Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2007 - 02:21am PT
|
I've stated, and I intend to stand by it now: Steve/mimisoft have failed to answer the most pressing question, and the one that would MOST advance the discussion about the major issue still remaining. Until that question is answered, they will get nothing more from me.
But now, as I've stated, I've upped the ante. Steve/mimisoft will get nothing more from me until we have an arrangement to swap solos.
I was prepared to back off after reading Werner's post, but Steve isn't having that. So, the chronology stands now as:
I call Steve out in a civilized, reasonable, and wholly appropriate way... a way that will actually advance everybody's knowledge.
Steve punts, makes excuses, blows smoke, and acts like a child.
I reiterate that I've got nothing more to say until one question is answered and we swap solos.
Steve blows more smoke... fails to rise to the challenge.
I'm done for the night. Gotta go to bed. I'll see in the morning if Steve is ready to sack up on two fronts. If not, I've got nothing more to say.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2007 - 02:25am PT
|
Clint Cummins: "Steve's post of 8:10pm contains several questions that are answerable, and at least relevant to Steve's understanding of the situation. I think they are worthy as well."
I am including a full copy of Steve's 8:10 pm post. Maybe you can go through it and identify those questions which you believe are answerable and relevant to the situation?
As you can see Steve asks about the Riverside climbs (not relevant). The only other answerable question is his request for confirmation that 15% of the placements was modified. As I mentioned, Richard responded to that.
The only other one is Steve's rhetorical "how much is OK? question regarding what he identifies as the "drill-to-suit" quandary. This is a rhetorical question, not an answerable question, and Richard addressed this issue.
There are not any other questions. So what are you requesting Richard to respond to? If you have questions you think should be answered, let's hear them.
Steve Grossman's 8:10 pm post:
Is that a "yes, I had climbed an established pitch A3 or harder which was longer than 100'" or a "no, I had not climbed an established pitch A3 or harder which was longer than 100'?"
How many hook moves in total on your surviving Riverside Quarry routes and what were they rated by consensus?
Once the hammer pick and drill come into play, the sustainability of your work becomes an issue of interest. The basic problem for any prospective repeat ascent is that you guys didn't craft your route with anything but your own passage in mind. The original hook placements dimpled or not have likely deteriorated or failed due to the intense tip pressure inherent in the narrow Logan hook design.
The initial state and difficulty of this particular route is important because subsequent ascents will constantly deal with the drill-to-suit quandry. The first ascent party reached for the drill when modification seemed necessary for security sake, why shouldn't I, but how much is OK? By being vague about the number and extent of your hooking modifications you don't really provide that next party with much of a basis upon which to make their decisions.
First, the extent of modifications was deemed unimportant by you gents. Then you claimed that you couldn't remember exactly, which seemed rather implausible given your meticulous records. Then it was 8-10 total and now it sits at 15% of 151 or roughly 22? Right?
When I swung over to pith 9 of WOS from the Horse Chute, it was easy to spot your hook placements because many featured a tiny drilled dimple. Nobody else had been there and I don't have trouble recognizing a drill mark.
The funny thing is, over on pitch 6 of the Jolly Roger I went 6 hooks in row from top steps or above without any modification and we felt that the pitch only warranted A4+. Narrow Logan hook placements are very rare in my natural hooking only approach because they tend to shear off most microflakes with a rear fracture.
By the time that I did the Jolly Roger, I had done lots of hooking and the limitations of the narrow Logan hook had prompted me to fill in three sizes by tip grinding the wide Logan hook down. Charles also had an arsenal of custom hooks based on his experiences. Without the experience and the proper hardware we could not have an outstanding and well appreciated result.
|
|
Clint Cummins
Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2007 - 02:43am PT
|
graniteclimber,
>I am including a full copy of Steve's 8:10 pm post. Maybe you can go through it and identify those questions which you believe are answerable and relevant to the situation?
OK.
> As you can see Steve asks about the Riverside climbs (not relevant).
I don't agree. Easy to answer, and relevant, in my view. Even if they seem trivial, that's really Steve's problem to deal with.
> The only other answerable question is his request for confirmation that 15% of the placements was modified. As I mentioned, Richard responded to that.
I'll reread that. I didn't think he actually answered it, but I could be wrong.
> The only other one is Steve's rhetorical "how much is OK? question regarding what he identifies as the "drill-to-suit" quandary. This is a rhetorical question, not an answerable question, and Richard addressed this issue.
I agree, rhetorical.
> There are not any other questions. So what are you requesting Richard to respond to? If you have questions you think should be answered, let's hear them.
The Riverside Quarry ones, at least.
> Steve Grossman's 8:10 pm post:
I'll add numbers for the questions.
(1) Is that a "yes, I had climbed an established pitch A3 or harder which was longer than 100'" or a "no, I had not climbed an established pitch A3 or harder which was longer than 100'?"
(2) How many hook moves in total on your surviving Riverside Quarry routes and what were they rated by consensus?
[statement about sustainability deleted]
> The initial state and difficulty of this particular route is important because subsequent ascents will constantly deal with the drill-to-suit quandry. The first ascent party reached for the drill when modification seemed necessary for security sake, why shouldn't I, but how much is OK? By being vague about the number and extent of your hooking modifications you don't really provide that next party with much of a basis upon which to make their decisions.
(rhetorical)
(3) First, the extent of modifications was deemed unimportant by you gents. Then you claimed that you couldn't remember exactly, which seemed rather implausible given your meticulous records. Then it was 8-10 total and now it sits at 15% of 151 or roughly 22? Right?
(maybe already answered today; I'll check)
[Edit: answered - no more than 10% - thanks, graniteclimber.
Also, thanks for the link to summitpost on the 1996 partial repeat by "The Chief" and Thor Pelot]
[statements about p9 and hooking on Jolly Roger deleted]
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2007 - 02:50am PT
|
"(3) First, the extent of modifications was deemed unimportant by you gents. Then you claimed that you couldn't remember exactly, which seemed rather implausible given your meticulous records. Then it was 8-10 total and now it sits at 15% of 151 or roughly 22? Right?"
Richard's answer: "No, wrong! Show me where I have ever said 15%. Most recently, on this very thread, I said that the number was no more than 10%.
|
|
Clint Cummins
Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2007 - 02:54am PT
|
And on the other side, here's Richard's question for Steve, from his 4:43pm post (and referenced by his later post):
> Answer me: HAVE you been to the base of the route to actually SEE what is there?
Easy enough to answer.
But the implication, also as suggested in Pete's most recent post, is that everything relevant on p1 is visible from the base. Steve seems to be implying that there might be drilled batholes that would not be visible from the base. Richard and Mark have insisted all along that there were no batholes until the p13 traverse when they ran short on rivets/bolts. Steve saw drilled "dimples" on p9 in 1984 and believes they were from the FA, so he does not trust Richard/Mark ? But it seems like he should trust Pete / Tom / Randy on the lack of batholes on p1 and Ammon / Tom / Randy on the lack on p2. Unless Steve thinks they were filled in later or something?
|
|
the Fet
Knackered climber
A bivy sack in the secret campground
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2007 - 03:10am PT
|
If you were half a man at the time of your little fecal persecution, you would certainly have been able to find out who the perpetrators were and come to some understanding.
The perpetrators are STILL cowards who won't fess up to their actions, and are still not being identified (protected) by those who know them. Come to an understanding with people who defecated on their property and those who defend them? Are you kidding?
Seriously outnumbered, threatened, property destroyed under the cover of night, and still they pursued their project. Richard and Mark acted with courage.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2007 - 03:44am PT
|
"> As you can see Steve asks about the Riverside climbs (not relevant).
I don't agree. Easy to answer, and relevant, in my view. "
Can you please explain why, in your view, those questions are relevant? What would the answers prove or disprove?
"But the implication, also as suggested in Pete's most recent post, is that everything relevant on p1 is visible from the base. Steve seems to be implying that there might be drilled batholes that would not be visible from the base."
Steve has stated that the route was "overbolted" and implied (citing one of the shitters, who is apparently an associate of his) that the bolt and rivets (not batholes) were at body length.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
primordial soup
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2007 - 03:56am PT
|
all that i have ever learned in any of these arguments is that shitting on ropes makes for shitty treads
|
|
Nefarius
Big Wall climber
Fresno, CA
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2007 - 03:57am PT
|
edit: post removed... Just not worth it. Better things to waste time on.
Happy New Year, mates!
|
|
Clint Cummins
Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2007 - 06:01am PT
|
>>"> As you can see Steve asks about the Riverside climbs (not relevant).
>>I don't agree. Easy to answer, and relevant, in my view. "
>Can you please explain why, in your view, those questions are relevant? What would the answers prove or disprove?
I liked the first half of Richard's 4:43pm post where he explained about his aid climbing experiences from the Riverside Quarry with Mark. It gave some good perspective on why they had the skills, to the surprise of the Valley guys who thought that stuff could only be learned in the Valley or something (well actually they also learned by aid bouldering on the base slab). It would seem to me that answering the (rather arbitrary) questions about the 100' pitch and "consensus" rating gives a little more background on the Riverside Quarry to people who are not familiar with it. Maybe it would even close out these questions on prior experience from Steve. I agree with Richard that it is slab micro hooking experience which is relevant; few people have those skills although Steve is one of the people who does. (I am not saying that the difficulty of slab hooking was the same on Jolly Roger and Wings of Steel).
How about an equivalent question for Steve - where did you learn slab hooking before doing Jolly Roger?
>>"But the implication, also as suggested in Pete's most recent post, is that everything relevant on p1 is visible from the base. Steve seems to be implying that there might be drilled batholes that would not be visible from the base."
>Steve has stated that the route was "overbolted" and implied (citing one of the shitters, who is apparently an associate of his) that the bolt and rivets (not batholes) were at body length.
Yes. Although in that recent post Steve didn't specify exactly what was at body length (bolts, rivets or holes). Obviously there is a conflict between the report of the chopper/defecator and the current observed state of p1-p2. One possible explanation could be the holes were expertly patched, but that seems unlikely, since Pete was able to do most of the moves on toprope and Rob Slater led them (I believe the original versions of p1-p2, but maybe I'm wrong). Since others have done the original p1-p2 in their current state, in my view clearly Mark and Richard probably did them in that state as well. Perhaps Steve can clarify what his point is on the state of the original p1-p2 then and now?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2007 - 06:21am PT
|
Having only been there once for four days I find it a wonder that a place as big as the Valley could collapse so small, though I suppose there is no reason why the Vatican of climbing, or its high priests, should be immune to petty bullsh#t. But the continuing verbal histrionics around the whole affair are ridiculous when the entire reality of any and all aspects of the controversy with any merit are 'etched' in stone to be had by all.
How many holes? How many rivets or bolts? Of what type and size? How far apart? How many visible enchancements? To what degree were they drilled or enhanced? How hard? Those answers are all still there to be had by anyone man or woman enough to go get them. The 'legitimacy' of the route would seem to be established fairly by the fact it attracted the "Chief" and his partner ([url="http://www.summitpost.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=18794&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=225&sid=3adb50e0783f50a4c401e067395f9bf9" target="new"]over on SummitPost[/url]) who hailed from hard aid on Looking Glass in NC and had no knowledge of the associated 'affair' at the time they got on it. They were simply attracted to the line while on the Dihedral Wall.
Why do I give a f*#k? Because it could just as easily have been me and my partner back then had we not been so oriented around free climbing and sandstone. And though I've been thwarted in each of the last five years in any attempt to get down there again (to get on the left half of the Sentinel), if I ever do manage to get things lined up, WoS is going to be my first stop. I'm more than willing to take Ammon's word in the matter, but this I'm going to have to eyeball firsthand if I'm down that way.
I'm clearly no one and have about as deep a connection with the Valley as LEB, but twenty five years later the most embarassing aspect of the whole affair appears to be the fact the hard men who did the shitting and chopping still don't have the balls to simply stand up and own it even if under a righteous banner of guarding Eden from the barbarians. If there's still a stain involved, it would seem to be one of indignation.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2007 - 06:58am PT
|
I'm in a societally disassociated code mode that has sh#t-shifted my normal insominia clockwise. Thanks for reminding me to get back to work. Would love to run into you again in 2008 as well.
|
|
Batrock
Trad climber
Burbank
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2007 - 12:01pm PT
|
Radical,
What ER do you work? Just curious. I was a fireman/paramedic for LA City Fire for 15 years and feel your pain. Just a fireman now, much less stress. Some of tose ER docs looked rode hard. Especialy the docs at County USC.
|
|
Lost Arrow
Trad climber
The North Ridge of the San Fernando
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2007 - 01:31pm PT
|
Has anyone come forth as a Shitter?
I know some got kicked of YOSAR?
Pete did you use Duct Tape to bond your hooks as the FA team did? All those years ago I seeem to remember streams of duct tape streaming dowb the wall.
Juan
|
|
MSmith
Big Wall climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2007 - 01:36pm PT
|
Juan,
We didn't tape any hooks on WoS since our hooks wouldn't support a fall and we didn't want to stip off the flakes.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2007 - 03:49pm PT
|
I'm still waiting... waiting for a shred of honor here.
Let me make this even easier for you, Steve. I'll do the route you select FIRST, and that way you can be right there as I do it. You can watch, and you can heckle all you want. You can personally ensure that I don't drill the route down to my level.
THEN, we'll turn our attention to Wings of Steel.
I'm deadly serious here. This is not a gimmick. I want to see if you have a shred of honor. When in the whole history of climbing has there been somebody like you that has had SO much to say about a route he has never even SEEN much less been on? And BTW, when I asked you if you had been to the base of the ROUTE, you did not effectively answer by claiming to have walked around the base of the slab PRIOR to WoS. I asked if you had been to the base of Wings of Steel and looked at IT, and you effectively admitted that you have NOT. How can you have so much to say about a route you have never SEEN or been ON?
Robbins had the honor to CLIMB WEML, and he had the honor to admit that he had misjudged the climb and the man.
I'm just trying to come up with SOME way to get our most vociferous critic to exhibit a shred of honor after all these decades.
So, I'll go first, and then you can finally get ON the route about which you have had so many lies to tell over the decades.
How can I make this more fair? What concessions do you want? What will it take to get you ON the route before you continue with your cowardly lies and red-herring questions?
Show some honor, Steve.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2007 - 03:52pm PT
|
If i'm not mistaken, someone here did, proudly, confess to being a shitter.
|
|
TwistedCrank
climber
Ideeho
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2007 - 03:55pm PT
|
He's comparing himself to Batso?
That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. Funny in a scary clown kind of way.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!