Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
OW
Trad climber
Patagonia
|
|
"I'm waiting for Global Warming to turn it into the El Cap of the Southern Hemisphere."
Between then and now, odds are that places like Patagonia will see more intense weather, not sunny and calm. The surface temps of the ocean are increasing and that is causing more violent tropical storms. If that trend continues, there will be even tougher conditions ahead on the big walls in Patagonia. But first, please prove that global warming is really happening and place your proof in context of the last few millenia.
|
|
SavantFandangle
Trad climber
DC Region
|
|
This issue drives home the issues of common dignity and mutual respect in the climbing community in general, not just Patagonia. I do sincerely enjoy a clean, bolt-less line, particularly those at my stomping grounds, Seneca Rocks. That said, I find bolt chopping irresponsible, negligent, arrogant and just plain disrespectable to the climbing community. Bolt choppers not only put their own lives at risk, but also those of the entire climbing community.
For example, on a trip this past fall to the Valley, I was angered by the fact that someone had chopped the bolt on Serenety Crack (the 5.9 section). Yet, the 5.11 variation just to the left had all of its bolts well intact. I found this observation and experience intriguing for numerous reasons.
Climbers again are a community; a family of sorts. Violence and passive-aggressiveness is not acceptable. Resolving conflict in a reasonable manner (over a few beers, of course!) should be the norm for resolution of issues.
Rob Borotkanics, Maryland
|
|
Al Fylak
Mountain climber
Rochester Hills, MI
|
|
Normally I would not post on such an emotionally charged topic, but I am laid up with a shoulder injury so have time on my hands.
I have been around climbing for 28 years and have been reading about the bolt wars seemingly forever. Most of my climbing has been in JTree and Yosemite.
Personally, I welcome every bolt I come upon. Safety is my #1 issue. Even if I don't like the way a bolt looks, or feel it is unnecessay, I will clip it if I have a few biners to spare. Why not? It might save a long fall and gives you some peace of mind .. you never know.
The problem with chopping bolts is that you are saying that your opinion is right and someone else's is wrong. That's a big assumption on a popular route that lots of other folks, who may need/want the bolts, will climb. Besides, who does the route really belong to? The folks that can climb it with the fewest bolts ... I doubt it?
This issue is sort of like going to war. We elect a president and he takes us to Iraq. 49% or more may have disagreed with the decison, but at least, Mr. Bush won the election.
I don't think anyone elected the bolt choppers to act for the rest of the climbing community!
As far as physical fighting and wrecking tents goes ... that obviously does not solve the issue ... just let's folks vent their frustration and anger. One bad act, deserves another?
Well ... I could go on and on but have likely said too much already. Grow up boys and respect other people!
Someday they may chop your route.
Al Fylak
Laid up climber in Michigan
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
I think the last two posters, and in fact everyone who believes no bolt is worthy of chopping, need to rethink that proposition. If the climbing world is now at the threshold where all bolts are good, and where it's good when bolts go into rocks and bad when they come out, then we've crossed a bridge I never thought I'd live to see.
As opposed to a previous poster, risk is my #1 priority. I'm still an old, ground-up, trad climber who climbs for a myriad of reasons like exercising creativity, competency, skill, and vision which all work together synergistically, driven by a central proposition of risk. Remove the risk from climbing and you have still some form of casual, suburban/lifestyle entertainment, but it isn't what I consider climbing. It becomes everything I took up climbing back in the day to get away from.
That such ideas are expressed in the context of one of the proudest pieces of stone on the planet is simply unbelievable to me. No doubt a sorry tide has turned and I almost don't have the words for the saddness some of these comments provoke. Again, I wouldn't chop it for history's sake, but also wouldn't hesitate for a heartbeat without that protective context. And while I may cast my vote against Josh and Zack with regards to chopping this particular line, they have my utmost respect and admiration for staying wild in a time when the world around them is clearly rushing headlong to tame and exploit everything they strive for.
|
|
crotch
climber
|
|
Great thread. I offer more thoughts from another mediocre climber.
To chop or not to chop was a decision to be made ONLY by Maestri's CONTEMPORARIES and only CONTEMPORANEOUSLY.
After 30 years, the Compressor Route belongs to the entire climbing collective. Statements about style should be made on new canvas, and routes that need "correcting" should be corrected while the ink is still fresh.
|
|
mbb
climber
the slick
|
|
What I think is ironic is that they set out to chop this route in order to do it in better style and ended up using the bolt ladder to gain the "summit". If they really had ethical problems with the bolt ladder why didn't they just bail when they could not go any farther without it? It seems like for all of the hype they have been getting they just ended up putting their feet in their mouths.
|
|
golsen
Social climber
kennewick, wa
|
|
Karl said, "Why not spit it out? They set out to erase a route that they later embraced so they could make the summit. If even these elite, who seemingly disapprove of the route, are willing to use the ladders that they would erase, let's learn whatever lesson in there."
First of all, hats off to those guys for the climbing that they did do and for their quest in fulfilling their vision.
I totally disagree with their objective of erasing the route. Maestri didnt have the tools, techniques or vision that we have today. Each of those things has come because of what we have learned from past generations. Others here have touched on that.
But I am also having a difficult time in this whole reporting thing. My understanding is that they did NOT Summit due to weather. Personally, when I have FAILED to summit due to weather. I called it a failure. However, these failures were almost always more valuable to my growth than successes were. Perhaps it is our culture that calls for a WINNER instead of a failure. A summit instead of a retreat in the face of adversity.
I believe that there must be a standard of honesty in reporting and I was glad to see that Alpinist tried to clear things up. Honesty in reporting should be the goal for all reporting, otherwise we are all just engaged in fantasy.
I was kind of bumbed out that things got cleared up. I had several ascents that I bailed due to weather that I was goin to start claiming as SUMMITED.
One must ask themselves how many routes they have bailed on due to weather, and how many of those bails have you called "Summiting"?
|
|
D.J.
Social climber
Sedona, Arizona
|
|
Wow !
I cannot believe it, two climbers chopping bolts on a excellent route. What next for these two super climbers, Chopping the Leaning Tower West Face Route? I wonder, Royal faced this same problem on Harding's route however, he realize the route had some of the hardest hook moves he has ever done and decide not to chop the entire route.
I remember another excellent Bolted Route in Joshua Tree and a supper climber chopped all the bolts out of Headstone Rock. Why? Because he could climb 5.12 and 5.13 routes. The Riverside Serach and Rescue Team installed the route back in the 60's for aid training. A fine aid route with a cliff hanger move over the top, a great practice route for Direct Aid. Now, gone for ever. Many climber cannot climb 5.12- 5.13 routes, why chop a route becaue it offends you that has been in place for many years? I see the Leaning Tower West Face Route being Chopped someday because of too many bolts and the route will offend someone .
|
|
snooky
climber
|
|
DJ, what your looking at is Bachar syndrome and it sucks.
|
|
BrentA
Gym climber
Roca Rojo
|
|
Applause for Heavyje! Nice post.
For some reason I remember having a conversastion with Mr. Cordes a few years ago (remember he climbed Trango and "almost" that other thing in Pakistan last Summer, both w/ Josh) about summitting, claiming summits, and specifically the Torre. This conversation ebbed and flowed to many hypothetical summit calls around the climbing world. Many ascents stop at the top of the rock on the Torre, either because the snowcap is absurd, or their logic holds that they are standing on top of its highest "permanent" piece.
I pretty clearly remember Kelly saying, "I like Josh's definition".
"When there is nothing left to climb, you are on the summit."
So I would guess Josh has a good gauge of where the summit lies.
I can't imagine heading anyway but down when the weather turns on me in Patagonia (if/when I get there).
Again, really enjoying the thoughts here. If you haven't checked out the Yosemite snowmen thread, you should do that. Good Jah.
|
|
joane
climber
|
|
I wasn't sure about reading this thread on the much debated and divisive bolt chopping controversy but I'm glad I did. It's pretty incredible.
Having read the 200+ posts but having never climbed in Patagonia, I'd just like to add in to the mix that
it's important to get the facts about a reported climb and it totally undermines credibility when reports of it are not accurate or complete, it's just so disappointing.
I think most readers really enjoy knowing about other climbs, big ones or not, and it's great that forums like this are a place where the facts can be checked and challenged.
I don't think it's an empty ego trip to share your own climb info, it's fun , in any activity or industry wanting the respect of your peers is a pretty normal human need.
Another thought--I can't understand why Little Cotton didn't think to put his complaint on the Alpinist website too along with this one, or send it to them directly? It would be fairer to try to find out the answers first then progress to the challenges if they aren't satisfactory. Maybe they would have ignored a request to support the info in the article they published or maybe they would have researched it and corrected it. But there would have been less guessing in any case and so less room for somebody here to be drawn into saying something that really they wouldn't have said based on more facts. It's kind of like the idea of entrapment, or like there's an agenda. Or jumping the gun. So it detracts from the honesty of the discussion.
Also, if the trendin the posts goes back to the brute force rules of engagement verbally on the forum and/or verifying that kind of conduct outside the forum, then it makes the other parts of the society which all of us live in, question whether where/how people climb should be brought more effectively under the law for reasons of "public safety" etc etc. So if you find hostility/aggression climbing out there, forums like this are useful for peer pressure to come up with better ways to fix the problems, better ways than assault and battery. If you are thinking about doing it in foreign cultures where you don't know necessarily what will happen, I think it is really foolish and you are really under a false sense of security.
If the posts that make this kind of thread turn into places that have lynching mob mentalities then I think also there's an increased risk that maybe society in some form or another might find it their business to intervene in what is being discussed in some creative way that then infringes on our freedom in the hills as the Seattle Mountaineers describe it.
So, I think the idea expressed above in the thread at various points about kind of self regulating/educating in that way is good, it's in our common interest. And that was what was pretty amazing, that so many posters stepped in respectfully to bring some order to the court as they say.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
We all climb for our own reasons. Personally, I have trouble with the goalpost mentality that makes a huge difference between climbing 30 feet from the summit and reaching the summit.
It is what it is. It's a fine ascent (except for the bolt intentions) and stands for what it is, given that we finally know it's 30 feet less of an ascent than originally reported.
That 30 feet doesn't negate much in my mind, particularly regarding the compressor route (which didn't go to the summit in the first place did it? or is that open to debate?)
So congrats on all the fine climbing (except for the aspects I don't agree with ;-)
Karl
|
|
Kevster
Trad climber
Evergreen, CO
|
|
So as I see it Alpinist is still defending their position, even though Josh and Zach did not summit and they probably clipped over 50 bolts all told. Where is the story here? Seems like Alpinist is playing a bit of favorites...as I am sure that if this attempt had been made by 2 Slovanians the news would be much different.
|
|
guest
climber
|
|
Can't help but add a thought on something that boggles my mind. Many people have expressed things like the one poster who wrote:
"The problem with chopping bolts is that you are saying that your opinion is right and someone else's is wrong."
and
"I don't think anyone elected the bolt choppers to act for the rest of the climbing community!"
--So, as many people have expressed, anyone is free to place bolts whenever and wherever they want (that's the de facto and sometimes outright notion here). But, what, it's a one-way street? If anyone is free to place a bolt, since nobody owns the rock, they anyone is free to remove it. Common, basic, logic. Of course we temper placing and removing with discussions, reason, etc. But I fully call bullshit on this notion that it's universally wrong to remove a bolt (which I've never done, for the record) yet it's universally OK to place a bolt (I'm not opposed to bolts; I've placed two in my life). WTF? Where's the logic in that?
--Or is it NOT true that nobody owns the rock, rather the locals own the rock? In this case, a great number of routes worldwide are serious offenses, b/c the permanent installations in the rock were put in by foreigners. And f*#k, man, then Maestri, being Italian, is the worst criminal in climbing history! All Josh and Zach did was talk about removing bolts.
--Also, and related to the use of bolts, many people have made it sound like the notion of erasing the Compressor Route is such an elitist thing just b/c Josh and Zach climb harder than most of us. I've rapped down the Compressor Route (we went up a different way, and used the CR to descend), so I've seen if first-hand. An incredible piece of work, a monumental effort, I remember shaking my head, Maestri, what a madman! Of course all that work doesn't make it right, but that's not my point and I'm not expressing an opinion on whether the route should stay or go. BUT, let's be clear: it's not a route where the bolts (all 400 of them) are just there to protect some runout, otherwise unprotected, climbing, like something that only super elite climbers could do. The madman himself installed freakin' bolts every 4 feet up 5.6 sections (and 5.6 in 1970 was *nothing* to "The Spider of the Dolomites"), slabs with huge jugs, bolts right beside perfect cracks, the whole deal. I just want people to realize this as part of the conversation.
--Granted, maybe it's not a Via Ferratta, but relatively speaking it's much closer to a Via Ferratta than any other route on the mountain. Right or wrong? I don't know. But don't climbers get all huffy about cables and sh#t on Half Dome or whatever (sh#t, forgive me if I've got this wrong, I haven't been up or down Half Dome -- in which case other examples could be substituted), because those permanent installations dumb it down, wreck the landscape, allow "tourists" up something they otherwise couldn't do, etc? Certainly worth considering. Many gray areas. Maybe we all just want to draw our elitist lines right below what we're personally capable of. The most incredible summit in the world via an abortion of a route, a total manufactured route, but one that still requires some climbing skill? Hell yeah!
--But what about the workin' man? Your local UPS driver? The dude sloggin' hash at the local truck stop? Shouldn't there be an escalator for him? I maintain -- having been there and seen it first-hand just recently -- that the Compressor Route is closer to an escalator (albeit a pretty f*#kin' cool one in many regards) than a route, within the relative sphere of Cerro Torre. Maybe that's OK. But then, why not put in an escalator? Seriously.
Just some food for thought. Certainly flaws exist in my thinking, much like anyone expressing an opinion, but I haven't seen much of the above even considered yet.
--Kelly
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
I think it's important to keep in mind, in this conversation about what constitutes gaining "The Summit", that the climbers themselves were not claiming anything, true or false, and that it was someone else's 3rd hand initial reports that actually announced the details.
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Ice climber
Pomfert VT
|
|
Really disturbing that Alpinist did Not report the vote or the attempted chopping??? Skipping a bunch of bolts on a trade rt may be hard climbing but it's really not ground breaking news.. attempting to chop a trade rt is front page material... The omission of the chopping attempt and the plan to dammage hangers after the failed crow bar episode was either poor shoddy journalism or worse, pure propoganda.. WTF???
|
|
Brian
climber
Cali
|
|
Above, someone wrote: What I think is ironic is that they set out to chop this route in order to do it in better style and ended up using the bolt ladder to gain the "summit". If they really had ethical problems with the bolt ladder why didn't they just bail when they could not go any farther without it?
Compare this to Peter Croft (as related in one of those old climbing vids, maybe Moving Over Stone?) when trying to climb some hard, bolted crack (I can't recall, maybe VanBelle O Drome?). I'm paraphrasing from memory, but Croft said something like: "I decided to climb the route as if the bolts were not there. Not, climb it and see what it was like and maybe clip the bolts if I felt like I needed it--literally pretend the bolts are not there and climb. If I can't make it without the bolts, I don't make it."
Brian
|
|
Melissa
Gym climber
berkeley, ca
|
|
re: the escalator argument. There are many places in the world where trams, via ferratas, and such have been installed to summits, and huge numbers of people enjoy taking them and use them to get closer to nature in the best way that they, as aging/overweight/handicapped...whatever the limitation may be...working schlubs can. A lot of times I support this b/c those same folks, in turn will be more apt to want to protect our resources themselves.
Maybe those access installations "shouldn't" exist by todays standards, but they do and many love them. And if you make the choice to take them down without including the folks that use them, you're going to piss them off quite a lot. And, unless you actually own the land and tram, you'd be labled a terrorist and thrown in jail.
You've got a lot more power to positively influence whether or not new trams go up on different mountains than you do to erase the ones that already exist.
Perhaps it's better to pick those battles?
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Ice climber
Pomfert VT
|
|
Kelley. Thing is that the compressor rt is part of history. Its there for folks not as good as you to get on a serious piece of stone. Many climbers dream of getting up that thing and have beeen for 30+ years... Call it a tourist rt if you want but its established and the goal of many climbers throughout the world. If someone were to drill their way up a new line in simelear fashion today it would most likly not be tolerated as standards have changed but that is compareing apples and oranges. Compressor rt is part of history. If you really want to make a statement establish something new. Don't chop the little guys dreams.. JMOP
|
|
Brian
climber
Cali
|
|
Kelly,
Another good post. I don't know how to boldface script on this thing, so excuse the CAPS in responding. I'm not "yelling," just distinguishing your questions from my answers.
I can't believe I am weighing in on this again! Cars busted and I'm stuck in LA...
You wrote: But I fully call bullshit on this notion that it's universally wrong to remove a bolt (which I've never done, for the record) yet it's universally OK to place a bolt (I'm not opposed to bolts; I've placed two in my life). YOU ARE RIGHT HERE. PLACING AND REMOVING BOLTS SHOULD BOTH BE DONE WITH CARE.
--Or is it NOT true that nobody owns the rock, rather the locals own the rock? NO ONE OWNS THE ROCK. All Josh and Zach did was talk about removing bolts. WHICH SEEMS LIKE A BAD IDEA (BUT SEE MORE COMMENTS BELOW).
--BUT, let's be clear: it's not a route where the bolts (all 400 of them) are just there to protect some runout, otherwise unprotected, climbing, like something that only super elite climbers could do. The madman himself installed freakin' bolts every 4 feet up 5.6 sections (and 5.6 in 1970 was *nothing* to "The Spider of the Dolomites"), slabs with huge jugs, bolts right beside perfect cracks, the whole deal. I just want people to realize this as part of the conversation. THIS DOES MAKE A VERY BIG DIFFERENCE TO MY OPINION ON THE MATTER, AND I DID NOT REALIZE IT WHEN POSTING ALL MY COMMENTS ABOVE. THE WORK REQUIRED TO REMOVE THEM STILL SEEMS SILLY, BUT BOLTS RIGHT NEXT TO CRACKS THAT ANY GYM CLIMBER COULD PROTECT DOES SEEM ESPECIALLY WRONG. THANKS MUCH FOR POINTING THIS OUT.
 Maybe we all just want to draw our elitist lines right below what we're personally capable of. THIS IS CLEARLY A TENDENCY FOR ALL OF US. GOOD POINT.
--But what about the workin' man? Your local UPS driver? The dude sloggin' hash at the local truck stop? Shouldn't there be an escalator for him? NO, OF COURSE NOT. I maintain -- having been there and seen it first-hand just recently -- that the Compressor Route is closer to an escalator (albeit a pretty f*#kin' cool one in many regards) than a route, within the relative sphere of Cerro Torre. MORE DETAILS PLEASE. STEVE SEEMS TO THINK THIS IS A HARD ROUTE, AND THIS IS COMING FROM SOMEONE WHO JUST PULLED OFF THAT CRAZY TRIFECTA TRAVERSE. IF HE HAS BEEN UNABLE TO MAKE THE SUMMIT VIA THE 1970 ROUTE, I REALLY THINK THE IMAGE OF AN ESCALATOR IS WAY, WAY, WAY OFF. HOWEVER, I'VE NEVER SEEN THE ROUTE, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF IT DOES SOUND LIKE A LINE OF TRASH AND FIXED JUNK... Maybe that's OK. But then, why not put in an escalator? Seriously. BECAUSE AN ESCALATOR WOULD BE WRONG. WHERE ON THE SPECTRUM BETWEEN AN "ESCLATOR" AND "LEAVE ABSOLUTLY NO TRACE" IS THE HAPPY MEAN? I DON'T KNOW.
Again, sorry for all the CAPS. Anyone want to tell me how to do italics or boldface type?!?
Brian
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!