Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2008 - 06:12pm PT
|
Largo wrote: 'm just speaking for myself. I look back at all the crazy stuff we used to do to avoid placing extra bolts and all the times I scared myself stiff and it seems almost ridiculous. But I wouldn't have wanted it any other way and I wouldn't trade my experience for anyone elses. I don't expect others to climb like we did but I don't know anyone from back then who regrets climbing ground up.
Nice John...my feelings on the matter too. I'm not the same person I was 30 years ago and things changed for me....I'm thankful for that.
Sounds like Doug had a great adventure and experience and really and it took a great effort and amount time. I feel a little jealous.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
A Token of My Extreme
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2008 - 06:34pm PT
|
Here here..
I'm definitely not up for quite the same voltage myself. (I liked that too Largo, "experiential voltage" ) Yeah, there was all kinds of voltage back then.....
30 years later, and a family with four kids and it doesn't mean exactly the same thing. My ethics were somewhat flexible back then, and I found myself being quite a bit more cautious even the last time I was on the Captain...But wouldn't change a thing from back then.
Thirty foot runouts? Maybe true, but previewed runouts are not the same as coming at them from below, first try. That's what other guys will have to do.
|
|
Clint Cummins
Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2008 - 07:30pm PT
|
I believe Largo's point was that "responsible" is an irony in climbing, because what we do is by its nature irresponsible - we risk our lives for our own selfish thrills.
The "public service" spin of creating a "first PG rated" 1000' rap bolted mostly 5.10 slab above a 5.12a/5.13a corner and 60' bolt ladder is ludicrous. Very few will be motivated to repeat that. And to suggest somebody is going to gain 4800' to get to the top of Half Dome, to rap down a couple of pitches for a 5.10 slab is pretty high fantasy in my view, when they can get it roadside in the Meadows, Valley and many other spots.
The 1000' slab was rap bolted so Sean Jones would have a route that is a "success", by going to the top of Half Dome. It's about Yosemite first ascent #91. It may be related to the demands of being a sponsored climber - getting the FAs in print, helping friends get nice photos and movie footage. And about the challenge of trying to do a big new free route, too. I'm sure there is some very good quality climbing on it, and it's "safe", but the story behind it is plain ugly. It is not motivational to me.
Is it Sean Jones' fault that routes which do not reach the summit may be less valued? If he stopped at the end of the arch, would someone else come along and get full credit for the FA in the guidebook if they "punched it through on aid", just like when Clevenger "succeeded where Higgins and Kamps had failed" on Piece de Resistance? If someone came in like the Uriostes in Red Rocks and made a bolt ladder, then removed 2/3s of the bolts to created a bolted free climb, would that be better? It hardly seems inspirational, either.
I enjoyed the history and interviews in Doug's article very much. But it felt ironic that the history of adventure was ignored for the upper part of this route. Is the implication that adventure is dead on Half Dome now? - all the worthwhile ground up routes have already been done? Repeats are somehow less worthy than FAs?
I think Kevin Worrall and Randy Vogel have made a good case that it may have been the only way he could get the upper route established (without creating a mess with a lot of extra holes). So I think it is a question (which others have raised also) of whether that part *should have* been done. Similar to the discussion on Wings of Steel.
Karl's arguments are usually good and I respect his balancing viewpoints. But in this thread, some of his arguments are disappointing (for example the concept that the South Face is restricted to extreme runout routes). I am usually sympathetic to the idea that it doesn't matter for subsequent ascents how the bolts got in, only where they are. But the back story on this route does affect the motivation of other folks to repeat it. It is not the same as rap bolting a 100' pitch somewhere - for those routes we have lower expectations and it is easier to get motivated by the observable climbing on them.
|
|
Gene
climber
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2008 - 07:38pm PT
|
Why now? Are today's climbers the best that will ever be?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2008 - 07:46pm PT
|
fattrad
You can't ban rap bolting, now you behave and keep your govt. buisness out of climbing.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2008 - 07:53pm PT
|
"I'm with Werner on this one and it's possible that soon I will be in a position to put in place a ban on rap bolting. Get your routes done soon, if that's your standard.
Jody's evil twin."
I wondered how long this thread would go before we had one of the conservatives calling for more government regulation.
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2008 - 07:54pm PT
|
Clint wrote: Karl's arguments are usually good and I respect his balancing viewpoints. But in this thread, some of his arguments are disappointing (for example the concept that the South Face is restricted to extreme runout routes). I am usually sympathetic to the idea that it doesn't matter for subsequent ascents how the bolts got in, only where they are. But the back story on this route does affect the motivation of other folks to repeat it. It is not the same as rap bolting a 100' pitch somewhere - for those routes we have lower expectations and it is easier to get motivated by the observable climbing on them.
The only reason that are disappointing is because you don't agree with them.
|
|
nick d
Trad climber
nm
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2008 - 07:57pm PT
|
We all know what those "tap, tap, tap" signals mean in the GOP!
|
|
Clint Cummins
Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2008 - 07:58pm PT
|
Bob,
> The only reason that are disappointing is because you don't agree with them.
Not true. His conclusions could have been supported by better arguments. Whether I agree with his conclusions or not is irrelevant to my comment on the quality of his argument.
For example in Karl's first post he used the technique of "distort what the person said, then refute the distorted version instead of what the person really said". (It may have not been intentional on his part). I expect better from Karl and he usually delivers!
Here's the quote, to be concrete:
Personally, I don't see the value in restricting routes on Half Dome to strictly ones with dangerous runouts. Should every harder route be equipped to only get an ascent every 5-8 years? It just ain't possible to make certain routes ground up with any kinda safety (or even without safety)
Karl's point here is that if you go ground up, there are probably not enough stances on that upper slab and it will be runout as a result. And runout is bad because the route will not get much traffic (I am somewhat sympathetic to that last part). But the route could be done Urioste style with bolt ladders (or Harding style with batholes) and then pulling/patching if there are not enough stances. This yields a safe, ground up route. So ground up does not necessarily imply unsafe, and does not imply very low traffic (although unsafe does imply low traffic). Karl may have just overlooked this option, if he was thinking about Southern Belle (vs. say the Harding-Rowell route).
The original argument which Karl wanted to refute was that the route should have been done ground up. The original argument was not that all routes on the slab part of Half Dome should be runout.
|
|
Haggis
Trad climber
Scotland
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2008 - 08:00pm PT
|
i know i am not a true Yosemite climber but we (not I) climb hard routes ground up with no bolts all the time (maybe not the size of half dome)
good example:
angel: Etive Slabs E7 6b 250 m no bolts or pins and very poor gear (hard 5.12 - 5.13 ish), 50 degree slab no holds no pro just you and friction
FA Dave "Cubby" Cuthbertson in 97'
http://www.cubbyimages.co.uk/index.asp
there is also the more run out but less dangerous route "Gecko" to its right at E6 6b
there have been maybe three ascents to date of each.
other example is not slab but dam hard would be Dave Mac's new Ben Nevis route
Don’t Die of Ignorance XI,11
http://www.davemacleod.blogspot.com/
i think he placed some pins on the route but thats still grey area in Scotland's winter ethics and personally i do it all the time. ground up in the mountains.
the British have a very different outlook on bolts from a Yosemite climber, you guys will all say that its because your routes are longer. thats not what we think! we have cliffs at 1800' and there are no bolts. if Yosemite was in Scotland there would be no bolts, just think of how few el cap routes there would be.
it is even worse ethics to place your gear on a rap line before climbing your route. sorry but it is
just my 1 pence (about $.02 considering the exchange rate)
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2008 - 08:17pm PT
|
Clint wrote: Karl's point here is that if you go ground up, there are probably not enough stances on that upper slab and it will be runout as a result. And runout is bad because the route will not get much traffic (I am somewhat sympathetic to that last part). But the route could be done Urioste style with bolt ladders and then pulling/patching if there are not enough stances. This yields a safe, ground up route. So ground up does not necessarily imply unsafe, and does not imply very low traffic (although unsafe does imply low traffic). Karl may have just overlooked this option, if he was thinking about Southern Belle (vs. say the Harding-Rowell route).
Clint...it goes both way...rap-placed-routes don't mean overbolted, safe or more ascents. The real crux for most people is the quality of the climbing, gear, position and fun-factor.
Bad routes exist ground up and rap-placed. Also what is the sense of placing a bolt ladder and then going back and pulled and patch bolts...just to say up did it ground up?? Weird!
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2008 - 08:30pm PT
|
Fattrad wrote: And, what's wrong with a low traffic volumne route that only the few bold and capable climbers attempt?
Jody's evil twin.
Nothing...I still think there is enough room on that face...hurry up fat....the clock is ticking.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
A Token of My Extreme
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2008 - 08:41pm PT
|
Here's to the Southern Belle boys with the giant danglers!!
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2008 - 08:43pm PT
|
Fat....don't expect of others what you are not willing to do yourself. :)
|
|
Doug Robinson
Trad climber
Santa Cruz
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2008 - 08:59pm PT
|
Klaus,
The route is entirely new, on terrain that had never been touched from bottom to top.
There has been some confusion from the guidebooks showing incorrectly the line of the original Harding-Rowell South Face aid route starting up the corner this route is in. That turned out to be incorrect.
To clarify, three separate crack lines leave the ground within that giant corner of the biggest arch on the face. The right-hand one is Southern Belle. The middle one is Harding-Rowell. The left one was untouched until last summer and is now Growing Up.
Starting off the ground the crack pitches go 5.10a, 5.12a, 5.12a, 5.12a, 5.12a, 5.12a, 5.12a, 5.13a (crux tips lieback), then 5.11-something across a dike 20' under the ceiling. Sean can confirm this to be certain I've got it right.
Wish I had Sean's topo to post up. Rock & Ice was going to print it but then ran out of space.
|
|
tolman_paul
Trad climber
Anchorage, AK
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2008 - 09:03pm PT
|
Tough subject as I have very mixed emotions on the issue. I've seen it from just about every angle as well as I've bolted bottom up, top down, replaced mank, have been chopped, have chopped.
To me the most rewarding climbs personally have been done from the ground up. Whether hand drilling from a stance, or pulling up a power drill on a zip line that is hanging from the last bolt on a fifi hook. But dang it's mucho work, and honestly some bolt placements have been botched due to a less than steller position to place the bolt. Some of the rap bolted routes have been very well recieved, especially an established tr problem that I still have misgivings about bolting.
As to the comment about sense of adventure, absolutely, for the first ascent party. But once there is a topo and the route is publisized, the future ascent parties will never experience the adventure of the first ascent. They'll get to see if they are good enough, but they'll never have to doubt if the route gos, rather just if they can make it. They'll never know if the bolts went in bottom up or top down, but they will be left feeling either that's an incredible route or it was a cluge, or something in between.
At the end of the of the day, what I think all FA parties should consider is if they place permanent anchors, they should be good ones.
I would hate to see the day of the adventure climb dissapear, but I also wouldn't like to see how a route is put up mandated by law. I doubt that will happen as the government would be putting themselves in a liability pickle by dictating how a bolt is placed. Be sure that it would only be a matter of time before somebody greases off a stance, get's hurt, and the guvment get's sued for not allowing the climber use a safer means of placing the gear. If anything it could very well signal the end of placing permanent anchors.
As to the comments across the pond regarding the adventurous grit routes, it's my understanding that the majority of them can be top roped, and often are top roped before a lead or solo. That is the opposite of most Yosemite climbs that have to be climbed on lead.
|
|
Haggis
Trad climber
Scotland
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2008 - 09:10pm PT
|
tolman:
your comment applys to most hard routes on grit and some recent hard routes further north in Scotland however both routes cited were ground up with-out top roping.
the top roping situation is a current and long lived debate much like what you are having now. in Scotland there are few places where it would be possible (eg dumbarton rock and other small cliff) but our mountains are rather too large to be top roped.
we consider that personal feelings toward a route are not a reason to bolt it nor is the excuse of safety. if the line is meant to go then it will go, it simply awaits the correct person. you should not lower the bar just so you can climb the rock, leave it for someone better than you.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
primordial soup
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2008 - 09:22pm PT
|
hello bob-
you seem to have a pretty accepting stance here in this thread.
just for clarity, care to briefly discuss your history of FAs and the style you chose to put them up in, as well as the various reactions you may have had from the climbing community?
thanks in advance.
|
|
Clint Cummins
Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2008 - 09:24pm PT
|
Bob,
> ...it goes both way...rap-placed-routes don't mean overbolted, safe or more ascents. The real crux for most people is the quality of the climbing, gear, position and fun-factor.
I very much agree, in the context of shorter climbs. For longer climbs (in the sense of more effort on approach and logistics), motivation (in terms of the history of the route) can also be important.
This can be in the sense of "recreating" the first ascent experience. Like for example, I was doing Flying Buttress Direct on Sentinel a few years ago, and we came to a junction where we could stay on the north face or go around the corner onto the west face. There wasn't any obvious fixed gear to guide the way. So I got to ask myself the questions, what would I do here if I was Kor? (I went onto the West Face; of course my guess could have been wrong, but I got to face the same question he did).
> Bad routes exist ground up and rap-placed.
Agreed.
> Also what is the sense of placing a bolt ladder and then going back and pulled and patch bolts...just to say up did it ground up?? Weird!
Weird, sure, by some viewpoints. (In some places like parts of Red Rocks and Smith Rock or various caves, top down is not feasible, so aid/intermediate holes of one sort or another get used). Going ground up does change the experience for the people on the FA, because they have to decide which way to go based on their view from below about what might be promising features above. On subsequent ascents, people get the same view (except for visible fixed gear) and get a sense of the same choices. On a rap placed route, on the second ascent the viewpoint may be: "the FA people must have seen some good stuff up there on rap, because I sure can't see much from here!". This perspective may not matter to all, but it does matter to some. And it matters more if the route is longer or routefinding is more complex.
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2008 - 09:24pm PT
|
This is a pretty good discussion so far. I'd like to say some stuff, not necessarily to weave a coherent stance or make any great sense of this issue, but rather to address a couple highlights and underscore some subtlety.
For starters, I tend to favor traditional climbing. For me there is a certain tension to the energy afforded by on-site ground-up climbing. Largo's "experiential voltage" if you will. Given my background and experience, the majority of sport climbs under the 5.12 grade tend to have too many bolts, the outcome is predictable and the exercise feels repetitive, such that the experience of leading the route lacks a certain zest.
Done from the ground up and on sight, a successfully achieved ascent has a very palatable internal energetic feel. The construct of a sport climb; which encompasses things like rappelling and succinct prior knowledge, a fairly sanitized and very safe protection scheme, and in a subtle way, yes even the communal lore of its construction -for me, these things sever the energetic tension of the route. We typically know how a route was originally done and I say that does matter. In ground-up style climbing, there is an aspect of emulation at play which is quite valuable.
When Werner says the route has a soul he's describing that energetic tension that exists for the route as a possibility. I get it more as a collusion of my internal striving with the canvas which the route represents. So for me it's a relationship and I like for that energy to be as fresh and whole as possible and ground-up climbing, whether I'm doing the first ascent or following in the footsteps of a pre-established ascent, the ground up traditional style effort does the best job of retaining that essence, best characterized as a completeness and a continuity, like an independent living thing.
So that's my sense of the peculiarly distinct internal reward conferred through trad climbing. It is something that should not be overrun. It's an artistic imperative that has fewer and fewer voices and outlets in our urbanized, formalized society. Spontaneous, fluid improvisation: we need to keep that heart alive and beating.
Karl wrote:
"Actually, to be honest, the Geek Towers routes would get climbed 500%+ more if they went to the top, so I have to imagine they are "Less than Perfect according to climbers voting with their feet"
I have to say, although in the strictest sense this may be true what you say, for me, Geek Towers and the Good Book reach logical conclusions because they represent the apogee of features. As a trad climber, topping out on those things and rappelling back down affords a sense of completeness; the energetic tension is there with those climbs, they do not feel unfinished.
Personally, I feel there is plenty of room for sport climbing, whether it be a fierce 40 feet with a couple of bolts, or yes, something as big as El Capitan. I won't be telling people they shouldn't do it. Somehow, for people like John Bachar, Scott Cosgrove, and many others it seems to serve their personal truth to speak out against these competing styles. I must say, that commitment and outspoken stance has its place here and elsewhere, as it serves the dialectic.
Essentially, I'm saying there should be no resolution here, because climbing is an art form that is evolving, expanding, diverging, and converging. Different viewpoints upheld with a critical vigilance; that's how stuff of substance is made. It's a healthy conflict.
A couple comments on what others have said:
John Bachar said:
"Just for the record, it was actually Christian Griffith who wanted to rap bolt the BY. When he told me that, I went up there the next day and put the first bolt in."
Good for you John; it sends chills down my spine just thinking how close that was -- that the Bachar Yerian may never have come to exist as an expression.
In his own way, Christian has done some great sport routes and that's OK too. I am glad that Body and Soul exists, but it doesn't really bother me, or didn't bother me, when Kauk and Chapman put in that sport climb nearby. I like that there is a Bachar Yerian and the existence of Peace does not detract from it; rather it provides contrast.
Karl also wrote:
"Climbers are a lot like humans."
Now that is some of the best satire to appear in these pages.
Cheers all,
Roy
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!