Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2014 - 09:34pm PT
|
Best impact? Best impact style?
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2014 - 10:08pm PT
|
Least impact ethic.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2014 - 01:22am PT
|
Whether first ascents are a private experience or performance art, they are not the end of the story. It's been interesting for me, watching how climbs are changed long after their first ascents -- to meet the needs of climbers with other goals including lower commitment, higher standards of comfort, and both higher and lower skills.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2014 - 01:36am PT
|
Chiloe, that's certainly a kinder and gentler way of putting it.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2014 - 05:15am PT
|
FA of what? Boulder, sport climb, trad, multi-pitch, alpine rock, desert tower, frozen waterfall, mixed, iconic mountain.....etc. There is a situational component that hasn't been addressed. Climbing has become segmented and the adherents of the different disciplines seem to have divirgent ideas of proper style.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2014 - 05:42am PT
|
Mark...do you work on access and trails etc...
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2014 - 06:09am PT
|
Have done; am not currently. Member of the Access Fund.
|
|
Mike Friedrichs
Sport climber
City of Salt
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2014 - 07:38am PT
|
Like several others have posted, I am having a difficult time understanding the concept of "best." I would agree that the style suggested by Ed in the OP is the most organic style.
But what does best mean? Is it best in that it creates the most satisfaction for the first ascentionist? Or is it best in that it establishes a precedent for some higher way? Or is it best because it defines how subsequent climbers will have to (or get to) climb the route? Or, as some have suggested is it best because it has the lowest impact on the environment?
I can easily dismiss the the leave-no-trace argument. The only way to leave no trace is to stay home. The impact from roads, cars, trails, dogs, multiple ascents scraping up and down the walls makes the impact from protection - fixed or otherwise - insignificant. Not only that, if route A is not climbed because of perceived risk, route B usually takes up the slack.
The precedent argument has the problem of relativism. I'm sure that in each domain (sport, trad, ice, alpine, whatever) there are conflicting ideologies of what constitutes the most supreme way.
For me personally, I've gotten tremendous satisfaction from all styles. I've done ground-up, hand drilled ascents that I found satisfaction in. I've also done routes where I cleaned, inspected, top-roped, and power-drilled where I've gotten a lot of satisfaction from knowing that it was done right. That all the clips were in the right place and that the climber could focus on the movement.
All this brings me back to subsequent climbers. In my simplistic way of thinking, what I want more than personal satisfaction or a precedent setting statement is for future climbers to acknowledge that my route was fun. Maybe it's because I have no children; my routes are what I leave behind and I do think of other climbers when I establish routes. I would be devastated if someone got hurt on a route that I did because it was unnecessarily dangerous. It's only climbing. So to me anyway, the "best" style is the one that ensures that future climbers have the most fun.
|
|
clinker
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, California
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2014 - 07:47am PT
|
Why pretend it is important to modern climbers?
Pretend is fun, little miss DMT
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2014 - 08:21am PT
|
Perfectly right about "leave no trace." It is an ideal. Using the ideal you achieve less or least trace. This is a useful ethic to allow all user groups the right to enjoy public lands without one user group effing up the place.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2014 - 08:26am PT
|
The only way to leave no trace is to stay home. (Mike Friedrichs)
I seem to remember that argument being easily dismissed, too. ; )
|
|
Vitaliy M.
Mountain climber
San Francisco
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2014 - 08:57am PT
|
Arguing about best style of climbing is like arguing about best style of f*#king…no?
|
|
Mike Friedrichs
Sport climber
City of Salt
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2014 - 09:10am PT
|
Thanks Kevin,
As one of the voices I respect the most from this forum that means a lot to me. I know you have experienced the myriad of styles, emotions, and just plain hard work to have an informed perspective on the whole argument.
mike
One other thought that I had and then mostly dismissed -- is the "best" style the one that holds closest to local autonomy?
|
|
Melissa
Gym climber
berkeley, ca
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2014 - 09:21am PT
|
What is local autonomy?
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2014 - 09:43am PT
|
Really doesn't seem all that complicated or difficult to understand.
People are reading too much into this thing, and thinking about what's important to THEMSELVES.
Old debate indeed. And even then there were fights about it.
My personal opinion:
On sight solo, best style, too dangerous for me.
On sight, ground up, clean pro, 2nd best.
Ground up, Pitons, bolts etc, not as good.
All rap bolting, aid, power drills, undesirable to me personally, but I understand that it yields the hardest routes, which I can't do anyway, so I don't care for them. That said, I have climbed sport up to the 5.11 range, had fun, and appreciated the protection.
And yes, it does affect others. Smith Rocks sprouted hundreds, possibly thousands of bright glinting bolt hangers during the Alan Watts era. The chalk lines up every buttress and arete, and accompanying fixed ropes on everyone's project are truly eyesores.
Edit: Ever hear of Pruess, Dulfer, Robbins, Chouinard, Harding etc etc?
Carry on.
|
|
Mike Friedrichs
Sport climber
City of Salt
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2014 - 09:44am PT
|
Melissa,
That is a good question. Many think that local rules apply and that styles should remain consistent within an area and that it is important to keep local tradition. The reason that I (mostly) dismiss this notion is that in the age of the internet people who have never been to an area and have no intention of ever going to an area seem to be experts on local conventions towards style. I'm not sure who the community is anymore.
|
|
Vitaliy M.
Mountain climber
San Francisco
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2014 - 10:02am PT
|
I think when a 5.11 slab climber chooses a really good line and puts up a 5.8 R X route, it is bad style. Skipping obvious stances for easy drilling to make it more runout than it should be. 5.7-9s are usually good routes for beginners to climb on and if you are a 5.11 slab climber and end up putting up something runout and dangerous you should not have trouble stepping over your ego and allowing others to add several more bolts to make the line safe for the public. Example of the opposite is the Bachar Yerian. Badass climbers put up a badass climb, ground up. It is a test piece now and there is not argument about it.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2014 - 01:13pm PT
|
the title of this thread is
"Best First Ascent Style"
and it was really meant to pertain to the first ascent.
I'd say it really can happen only once, but that would be wrong since once we know that a first ascent has been done it's been communicated to the community, and as such has passed from the first ascent team to the "public domain."
Often, when this does not happen other first ascents of a route are possible, and more people experience that FA feeling.
There are many reasons for doing a first ascent, and that is why FAs are not always reported. There is generally a lot of animosity generated when an unreported FA gets done, then someone else does the "FA" and reports it, and the original FA party claims the FA.
I find that reaction strange but revealing, there seems to be a lot of ego involved in an FA (no surprise) but even more, instead of getting praise from the community, the first FA team is often dismissed. However, what they did was extraordinary.
Our intention of doing an FA so that other climbers could climb the route seems noble, but once again I'm somewhat suspicious of the "service to the community" argument, though it may exist at some degree or another.
When an FA is done with the intention that other climbers are expected to do the route, less then best style is often employed.
Many FAs get put up as test pieces at various grades. Those routes are sometimes criticized for the requirements they make on subsequent ascents. But that is the point of putting up a test piece. Some climbs become accidental test pieces... some are intentional, and once again, they may not be put up in "best style."
When I propose in "best first ascent style" is a style that we all agree is unquestionably good style. We can quibble about defining "aid" and "climbing" and all that, I don't think it is an issue to most climbers who somehow manage to climb without a solid philosophical foundation defining the activity. The definition is practical, it can be recognized by all climbers.
I don't by the "it only matters to me" because of the limited resources the cliffs represent in climbing possibilities. Anyone who's done work getting a line ready to climb (not "best style") and had some other team do the FA before they get a chance understands that it isn't "just me."
The community "standards" matter, ethics and style in this example.
The first ascent denies anyone after from doing a first ascent (where we include in the definition of "first ascent" that fact that it is disclosed).
For almost all modern climbers this doesn't matter because they aren't doing first ascents. All they care about is having more climbs that are available and accessible to them.
But leaving first ascents for future climbers to do because an attempt fails, which is a part of the "best style" definition leaves open the possibility that some climber with the skills could do the FA in "best style" (there is, of course, no guarantee that they will).
So the decisions very much affect the community.
The way this is currently settled is the first climbing team in an area develops the area as completely as possible for them, employing all styles, before revealing the area. In particular, any "really good line" is worked to death to try to get an FA...
My own opinion is that it might be better to allows someone the opportunity to do the FA in "best style" that would be less selfish and much more community oriented than the competitive drive to "be first."
|
|
Laine
Trad climber
Reno, NV
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2014 - 01:28pm PT
|
What I find interesting given the comments regarding the mountaineering roots of FAs, Mallory himself felt at the time bottled O2 was not the best style to summit Everest and only conceded to its use once it became evident it was necessary to the task. So even back then they had a notion of best style. Sticky rubber and chalk are now fair means though they likely caused push back when they first came about. My conclusion is "by fair means" and "best style" evolve over time as various technologies are adopted and become the norm.
As pointed out previously, I think Ed should have made "best" well-defined in the OP. If "best" means "most badass", onsight GU FAs are it (omitting onsight naked solos). If "best style" means it will always produce a well thought out route, it is clear that is not always the case.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2014 - 01:51pm PT
|
Whatever happened to Bridwell's ethic of " the standards will be pushed and slowly raised and those not honed to the fine edge will take the dreaded groundfall" ? I see the increased body count, but I also see the percentage of supposedly safety engineered routes compared to bold and dangerous routes has increased. Whats up? Is safety a false ethic when applied to the forces of gravity and failures of human judgement?
EDIT: Bravecowboy nails it just below.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!