Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2014 - 09:57am PT
|
Thank you Clink.
I must have been down that gully once. Seneca had a really bad descent like that. It was so bad I expect the trail they put in needs continual attention. Which is good. The best in us is reinforced.
|
|
all in jim
climber
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2014 - 10:26am PT
|
Take a trip to Europe. Climb at a bunch of different spots and sample a bunch of different routes. Do a sport climb in kalymnos, a trad climb in Meteora, a long route in the Verdon and a short route in Volx. Notice all the people having fun and enjoying the diversity of styles. Each area has it's own fa style. In many cases routes are "opened" by one person so that others can try for the first ascent. Both the "opener" and FAist are appreciated in equal measure. But mostly, it's the people who come after who count, and routes are established with all tastes considered: safe routes, scary routes, ground-up routes, hard routes, easy routes, clean routes, dirty routes.
Many of the new climbs in America are being established in a similar manner these days. It's only in the older areas like Yosemite and the Gunks that FA style is dogmatic, with older climbers clinging to ideals of "good" or "best" style. And that's a good thing. You'll be happier, though, at other areas or when interacting in the broader climbing community if you can open your mind a bit to differing styles.
I'm thankful that climbers come in so many styles - it guarantees that there will always be a great diversity reflected in our choice of rocks to climb up.
|
|
StahlBro
Trad climber
San Diego, CA
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2014 - 10:46am PT
|
stew·ard·ship noun \ˈstü-ərd-ˌship, ˈstyü-; ˈst(y)u̇rd-\
: the activity or job of protecting and being responsible for something
Full Definition of STEWARDSHIP
1
: the office, duties, and obligations of a steward
2
: the conducting, supervising, or managing of something; especially : the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one's care <stewardship of natural resources>
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2014 - 11:23am PT
|
all in jim
climber
Jun 21, 2014 - 10:26am PT
Take a trip to Europe. Climb at a bunch of different spots and sample a bunch of different routes. Do a sport climb in kalymnos, a trad climb in Meteora, a long route in the Verdon and a short route in Volx. Notice all the people having fun and enjoying the diversity of styles. Each area has it's own fa style. In many cases routes are "opened" by one person so that others can try for the first ascent. Both the "opener" and FAist are appreciated in equal measure. But mostly, it's the people who come after who count, and routes are established with all tastes considered: safe routes, scary routes, ground-up routes, hard routes, easy routes, clean routes, dirty routes.
Many of the new climbs in America are being established in a similar manner these days. It's only in the older areas like Yosemite and the Gunks that FA style is dogmatic, with older climbers clinging to ideals of "good" or "best" style. And that's a good thing. You'll be happier, though, at other areas or when interacting in the broader climbing community if you can open your mind a bit to differing styles.
I'm thankful that climbers come in so many styles - it guarantees that there will always be a great diversity reflected in our choice of rocks to climb up.
Great post regarding this topic.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2014 - 05:22pm PT
|
DMT, Bob and others have some worry that my definition of "best style" is some religious dogma to force people to climb first ascents in some particular manner.
I'm not advocating that at all.
As I said above, what you are or are not advocating is not the problem with what is in fact a kind of dogma. The problem with all dogma, yours included, is that people DO become religious zealots about it as soon as they become true believers and get a few like-minded people with them, and they DO become "forceful." I can tell you first hand.
The problem is with dogma in the first place, and your OP definition is as unsustainable as is dogma. This is not just a "difference of opinion." It is really getting at the core of what climbing is (regardless of your ignoring of that fact), and people literally put their lives on the line based upon what they think "climbing" is all about. Some of us literally risk our lives upon what we think the game entails!
If you think you don't need to define "climbing" first, then I'd ask you how you can even get your OP definition off the ground without presuming that everybody knows what it is....
You start at the ground and climb to the top without resorting to any aid, and making the minimum possible alteration of the route from the state that you found it.
Not able to maintain this style, the first ascent attempt is abandoned in a manner that leaves it as unaltered as possible making it available for future attempts.
Let's parse this out....
"...climb to the top without resorting to any aid..."
You are using "climb" without definition. If you think there is some well-understood, uncontroversial understanding of this word, then I would respond that the very fact you think your overarching definition is needed belies that claim.
And what does "aid" mean? You have refused to touch my mountaineering counterexamples. You seem to think that "aid" is well-defined to mean strictly "aid climbing" in the narrowest possible sense. But that's patently ridiculous.
There is no principled difference between hooks used in aid climbing and ice-axes, ice-tools, and crampons. What is cutting steps in snow? What is the digging of a snow cave? What is a parka to "keep out the environment?" What are plastic boots?
What do you think that rock-climbing shoes with sticky rubber are, if these are not aid??? They ARE something between "you" and "the elements" that HELP you cope with the elements in such a way as to make an ascent EASIER than it would be without them!
Your "lines" regarding "aid" are entirely arbitrary, and that is the fundamental problem with your blithe use of "climb to the top."
What about "to the top?" Why is that a necessary condition of style? Seriously, please explain! I find that one particularly confusing in the context of the rest of the definition.
What I am saying is that we can all agree that a first ascent put up in that style is a good first ascent. In some ways the description of that style of first ascent is constructed to obtain that consensus.
No, we can't all agree. I for one can't agree because I literally (I mean this) can't make sense of your definition. I literally do not know what you mean by it. And there is NO consensus as you say.
I would ask DMT what climb, put up in the "best style" as described in the OP, would he object to the first ascent style?
I'm one of "the others" you refer to, so I'll be happy to answer.
You are asking the wrong question. The question is NOT whether we object to first ascents done in the way you cite as "best." This is because you don't falsify a putative definition by asking if anybody can find an exemplars of that definition they object to.
You falsify a definition by finding exemplars that people would agree fit the terms being defined but are counterexamples to the putative definition.
I have repeatedly done that.
Mountaineering constitutes "climbing" and is in fact the longest-history form of it. Thus, all first ascents of big mountains certainly qualify as fitting the terms you attempt to define. But they ALL act as counterexamples to your definition. ALL are not "best style" by your definition, as ALL fail your "use of aid."
If you deny this notion of "aid," then your definition is utterly arbitrary or utterly vacuous.
Big wall first ascents around the world are also paradigm examples of your terms, yet virtually all act as counterexamples to your definition of "best style," as, again, virtually all rely heavily upon "aid."
The great irony is that some of the most wildly applauded and respected first ascents, ones in which the "style" are unquestionably BEST, include the FA of Cerro Torre, which is a FAIL by your definition. Real climbers know that Cerro Torre is NOT something that Bridwell "should" have waited until it could "go free" or that he did something "less than the best" because he did it "using aid."
And even your "go free" idea has countless counterexamples in the form of climbing shoes, as there are NO completely-nude free-soloists doing major first ascents. Period. None.
Yet, you can't convince anyone that Honnold's big free-solos are even SLIGHTLY "less than the best" because he wears climbing shoes with sticky rubber when he does them.
If you don't want such shoes to count as "aid," then, again, you are being entirely arbitrary.
It's a simple question, really. Would you object to a climb put up in that style because the possibility existed to red(pink)-point it? Maybe I'm confused.
As was said just upthread, we are ALL confused in a sense. But, despite your last comment, YOU apparently don't think that you are. And that's the problem with your definition. It IS confused, arbitrary, and standing outside the context of what many would count as climbing itself. It imposes a sort of sport-climbing-informed "ideal" of what "climbing" is all about, which utterly distorts "the standard" and hence the methods of legitimate and even BEST first ascents down through history.
Couple all those confusions with the built-in DOGMA to "leave that crap alone until it can be done in the BEST style, as defined by me," and you DO have "religious dogma" that is both incorrect and dangerous.
I'm vehemently opposed to your definition because I see in it both dogma and danger. And the fact that you still apparently think it is something like self-evidently correct is actually quite shocking this late in the thread.
Or, you are the MASTER TROLL!
In which case, hats off to you, and I stand (or bow, or curtsy) in awe! :-)
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2014 - 05:25pm PT
|
i'll ask you too, madbolter1,
if someone does a first ascent in the style I defined in the OP, would you have any problem with it?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2014 - 05:56pm PT
|
i'll ask you too, madbolter1,
if someone does a first ascent in the style I defined in the OP, would you have any problem with it?
Again, I deny that this is even the relevant question when it comes to evaluating a definition. You are asking the inverted question from the one you should be asking.
You should be asking, "Are there any first ascents that are clearly and undeniably 'best style' that act as counterexamples to my definition?" And the answer is that there are. I've cited many counterexamples to your definition.
Regarding your actual question, yes, I just might.
Let's imagine a nude free-soloist who is literally third-classing... on third-class terrain. They take no risks (other than perhaps sore feet or a scratch or two) in their "ascent." They can't "fall" other than perhaps "over," and the worst "tumble" they could take would amount to sliding a bit on the exposed, uhh... gluteul tissue.
Wow... BEST STYLE first ascent indeed! Completely complying with your definition. Completely ho-hum and irrelevant, both to the "climber" and to "climbing."
Yup, I have a big problem with calling such an "ascent" even climbing, much less "best style." Yet it 100% satisfies your definition.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2014 - 06:19pm PT
|
aid is aid, if you can do the route without aid you do it that way...
you have options once you get to a point where aid would be necessary:
you can retreat, declaring a failed attempt
you can retreat to a lower point and find another way to continue without using aid
you can use aid and continue
in the event that you retreat declaring a failed attempt, it is entirely possible that a future attempt might be able to do the route free, without resorting to aid
it is an interesting process of deciding what to do, "best style" of the OP is a cynosure
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2014 - 06:27pm PT
|
Bachar used aid on one his most famous routes which has become the "holy Grail" for trad climbers. So really what are you looking for? Try to separate the romance of climbing from the reality of it.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2014 - 06:30pm PT
|
aid is aid, if you can do the route without aid you do it that way...
you have options once you get to a point where aid would be necessary:
you can retreat, declaring a failed attempt
you can retreat to a lower point and find another way to continue without using aid
you can use aid and continue
"Aid is aid."
That's a crucial part of what's up for debate in your definition. You conveniently leave "aid" undefined.
By your lights, big mountains and big walls have never been climbed in "best style." In fact, by your lights, there has NEVER been a "best style" first ascent of a major formation.
That ridiculous implication falsifies your definition.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2014 - 06:47pm PT
|
So much of this is on the personal level Ed, as you said...YOU decide.
If I can't do an FA of a rock climb free I'll bail and let someone else try it.
If i am on the first ascent of a big alpine route and have to resort to some aid, I'll do it and let someone else claim the first free ascent.
That's me, i don't really enjoy aid or even big wall climbing but i love the exploration and adventure of serious, remote alpine climbs. I try to pick routes that have a free climbing look to them but will resort to some, always minimal, aid to bring them to fruition.
That said, I haven't placed a bolt on an alpine FA since Torre Egger in 1976. I make it easy on myself, I don't bring any.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2014 - 07:28pm PT
|
Too much muddle about style. I don't care what style anyone else uses to climb. OK, I like to be inspired by exemplary style (Bachar or Barber or Grossman or Donini (see post above) come to mind).
Ethics are the meaty and tangible issue. What is the impact?
What is your impression of this picture?
How does it compare to this ethic...
"The first point to be kept in mind is the preservation and maintenance as exactly as possible of the natural scenery; the restriction, that is to say within the narrowest limits consistent with the necessary accommodation of visitors, of all artificial constructions markedly inharmonious with the scenery or which would unnecessarily obscure, distort, or distract from the dignity of the scenery... in permitting the sacrifice of anything that would be of the slightest value to future visitors to the convenience, bad taste, playfulness, carelessness, or wanton destructiveness of present visitors, we probably yield in each case the interest of uncounted millions to the selfishness of a few individuals."
~ Frederick Law Olmstead (1865)
The words above represent Olmstead's ethic with regard to using public natural resources and the action by the climber above represents his ethic with regard to using public natural resources.
Which ethic has the least impact from use on the integrity of the resource?
Which ethic represents the highest level of stewardship of the public resource?
Which ethic respects the rights of other individuals and user groups?
Which ethic preserves the natural resource for future generations to use?
Which ethic appears the least arrogant, selfish, and ego-driven?
All individuals and all user groups have responsibilities with regard to their use of the public domain. What are our responsibilities?
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2014 - 08:24pm PT
|
Mark...you are posting opinions, not law and no way are they ethics that all should adhere too.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2014 - 09:22pm PT
|
Bob, did you ever put a route up in the manner described as "best style" in the OP?
I presume you have... so maybe not so far from reality.
If you haven't, well, I can understand that, I guess, I haven't ever installed a "sport route"
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2014 - 09:49pm PT
|
I think people are confused about just what my opinion is...
...I totally agree that drilling from hooks, drilling using a power drill, etc. may all have their place in FAs. My opinion is not that these things be forbidden.
I doubt that I would want to spend the time putting in sport routes, right now it's not where I'm at. But I totally understand others do it.
I don't think that Bridwell should or shouldn't have pushed ahead in Patagonia, he did what he did, his decision.
I'm not even all that worried about your rap route down Super Nova wall where you were exploring a possible line. Though the anchor bolts for the rappels do confuse some who are going ground up, they wonder if they missed the route.
But all that being said, we can all agree that the "best style" described in the OP is something we'd be comfortable with on anyone's FA anywhere.
The "best style" represents something we can keep in mind when deciding what to do on a FA. Obviously if you are installing sport routes you've already decided on a style. And you have a justification for it.
For the record, not all of the FAs I've participated on have been "best style," they have all been ground up. Sometimes the second put the bolts in at various places (the leader went without). And sometimes the moves have been worked out and bolts put in on subsequent ascents.
So I appreciate the bolting of a route with the consideration of all those who might climb it later. The first ascent style might still be "best style" but route re-equipped for the masses.
|
|
all in jim
climber
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2014 - 10:24pm PT
|
FAist = Fascist
No matter what the style.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2014 - 06:40am PT
|
I've heard that in some euro guides there isn't a reference to a first ascent but they will say, "route opened by so-and-so." It sometimes happens that several climbers are involved in opening a route. That is usually the case for new routes at Squamish where large-scale vegetation and dirt removal take place. A first ascent is a very different matter when you have been over the terrain already, for days or months. In earlier times and to a lesser degree today, launching into the unknown was a part of what led to a first ascent being well-regarded. Today the uncertainty comes from how hard the route may be, not whether it will go.
There is a lot of rock in B.C. where people can still do FAs in excellent style, if they survive the approach.
Very few if any climbers today are going to do new routes in best style at a place like Squamish. In compensation for that, there a lot of climbers to share the blame for creating routes in less than best style.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2014 - 05:38pm PT
|
Mark...you are posting opinions, not law and no way are they ethics that all should adhere too.
Bob D'A, attempting to have a conversation about ethics is much different than making law. Yes, we all have our own opinions and ethics. Some serve just us, some serve a few, and some consider and serve the many. Liberte', egalite', fraternite'.
Yes, Bachar considered hanging from a hook so that he could use both hands to hand drill a bolt aid.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2014 - 08:46pm PT
|
Mark...he didn't just consider, he did hang off a hook. I have nothing bad to say about what he did. My point being that through my 40 plus year of climbing I have seen people doing things that we're consider bad style/ethics that later became acceptable and the norm/style/ethic.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2014 - 09:07pm PT
|
Yes, Bachar considered hanging from a hook so that he could use both hands to hand drill a bolt aid.
The translation is that Bachar considered hanging from a hook to drill a bolt to be aid and made sure to own it when he did.
Again, I don't really care that much about others style; that's personal. I care about impact; that's communal.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!