Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Prod
Trad climber
|
|
Do you resole golf shoes too?
Prod.
|
|
LongAgo
Trad climber
|
|
A commonly raised rationale for retrobolting is many R and X routes were done by crazies or ego maniacs for name recognition, driven to gain prominence in guidebooks and histories and area lore. It's a very old and transparent approach to any argument in and outside of climbing: discount the points and preferences of the opposing party by slighting their motives and character. Of course there were unfortunate motives at work behind some old X and R routes, but the truth behind bolting of yesteryear is more complex than the workings of nutcases.
Strange to say (yet again), but once upon a time bolts were to be minimized as a blotch on rock. Bolts also were very hard to place standing on tiny holds with no hooks or rope tension, drilling away with an old Rawl drive, sometimes breaking bits and starting over. And so, minimal bolting was often done not out of perverse motives but quite the opposite: keeping with the accepted approach of the day and/or simply trying to get a route done before dark.
Moving from the issue of FA motives to the issue of the resulting route, the retrobolting argument still stands: why not add bolts to a run out FA to reduce risk and let those who want the risk skip the clips? Guidebooks could still give credit to the old lines and styles of ascent to honor them, no? Here's how I addressed the points in a previous discussion on ST related to a FA of mine and Vern Clevenger's, Hair Raiser Buttress, around which the retro bolting issue raged:
Of course there is pleasure being named in a guidebook or history. But to think getting into publications is such a central prize in climbing underestimates the complexity of the game. Preserving original protection is not to insure climbers get scared or first ascent parties get into history as bold. Preservation insures climbers preferring to do the climb in its original style get to do so. Some climbers prefer more risk and complication than many sport routes provide. They deserve their opportunities just as much as sportsters deserve theirs. But the picture is bigger than preferred risk profiles, for example simply selecting which from a string of bolts to clip or not. Not altering routes insures they remain tributes to the time and mentality around their creation. How?
An important joy of the climbing game comes not just from doing climbs, but viewing, pondering, absorbing the full well of experiences, the moving stage of heroes, fools and follies, high and low tales, grand and vain acts. In the drama, the features of routes and associated protection are the underlying choreography, the hand and foot sequences set in stone and passing on through time. Once bolts are added, their presence whether clipped or not alters the look and feel of moves as now the extra bolts are always there in case verve and confidence wane. The blank spaces are gone and with them the wobbly feel looking down and up, the original frustrations, pumps and rests, the curses and hoots. In short, the entire emotional passage is altered. And lost too is an assessment at the top and in the walk down and in sharing with others how nuts or noble were the makers, and our second guessing of all they felt. In short, there is no full tribute to the past, no way to tap the well of what once was. It is for these reasons, barring unusual circumstances, routes should be left to stand as they were first done.
Tom Higgins
LongAgo
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Karl makes some good points, I think that should he venture on to a golf course, Donini, would more likely die there, than climbing.
When I was in High School, I fooled with a little golf. One of my best drives ever went further than I though possible and landed squarely on another guys head!
Rock!!!!
peace
Karl
|
|
kev
climber
A pile of dirt.
|
|
jojo said
I just think where there is no option but to bolt or run it out, the bolts may as well be placed reasonably. Not "every 3 feet so you can clip the next without leaving the first," that's a slippery slope fallacy. It just makes sense to avoid decking, 40 foot slab rolls, a pendulum into a dihedral for the follower, etc...
I think you're missing something here. If a route is put up ground up and drilled from stance you often will have sections where there is no stance to drill from. So you have to run it out. It's not like most of the runout routes were put up by peeps trying to make it dangerous or prove something (not to say there aren't routes like that).
Also you say something like
just don't clip it
Your wrong here two. If you've ever soloed anything you used to climb on a rope then go back later and climb it with a rope IT'S EFING DIFFERENT. Try it sometime. The ability to have a choice chances the nature of the route just like bring a rope rack and having a belayer. It changes the commitment level. You might try to argue that you should just bring fewer draws but that still changes the commitment - you get to chose what section you want to run it out on.
If you retrobolt it the communal 'we' will chop it.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Regarding FA motives for underbolting.
I'm sure laziness and poverty were right up there with ego in driving r and x rated FAs
If I'm climbing 5.13 why stop and hammer and lose money on 5.9 ground? Particularly if we can just waltz up this in a day.
Kudos to those who make routes for the sake of others besides themselves
Peace
Karl
|
|
wstmrnclmr
Trad climber
Bolinas, CA
|
|
Eric Beck....Yahooo! Love it! After reading that along with everything else and the analogy to golf...Anything goes! Free for All! Just goes to show how cookie and crazy we humans are.....Ya man. Bolt the crap outa the Snake! But I'll bet they're gone within hours...Who knows, Maybe the whole shootin' match gets erased, belays and all....How could I take it so seriously!
|
|
Skeptimistic
Mountain climber
La Mancha
|
|
In short, the entire emotional passage is altered.
Absolutely.
Let me add that although one can "just not clip the bolt", how would someone after the next guidebook is published know which bolts have been added? And would the new bolt lead to confusion for someone with an old book, thinking that they've gone off route?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
Once bolts are added, their presence whether clipped or not alters the look and feel of moves as now the extra bolts are always there in case verve and confidence wane. The blank spaces are gone and with them the wobbly feel looking down and up, the original frustrations, pumps and rests, the curses and hoots. In short, the entire emotional passage is altered.
Well worth rereading this section.
Climbs are not just pieces of rock set up for the safe and secure passage of all suitors. Many are lines of natural passage, and the key to passing through them safely are held within the climber's skill and mindset. Many are worth waiting for the time when you can unlock their secrets without using a battering ram.
I'm still waiting to hear a reasonable argument why one shouldn't climb a route if they don't have the required skills.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
I accidentally replied to Coz on the Honold thread explaining that Jim already told us he doen't put up bolted routes, bold or sport. I deleted my posts over there and wanted to inform Coz who replied over there but Coz can't be contacted through supertopo so I'm writing it here. Maybe delete the post on that thread and we can return to writing here
peace
Karl
|
|
Guck
Trad climber
Santa Barbara, CA
|
|
Thanks for that post Coz. May be it is time for the retrobolters to do some soul searching and reconsider why they climb!
|
|
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
You calling Donini a "chump" for no apparent reason just makes you look like a mean spirited whack job yourself. Donini has FA'ed stuff you couldn't get up and which you would have pissed your pants just looking at, even as good as you've climbed. You might consider changing that post too as long as we are all changing posts.
Sorry just a fact
|
|
wstmrnclmr
Trad climber
Bolinas, CA
|
|
Yay Coz and Yay Eric Beck! Eric for turning this thread and all it's (my)seriousness into a mushroom cloud and leaving it in ashes and to coz for keeping the flame! No need to post on this thread anymore. I'm off to chop me some retro's and climb me some of those beautiful old, nasty, runout testpieces! Leave the security of the crack and reaching for those pacifiers for those oceans of blank granite where the mind needs to be as strong as the body. Yahooo!
edit: Ament says he climbed the Ghost with Bachar and Bachar had chopped a couple of retro's on the route. He wouldn't let anyone defame it....That's me on lead in '10
|
|
viejoalpinisto
Social climber
Pahrump, NV
|
|
JoJo should announce his intentions to retro bolt a route in Toulumne about a week in advance and see if he even makes it to the base of the route.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Coz wrote
The Buddha said, "we can not perceive what we can not understand."
Unless you have created an FA ground up with no gear, you really don't know what you're talking about.
That goes for Jim and you. despite who you pretend to be or think of yourself.
You don't have the street creds to comment, and your opinion is based on pure speculation.
That's your opinion. I'm not sure I have one as I feel comfortable surfing reality, which is the appearance of consensus in the community. I guess if people started retroing more stuff, I wouldn't complain unless it got real wimpy. If folks brought down some never-climbed 5.9s and thereabouts with no pro down into 4-5 bolt a pitch standards, I'd probably be happy and more people would get scary adventures than less.
Personally, I think having put up a bunch of bolted routes gives you more and less credibility. You take your pride from it but not seeming to care about what you are giving the community. If it's too dangerous for them to enjoy. you're happy cause it makes you a stud. (Of course I bet you bolted those 5.13s at your limit pretty close)
I've freesoloed a lot and probably as close to my limit as you have. I've done a ton of the R and X bolted long moderate routes in the valley and I've also seen tons of that stone just sitting idle here while people wait in long lines to get on safer moderates here as well. When this situation comes up, I feel "it's not about me" and I wish those folks had more access to some sane adventure in their precious time off rather than keeping so many testaments to the egos of 5.13 climbers running out 5.9 and 5.10
Peace
Karl
|
|
surfstar
climber
Santa Barbara, CA
|
|
F*#kin' A.
Sounds like everyone still feels the same as the Superchicken retrobolt discussion. At least that one had a few interesting tidbits in it and started off as a real thread, not a troll.
So, tell me, what are the best crack shoes?
|
|
susu
Trad climber
East Bay, CA
|
|
Preserving original protection is not to insure climbers get scared or first ascent parties get into history as bold. Preservation insures climbers preferring to do the climb in its original style get to do so. Some climbers prefer more risk and complication than many sport routes provide. They deserve their opportunities just as much as sportsters deserve theirs. But the picture is bigger than preferred risk profiles, for example simply selecting which from a string of bolts to clip or not. Not altering routes insures they remain tributes to the time and mentality around their creation. How?
An important joy of the climbing game comes not just from doing climbs, but viewing, pondering, absorbing the full well of experiences, the moving stage of heroes, fools and follies, high and low tales, grand and vain acts. In the drama, the features of routes and associated protection are the underlying choreography, the hand and foot sequences set in stone and passing on through time. Once bolts are added, their presence whether clipped or not alters the look and feel of moves as now the extra bolts are always there in case verve and confidence wane. The blank spaces are gone and with them the wobbly feel looking down and up, the original frustrations, pumps and rests, the curses and hoots. In short, the entire emotional passage is altered. And lost too is an assessment at the top and in the walk down and in sharing with others how nuts or noble were the makers, and our second guessing of all they felt. In short, there is no full tribute to the past, no way to tap the well of what once was. It is for these reasons, barring unusual circumstances, routes should be left to stand as they were first done.
Beautifully written!
|
|
LongAgo
Trad climber
|
|
Do Higher Level Climbers Create Scary or Dangerous Climbs for the Rest of us?
Karl, I think your points about 5.13 climbers running way out and creating dangerous routes for 5.9 and 5.10 climbers would be helped with some examples of specific routes and people. Not sure where I fit in your thinking, but your point is pretty general without examples of people and places. Just what 5.13 climbers have created what routes in support of your point?
As for myself, I was a 5.12 climber (no 5.13s) in the day (not a lot of those, but several) and always tried to do new 5.9 and 5.10 climbs with reasonable protection for anyone climbing at that ability. I have admitted to running it on 5.8 and 5.9 sometimes to get moving before dark, or due to breaking drills or trying to avoid still more tedious drilling in the middle of a 5.8 section when it looked like easier ground was coming. But where I felt the resulting route was not reasonably protected, I either gave permission to others to add a bolt (e.g. Fairest of All) or went back and added a bolt myself (e.g. Jonah). I think my longtime partner Bob Kamps was of the same mentality and I can name others who, I think, were responsible on the point of placing protection with subsequent parties in mind.
Where to Focus the Retrobolt Debate
Generally, I think painting the creators of run or X routes as flawed (ego driven, lazy, bolt poor or thoughtless of subsequent ascent parties) muddies the waters on the retro bolting issue. In my mind, the issue of whether to retro bolt or not needs to be distinguished from the character or motive of the FA party. Why? I don’t think we can decide on whether or not to retro bolt by making character judgments case by case by route, especially as time goes on and history fades. For example, because of Bachar’s high esteem in the climbing community, no one now will seriously debate retro bolting the very run out BY. But as time goes on and the memory of Bachar fades, what then? And do we retro bolt, say, the very run Burning Down the House because some may not see the route creators as having quite the same esteem as Bachar or because, by their own admission on Supertopo, they were determined to create a very run route out of anger over a slight by an influential climber of the day? Talk about a slippery slope or muddy waters!
Nope, the focus should be away from character and motive of the FA party and on retro bolting itself. The nub of the issue is how we cope with multiple and conflicting preferences among climbers about how we create new bolted routes. I think we need to understand climbing never was and never will be a purely harmonious enterprise with all agreeing on climbing styles generally and protection styles in particular. Instead, we need to accept both the stellar and horrible routes around us, and our great hodgepodge of saints and sinners, however we define them. We can and should argue about better and poorer ways of climbing and resulting routes, but we need to let multiple styles have their place and day as long as they don’t imping on one another. So, sport away on your sport cliff. Trad away on your trad cliff. Curse and pass on an old R or X route, fair enough, but leave it untouched for those who want the quirky pleasure of doing it. Scold and pass on the sport route bolted every 10 feet, but leave it for those who like it.
The Way Out
While not easy, the way I suggest through tiffs like on this thread about bolting style is to agree area by area just how protection style preferences can play out without curtailing the options of anyone. Argue to the death (keeping as civil as possible) about what styles are superior as a climbing experience, but don’t chop the sport routes and don’t retro bolt the trad routes. Preferably, stake out cliffs to provide opportunities for each style and enjoy. If both styles have to play on the same cliff, go with caution when crossing old trad routes with new sport routes to avoid effectively retro bolting the old lines (new Southern Sierra guidebook will make just this point). I think this is the way (and maybe only way) to insure maximum climbing satisfaction and minimum harm to camaraderie of the game. Seem reasonable?
Tom Higgins
LongAgo
|
|
j-tree
Big Wall climber
Classroom to crag to summer camp
|
|
Karl, I think your points about 5.13 climbers running way out and creating dangerous routes for 5.9 and 5.10 climbers would be helped with some examples of specific routes and people.
Bachar's "You Asked For It" comes to mind
http://www.supertopo.com/rock-climbing/Tuolumne-Meadows-Medlicott-Dome-Right-You-Asked-For-It
though, that route would probably be seen by most people (myself included) as more of a statement than a "normal" route.
edit: mentioning YAFI does not mean that I would ever think for even a moment it should be retro-bolted. Just bringing it up because it fits the description of the type of climb the previous climber was asking for an example of.
|
|
LongAgo
Trad climber
|
|
Agreed to You Asked For It. From all reports, it does seem John could have placed a few more bolts for the "rest of us," though I don't know if there were no, few or many potential drill stances he passed as I've not done the route. However, I respect his choices for whatever his reasons and hope the route is never retro bolted as per my discussion above.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!