Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
j-tree
Big Wall climber
Classroom to crag to summer camp
|
|
While I was on the subject, i did a quick search of Clint's list of Yosemite routes by Slab or Face and pulled these 5.8-5.10 R/X Routes and their FA's
I have no idea which ones are more R or More X, just did a data dump.
 - -
9 Dressed to Kill 5.10b R/X Ken Yager, & Walt Shipley,
478 Jugs 5.8 R/X Barber, Henry
482 Holidays 5.8 R/X Scott Cosgrove, & Jenny Naquin,
1689 Reefer Madness 5.10d R/X * Guy Keesee, John Egger, Fred East, Steven Bedford; FA: Pat Timson, Don Harder, 1976
1691 Greasy but Groovy 5.10d R/X * John Long, Rick Accomazzo, Richard Harrison, 5/1974
2017 A Mother's Lament 5.10c R/X Rab Carrington, Rik Rieder, 1972
2033 Grack - Right 5.8 R/X TM Herbert, Ken Boche, 3/1970
2043 Flakey Foont 5.9 R/X * Vince Goetz, Rick Lee, Al Hu, 1972
2484 Tapestry 5.9 R/X * Heidi Pesterfield, Brian Bennett, 1986
2506 Spooky Tooth 5.10a X * John Yablonski, Fred East, Richard Harrison, 1976
2508 Shake and Bake 5.10c X * Rick Accomazzo, Richard Harrison, 1976
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
As a guideline I think the 'rule' against retrobolting is a great one. If you didn't have it the door would be wide open to dumbing down lots of routes and we'd have greater resource degradation and diminished challenges at a wide scale.
I think run out test pieces are cool. The problem starts when the majority of the limited amount of climbs in an area are put up this way (and there ARE limited amounts of climbs). IMO the majority (50% +) of 5.9 climbs should be a reasonable challenge for a 5.9/5.10 climber.
I think most run out climbs are put up that way not out of selfishness, or "look at me I'm a stud" but because the FA wanted that challenge, they couldn't afford more bolts, there weren't stances or whatever. But as I said when the majority of climbs in an area are put up as run out 5.9 climbs for 5.12+ climbers that rarely get done and there's big lines on the 5.9s with less run outs that's not a good situation.
I think climbs like the BY are awesome and should never see another bolt, but a climb like superchicken in which the FA is thinking about making one climb less run out in an area of many run out climbs I say let the FA retrobolt.
|
|
Roughster
Sport climber
Vacaville, CA
|
|
I'll say it: R/X at walk up PRIME destination crags are bullshit and deserve every retrobolt they get. There it is :)
I put up a few scare-fests...in the middle of nowhere so people wouldn't give a sh#t, nor ever will. If YOU want the feeling, do it where you do not forever cross off a face from anyone else enjoying, have at it. The issue here is in the 60s, 70s, and even early 80s, there were prime picking close to the road based upon when you were born. To me, THAT IS THE ISSUE.
It isn't the 60s, 70s, or 80s anymore. /I'll be your Huckleberry mutha f*#kers.
|
|
viejoalpinisto
Social climber
Pahrump, NV
|
|
No JoJo, you are indeed entirely lame when it comes to formulating a logical argument. You are trying to change ethics using a dialectic approach masquerading as logic. You could start a new route two feet to the left of any route that is already there...but you don't , won't...you don't have the vision. All you have is stronger arms and no ethics....I see a you tube of a guy doing the "hardest climb...." with a bolt right in his face on the crux move and no fall potential on the whole route greater than ten feet. That ain't climbing'! it is gymnastics on rocks. Rap bolting, preplaced gear...that in't climbing neither. I don't care, won't ever care and the more I see of "you" doing amazing gymnastics...the less I care. Real climbing is not safe...Mastering the fear and keeping moving to the next stance where you can place pro is more the soul of climbing than any individual or sum of moves at any grade....My favorite route name "Sport Climbing is Neither" I can't believe how many of you lames can't even place a cam correctly, do a hand jam, chicken wing, or basic chimney move....From now on I am carrying a hammer and cold chisel wherever I go....not because bolts are bad...because sport routes on real rocks are lame....so your topic has indeed inspired some change!!!
|
|
viejoalpinisto
Social climber
Pahrump, NV
|
|
New project! Get YV sport climbs and go on a Rap-unbolting spree! You have made a convert!
|
|
wstmrnclmr
Trad climber
Bolinas, CA
|
|
Went hiking along base of the Arches Apron area looking at potential climbs a couple of weekends ago. I'd heard Poker Face was a nice trad lead but was suprised to see how many bolts were on it. Consulted the taco search for some history and found a thread mentioning that it had been retro'd with many more bolts then the original route had. For some reason the OP has been removed. There was a comment up thread about how a guide book might reflect the changes and how the original line may be lost to history. Is the Reid guide accurate on this climb? Does anyone have the original topo?
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2012 - 07:13am PT
|
Coz wrote
And if you want to do Solitary confinment, that was put up FA, free solo, and is a master piece, of the great JB, maybe you just need to man up and do it.
I think that's a good example of Bullshit right there and I love John. He's a 5.13 climber and master soloist and waltzes up this classic 5.9 face and puts it off limits to virtually everyone for eternity. That sucks. If he would have climbed it and then opened it up to being established by people who climbed closer to the grade I'd be all good with it.
But he almost died on the thing himself. He told me the story. He was up there and got in a position where he had to rely on this one knob and it was about to break. Just luck/karma that he didn't buy it right there.
JB was, and is, great, but the memory of his greatness shouldn't eat up so much prime real estate for eternity.
At least you can top rope the "Big Moe" I was sitting next to John and Reardon in Josh just a hundred yards down from it and some guys came around looking for it. I told them the story of the crazy as sh#t hotshot that soloed it and they "wowed" not know the guy was sitting right there.
Peace
Karl
PS. Coz, your original post was one assuming motives like attention, just reflecting the rays back at you.
Tom H. That's one example of 5.13 climbers leading it out. There's plenty in TM. A valley example would be Space Babble which Kauk ran it out on cause it's easy and they wanted to just run up and do the thing. Sadly, it's some of the best 5.9 and easy 10 faceclimbing anywhere but doesn't see ascents. Talked to Kauk once about adding bolts to it so folks could enjoy it and he was all for it but that was many years ago, so dont go by my word here
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2012 - 07:18am PT
|
Tom wrote
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?
The waters ARE muddy. Why pretend reality isn't what it is. On the First ascent of Sunshine, they ran out of bolts and left a one bolt anchor. Should that have remained One Bolt in blind testament to the FA party?
We better get used to dealing with some shades of grey because we already do. Note added bolt anchors to central pillar of Frenzy and the Nose. SHould people rap on fixed pins forever just because that what was there?
PEace
Karl
|
|
wstmrnclmr
Trad climber
Bolinas, CA
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2012 - 11:54pm PT
|
Karl,
Many of the face climbs in Yosemite Climber are the types of climbs that I and many others aspired to climb and trained for for years to be able to do. Climbs like Quiksilver and Space Babble are icons of that book and the history brought to us. You would have this destroyed? You say it's reality but I don't see a consensus. I see an ongoing argument every time retro bolting is brought up. So I don't see what reality your talking about. Climbs, whether they are aid, sport or trad were put up by someone who had a vision of what ever their individual expression gave them. I don't think one has the right to change that expression, regardless of whether the medium is climbing or art or whatever. And I don't think there is a gray area. With the exception of Bachar and Kamps et al most of the FA'ists are alive and well and can be consulted as to the alteration of their routes whether it's about anchors or protection. And as for the climbs of those deceased, it's usually clear in what style they climbed. We added anchors just last year to one bolt anchor climbs with the consent of the FA party. And there are plenty of well thought out, well protected routes going up alongside those old slab routes. Climbs put up on Dozier Dome and the Razor Back in Tuolumne by Brian Law and others are an example. I certainly would not go pull bolts on those climbs to adjust them to my wishes without their consent. There is something for everyone out there and there are still lines that you can put up yourself in whatever style you see fit. Otherwise, leave climbs alone...
|
|
Mtnfly
Trad climber
El Segundo
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2012 - 02:14am PT
|
east side underground
climber
Hilton crk,ca
Jun 5, 2012 - 05:29pm PT
" don't clip the bolt" How about this for an analogy, It's like Pipeline, if it's above your skill level DON'T PADDEL OUT KOOK! :) Cheers ( not all routes or surf spots are for everyone)
Locals at pipeline, who are arguably the 5.13+ of the surfing world, don't suggest you paddle out on a135 lb koa wood board as it was surfed on the "FA".
It seems everyone here doesn't want to see grid bolting....those who hate bolts are scared that other people won't make logical choices on bolt placement. It seems only expert climbers ae smart enough to make these choices.
Those in favor of a few bolts here and there to protect 25 foot slab sections between BEAutiful hand cracks are just good people who want to open up more climbs for themselves. Not really a bad thing either.
I for one would love to climb more in tuolumne, but apparently climbers ahead of me...who are better than I, or most of you will ever be basically soloed every route in the area first.
What if we decided on a happy medium of 20 feet of slab allows a bolt. Not grid bolting....still need some balls and could get hurt...just won't die...prob...but maybe....
Also, maybe we need arbitration. Ask the surfing world what side of the argument they R on to give this debate some context.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2012 - 07:30am PT
|
And I don't think there is a gray area. With the exception of Bachar and Kamps et al most of the FA'ists are alive and well and can be consulted as to the alteration of their routes whether it's about anchors or protection
There ARE all kinds of Grey areas, you just choose not to see them. Tom H said it didn't matter the motives or situation of the FA Party, like whether they were bolt poor. I noted that some routes like Sunshine started out with a one bolt anchor because of being Bolt poor. You talk about consulting the FA party but that's also a grey area. The FA guy from Snake dike (which has already been retro-bolted once) on this thread just called for 4 bolts per dike pitch. How is that for a gray area?
Retro-bolts on the sacred South Face of Half dome have already been allowed to stay and the FA party is calling for more, and I imagine the community doesn't mostly approve, which seems in contrast to how clear you seem to portray it.
Steck approved a bolt instead of the fixed pin protecting the crux on East BUtt of El Cap and it got chopped anyway. Now there is Neither. Just sayin' We think there are rules but only sorta. Whatever happens is what happens
I'm not saying how it SHOULD be. I'm telling you how it already demonstrably is, Gray.
Peace
Karl
|
|
Don Paul
Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2012 - 08:35am PT
|
I like it that there are almost no rules in rock climbing. Seems to me the danger/fear level of a route is a matter of personal taste. I would say, respect the tradition as long as it really is a tradition. ie, an X rated 5.10 that's only been climbed by a couple of 5.13 climbers, that's not a tradition. Did they put the route up for everyone to enjoy, or just for self-aggrandizement? I'd generally agree with Karl that its a good thing to make some climbs, which never get done, accessible to the public. But remember, the easier it is, the more gumbies you'll attract. If you have crowds of these people heading to, say, Yosemite, to do retrobolted routes, you may be heading down a slippery slope of changing climbing ethics. That's not a good thing.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2012 - 09:53am PT
|
When Royal articulated the rule to stick with the protection scheme provided by the first ascent party, he talked about the combination of the line and the choices made by the first ascent party. This creation--the rock plus the choices--was what Royal wanted to protect. I think that there is another, not so elegant argument: the first ascent rule is pretty much the only practical rule to start from. Even if it gets modified, for whatever reason, starting at that point is the only thing that works for each climbing community.
Nowadays most of the arguments are about adding bolts to reduce the runouts. It seems obvious that this is a result of changes in climbing over the years. In the 1970s, taking many falls on a crux became the method of advancing the standards. It still is. Also, most younger climbers are introduced to climbing in gyms or on sports crags or on top-rope and the gap between those no-consequence falls and the sort of leading done when the routes were established is a difficult gap to bridge. In some sense, the arguments in favor of adding bolts is odd given the number of climbers who free-solo. I don't have much desire to weigh in on the "found truth" of this, but I can offer up specifics that define how I think it should be approached.
I did not do many bolted first ascents, and never climbed really hard, but I lucked out in picking some lines that turned out to be great routes. Some of these routes have become part of these arguments. So to make it personal,
"The Central Pillar of Frenzy" only had one bolt placed, on the 8th pitch, to protect 5.10 climbing. The pitch is otherwise runout on 5.8 (I think). I would object to a bolt being added, since that was the character of the climbing that we did in 1973. However, as I understand it, on the first five pitches, there are bolted belay and rappel stations that sustain the heavy traffic. I think that is great. The first five pitches are great climbing, and those bolts allow many teams to climb safely. The complete history of the First Ascent of The Central Pillar of Frenzy
"Freewheeling" done the same year, was the first climb on the North Apron of Middle. George, Kevin and I climbed in a style of sparse bolting, and there are only a few points of natural protection and bolts on any pitch. On the first ascent, I didn't put anything in on the first pitch, which is rated 5.7. There were no natural points of protection and I didn't stop to put in a bolt. This is an example, at a lower grade, of creating unnecessary difficulty--the 5.10 climbing is all well protected, the 5.8-5.9 climbing is moderately runout, and, at the time, the 5.7 first pitch had no protection. The only good thing that came from that is that Ron Kauk had to be rescued by Kevin on a subsequent ascent, providing a true but otherwise improbable account of Kevin and me climbing at a higher standard than Ron. A bolt was added on that pitch, and everyone thinks it is a good thing. I assume that there are extra bolts added on the belays, which I think is sensible since on runout slab climbs, the belay is the foundation of the system if someone takes a whipper and a long slide. If the belay holds, they will probably be okay. However, adding lead bolts on the remaining four pitches would take something away from the climb. The rock would be the same, but the climb would not. We thought very carefully (except me on the first pitch; I did the second pitch right) about where the route lay and where the protection bolts would be. We had plenty of talent, time, drills, and options. We chose the climb as it exists today. The posts on ST comment on how good the rock and climbing are, and how the sparseness of protection requires thinking about the sequences: the runouts are very much part of the climb. I think most climbers would object to more lead bolts being added. Here is my belated trip report: Freewheeling: La Direttissima per Ora Dove in b&w Oct 1973
"Hoodwink" was done with three bolts placed on aid to protect 5.10 face climbing above the roof moves. This was a horrible mistake fed by recreational drugs. It marred an otherwise great route, defined by the roof pull-over. I tired to do those face moves above the roof on the first try with no protection--I wasn't carrying a bolt kit--and backed down and came back with a bolt kit and with Jim. I always intended to return to the climb, chop the aid placed bolts, and lead the pitch with a single bolt placed on stance. I believe this is possible since I had spend so much time up there pondering it before I backed down and returned with a bolt kit. As I understand it, there are 5-6 bolts on the pitch nowadays. Apparently the three original bolts have been replaced and extra bolts have been added on low angle, easy upper slab. Bolts have been added for a belay at the top of the last pitch. If someone had asked me--no one knew that Cleveland even existed until I started posting on ST--I would have voted to chop the three original bolts and replace them with one. I would have agreed to another bolt or two on the remaining part of the upper pitch so that someone falling on easy climbing would not fall to the ledge above the roof and then pitch over the roof and land on the slab--that is an unnecessary danger and not fitting with the character of the climb. Since we set a belay at the top of the last pitch with nuts and slings, I would not have thought belay bolts were necessary, but I would have gone with the views of the person fixing the route. Here was my first ascent story: The First Ascent ot 'Hoodwink'
"Peter, Peter" on Fairview, is just to the left of the "Great Pumpkin." I though the route was stellar, but it is rarely done. The crux of the climb is a very well protected 5.10 traverse under a roof and an easier turning of the roof into a short corner to a great ledge. The climbing above is standard big knob. bolt protected, climbing with standard Meadows' runouts. However, on the first pitch, below the roof, I apparently lead 5.9 way above the ground without any protection. I don't have a complete memory of the first pitch. I had reported to Ed Hartouni that I thought I got something in to the left of the line, but I remember I calculated the odds of damage if I fell on moves in the middle of the pitch and near the top of the pitch. Ed Hartouni found a bolt on the first pitch, but I don't remember putting it in. (Ed has replace the bolts he found on the route and may have added additional bolts on the first pitch--I don't remember what he told me.) The 5.10 climbing under the roof is perfectly protected with nuts; the first pitch should have bolts that protect the 5.9 climbing. I am clear that the slab climbing below the roof should not be the crux because it is unprotected. Adding bolts to protect the first pitch would not in any way diminish the character of the climb. It also would correct my mistake in not placing bolts on the first ascent. As a note, when I was leading new routes, I tried to pay careful attention to the protection I was leaving for the next parties--I was trained by Bridwell--but first ascents are not formed as routes until they are done: you often don't know if the route is going to go, where it will go, if it will be any good, or ever be repeated. Placing lots of bolts can be a mistake: they could be in the wrong place or lead to an unfinished garbage route. In the case of Peter, Peter, on the first pitch, I was probably calculating the odds of falling and the risks relative to the time and effort to stop and drill. I also pushed myself to runout leads. If I had known how good the route was going to be, I probably would have put in more bolts. If I had known that the rest of the climbing was well protected relative to difficulty, I probably would have put in more bolts. I didn't know either of those things, and unlike Tom, I never returned to fix any of my first ascents. I think "Peter Peter" is a good route, but I suspect that unless the first pitch is protected, it will have few ascents: who wants to fall to the ground on a non-crux pitch. I would vote for bolts to be added to the first pitch in a way that fits with the protection relative to difficulty on the remaining pitches. Ed Hartouni's Rebolting Peter, Peter on Fairview Dome.. finally complete
None of these "solutions" fits into Royal's initial first ascent rule, but they are, in my opinion, natural outgrowths of his thinking--using his analogy, painters regularly touch up their own work before they say it is done, but paint added after the painter is done is considered bad form and is removed by later generations, if the painting is significant. My rules would be: Replace old bolts with newer technology. Double up bolts on belays and rappel routes. Add bolts or move bolts that are "mistakes." And preserve the character of the original ascent. This can be done with a sense of the history of the an area and the climbers who developed the area's style.
Somehow this is connected:
In Rome, the marble steps to the Forum disappeared long ago. The old steps were probably used on a newer building centuries ago, suited to the tastes of the Romans who took them. However, for me, something was lost in not being able to stand on the actual steps trod by the Roman Senators who have given us some of our best stories ("Et tu Brute?") and the foundation of our laws. I am sure that who ever used those original steps in their building's entrance probably didn't give a damn about what a long dead Roman Senator stood on or what a future American thinks; they just liked that they got them cheap and they look good. Contrary to popular belief, I was not around when the Forum steps were moved. If you want a personal point of view, ask Longago or Jogill, they were there.
|
|
wstmrnclmr
Trad climber
Bolinas, CA
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2012 - 10:46am PT
|
Tom Higgins put up one of the climbs we re-bolted and fixed the anchors on, Curve like her, last year. He was specific in that he wanted the original character of the climb to remain. The climb is certainly run out. There have been unwritten rules, at least from what I've read here about the FA parties at least being consulted first. I think the gray areas (bolts added, chopped, whatever) are largely unknown to the FA parties because, at least from threads on here, most FA parties of aid, sport or trad seem to be upset when something is changed. If the original parties want to add bolts to the Dike, so be it. Just because it's a classic and Super chicken is not should not change the idea of the FA team being the deciders otherwise gray areas and slippery slopes. Don Paul. The community of climbers putting up slab climbs in the past was small and they dictated the style in which those climbs were installed. 5.13 did not exist to them as they were the leading edge and didn't have a reference point. Now there are many more people enjoying climbing and ratings are a hard thing to transfer. Roger's take seems reasonable and I think this is what's been taking place in the rebolting of routes. Replace the original bolts and upgrade the belays. Another analogy to surfing can be made. When I grew up surfing in Bolinas, there were no more then 10 to 15 locals who made up rules of the road which stood for many years. Farthest in the peak has the right of way. Take turns, etc. Now there are more then 100 surfers in the water if the waves are decent and the rules of the road have been left behind by sheer numbers. Times do change, but the rules were there. The "reality" is there's more people. So the masses dictate the rules, whether known or unknown. Thus, a thread on retro bolting is unavoidable. So yes Karl, there are facts but there were rules. The question is whether we should stick to the old rules or change them as the face of climbing changes?
edit: I forgot to mention that the grey ghost, an r/x route was put up by Royal. I talked to TM Herbert last summer who belayed Royal on the route. He said it was out of character for RR to put up such a bold unprotected line but he saw other climbs nearby and wanted to make a statement in the style of that time and place. Bachar later chopped bolts added to that climb.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2012 - 11:30am PT
|
Interesting comment from TM about Royal and "Gray Ghost." They climbed "Gray Ghost" in 1970, and at the time there were few climbs in the Meadows. "Gray Ghost" was one of the first runout slab climbs. If Royal was reacting to other climbers the most likely suspects would have been our own Tom Higgins, or Bob Kamps, and maybe Tom Gerughty who led The Dike Route on Pywiack in 1966. I think it is more plausible that Royal was seeing the changes on the horizon and raised his game, so to speak.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2012 - 11:47am PT
|
Well, you know what I mean. It is a great story. And it certainly was the only time I outclimbed Ron, if you can call free-soloing a 5.7 pitch outclimbing someone.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2012 - 12:17pm PT
|
I like Roger's post and appreciate keeping things more or less the same with the exception of fixing some belays and correcting fa "Mistakes" and then he lists them
I made a point a few years ago of advocating FAs write stories about each of their ascents for posterity (and maybe even the Supertopo blurb) and also mention if there were any "Mistakes" or issues about the protection. That way, when the inexorable future arrives, and the FA parties are long gone, the kids will have the authorization to fix the mistakes like what Roger Mentioned and would also know when the FA party intentionally created the route that way and would be warned not to change things
While I'm personally for fixing some mistake routes, even if the FA team had a change of heart later, I'm not advocating retro-bolting as a whole. I'm advocating communication and information.
It's sorta like "Abstinence Only" sounds good to sex purists on paper but doesn't translate to effective policy in reality
BTW Roger. I took one of my worsts falls (until recently) on "Freewheelin" years ago. I was making what seemed to be the last hard move on a 5.10 pitch (after you leave this left facing corner) and slipped on ball bearings. Flipped up-side down and backwards and stuff. One of your bolts held me.
I went back for "revenge" some years later and when I got back to that pitch, I couldn't find the bolt that held my fall. Finally I found the broken off metal inside a hole, so I bailed as the first fall was far enough. I know the bolts have been replaced on the route but at the time thought they didn't find that very important one. Just putting it out there in case that bolt is still missing cause it's a great route but needs your old bolt
Peace
Karl
PS Kevin and Roger. Face climbing... It's only 5.7 if you are on route. I went to go repeat Quicksilver some years back and wound up off somewhere off-route on the first pitch. Wound up on the wrong anchors. I didn't know it until I started looking for the second pitch and it was off somewhere. Wondered why it felt so hard for the grade
|
|
Don Paul
Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2012 - 12:25pm PT
|
Roger, that's great you put so much care into designing those routes. Particularly the comment that a super run out 5.7 pitch was out of character for the route and not supposed to be the crux.
As for Bridwell's idea of putting up the hardest/scariest routes he can, and throwing down the gauntlet for people to repeat them - there's a place for that too. I think Karl's idea was more about routes that were badly designed in the first place.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2012 - 12:54pm PT
|
Hi Don,
I think that any idea that Jim had about putting up the hardest and scariest route only applied to his big wall aid climbs and his ice climbing. That is the nature of hard aid (and ice too, I think). If you find a good line, with the worst cracks and seams, you put in the best placement you can, stand up, and repeat. If you run into a blank section, you place a dowel. If you run into a great placement, the game starts over. If you chicken out, you put in a bolt. Once Jim was on a route, I think he only put in dowels instead of chickening out with a bolt. Everything else was dictated by the rock.
As much as I remember, on free climbing, Jim was very conservative with his protection. Partly that was because he climbed cracks. He also beat us up if we didn't think it through and allow for the second or subsequent ascents in planning our protection or setting belays.
He didn't like the bolted, runout slab routes his "boys" put up. He thought we were crazy.
He also didn't free-solo hard: "Why risk so much to gain so little," is the famous quote. However, I like Ron's "I'll watch" better because it conveys both Jim's why question and the performance aspect of free-soloing.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2012 - 01:01pm PT
|
Okay Karl, repeat after me.
"Don't get off route."
"Don't break the bolts, they are hard to replace and you could be shot if you try."
"Don't fall. If the first ascent party had designed a route to fall on, they would have put in lots of bolts."
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!