Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Vitaliy M.
Mountain climber
San Francisco
|
|
|
Aug 19, 2015 - 11:36am PT
|
So be it, but if that reduction is what constituted climbing for me I'd be bored out of my skull and find the entire exercise so numbingly dreary and pointless I wouldn't bother doing it anymore.
Beautiful thing about climbing is that you as an individual get to pick what YOU want to do. If you don't want to dog up routes, you don't have to! I change what I personally do quite often. I climb in the gym, sport climb (wish I could go more often!), do first ascents that usually range from 500 to 2000+ ft, dog up single pitches and RP them later (can't really call it trad, more like sport climbing on gear), try to onsight established routes at the limit of my abilities, ice climb, at times do big walls, climb high altitude peaks, repeat obscure established routes that have slim to none description somewhere. I also climb fingercracks at the gym, scramble up to 5.9 in the mountains and like to hike up Mission Peak (Fremont). I find this variety as a very important part of why I love climbing. The diversity. Ability to meet different people with different interests from different generations and with different goals. Ability to travel and check out different crags, mountain ranges and countries. Some focus on one aspect. Some on two, three etc. The choice is yours! If most people in my circle of friends focus on climbing gnarly high boulders in Bishop, it doesn’t mean I must follow. I don’t understand why the choices of others are so bothersome to individuals who are affected in no way by those choices. You still get to pick what YOU want to do.
F*#k, that was a long post stating the obvious...
This weekend I am planning to hike over 10 miles and find a way into the canyons that look like bushwhacking hell from the elevation profile on the map and visual. No info about anyone going into those canyons or comment about what is there. Not even a close up photo of the walls that are seen in the area. Planning to climb new routes that may or may not involve over 1000 ft of new terrain, runouts, choss, cracks, slab, or maybe I won't even be able to cross the creeks or make it to the base? Can't wait to find out.
In a few weeks I plan to climb first 4 pitches of an established route so I could top rope the sh#t out of the first 4 pitches of another semi impossible for me route so I could see what is it all about and what aspects of my climbing I have to work on to redpoint it in the very distant future. I understand that there are many people who can pass judgement and call me lame for either of those things, but they can suck it, because it is my choice what to do and when to do it. Maybe I can pre place gear on that hard climb and pink point one of the easier pitches? I dunno, maybe if I feel adventurous?! :)))
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 19, 2015 - 11:39am PT
|
Echoing what's already been said, I think it's so funny that people are so quick to place moral judgement on things as pointless as climbing up rocks.
I don't place a moral judgment on it, I place a judgment around it relative to the potential for the grid-bolting of all the rock within a two-hour radius of every metropolitan area in the country.
And WTF, if the new generation of kids get used to Planet Granite's bolt spacing they'll soon be calling today's [outdoor] sport climbing 'adventure climbing' and demand the retrobolting of existing sport climbs to 'modern' standards.
|
|
Daphne
Trad climber
Northern California
|
|
|
Aug 19, 2015 - 11:41am PT
|
Right on Vitaliy! Plus one for amazement at the useless judging.
|
|
cat t.
climber
california
|
|
|
Aug 19, 2015 - 11:58am PT
|
TL;DR: Nothing matters; do what you love.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 19, 2015 - 12:00pm PT
|
...just so long as what you love is climbing bolted lines.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Aug 19, 2015 - 12:04pm PT
|
I love all types of climbing .....EXCEPT, I'm not a big fan of the artificiality if gyms and I'm not in love with kicking steps in steep snow slopes.
Going to clip some bolts in a few minutes,
|
|
Vitaliy M.
Mountain climber
San Francisco
|
|
|
Aug 19, 2015 - 12:10pm PT
|
It's no more or less useful or good than suffering up mountains.
WHAT?! Of course it is inferior to what I like to do! Isn't it about passing judgement and inflating own ego by proving how inferior the other climbers are? Sport climbing is neither! Gyms are lame! Those who redpoint trad climbs are wankers! Females are not real climbers! Those who can't do 20 pull ups and 80 push ups in a row (cuz that's my limit) are totally inferior! And those who don't listen to numetal are lame too!
|
|
Rhodo-Router
Gym climber
sawatch choss
|
|
|
Aug 19, 2015 - 12:15pm PT
|
< I don’t understand why the choices of others are so bothersome to individuals who are affected in no way by those choices. >
Heh. Gives 'em something to yammer on about.
|
|
Vitaliy M.
Mountain climber
San Francisco
|
|
|
Aug 19, 2015 - 12:36pm PT
|
Only listen to numetal when adding new metal retro bolts to 12X routes from the 80s.
Those who don't retro bolt 5.7 R from the 70s are also lame.
|
|
Bruce Morris
Social climber
Belmont, California
|
|
|
Aug 19, 2015 - 12:39pm PT
|
In today's climbing marketplace, the emphasis on baby-sitting little kids is driving the real climbers out of the gyms and back onto the real stone.
|
|
cat t.
climber
california
|
|
|
Aug 19, 2015 - 01:03pm PT
|
I'm not in love with kicking steps in steep snow slopes My toenail-less toes could not agree with this more. Kicking into steep snow should be banished. Invalid form of activity.
@Warbler, there is no clearer demonstration that one has entirely missed the interesting & insightful part of a discussion than resorting to absurd, outdated sexism.
|
|
Vitaliy M.
Mountain climber
San Francisco
|
|
|
Aug 19, 2015 - 02:18pm PT
|
Vitaliy,
Thanks for having the courage to sort of back me up on the truth in that statement. By the way, I've thorougly enjoyed your TRs and consider you to be the best new representative of the climbing spirit that posts here. As a result, I think your views carry a lot of weight. You pick a nice balance between all out effort and dedication to climbing and a light hearted attitude towards it.
Keep charging wildman!
Thank you for the complement. I agree that the culture has change but don’t think that women are the cause. IMO the likely cause is a combination of things. The amount of established routes, increase in number of well written guidebooks, number of climbers attracted to the sport after starting to climb in the gym and many other reasons. The ego and desire to attract the opposite sex is in human nature and it is likely a part of it too. Reproduction has been almost as important as finding food for ages. I don’t think I know a single guy or a girl that does not want to be liked by others. And if they say so, they are likely lying….
I don’t want to be critical of those I have not met. But some things I heard and saw don’t make me look at those who came before me as some masculine bad asses. Like the incident with Bachar, the idol, supposedly snitching to cops after he got punched by your friend after chopping his bolts? I was not there obviously, and don’t know the full story. Maybe even talking out of my ass. But that does not seem like a masculine thing to do. And photo of these stone masters does not make them look much different than the typical spoiled anorexic group of hipsters from the modern gyms. Yes good at climbing...like those modern hipsters good at campusing.
PS: I know some of the pictured are members here and hope you don’t take it the wrong way. Rest of the world is still gonna hero-worship you! I met Werner once and thought he was one of the nicest random encounters I ever had. Guy offered to help me fix my car in like the first 5 mins of our conversation. The point is not to question his or other people's masculinity (is that how you spell that), but to note that some guys from the 40s could look at that photo and pass a judgement on how feminine those dudes look. Not sure if my point is very clear, but for me it all comes down to - worry about yourself, give less sh#t about judging others based on their looks/sex/skill/interests/whatever, even if it will comfort your ego.
|
|
cat t.
climber
california
|
|
|
Aug 19, 2015 - 02:33pm PT
|
I don't think you can read, man...
|
|
Vitaliy M.
Mountain climber
San Francisco
|
|
|
Aug 19, 2015 - 03:28pm PT
|
You guys would get along fine in real life. I think. :) Sexism does work both ways. And both sexes have egos. Got to judge each person individually. And remember, no matter what, they are inferior to us! (jk)
Attending some of the supertopo gatherings made me realize how similar and friendly majority of people out there are. Even those who are shy and don’t talk much at first. People from different generations, who take climbing very serious or not at all, different skill levels and motivations. Can gather and have a great time. Balch fest, Shuteye, Danland and one that I liked the most was the Donini’s Indian Creek gathering. Hope there is another one of those I can attend soon!
|
|
cat t.
climber
california
|
|
|
Aug 19, 2015 - 04:49pm PT
|
A few things:
(1) What I love about ST is that everyone's so damn feisty. Warbler, I'm sure we'd get along in real life. Though not if you called me "kitten," good god.
(2) Of course there are more men climbing than women. I was being entirely facetious when I quoted V's comment about women being more adventurous--both sexes are capable of being badass; both sexes are capable too of being total limp dicks. Putting the "women are more adventurous" comment in context, though: it was from a conversation about people's willingness to put aside ego and push themselves and try things where they might fail. The observation V made was that the women he's climbed with have tended to be, on average, much more okay with messing up or being uncertain and then continuing to try hard without taking a serious hit to the ego. I have no idea if this is generalizable, sample size is too small. There's also a lot of selection bias, since anyone in the sample had to put up with Vitaliy ;)
(3) Equating "female" with "weak" or "masculine" with "superior" creates a discussion-environment where reason's left at the door. It's impossible to have any sort of rational discussion when that's an automatic assumption.
|
|
Clint Cummins
Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
|
|
|
Aug 19, 2015 - 05:33pm PT
|
Right.
Climbing is supposed to be "human vs. nature". (nature might be loosely defined as gravity)
Not "man vs. woman", or "man vs. man".
Although sometimes the crag or gym gets crowded and people are in the way, in theory there is lots of space to get outside and climb whatever way you want.
Especially if you like doing new routes.
Personally, I don't care about what people are doing in gyms,
or at sport crags, on first ascents or not, etc., as long as I can get out and climb the way I want to.
If I was trying to make a living as a climber or as a climbing photographer, then trends of climbing styles could definitely affect me.
So I'm "keeping my day job". :-)
|
|
SteveW
Trad climber
The state of confusion
|
|
|
Aug 19, 2015 - 06:52pm PT
|
I think what Jim says is about right.
Warbler--say those things to Lynn Hill, Sybille Hechtel, Bev Johnson (rip),
and a few other really, really high caliber women climbers. . .
just ain't so. . .
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
No. Tahoe
|
|
|
Aug 19, 2015 - 07:50pm PT
|
There plenty of room for everyone.
|
|
crunch
Social climber
CO
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2015 - 08:42am PT
|
The overwhelming presence of women climbers has tamed climbing. You can't appreciate what I'm saying if you haven't seen fifty years of climbing's evolution, and haven't dirtbagged it in the late sixties and early seventies. I'm not even saying it's a bad thing. It's kinda nice having most climbers watching each other's asses in the gym or within a few minutes of the road.
I've seen 40 years of climbing's evolution, I dirtbagged plenty in the late 70s and 80s.
You're confusing cause and effect. One major thing that has worked to "tame" climbing is bolts. As bolts increase in number (and diameter!) climbing shifts from a high-stakes sport akin to motorcycle racing or bull-fighting to a mere athletic pursuit like, say, pole vaulting or mountain biking.
Bachar, for one, could see this coming, hated it and while trying to stop or slow this things even came to blows. Here in Colorado there were physical threats, vandalism to vehicles.
Another trend, associated with changes wrought by this first one, was the move to market climbing as a "safe" family-oriented sport that has brought in OFPs*, in droves, to indoor gyms and for guided days outdoors. OFPs want to enjoy an "extreme" sport without having to exercise any common sense, judgement, daring, risk-assessment. They want something like bungee-jumping, a risk-free rush.
Back in the day we all of us despised OFPs. Now we share the crags with them.
Increasing numbers of female climbers is simply a reflection of society's bigger changes since the 1950s; there's more women climbing now just as there are more females in Congress, or doing science, or in the military.
Is the Military "tamed"? Is Congress "tamed"? Is science "tamed"?
A resounding no, to all three. None are changed in any way whatsoever because of the presence of more women.
Likewise, blaming females as cause of climbing's changes is nonsense.
* OFPs. Ordinary F--king People. From Repo Man
|
|
cat t.
climber
california
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2015 - 09:43am PT
|
As far as congress, the military, and science go, mostly they are very tame by my definition, infested with rules There has been a huge effort to get more women involved in science. At least in the biological sciences, it's working.
I unfortunately can speak only anecdotally (and with a few vague memories from seminars on gender/science from which I do not remember original sources). I know nothing of government, but modern science is far from tame--and the fields developing most wildly and most rapidly seem much more gender-inclusive than the stagnating fields. (My information comes from working in neuroscience and observing friends in many other fields; I would prefer to supplement this with some wider data...) I would venture a guess that this development vs. stagnation is not the result of female inclusion, but rather that the fields that are innovative and interdisciplinary are NEW (and, because they are newer, there are fewer entrenched and archaic ideas, and thus a more equal gender ratio). What it ends up resulting in, though, is that the wild and untamed frontier of biological science is full of plenty of women. :)
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!