Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Anastasia
Trad climber
California
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2007 - 11:41am PT
|
Joe doesn't have issues, he just likes shiny metal bolts. I know girls that have a similar reactions to diamonds.
Something about the wave length of reflecting light gets them all happy.
AF
P.S.
Maybe Joe is just pushing our buttons...
Either way, he is the one responsible for making this debate fun.
|
|
snyd
Sport climber
Lexington, KY
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2007 - 11:44am PT
|
Hawkeye said: " i really dont understand what joe's issues are."
You don't know Joe.
|
|
scuffy b
climber
The deck above the 5
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2007 - 11:50am PT
|
There's another factor contributing to the neglect of some of
these climbs. Joe has touched on it in the past, but I'm not sure
if he has done so in this thread.
Aside from runouts, it's plain that a large percentage of climbers simply cannot stand slab climbing. Hate it with a passion. Detest the insecure process of entrusting their entire
being to standing on their feet with nothing to pull on.
Most climbers these days want the rock to be vertical or steeper. It's that simple. Many of these climbs that are nearing
museum specimen status would never be popular even with lots of
bolts.
|
|
Anastasia
Trad climber
California
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2007 - 11:51am PT
|
Well, just as long he only bolts up his own FA's and leaves everyone else's alone... If he touch one of Bob's etc, I am not responsible for what happens. Repeat, I am not responsible!
AF
Edit...
As for new climbers that don't do slab, all the climbers I know at Stoney are slab climbers! We do exist! Please just leave those routes for us, we will get to them!
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2007 - 12:03pm PT
|
scuffy b is exactly right-- one of the reasons some trad areas (i.e. needles) have become museums is that the movement itself-- slab or even crack --has gone out of style. even with lots of shiny new bolts, the needles is not likely to be a destination area given the current fashion trends.
yosemite and idyllwild still get pressure because they are world-famous areas on the edge of major metropoles with incredible population pressure. as a result, they'll still get action, although even there, you can see the change in traffic patterns: compare the cookie on a weekend with glacier point (even before the rockfall freaked folks out). most climbers now learn in gyms or sport areas and haven't learned how to stand on their feet. they feel more comfortable on the steep.
ironically, the population pressure on yosemite is one of the best arguments in favor of museum piece routes in the meadows: climbing patterns (endless lines on regular route and cathedral but no one on b-y) weirdly echo the NPS notion of "sacrifice zones" in which certain sites in the park are intended to bear the brunt of visitation while other areas shade off into less frequent visitation patterns. from an NPS manger's point of view, visitation spread out evenly over all the routes would actually be less desirable. at least until the NPS changes its management criteria.
don't count on slab climbing remaining forever out of fashion. fifteen years ago i never would have believed that bouldering would become a mass sport.
Elbsandstein was a center for climbing innovation from the turn-of-the-century until WW1. Then, with the piton revolution in the Kaisergebirge and the Dolomites, it became a backwater and remained one until the seventies. Then, the advent of clean climbing (and softening of the Cold War) suddenly put the place and its climbers, like Berndt Arnold, back on the world map as a destination. Everyone from Henry Barber to Kim Carrigan had to go and see. Now it's a backwater again.
|
|
wack-N-dangle
Gym climber
the ground up
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2007 - 12:03pm PT
|
my 2cents
I believe: Respect the past. Resources are finite (I hope I live accordingly). Retro-bolting steals from generations past and future too.
Sport climbing can be BIG FUN! Climb safe/smart everyone.
|
|
bachar
Trad climber
Mammoth Lakes, CA
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2007 - 12:20pm PT
|
bob d' is right - let's get serious here!
If a "museum" climb is one that doesn't get done often and is just stared at then it is most likely because it is difficult. Maybe not just "gymnastically" difficult but "mentally" difficult. By definition a 5.15a sport route or just a 5.10c X route will not get done that much - only the very best climbers, the top 1% let's say, will be able to do these climbs. Both are valuable tests of a climber's abilities and both may very well end up being considered "museum" climbs in the long run.
There are climbers that can crank 5.14 sport routes no problem that may never be able to do a certain 5.11 X - and vice versa, climbers who can do the "head" routes who can't pull off the 5.14 sport route. On top of that, neither of these types may be able to do the V15 boulder problem.
I like to compare this to the game 'rock, paper, scissors' - which is best? Neither of course, they each have their own value and strength.
We have been mainly discussing competitive ethics on this thread and not many have mentioned "environmental" ethics. When placing bolts, I always tried to adhere to the ethic that placing bolts only when needed was less damaging to the rock and that by exhibiting more skill one could scar the rock less. That's one reason I didn't place a lot of bolts - I didn't want to make a mess out of the rock.
The other reason I didn't place a lot of bolts is that I didn't want overbolting to replace climbing skill. I felt it showed a certain level of skill and was an artistic statement about climbing the rock with respect and not just punching holes anytime I was scared.
I personally like "sport" climbs - they are great fun but sometimes I have witnessed sections of "grid" bolting that are frankly quite ugly and shockingly overdone. Environmentally speaking, there's a fine line between enjoying the rock and desecrating it.
Ultimately I think both types of climbs are valuable and fun and we should be stoked that such a wide range of climbing difficulty is available to us.
Side note: I also believe that some kind of "commitment" rating should be adopted to make new climbers aware that risk is also a type of climbing difficulty and to keep them from getting hurt as well...
blah, blah, blah....jb
|
|
Maysho
climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2007 - 12:21pm PT
|
Tarbro,
I continue to be amazed at these old photos you keep pulling out of the hat. Joe looks about 14! And a big howdy to Joe and Chris, it has been way too long!
I think the great diversity found in rock types and local area values and traditions, makes blanket overall ethical stances ineffective. If we view first ascents as "artistic statements", we should consider them individually, taking into account the place, time, skills and tools available to such artists. Then viewing historical routes and how permanent gear may be upgraded or in some cases repositioned, we must give heed to the first ascent party, their intentions, and current views.
Then there is personal taste, as with viewing or experiencing any art.
As an example, here is my personal opinion about a sampling of Medlicott routes, because I don't agree with a blanket statement about "contrived runouts".
Sweet Jesus: Bold for its time, but every time I've done it (though long ago), I always wondered if the groundfall potential between the first and second bolt came from FA necessity or misjudgment of distance, as there is a stance a bit lower, and I dimly recall a broken leg from someone blowing it there.
Bachar Yerian: A world class statement, exploring a new technique and technology, and very well done. Even at 45, I haven't let go of the dream of spending a month in the meadows honing knob technique and then doing that one. I would be sad to have that dream taken away by anyone changing it.
You Asked For It: The ultimate statement, since a lot of the boldest runouts connect natural stances rather than hook placements.
The Kid: A thin emulation of Bachars style, and the story of the FA, though perhaps inaccurate, depicted what I would call a "contrived runout" as a bad groundfall was created with intention and purpose. This bothered me and I said so at the time, as I viewed it as simply a deadly version of the nearby Ciebola, and did not really break new ground. This takes nothing away from my respect for Kurt, who I consider one of the truly great american climbers, I just don't think it was one of his better statements.
Just the thoughts of one middle aged climber...
Peter
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2007 - 12:31pm PT
|
John...I agree....good points. Museum climbs should not be retro-bolted to appeal to the masses. They should remain a testimony to the fa party skill and boldness.
Replacing old, useless hardware is a community service and I thanks those who take the time and make the effort to do so.
|
|
Hawkeye
climber
State of Mine
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2007 - 12:39pm PT
|
funny thing is, on these runout museum pieces you hear of far fewer accidents than you do on many other routes. take the green dragon (?) on the arpon. pretty well protected but i have heard of some serious accidents on that thing.
so far as slab going out of style, some of us learned on that stuff.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2007 - 01:31pm PT
|
There have been about 1/2 dozen threads like this over the past 3-4 years on ST. The comments are generally the same, but they need to be rehashed as often as it takes.
But one aspect of the change in climbing over the last 30 years that is hard to grasp--from both ends of the spectrum--is pointed out by John in his last point above:
"...Side note: I also believe that some kind of "commitment" rating should be adopted to make new climbers aware that risk is also a type of climbing difficulty.."
Bold leading was always part of the best climbing in the 60s and 70s (I cannot speak about later times, since I died). Pratt climbed off-width without protection, using his own trust in his technique. Others followed. Most of the climbs on the Glacier Point Apron were lightly protected. In the late 60s and 70s, slab climbing came into vogue in the Meadows and in the smaller aprons in the Valley. Because of the requirement of bolt protection--which are a pain in the neck to place and were open to all manner of criticism--the element of boldness and how to practice it became finely honed. We all practiced not allowing our minds to wander off, get scared, and cause us to peel. Personally, this aspect of mind control and the flow that accompanied it was the best part of climbing.
Of course, once this level of boldness was established on a route, people followed, sometimes without the mind control that Pratt, or Kamps, or Higgins, or John had (has). This doesn't mean that everyone pushed as hard in this direction as everyone else (Bridwell didn't like slab climbing but it would be dangerous to accuse him of lacking boldness), but that does not invalidate it. Most of us stayed tied in. John and others pushed it to the point of no ropes.
There was nothing more unsettling to me than to watch someone desperately quake and lunge up an unprotected off width or slab climb and then express a pride of success as if they had done the route. I didn't misspeak in that last sentence. I am echoing John's comment about an element of climbing that assumed steady control (have you ever watched John climb?) that lots of us sought out when we tackled slabs.
One of the reasons, I think, that this type of climbing is not well understood today is because it was established when leaders were not supposed to fall. Nowadays falling and falling often supports much higher climbing standards, and is more or less essentia. There is even a special significance given to an ascent without preview where the leader does not fall. That used to be the norm.
I think most everyone agrees that old climbs should be repaired (As has been pointed out many times we thought that our 1/4 inch spilt shaft bolts with threaded nut keepers were bomber. They can be replaced with the latest and greatest as far as I am concerned) but otherwise left along, but it shouldn't only be because they are old--the museum analogy is apt--it should be because that this type of climbing would simply be lost even if the same rock supported long lines of people waiting to clip up. (This doesn’t address adding bolts that should have been drilled in the first place by common agreement.)
And if no one wants to climb these sorts of routes enough to fix them, then so be it. They can remain random scenery until someone does.
Roger
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2007 - 02:07pm PT
|
It's pretty hard to regulate art: others have said as much up thread.
Yes, but there are distinct schools of art, and they're not given birth so easily, because art objects (meaning art opposes, said by Jeanette Winterson) and it typically does so against the status quo. When Warhol opposed Jackson Pollack’s “drip paintings” (Abstract Expressionism?), with the soup cans (Pop Art), that didn't go down so easily. The distinction and evolution of different art forms is sometimes fluid, but more often than not it is harshly resisted. So of course, sport climbing, rap bolting was likewise resisted but accepted as a new and valid expression. But now we are looking back at the validity of the “old ways”.
Rule of the First Ascensionist.
A route given "ownership" to the first ascent party:
(Notwithstanding the obvious “true ownership” rights of the actual landholder).
While the yeoman's effort at establishing a thing is the sole investment of the first ascent party, I submit that the first ascent party acts within a grand narrative and so inspired by that narrative makes a contribution to the community. So the route doesn't really belong to the first ascensionists, it belongs to the community, because it is the extant communal narrative which inspires the first ascent party to extend themselves to begin with; it is a legacy in which we all partake. The first ascensionists are inspired by their peers, and likewise make a contribution toward their peers. The route is bestowed upon their peers, so the peer group becomes the steward of the route.
As it happens, or happened back in the day, the community in turn granted the first ascent effort, right or wrong, a cherished status to be upheld and preserved. If any changes were to be made it was deemed appropriate that only the first ascent team would be given that right; this clearly avoids the slippery slope of group consensus slowly changing and racking around the original routes. From a practical standpoint, that works pretty well to preserve the route as it was put up. In essence, we all own it, but as a group we don’t reserve any special right to change it: in fact, we humbly refrained from such action. Oddly, I think the converse should be true: as the route was born of the community and bestowed upon the community, I think the first ascensionists, unless they make changes right away, should live with it and I don't think even they should reserve the right to change it years down the line; admittedly that's a pretty extreme interpretation.
Joe on this thread and Hammer on the Needles thread have noted that a couple routes, after a significant passage of time, have languished due to both the limited protection and the deteriorating quality of that protection.
Burning Down the House just may be a route which sits unused for good reason, in that it was a response to an external attitude/pressure, reportedly imposed by Claude and Vern, strongly felt by Kurt and Steve and the run outs may have been retaliatory in nature and perhaps unnecessarily long. (Peter just mentioned The Kid, which may well be a similarly fit example). I haven't done BDH, but that was my sense of it at the time; and on top of that we were all told a huge run out was protected by a spinner. Nevertheless, a bold and viable statement, for whatever reason, was made and as Ed Hartouni said up thread, so be it. Are we next to question motive in order to render a determination of a route’s viability? In my opinion, it's OK to have a few oddities hanging out there in the breeze and I don't think we need to go fix them, other than upgrading the original hardware.
JB's concept of limited bolting encompassing an ecological imperative certainly has merit. I also think KLK’s concept of the “sacrifice zones” as posted up thread goes some distance in support of the ecologically beneficial, place holding aspect of these “Museum Routes”. Many others in this thread have said that leaving something to strive for, however wacko it might look from the outside, is something worth preserving, and I agree.
There is a lot of rock out there and in my opinion plenty of room for different types of terrain dictating different protection styles and likewise for different expressions of protection style even within the same type of terrain. There was once a sport/rappel route put up (down) near Body and Soul: the hangers were flattened. My greatest concern was that there would be a backlash, which would encompass the retro bolting of wonderful masterpieces such as Body and Soul, BY, You Asked for It. We gotta live and let live here folks and appreciate these various forms of expression.
Use of pitons in cracks, replacing them with "nearby" bolts, as opposed to re-nailing them and Steve Grossman’s pin-bolt concept:
In the Needles thread, if I have Hammer right, he/she is making two statements:
First, just replace the aged pins on the Needles Eye with a good bolt.
Second, it isn't such a good idea to put up a 5.8 which is unleadable for 5.8 climbers.
The concept of pin versus bolt as fixed protection is a nuanced one to be sure. Although both require maintenance, it seems straightforward that the pin will loosen up and that repeated replacing is a bad idea in terms of rock deterioration.
While Steve Grossman's pin bolt idea seems at first blush a bit arcane and will probably ring contrived to most of us, I believe if it's worked out properly, it is an elegant solution to the concept of retaining the idea of a fixed piece, the piton, which to me represents a degree of imposition on the rock in terms of fixed protection that is somewhat less forced than a bolt and as such warrants a place in the canon of fixed gear. Yes, even for routes to be done in the future, not just for maintaining older lines where pins were left in crucial placements.
I say this because a fixed piton, although a chunk of metal requiring maintenance, is not as great an imposition as is a hole drilled into the rock. The piton works with the natural feature, and it is used as a last resort where passive or active protection will not work. If you replace a fixed pin with a bolt there's a disconnect from that subtle value of working with natural features. I like the pin bolt as a response to the maintenance issue. What I don't yet see is how a pin bolt works in a straight in crack. When the pin bolt concept is applied in a corner, the bolt portion of the set up is perpendicular to the blade and so is unobtrusive. It seems to me that a pin bolt set up for a straight in crack would have to have some odd hanger like portion attached perpendicular to the blade. It may also violate the rule of diameters in that the hole would be very close to the crack and may create an unstable structural situation.
As to the idea of an unprotected 5.8 and that creating a museum route fit only for climbers possessing greater technical ability: there are plenty of well protected, traditional routes in the 5.8 grades and even lower, whether they are crack, bolt, or naturally protected face. As was stated earlier up thread, there are plenty of moderate routes to train on for run outs and it is quite likely that people just don't want to lower themselves to the grade that they have to climb at to develop those skills and to get that act together. To me, the concept of apprenticeship applies here; follow some stuff, be humble and pay your dues (check Roger's post just above).
The occasional test piece, which is over the head of most applicants at that grade by my line of thinking is OK, because it is a head style route, its difficulty is not about the grade: it is about the commitment factor, so expressing the route as a function of its grade alone is missing the point. I believe it is a bit inflexible to assume that every route out there must meet a requirement that it be leadable by a leader whose proficiency tops out at that grade.
Cheers & Happy Climbing,
Roy
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2007 - 02:45pm PT
|
I dunno, I had to wait in line, last time I climbed Fall Wall.
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2007 - 02:56pm PT
|
A subset to all of this is the free solo first ascent. It doesn't happen much, but when it does it essentially forecloses all future use of the rock, unless you can TR the climb. These are true museum climbs. It's so uncommon that it doesn't really matter much beyond interweb pondering. But, if a 5.12 climber just free soloed a bunch of 5.8s on a cliff, those climbs would be off limits to almost all other climbers. Seems selfish to me.
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2007 - 03:01pm PT
|
Yes and JB mentioned one of those up thread on the far right side of Fairview: Solitary Confinement. A corner case for sure, and something to ponder. In the end just another artform and worthy of respect.
In 1985, I had done things like Grey Ghost (without the bolt), Tune Up, and other run out things. I went out to do one of those routes to the right of Solitary Confinement; Run for Cover. You scramble, solo really, about 5.6 up to a ledge, which is situated with some degree of exposure. Zilch for anchors. Tommy Herbert had said to try some small RP's. Then for the first protected pitch you start getting into maybe some 5.8 to reach the first bolt, which of course is a ways out. I just wasn't comfortable with that scenario, so I belayed my friend down and I left it at that; you know, discretion being the better part of valor.
|
|
G_Gnome
Sport climber
Everywhere, man...
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2007 - 07:10pm PT
|
It's interesting, even having led some of the routes in question, like 'Tune Up', I can not honestly say that I enjoyed it. I know some people that take great pride and are really happy after surmounting the fear inherent in climbing these routes but I just am not one of those. Quite frankly they scare the crap out of me. Often I am so spent that I can't even climb the next pitch or even the next day. It takes that much work to concentrate that hard to avoid falling and I am worthless after. I do admit that I can look back with some pride to the fact that I DID IT, but in reality those were usually my least enjoyable climbing days.
And yet, I still would never want those routes changed. Let others also find whether they have it in them to get up them. Some will learn to love the risk, others will hate it. That is as it should be.
|
|
Maysho
climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2007 - 07:30pm PT
|
Grey Ghost is an interesting case, I guided that one day, taking out two gorgeous dancers who were more skilled than the average client of the day. This was back when we were all inspired by the runout knob routes going up, and the amazing things JB was up to. As I faced the short section of polished 5.9 near the top, and looking at the grounder, I felt more or less in control, but also felt bad for subjecting my clients to the risk of witnessing a horrendous fatal fall.
Back at the rat room, TM told me that Robbins had got in some decent pins in the horizontal. Did someone ask Royal before adding a bolt? I wonder what he would have said, or hopefully did say!
I often guided RCA. Though quite sporty, you get some good tricams in the horizontals. One time I had to lead the "beach ball" move on the last pitch with rain splattering, still a sweaty-palm-inducing recollection.
These are both good examples of 4 star moderates that should be avoided by those who would be climbing near their limit.
I guess I was taking advantage of this state, knowing that no matter how crowded West Crack was, no one was ever on RCA.
Peter
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2007 - 07:46pm PT
|
Did someone add a bolt to Grey Ghost Peter?
I don't think so; I was referring to the single bolt way down low. I skipped it because there was a better line in the knobs slightly to the right and in either case, I deemed the bolt worthless for the crux above.
I hear you on that runout burnout syndrome Jan. I wouldn't say I didn't enjoy those routes, but I did notice a succession of them could take its toll.
I did a handful of them with Jenny Bergeron and after a string of them it was Jenny who I brought up to the belay on Run for Cover. With Jenny cheerfully sitting on the ledge enjoying the view, I fiddled some more with the RP's on the flat ledge to no avail, looked above at the long runout to gain the bolt, glanced again at her ponytail and I was done.
|
|
climbera5
Trad climber
Sacramento
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2007 - 08:22pm PT
|
I'm for safety, replace the old bolts and keep it fun. Does it take a needless death to drive the point home? Then what, someone is sued and new regulations say all bolted FA's over 20 years old are off limits? Self policing only makes sense. It was never the intent to have quarter inch bolts last forever. To do so is selfish and reckless. I'm not advocating adding bolts, just replacements.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!