that they're supposed to be deadly.
Both of us have done death routes. But taunting death is not our style. We both like seriousness. We both like runouts. But up to a point. Since we were putting up this route, we got to choose where that point came: how serious and how runout. Just like you got to choose whatever it was you chose for all the routes you put up.
Sorry to hear that you can't, or won't, climb anymore. I sure feel lucky that I can and do.
|
|
Blowboarder
Boulder climber
Back in the mix
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2008 - 06:00pm PT
|
Sean Jones said:
"
Great to here from you!!! Those were the days huh? I remember when that 220 lb crankster straight out of prison was twirling that huge knife next to me while driving Kauks van and talking about cutting people up.
I remember getting really pissed off and stomping on the gas pedal. Pissed because we were actually helping him out w/ a ride. I remember looking in the rear view mirror at you and Chris holding onto crow bars and raedy to pounce."
Ya man, that sh#t was scarier than aid climbing. What he said was:
"This'd cut you bloody" while looking straight at you. Still gives me chills to think about it.
And I had your wall hammer in one hand with Tret's (RIP) collar in the other, ready to smack him down and throw 125# of pit/rot mix into the fray.
Glad homeboy sensed he was about to f*#k up and backed off. F*#kin tweakers.
I got your email, responded, call me on that 800# anytime bro, love to catch some years up.
I can't be bothered to read this whole witch hunt but someone fill me in:
1) Has anyone repeated this route or this a bunch of conjecture?
2) Considering the Muir Wall debacle, I find the tone of the original poster in this thread quite, umm, biblical.
"Do as I say, not as I do."
Sean, stay cool bro, great to hear from you, call me.
Pasha Stewart
Anonymity is for faags.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2008 - 06:13pm PT
|
Bruce wrote
"Karl and others in this discussion have said that they felt the FA team on Growing Up was "good enough" to do the route. I would like to know what crieria you all used to determine that the team was "good enough". "
They put up a fine line, without excessive bolting, and have 70 years of experience between them. Good enough. Complaining that they didn't get scared enough is their business, not the business of those who would say the route should wait for a 5.15 climber who could put up a death route with hardly as much excitement as the FA team here did.
I've been answering questions directed at me. How about Pete and others who have dissed the rap-bolting answering the question I've been asking.
"if they had stayed in ground up mode, and drilled bolt and rivet ladders through all the harder climbing that couldn't be stance or hook drilled, would you have no problem with the route. (even if it had 4 times as many holes and missed the line of least resistance?) "
We have to know what's OK, if you say rap-bolting isn't OK. It seems plain from the honest word of Sean and Doug, who have plainly stated their tactics, that a ground up ascent would have certainly missed the line. Anybody who doubts that can go up and put in the "Throwing Up" variation ground up. Don't just say, they should have just gone down. I'm wondering if a flawed ground up route would have get your qualified congratulations.
The precedent is surely there for beating the slab to death. Harding drilled rivet and bat-hook ladders up the same slab and nobody here is calling it bad style.
peace
Karl
|
|
deuce4
climber
Hobart, Australia
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2008 - 06:58pm PT
|
Although I don't entirely disagree with DR's argument that there's something positive in an accessible route that's more in sync with "Today's" standards (obviously Coz and Schultz were too far ahead of their time), I'll try to respond to Karl's question.
Would a ground-up route with more bolts and perhaps not-as-fine-tuned for free-climbing line be preferable?
I would say it depends on the style. If it were sieged, with ropes fixed the whole way up the wall, then perhaps no, it wouldn't be preferable. But if it were climbed "alpine-style" then I'd say yes, because it involves more commitment (not the type that requires months of effort working on a route, but the type that requires a momentary separation from safety that is based on one's confidence in their skills).
If there's a given level of commitment "required" by the community-at-large to establish new routes, the quality of the routes will be more elegant, in my opinion. Not easier or harder necessarily, but overall more elegant.
Because, really, top-down is just a siege in the opposite direction.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!