Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
deuce4
climber
Hobart, Australia
|
|
Aug 21, 2011 - 01:03am PT
|
Matt, I find it interesting whenever's there some progress on an actual discussion, he goes back to the names he was called, sort of inferring that I was one of the name callers, but in fact, as I said before, I was always pretty neutral about the route (not having climbed it) prior to all this Supertopo stuff. The fact that dubious tactics aid climbers sometimes use are being defended as the accepted norm is a bit irksome, as that just wasn't the case.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
Aug 21, 2011 - 01:05am PT
|
stuff like that was considered bad juju
By YOU and a few others. Apparently not by the Bird and his crowd.
THE problem I've had with some of you guys over the years is that you take your OWN narrow view of how things "should be done," imagine it to be mainstream, and then inflict it on ALL others as THE WAY.
So, how can you defend against the charge of being ELITISTS? YOUR way is the "best way," so it should be the ONLY WAY.
This is EXACTLY what Harding referred to in decades past: Valley Christians. Only now you guys have your own high-tech inquisition: the taco stand.
And that brings the wheel full circle.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
primordial soup
|
|
Aug 21, 2011 - 01:07am PT
|
uuhhhhmmmm...
i know i wasn't there in the 80's, but if it weren't for climbers having an attitude about how things ought to be done in YV, we'd all be calling it the ORG west, or canmore south!
all things being equal, this one thing the whole WoS thing has taught me personally is to be weary of carrying around judgment and resentment for decades on end... it clearly does not do anyone any good.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
Aug 21, 2011 - 01:07am PT
|
And, remind me, when was Wyoming Sheep Ranch put up?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
Aug 21, 2011 - 01:09am PT
|
sort of inferring that I was one of the name callers
Nope, never done it, and don't plan to.
My ONLY point in the referenced post was to correct you about your "the context" claim.
THE CONTEXT was never this "enhancement issue" that you and SG have made into the big deal that it never was.
My list of quotes are actual quotes. THOSE were "the context" of the defamation over the years. And THOSE are now known to be lies.
So, don't sweep aside the mountain and magnify the molehill.
The people that heaped literal shyte on us and bombed us with it (repeatedly), were not doing that because they had heard that we were making micro-"enhancements!" They had been told that we were drilling a bolt ladder up the Great Slab.
|
|
deuce4
climber
Hobart, Australia
|
|
Aug 21, 2011 - 01:10am PT
|
Gotta get back to work. I'll check in tomorrow for more all caps!
Edit--Okay, actually one more--Look, madbolter, nobody's defending the few who personally and physically messed with you back then. But you should also realise that--then as is now--nobody's immune to other's criticism either. I got a lot of it myself when I was pushing my own standards, even from some of my best friends. Any time you do something different, you'll exposed to people critiquing you--that's life.
Somebody put it well in a previous post--referring to the people who messed with you as minions. You seem to be trying to convince everyone that the whole community at large is responsible, simply because there are people who don't agree with you.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
Aug 21, 2011 - 01:15am PT
|
Hmm... I'm SO confused! I'm especially confused since in our "discussions" with (haha... our being yelled at by) many notable people in the Valley during the FA, the SEA was touted as THE ROUTE that set THE STANDARD for how routes should be done. We were told again and again: Do the Sea, and then we'll take you seriously. (Oh the hubris!) And, ironically, HAD we done an even earlier ascent of the Sea than we did, we would have put up a WORSE route than we did on WoS.
And guess what route the cover photo of Middendorf's 1994 Big Walls books is from?
Yup, the Sea of Dreams.
|
|
deuce4
climber
Hobart, Australia
|
|
Aug 21, 2011 - 01:19am PT
|
Again, so what? Some punter told you to climb the Sea of Dreams, now it's as if the whole community was telling you that.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
Aug 21, 2011 - 01:20am PT
|
dubious tactics aid climbers sometimes use are being defended as the accepted norm
Deuce, THE SEA was TOUTED as the "accepted norm!" It was held up as the HIGH BAR!
And "sometimes use" is a steaming pile, and you know it.
Your little "window of purity" never existed except in your own mind and the minds of a few other Valley Christians.
The Bird, among MANY others just didn't attend your church!
Get over it.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Aug 21, 2011 - 01:21am PT
|
I hope that Ammon's and Kait's report, photos and film, the record, and analysis thereof, actually answer the questions as to what physically was done and not done to the rock in 1982. If so, the sooner that information comes out, the better. We can then answer the question as to whether the tactics employed on the 1982 climb significantly varied from what were, or are claimed to have been, the ethos and actual practice of climbing in the Valley at that time.
|
|
deuce4
climber
Hobart, Australia
|
|
Aug 21, 2011 - 01:22am PT
|
really got to go, but it's been fun. Till later this week...
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
Aug 21, 2011 - 01:24am PT
|
Some punter
Wow, apparently you WEREN'T there.
I can't say "the whole climbing community," because a million people never showed up at our doorstep.
But EVERYBODY that yelled at us (the only form of communication) told us to climb the Sea. They ALL touted it as the high bar.
And EVERY critic over the years told us that we should have climbed some of the classic testpieces first, with The Sea always heading the list.
The Valley was FULL of The Sea, The Sea, ohhhh The Sea at that time.
And, you miss Graniteclimber's point. YOU put it on the cover of your book for a reason: The Sea WAS widely considered to be THE HIGH BAR in that era.
So, don't backpedal now.
|
|
deuce4
climber
Hobart, Australia
|
|
Aug 21, 2011 - 01:28am PT
|
oh sheet- can't believe I refreshed the page.
no, the reason I put Xaver on the cover was that Bill Hatcher had done a professional photo shoot (thus a great photo) of Xaver soloing it, and he was my best friend.
Closing the browser now...
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
Aug 21, 2011 - 01:45am PT
|
You seem to be trying to convince everyone that the whole community at large is responsible, simply because there are people who don't agree with you.
More psychobabble.
Never said it, never thought it, and don't think it now.
And I don't need people to "agree with me," which has ever been your distortion of my "need." What I want, not need, is for people to tell the truth.
Not "my truth," not "a truth." THE truth. The objective truth. The obvious truth. The truth that the liars and shyters had right in front of them from the beginning. The truth that the cowardly choppers HAD to have seen as they were jugging the fixed lines in the night: "Hey, where are all the bolts and rivets we came up here to chop? There aren't hardly any here! HOW the hell did these guys get up this section? THIS is no bolt ladder!" It was RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM that very night!
THAT NIGHT, Deuce, I didn't need them to "agree with me!" I would have wanted them to simply see the TRUTH that was right in front of them and choose to live in reality. Instead, they committed themselves to their act of lying cowardice, and then they spearheaded decades of self-justifying defamation.
The truth was ALWAYS right there, yet respected people kept the lies alive.
This is no "difference of opinion" on which I "need people to agree with me." And every time you cast it in those terms, as well as revise the history of "the context," Deuce, you make it CRYSTAL clear that you are not and never have been "neutral" on this subject.
Our fight has always been with those that were LYING about us. And our fight was always to establish the objective facts. There is no "agreeing with me" or "disagreeing with me" on this level. There are only facts and whether or not one lives in reality or not.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
Aug 21, 2011 - 01:46am PT
|
Well Deuce, you also included it on the "Classic Yosemite Big Wall Routes" list in the book.
I almost threw the book away a few years ago, but now I'm glad I didn't.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
Aug 21, 2011 - 01:54am PT
|
no, the reason I put Xaver on the cover was that Bill Hatcher had done a professional photo shoot (thus a great photo) of Xaver soloing it, and he was my best friend.
You're not quite out of the woods yet.
The question is, would you have been motivated exactly the same way to use a cover photo of Xaver soloing WoS for that book?
Uhh, right. Didn't think so.
I'm prepared to stand corrected on this. Really, I am.
But the overarching fact will remain: The Sea was widely, almost universally, considered to be the high bar in the mid-80s.
And you yourself should know that Shipley was in the meadow with a telescope almost daily when we did the fifth ascent of the Sea, because, as he told us, he was convinced that we were going to "drill it down to our level." He even went to far as to tell us that he was going to position himself across the Valley with a high-powered rifle and shoot us if drill touched rock. THAT was how highly regarded the Sea was in Shipley's mind, as he expressed it to us.
So, you're just NOT gonna convince me that even in "your crowd" the Sea wasn't highly regarded. I was face to face with Shipley on the subject.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
Aug 21, 2011 - 02:05am PT
|
I remember that the mags spoke highly of Sea of Dreams. I'd pull them out if I still had them but I lost them during a move. It was THE route.
But Richard, Deuce is NOT your enemy here and he has been reasonable enough. There's no point in quarreling with him. Nobody's memory is perfect, nor does anyone have perfect perspective. The way I remember things isn't exactly the way things were and that's true of everyone.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Aug 21, 2011 - 02:17am PT
|
Yep that's how people are on their home turf. Protective.
It's like that in a lot places. Go to projects in LA.
When me Shultz were in Hawaii at some locals beach they wanted to kick our asses.
But we just played it cool and it took a few minutes for them to figure us out that we're no threat to em.
People are very passionate at times and want to protect the turf if they don't know ya.
They wanted to kill Us in Africa, in Peru.
What to do? It's they way it is sometimes.
Providence you can't fight it sometimes and terrible things happen and you sometimes end up right in the middle of it.
I hate all this sh'it .......
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
Aug 21, 2011 - 02:24am PT
|
I think Werner nailed it.
It had almost nothing to do with "ethics." That was just the excuse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surf_culture
Localism
Even though waves break everywhere along a coast, good surf spots are rare. A surf break that forms great surfable waves may easily become a coveted commodity, especially if the wave only breaks there rarely. If this break is near a large population center with many surfers, territorialism often arises. Regular surfers who live around a desirable surf break may often guard it jealously, hence the expression "locals only." The expression "locals only" is common among beach towns, especially those that are seasonally encroached upon by vacationers who live outside the area. Localism is expressed when surfers are involved in verbal or physical threats or abuse to deter people from surfing at certain surf spots. It is based in part on the belief that fewer people mean more waves per surfer.
Some locals have been known to form loose gangs that surf in a certain break or beach and fiercely protect their "territory" from outsiders.[1] These surfers are often referred to as "surf punks" or "surf nazis." The local surfer gangs in Malibu and on Hawaii, known as da hui, have been known to threaten tourists with physical violence for invading their territory. In Southern California, at the Venice and Santa Monica beaches, local surfers are especially hostile to the surfers from the San Fernando Valley whom they dub "vallies" or "valley kooks". The expression "Surf Nazi" arose in the 1960s to describe territorial and authoritarian surfers, often involved in surf gangs or surf clubs. The term "Nazi" was originally used simply to denote the strict territorialism, violence and hostility to outsiders, and absolute obsession with surfing that was characteristic in the so-called "surf nazis." However, some surfers reclaimed and accepted the term, and a few actually embraced Nazism and Nazi symbolism. Some surf clubs in the 1960s, particularly at Windansea in La Jolla, used the swastika symbol on their boards and identified with Nazism as a counter culture (though this may have just been an effort to keep out or scare non-locals.) The "locals only" attitude and protectionism of the Santa Monica surf spots in the early 1970s was depicted in the movie Lords of Dogtown, which was based on actual events.
Localism often exists due to socioeconomic factors as well. Until relatively recently, surfers were looked down upon as lazy people on the fringe of society (hence the term "beach bum.") Many who surfed were locals of beach towns who lived there year-round, and were from a lower economic class. For that reason as much as any other, these groups were resentful of outsiders, particularly those who were well-to-do and came to their beaches to surf recreationally rather than as a way of life. Australia has its own history where surfers were openly treated with hostility from local governments in the sport's early days, and the tension never really went away, despite the sport's enormous increase in popularity. Maroubra Beach in Australia became infamous for localism and other violence chronicled in the documentary film Bra Boys, although the surfers in the film maintain they are not a "gang."
Surf Gangs
Surf gangs often form to preserve cultural identity through the protection of beach towns and shorelines. If known territory is trespassed by members of another surf gang, violence usually occurs. Long Beach is home to one of the oldest and biggest surf gangs, called "Longos." Some surf gangs have been known to not only claim land territory, but also claim specific surfing waves as territory. Surf gangs have gained notoriety over the years, especially with the production of Bra Boys.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
Aug 21, 2011 - 02:49am PT
|
Deuce is NOT your enemy here and he has been reasonable enough. There's no point in quarreling with him.
I appreciate your concern. I really do. And, even having no idea who you are in "real life," I've appreciated your posts.
I don't think I'm thinking of John as the enemy (certainly others that post regularly here could qualify). I'm quarreling with him only on points about which he has contributed to the ongoing present controversy about the "purity" of the route.
The struggle Mark and I have faced in recent years is that we've got to find the balance between being fighting the swirling mass of misinformation, which has involved a genuine online FIGHT; and not unnecessarily alienating reasonable people. And that's a balance that's impossible in principle to find. Worse, it's almost impossible to gather the data necessary to tell when you're leaning too far to one side. You're suggesting that I'm leaning too far to one side, and I do take that as a data point.
Mark and I have talked a lot about strategy over the last five years. It's generally considered that Mark has been "the reasonable one," while I have been the "ranter." But Mark and I are very agreed that both personas have been necessary; and we really are not in this to please people. We are both relentlessly committed to one single goal: respond to EVERY bit of misinformation, no matter how seemingly trivial, until the truth has been displayed clearly enough for reasonable minds to take over.
We're on the brink of that now. But I consider John's particular "spin" to be a significant bit of misinformation that actually distorts the situation in a material way. That's why I continue to quarrel with him on that point.
John panders to our enemies BY keeping the myth alive that there was this idyllic window of purity in the early/mid-80s to which WoS was some glaring and odious anomaly. That myth is false on both points. The window of purity is a myth, and WoS was actually "more pure" on all points than were a number of highly-regarded FAs of that era.
Establishing that fact yanks the final, tiny shred of support out from under the (now) minority position that the defamation campaign had ANY decent motivation behind it. It did not. The defamation campaign was nothing more lofty or elevated than, as Harding put it, "dogs pissing on trees," plain and simple.
Because John has raised the question, let me be clear that I don't have any reason to think that he was party to defaming us. My only point now is that his current mythology DOES pander to the defamation campaign.
And lest my current comment raise yet another round of assertions that "I need WoS to be viewed as one of the greatest climbs ever," or some such nonsense that our critics often assert at such a juncture, I'll say that neither Mark nor I have ever thought of WoS as a "great" or "wonderful" climb.
It was not as "pure" (as if that matters) as a few climbs of the era; it was far more "pure" than many; it was hard by any measure, and we weren't making it easy on ourselves; it is a type of climbing that will certainly not appeal to many people, so it will never be "classic" in the traditional sense; but, all that said, it is not what our critics have said it was! It was NO bolt/rivet ladder, and the hooking was almost entirely natural and very grim.
Fine points beyond that are tempests in a thimble. They are insignificant, contrary to what SG (and at times John) want to say. Did we knock off five crystals or 15? That's just a stupid question to ask in evaluating a route! Did the FA team of the Sea drill and chip five pounds of rock or fifty? If the question matters, then ask the questions at the same time about the same era! And, then, in that very context, ask SG the exact same question.
The fabled "window of purity" is a material point to this discussion, and I guess that I just find myself compelled to keep quarreling with John on that point. Relentless bugger that I am.
:-)
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|