Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ihateplastic
Trad climber
Lake Oswego, Oregon
|
|
First, I join others in saying "thanks" to Doug for posting. It would have been beyond disappointing if he failed to post. I will not say his current words have changed my opinion at all, but thanks.
I also want to say a personal "thanks" to everyone for stepping up to the plate with opinions on this delicate matter. Sure is a HELL OF A LOT BETTER than reading about politics!
Clint wrote "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.
For me those words, "...the story behind it is plain ugly." say it all. There is so much untapped rock in this world to practice sponsorship retention on, why Half Dome? Why the Valley. Like many here, I have watched traditions and acceptable practices change, move forward, lunge backwards, crash to a halt and change directions yet again. I guess we will have to accept this route as another change in acceptable practices. The question on the horizon is, what happens next?
|
|
moss hog
Trad climber
El Portal, CA
|
|
Just reading through this gives a great perspective on what an emotional issue this can become. It is clear that climbers from myriad backgrounds and generations are still debating what is the appropriate way to put up a route, how much autonomy an individual climber should have in choosing his or her methods and who is morally entitled to hold them accountable. (This aforementioned moral jury has propogated extensively with the advent of the internet.) The emotions evoked by this debate has blown many a passionately opinionated contributor off course, causing them to deviate from the ethical debate at hand and into muddier waters of character analysis. Whether or not the disclaimer of sarcasm is invoked to atone for astringent character incursion, harsh words said (and especially typed) are indelible. I am less sorry to hear of the devolution of climbing than I am to hear of the devolution of climbers.
Burrrrp!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Hatesplastic -- "The question on the horizon is, what happens next?"
Hahaha easy.... you go on living.
I like how Bob D' says the human side is what counts.
The other stuff is just stuff. Blah! I don't make much sense when I read what I write.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
I dunno Werner, I like to think of rock as more than just 'stuff'. And as far as I'm concerned, the 'human' side of things - our wants, needs, and entitlements - are well-represented in the current balance.
|
|
billygoat
climber
3hrs to El Cap Meadow, 1.25hrs Pinns, 42min Castle
|
|
Okay, since this thread is indeed guilty of quite a bit of it, lets get our definitions straight. In my dictionary, "hearsay" is defined as, "Information or a rumor heard from another." I believe I could reference several of my own guilty examples.
However, following the citation of opinion-based information Mtnyoung wrote: "Opinions that appear to me to be irrefutably true."
I believe that counts as referencing secondhand information to advance an argument--also known as using hearsay for the purposes of debate. Now, if Brad wants to get into the lawyeristic nitty-gritty of hearsay, he can start another thread. As for myself, I would appreciate it if we all try to cut down on the bullshiit.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
OK healyje
Tomorrow I will get a rock and study ......
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
sorry, just posting out loud.
|
|
"Sure is a HELL OF A LOT BETTER than reading about politics!"
OH snap, that's my que to post up on climbing principles of ethics and style...
1. I can do whatever I want so long as I don't violate land manager rules. so f' off.
2. It's wrong to do things in bad style, so you shouldn't try. Leave the good lines alone for those better than you.
yep, that about covers it.
;)
|
|
caughtinside
Social climber
Davis, CA
|
|
I read the rock & ice article when it came out...
and I was psyched! Looks rad!
|
|
nick d
Trad climber
nm
|
|
We will come and go as insects.
The rocks will remain.
We are inconsequential, one mighty rockfall could crush us all.
The stone is merely biding its time, of which it has plenty.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
There has been a lot of interesting and informative discussion upthread, and I look forward to hearing what the second ascent party thinks of the climb. I suggest that we think of other perspectives, though. Perhaps we should consider how outsiders might react to the creation of routes such as this, and to the debates within the climbing community about them. Climbers aren't the only people who read SuperTopo.
I'm not for a moment suggesting any concerns about the route, or how it was done. AFAIK, the only relevant NPS rules are no power drills, don't endanger the public, leave the critters alone, and clean up after yourself. All of which I'm sure were fully complied with - indeed, I suspect Doug could teach the NPS a thing or two about Leave no Trace techniques.
It's more how others might perceive us, whether in relation to this route, or others. Half Dome is in a national park. Climbers are by and large allowed to self-regulate in Yosemite, at least with respect to matters of style and technique. We arguably have more freedom than many other user groups. It's only when our behaviours impinge on others or the environment, or are perceived to, that we get regulated there. (Referring to climbing proper - not camping, parking, driving, food storage and day to day living.)
For now, this climb stands as one of a kind - the nearest similar route to its upper half is perhaps Hall of Mirrors. We're having a spirited discussion about whether it was established in a style that is acceptable in Yosemite, how we decide if a style is acceptable, and (indirectly) whether other such routes should be accepted. That's good - not too much name calling is going on. Some things will have to wait for the perspectives from a second ascent, of course.
But it may be useful to think about how land managers, the public, and conservationists might look at and react to the climb. There doesn't seem to be any reason that those with authority should do anything, but you never know. Their perspectives and agendas aren't the same as ours.
|
|
James
climber
a porch in Chinese Camp
|
|
Ground up first free ascent of a formation as big as Half Dome. Sounds hard. Maybe even unrealistic to the strong who try to make second free ascents. It's unreasonable to force ethics onto others unless you've been their yourself.
|
|
bhilden
Trad climber
Mountain View, CA
|
|
Would it make a difference in anybody's opinion on this topic if the FA party had just inspected the face on rappel, scoped out the line and then bolted it on lead from the ground up? Just curious.
Bruce
ps - I read Doug Robinson's post and all it said to me is that he felt the end justifies the means. That's not good enough in my book.
|
|
Doug Buchanan
Trad climber
Fairbanks Alaska
|
|
How much these human minds discuss the decisions of other minds, rather than make their own decisions, for the amusement of the observers.
It is an equal endeavor, as much fun, to erase the pro, for just as good a story, to leave the next chaps with the same effort as the first sorts if they wish to do the route in that style, but there is so much rock to climb in the world, in the style one chooses, that a climber might instead prefer to do so, leaving the previous route to the events of history and a burgeoning population of diverse equals.
Make your own decisions, and have fun doing that, but to retain the freedom to do so, always conclude your disapproval of the other climber's decisions that create no real damage, with absolute support for his or her freedom to do so, because the mental midget National Park Service thugs and other government dolts of every government are predicated on any rhetorical excuses to tax you more to pay themselves more to make more of your decisions for you, a fool's quest, and force their self-serving decisions on you, under threat of jail.
Your choice. Climbing being a unique expression of freedom, some of the finest climbers in the world never climbed, but defended your climbing freedom, while some of the most repugnant sorts of the subculture climbed Sagarmatha herself, are still adulated by fools and derived much money supporting the National Park Service's taxation and restrictions on non-politically privileged climbers.
Enjoy the comedy of the humans.
DougBuchanan.com
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
Several have said they were happy to see a non-political thread...
How is this thread not political?
It is full of posts of people with huge egos trying to impose their own beliefs on style to restrict how others can climb. I dare say a significant number of those might even restrict climbing styles to those consistent with their beliefs, if they had the power to do so.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
A Token of My Extreme
|
|
It is a "climbing" politics thread, rather than McCain vs Dems politics...still good news.
"Full" of posts by people with huge egos? Maybe a little, but hardly "full". You think Sean doesn't have a huge ego? Or possibly even Doug?
I don't see anyone except Fattrad suggesting "imposing" either.
Even your handle, TradIsGood, suggests a certain agreement with this whole discussion. Maybe you should change it to AnythingGoes? No offense intended, just pointing out a certain...er...contradiction.
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
You can count them. Plenty of posts about leaving the Half Dome unchanged. Restriction is requlation. Those posts are about reducing liberty, which to my way of thinking is political. I think neo-cons vs dems or whatever is preferable. At least it doesn't matter. :-)
Pretty sure fattrad was tongue in cheek.
 AnyThingGoesIsGood
EDIT: Nothing wrong with having a big ego, until that person starts deciding what is right for everybody else.
|
|
mtnyoung
Trad climber
Twain Harte, California
|
|
Thank you bob, for the edits. I suspected that the one comment was tongue in cheek, but it really looked bad in black and white. Now back to the regularly scheduled discussion?
|
|
mtnyoung
Trad climber
Twain Harte, California
|
|
Billygoat: with respect (and no "lawyerese,") can I say one more thing about hearsay? Your definition is a good one: "hearsay" is defined as, 'Information or a rumor heard from another'."
So here, if Clint had put forth some fact and I repeated it, that would be hearsay. I think the part of his comment that I quoted was all or mostly his opinion, not fact (that is to say, it wasn't "information or rumor"). Fattrad too.
What I did was endorse their opinions. And, for what it was worth, I added my own.
And, BTW, what's wrong with a climber's discussion containing lots of bullshtt? Isn't that a hallowed tradition?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
The filming and extensive photo-documentation is another aspect of this particular climb that suggests there is more to the story than just putting a "modern" route up the South Face of Half Dome.
Perhaps Doug could fill us in on the details of the rigging specifically provided for all that work. The photos in the R&I story are wonderful, but as we see throughout the STForum "history" threads, there were seldom high quality photographs taken of Valley historic FAs on route, and even less taken from modern angles in the aesthetic of Eppy... e.g. shot from above, off route, out from the cliff.
And there is the movie. The one other movie I remember is "Free Climb" produced by Robert Godfrey which documents Erickson's and Higbee's attempt to free the NWFHD which was shot by Frost. In that movie the FFA attempt ends in having to do the last few moves on aid, to which Erickson declares a "magnificent failure." From a modern perspective the multiple attempts to free sections, like the Zig-Zags, with falls and hangs, etc, seem pretty tame, but in 1976 were a matter of debate on style.
Erickson and Higbee are granted FFA status in Reid's guide, but I suspect that they didn't meet their own standard of what constitutes an FFA.
Planning on filming an FA on a notoriously difficult face is a tremendously risky decision. I have in my mind the final fade, panning back from the golden wall at sunset with the voice over saying how the climb just didn't go, stopped by the "natural defense" of blankness. The climber protagonist saying those brave words about the capabilities of future climbers, lah-de-dah-dah...
...instead we'll hear about why pushing through to the top at all cost was the right thing to do.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
A Token of My Extreme
|
|
When and where will this film be available for viewing?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!