Look Out! Danger!... Or... "Look Out! Weak Sauce."

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 220 - 239 of total 675 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

raymond phule

climber

Sep 21, 2012 - 12:13pm PT

I don't believe that people have been soft on Beyer. I have at least read a lot of negative things about him and his routes here on supertopo.

It was a long time since I read what Jensen wrote about Intifada but I believe that he was very negative about both the route and Beyer.

BlackSpider

Ice climber

Sep 21, 2012 - 12:19pm PT

And after all, and perhaps the most important, who asures all you that Jensen did not drilled those pretty holes where the angles are placed in his web page video of the anchors belay? He was alone up there, wasn't he? He says he'll release a video, will see if the holes where there yet or he drilled'em. At bottom, he retrobolted the route without remorse, so any remorse for drilling a nail hole or a pair?

So wait a minute, a guy who has been completely forthcoming about retro-drilling a route with rivets, even going so far as to name his choice of rivet, is going to lie about drilling an angle? Do you even think this stuff through before you post it? If he was going to lie, why not just drill bolts and then claim the FA team placed them? Try using Occam's razor once in a while.

Also, many of the drilled placements visible in Jensen's pics are the same as those in the pics that Jeremy posted, which are from Palut's own video.

Rivet hanger

Trad climber

Barcelona

Sep 21, 2012 - 12:25pm PT

Really, do you see an three angle on Jeremy's posted photos?
Towers are a quiet place, but not so much because a person with a binocles would have seen the bolts drilled by Pelut....
I'm just saying that you blindly relay on Jensen's photos and laught at Pelut & Ester without any criteria...
Indeed, I'm always trying to say and demostarte the same... If they were Americans...

Rivet hanger

Trad climber

Barcelona

Sep 21, 2012 - 12:27pm PT

You are probably right, but then you should admit that Jensen used the same ugly tactics on the SA of Intifada and even in WOS (bat hook is what I understand it is?) and he has never been critisized as hard as Pelut and in addition he has recieved ALL the credibility in this thread.
That's an option, of course, but let me think it's not the fairest one!
And Thanks to you and Paul, I didn't know you where the authors of this SA. By the way, is Paul now working in "Sons of Anarchy"? (It's just a joke, no intention of attack him! But he looks like the staring with a helmet and sun glasses!)

j-tree

Big Wall climber

Classroom to crag to summer camp

Sep 21, 2012 - 01:29pm PT

...then you should admit that Jensen... has never been critisized as hard as Pelut.

lol

canyoncat

Social climber

SoCal

Sep 21, 2012 - 01:56pm PT

Just for the record and in spite of RH's efforts to confuse the issue, this thread is about ONE route, not WOS, not Intifada, or other climbers. This is not Americans vs Foreigners. This is not "let's talk about other routes and other climbers", and if they screwed up maybe this screwup isn't so bad either.

It is about Look Out, Danger and the style in which the FA was done.

If RH could confine his comments to whether he feels the FA used an appropriate number of drilled holes to create the route or not, I think much of the butt-hurt could be avoided.

Big Mike

Trad climber

Sep 21, 2012 - 02:08pm PT

Pere Larocalla, (RH)

I would like to apologize for my use of the word h*mo. It was inappropriate and not how I would like to be treated.

Beyer has recieved more than his share of flack for his heavy handed tactics on Intifada and Richard and Mark basically proved that he brought the route down to his level.

I realized that, on the first pitch at least, Beyer had bypassed natural hook placements, and had used the drill instead to trench heads which weren't needed. We rated the pitch A4. Had he hooked everything that was available, instead of trenching, Beyer would have had an A5 ground-fall pitch. Instead, Beyer appeared to have "brought the pitch down to his level".

You should read their trip report. http://www.jensenconsultations.com/climbing/intifada/intifada.html

Why did you not include this part of Crusher's statement from Mountain Project?

Anyway, three points/slanderous comments:

1. If a route in the Fishers employs an indeterminate number of drilled holes/slots, and the first ascentionist doesn't telll anyone, it seems quite understandable to me that folks, once they realize what was done, will drill deeper holes_and, what is far worse, if they cannot find a hole, they'll drill a new one because they will rationalize that the old hole has eroded out altogether.

2. What do other folks think of this trenching technique?"The second ascent drilled some of the holes deeper to place baby angles." If a hole was drilled by the first ascentionist, is it bad to drill it deeper? If so, why?

3. Anyone who thinks that Jim Beyer, on those A4/5 leads, was taking out his 25-foot Stanly tape and methodically limiting himself to no more than 1/4" deep probably still believes that Clinton resolutely refused to inhale.

What Steve is saying is that this style of climbing is not sustainable and damages the rock for future generations. It also causes future ascensionists to have to drill thier own placements if the FA teams's placements are eroded or they can't find them.

What I don't think you quite understand is that 1 Hole = 1 Bolt. It doesn't matter what you put in that hole, you are still giving up and destroying the rock so that you can advance your climb. Hence that logic, you might as well put a bolt in the hole and leave the rock more or less intact for future generations to try and improve on your style. With that logic in mind, Pelut basically made a bolt ladder up the side of the Titan, but then didn't even have the courtesy to fill it with metal, so the second ascent could follow his line.

If you have to drill holes all the way up what's the point??? It's like Gdavis says you might as well go climb the side of a building! A6 is a false rating. It doesn't exist. The fact that Pelut didn't do enough research to discover that and is now following Beyers horrible example and desecrating the rock is a real shame.

If you want to establish a route like this, I would highly suggest not reporting to anyone at all and certainly not claiming that it was the hardest route in the world when almost any climber with little aid experience and enough time could easily accomplish the same task.

I hope Pelut sees the errors of his ways and discovers the challenges that real climbing have to offer!

this just in

climber

north fork

Sep 21, 2012 - 02:36pm PT

Hey Rivet Fuk Fernando Alonso.

Captain...or Skully

climber

Sep 21, 2012 - 05:27pm PT

"Beyer"....sheesh. That guy's OUT THERE.

madboIter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Topic Author's Reply - Sep 21, 2012 - 05:53pm PT

Long Post Warning....

Rivet Hanger, I believe that you are making a legitimate form of argument when you essentially accuse us of having a double standard. I take you to be saying something like: "Look, you guys, all these other well-known climbers do the very same things you are bashing on Pelut for." So, when we say that this thread is not about other climbs, in your mind we're basically refusing to acknowledge that double standard.

So, let me try to be very systematic here.

You take a couple of pictures showing Mark on Intifada with placements close together, and you call the placements "bombproof cams." So, how can I bash on Pelut for close placements, when me and Mark have done the "same thing?"

Three responses....

One: the placements were not bombproof cams. In fact, one of them popped shortly before those pictures were taken. The cams are "close together" because that crack is much more flared than the pics indicate (and in two dimensions). As Mark would try to lean farther to the left, the cam he was on would rotate slightly, causing it to pop out. So, Mark had to very carefully stay directly beneath each placement in order to keep making progress. That limited his reach (and moving sideways necessitates shorter reaches anyway).

Two: comparing delicate, flared, sideways cam placements to straight-up, drilled placements on open rock is ludicrous. When you're drilling vertically, you have complete control over your placement-distance. You simply reach UP as far as you can (or are willing to) to drill the next placement. NOTHING about the rock itself or the features of it limits your placement-distance. And you OBVIOUSLY reach as far as you can to reduce the amount of drilling you have to do!

Three: you can find this or that picture of somebody doing "something like" what we're bashing on Pelut for, such as the short reaches between placements. But, as in the case of those pics of Mark on Intifada, that will involve very short sections of natural climbing, and with good reason (as I've explained above). What I decry about Pelut's placement-distance on "Look Out" is that the WHOLE "route" is drilled up with VERY short reaches! And, because it's NOTHING but drilling, he COULD have extended the placements much farther apart. It's like he just didn't care HOW MANY holes he was drilling, and he drilled so many to "sew it up" to reduce even the minimal risk.

So, there is no double standard here. Drilling is VERY different from natural climbing, because you are not even TRYING to conform to what the rock presents. You are just doing TO the rock whatever you feel like doing. So, when Pelut drills an ENTIRE route as a hole-ladder, one thing we can legitimately "bash on" about it is that he COULD have drilled 1/3 as many holes as he did... if he would only have been willing to get higher in his aiders. Nothing about your waving around pics of Mark TOUCHES any of these points.

Drilling a hole-ladder is not "climbing" anyway, because CLIMBING is about taking whatever risks are necessary to conform to what the ROCK PRESENTS to you! If you are not even trying to conform to what the rock presents, then you are NOT climbing! So, on the FA of "Look Out," Pelut was NOT even CLIMBING. And there is no double standard in saying that!

You can then respond that on this or that climb, others have also drilled. And you'll point out Intifada as an example, where Beyer employed very heavy-handed tactics to do the FA. (And, by the way, Steve, Mark and I did not drill any holes deeper to use angles in them. The angle holes are Beyers, as my pics show.)

I've very publicly bashed on Beyer for his tactics on Intifada, as have many others on this very thread. NOBODY here is giving Beyer a "pass" just because he's American. And there's no double standard. We ALL hate heavy-handed tactics, and we bash on them when we discover them. And, just as I reported what I found on the SA of "Look Out," I reported what we found on the SA of Intifada. NO double standard in the "bashing" that's gone on.

But, you go on to claim that I myself employ a double standard. How dare I drill on El Cap and then bash on Pelut for drilling on "Look Out?" So your argument goes.

Okay, regarding my own FAs, your trying to compare granite routes to sandstone routes is like comparing apples and giraffes! Both have DNA, and that's about as far as that comparison can go. There are two main issues here....

First, sustainability matters! On a proper FA you should be keeping subsequent ascents foremost in mind! You should constantly be thinking, "Is what I'm doing here going to screw the next ascent team? Are they going to have to do additional drilling to get past this section? Am I leaving something here that can be followed by a competent part with standard gear without a ton of additional drilling?"

Second, RISK matters! Climbing is ABOUT taking the risks the ROCK demands that you take. And REAL CLIMBING is about embracing that RISK in order to ascend. RISK is what makes climbing something different from hiking and gymnastics.

So, with those two principles in mind, let's again revisit your claims about my inconsistency to bash on Pelut after I've done something like Winds of Change.

First, it should be noted that "enhancing" micro-hook placements is NOT universally accepted. There are MANY (as I would call them) "purists" (perhaps even on this very thread) that would "bash" on me for enhancing hooks on Winds of Change. Many climbers consider even "enhancing" to be nothing but "drilling," and they would state that I just drilled a "bolt ladder" up Winds of Change.

However, there is a very legitimate reason that reflects NO double standard, why I have gotten very, very little "bashing" for "enhancing" on Winds of Change. And that reason really explicates the HUGE difference between such tactics and what Pelut did on "Look Out." So, let's compare them, shall we?

Like Wings of Steel, Winds of Change ascends a less-than-vertical slab covered with micro-flakes. As Mark and I demonstrated (and has now been confirmed by a very credible SA), such features can be used entirely without enhancement, resulting in a sustainable and risky route that conforms in decent style with what the ROCK presents.

However, exactly how you "play" that risk can go two ways. You can do NO enhancing of the tiny flakes, in which case you can never "run it out" very, very far; the flakes that are usable entirely without enhancement are not continuous, so full-on holes must be drilled to put the sequences of flakes together. The resulting climb is still ABOUT what the rock presents. The drilling simply links features, and the climb is ABOUT the hooking!

Alternatively, you could go the direction with the hooking I did on Winds of Change. On that route, my goal was to "run it out" FAR more than we could on Wings of Steel, drilling far fewer full-on holes into the rock in order to link the sequences of flakes. That meant "enhancing" the flakes in a way we had not done before. So, very tiny "enhancements" meant fewer bolts/rivets.

These "enhancements" are not (to my mind, and to the minds of many) full-on "holes" because they BARELY "penetrate" the surface of the rock. They simply make an existing flake "good enough" to work to keep the run-out going. You are still using EXISTING features of the ROCK, and the goal is STILL to CONFORM to what the rock presents and embrace the risk that such conformity entails.

The point is that there two basic approaches to drilling on an FA. 1) Drill in such a way as to do as little rock damage as possible, while keeping the risks of conformity to the features of the rock as high as possible; 2) Drill to reduce risk by reducing usage of the actual features, thereby increasing net rock damage in order to make the climb easier for you.

Winds of Change followed the first principle. "Look Out" followed the second principle.

As has been amply demonstrated at this point, my FAs are sustainable and repeatable without additional drilling. My FAs conform to what the rock presents. They are ABOUT the features of the rock, and they embrace the risks entailed by what the rock presents. I don't "drill a route down to my level," and I'm quite willing to back off of an FA that I think is actually drill-reliant.

But we have to be even MORE CAREFUL on sandstone!

On sandstone, you have to be even MUCH more careful about the principle of sustainability!!! You have to be even MORE sensitive to the long-term effect your actions are going to have. You have to pay even closer attention to how what you leave behind CAN be used by subsequent ascent parties.

What Pelut did on "Look Out" was ABOUT the drilling! There is NO LINE there to follow at all. And he drilled for virtually EVERY placement. This was not drilling to "link together" existing features! And his drilling wasn't even arguably-legitimate "enhancements" of existing features (many, including climbing's greatest, have "enhanced" existing features).

No, something like 80% of Pelut's drilled placements have NO NATURAL FEATURE to "attach to" in ANY sense! The entire "route" is just manufactured! My retro-fitting his useless holes with rivets/bolts just ACKNOWLEDGES the FACT of what that whole "route" really is. It is a hole-ladder, not "climbing," and NOT a "route."

And Pelut took no real risk on "Look Out," even though he THOUGHT he did! One thing we hate about his placement-distance is that we KNOW what it means: It means that he "sewed it up" to REDUCE the fall danger. You even admit this when you talk about how close together his pecker placements are in the video clip! You KNOW, as do we, that "sewing it up" reduces risk!

It's one thing to "sew it up" if you are a beginner and using CLEAN aid tactics, so that your "sewing it up" doesn't damage the rock! But it's a totally different thing to "sew it up" with HOLES, and then think to yourself and spray to the whole world that you are taking great risks, and even NAME your route "Look Out! DANGER!!!"

That's why I renamed the route: "Look Out! Weak Sauce!" Danger is the furthest thing from that "route!"

Since you are determined to draw contrasts between my FAs and Pelut's, and because I do think it's legitimate for you/Pelut to accuse me of having a double standard as I judged "Look Out," I'm answering you forthrightly on that very point.

For you to claim that my drilling on Winds of Change and Pelut's drilling on "Look Out" are the same thing is a completely unsustainable argument. It's a legitimate FORM of argument. It just doesn't work in this case.

I've done Pelut's route now, and I have reported precisely about what I found there. So, let's continue the comparison. Now, let Pelut do one of my routes. Let him do either Wings of Steel or Winds of Change. Both routes can be repeated without additional drilling (IF he is willing to top-step his aiders and be willing to risk LONG falls down a slab). Both routes HAVE been repeated without additional drilling. And both routes demonstrate how I "play the game" when it comes to the use of the drill during attempts to sustain risk in accordance with what the ROCK presents.

Pelut will find in BOTH cases that the routes are ABOUT natural features rather than ABOUT drilling. He will find in BOTH cases that the routes follow a natural line of features and that BOTH routes require you to take significant risks in order to conform yourself to what the ROCK presents. Neither route can reasonably be called a "hole ladder." Perhaps Pelut would learn something from such an ascent. And then neither he nor you would be trying to make comparisons that do not work.

Finally, on the subject of learning something: I have talked about how different the desert rock is to something like El Cap granite. So, let me be VERY CLEAR on this point.

I have a deep humility when it comes to desert rock! I love how Clint Eastwood, with his wonderfully menacing voice, says: "A man's GOT to know his limitations." And that line has rung in my ears through the decades of my climbing "career." Here's what that means to me....

I believe that I am more than "merely competent" when it comes to aid climbing. Particularly on granite, I know some things that few do. And I'm willing to take risks that few are. I know how to "play the game" with the best of them... on GRANITE. But I DO NOT believe that that competency fully extends to desert rock!

I believe that I can REPEAT any EXISTING desert aid climb in as good as or better than the style in which it was put up. But that does NOT mean that I feel competent to PUT UP new desert aid climbs, and I have not yet done a desert FA.

Why???

Because I simply don't have the necessary confidence that I know ALL the tricks to PUT UP a top-quality route by contemporary standards. I mean, I can look at what somebody else did and think, "Oh, yeah, I get it. Yeah, I can place and stand on that." Or even, "Okay, but I can reach further here and do a bit better than the FA." But that confidence is a FAR CRY from having the confidence to think that I'm going to PUT UP a whole new line in top-quality form!!!

I have genuine respect for the current masters of the desert aid game, and it's great that we have some of them on this very thread, such as Paul and Jeremy. You can call this part "dik sucking" if you like, but what it REALLY is is that I acknowledge my BETTERS in many different contexts!

I've seen lines at the Fishers and nearby canyons that I think would be great to do, and I only live 5 1/2 hours away from that area. But I haven't done those routes because I'm not willing to even RISK botching them in the slightest.

Again, I can do a SUBSEQUENT ascent of anything. I'm quite willing to take the risks to conform to what the rock presents, and I'm competent enough at the aid game to FOLLOW what anybody else does on any medium. But I simply don't feel that I'm enough of a master on desert rock to do FAs on it.

Do you GET the point, Rivet hanger? I have great confidence in one arena. But I know my limitations, and I have respect for the sport (what REAL climbing IS) and for those more competent than me in another arena.

By contrast, since you are determined to compare me and Pelut, what Pelut did was this: He came over here to do just some-subsequent-ascent of a route (Intifada) of which he had not even bothered to find out the (long!) history. So, he did that route in IGNORANCE... and then he drilled even on that route! He looked at the tactics he saw on that route and thereby believed that he understood TACTICS in general (wow... WRONG!!!). He then employed even MORE HEAVY-HANDED tactics on the FA of "Look Out," taking little risk and CONFORMING himself to NOTHING. He then spewed to the WORLD about how bad-ass this "route" was, claiming that this was the hardest thing EVER done in HISTORY! And in so doing, he even DISPLAYED his ignorance by basing his (ridiculous) rating on the rating of the FA of Intifada, when that rating didn't stand up to even the first subsequent inspection of the route!

So, let's contrast....

His HUBRIS is amazing, and I don't share it!

His TACTICS are despicable, and I have never employed tactics even remotely comparable!

His "route" is no line at all, and I have never done anything like it!

His willingness to take real risks is pathetic, and I have spend my whole life as a climber taking risks!

His DESIRE to conform to what the rock presents appears to be non-existent, while I have always climbed with THIS being of paramount importance.

And his inability to recognize when he is attempting to operate beyond his competency is EPIC, and I don't share that ignorance either.

So, you should just GIVE UP with the "double-standard" argument. You've tried it. It's fine that you've tried it. But it DOES NOT WORK, my friend. I repeat, you've hitched your cart to the wrong horse. If you have any intellectual honestly, you'll be looking to unhitch.

madboIter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Topic Author's Reply - Sep 21, 2012 - 06:13pm PT

Now, let's get to cases....

As the caption says, this is basically a big bat-head. Notice the double cables. This is a bat-head pounded in on top of another bat-head. And it's so bomber that it couldn't even be jerked out! There's no risk here... this is just a bolt!

Now, let's put that placement in its bigger context....

Now we see that this bashie is just part of a line of holes, with the next hole not even 24-inches above the first bashie.

Notice the STATE of that next hole! That mess isn't usable. The edges are totally blown-out from having the resident bashie jerked out of it. On soft sandstone, jerking out bashies like that almost always just blows the hole out, as we see here. The only way to make a mess like that work would be to re-drill it.

However, fortunately for me, in this particular case, I was able to get past the blown-out hole, because Pelut was sewing it up, as the next pic shows....

Pulling back even a bit more, we can now clearly see three holes in proper relation to each other. Notice that there isn't two-feet between any of them. And two of the three are these big bat-heads that are so bomber they couldn't even be jerked out.

So, I was able to completely bypass the middle hole (useless as it is) because Pelut drilled THREE holes in must closer proximity to each other than I would have drilled two!

And it's not like Pelut wasn't TRYING to extract these "precarious" placements. MOST of them were jerked out, blowing open the holes upon exit. And many just could not be extracted! Here we see one that was starting to have cable damage from attempted extraction. Notice how BURIED this thing is!!! And Pelut thinks that a line of these things, planted ever 18 to 24 inches apart, is A5 and harder.

Here is just one example of a "trenched head" employed by the FA party. This isn't even what we would call a "head." This is just another giant bashie in a "slot" instead of a straight-in hole.

On the FA team's original topo, you'll note some weird symbols that look like "spoons" sticking out of the "cracks" in places. Pelut actually denoted his "bat-heads" with this symbol. So, he thought that there was some significant difference between placements like this one just above, which he did not denote on the topo, compared to the "bat-heads" like I show further above, which he did denote on the topo.

I have yet to understand the thinking in differentiating between "mini bolts," "bat-heads," and the scads and scads of other full-on drilling, such as this last pic shows.

madboIter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Topic Author's Reply - Sep 21, 2012 - 06:26pm PT

Now a bit more, with some contrast....

On the section of the first pitch that I retro-fitted with rivets, notice that my placements are more than six feet apart. This is on the same rock at the same angle.

The lighter-colored rock surrounding the rivets is because "sheets" of friable layers flake off as you start to drill. As this happens, you have to "get down" to actual "rock" before you even end up with a "hole" rather than just a flare. The discoloration fades pretty quickly in that environment.

I did this sort of thing many, many times. This was just a particularly ironic case of it, which warranted a pic. Here you see that a tiny and very short natural seam took a small pecker. And RIGHT NEXT to a deeply-drilled bashie! Of course, my pecker could not be BURIED into the rock by ANY amount of pounding, which is probably why Pelut didn't imagine to use something like this.

If you look closely, you can see that just above the pecker is a blown-out trench. Again, we have a very tiny, short, shallow seam here, which takes a pecker tip. I considered such a pecker very good, being in about half-way. This is a small-sized pecker, but... how much metal do you need in the wall when this is supposed to be a "body weight" climb???

And, in another ironic instance, here is a small pecker tip IN a trench. Again, you can see a very thin, short seam that would take a good pecker... IF it's not over-driven and thereby ruined! And when I removed this pecker, it left just a tiny, thin slot where the blade had been. My placement could be reused many, many times (with like sensitivity to the soft rock) with NO need to use the drill in the slightest!

Next... a bit more discussion of the infamous "hook anchor."

madboIter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Topic Author's Reply - Sep 21, 2012 - 06:42pm PT

A number of things should be noted from this pic.

First, that hook ledge is much more sloped than any pic angle can really show. So, to solve that problem, the FA team simply drilled DEEP holes for the hook tips to sit in. At first the ledge was so covered by mud that I couldn't find where the "hook anchor" had been. I spent over one day on the "clean" doing excavations to discover the story.

After clearing away all the mud, I couldn't see how the hooks had worked. So, I started lightly running my fingers over the ledge in the "right places" considering the "throw" of most claws. I began to feel slight dimples, which I then took the tip of a baby angle to "excavate" a bit more. Immediately the holes began appearing.

The soft mud in the holes contrasted dramatically with the surrounding solid rock, so it was very easy to find the holes once you figured out where to look.

They are deep. I didn't even dig them out all the way, but hook tips are IN the rock rather than ON the rock.

Next, notice the DEEPLY drilled holes fore and aft of the "hook anchor."

Now, Rivet Hanger suggests that I drilled those holes (or drilled them deeper) to discredit Pelut. I have two responses.

First, I didn't need to do ANYTHING to discredit Pelut. Unless somebody is going to try to float the insane idea that I drilled ALL those holes just to discredit Pelut, he discredited himself just fine without any "help" from me. And his own videos show him drilling those holes. So: FAIL!

Second, if I was going to drill those holes deeper, then why didn't I drill them ALL the way, so that the angles would go in to the eye? If my goal was to "discredit Pelut," angles to the eye would be much more dramatic than what I actually found there.

Finally, as a totally separate point, I don't lie. I have been more forthcoming about the details of my ascents than was even in my best interests to be. The idea that I'm lying about this ascent is just poppycock.

Now, in the upper hole, the one just above the "hook anchor," we've all seen in the videos/pics from the FA team that they placed a bashie there. However, I've searched and searched, and challenge anybody to post up a pic showing that lower hole, the one RIGHT below the "hook anchor."

Notice in the vids that the "panning" stops before going "too far" to the right. Notice that EVERY pic is angled such that that lower placement cannot be seen (although we do see a rack of gear hanging from something). No pic or vid sequence I can find shows the WHOLE anchor WITH that placement.

I don't know WHAT the FA team was putting into these holes AS the ascent was actually taking place. I'm not accusing them of anything in particular. ALL I know, and can demonstrate, is that MANY of the "bashie holes" were very, very deep... in many cases deep enough to take bomber angles!

The "hook anchor" was totally unnecessary, being nowhere near a full pitch out. And a really good natural anchor can be had fifty feet higher, where I anchored. So, the "hook anchor" was a short-pitch gimmick TO get the supposed "death-anchor" (that wasn't in any case) TO sustain the ridiculous rating.

Of special note on this point is that the placement of the "hook anchor" threw the entire anchoring sequence off, so that the FA repeatedly anchored in sub-optimal spots just because that's where one of their (short) pitches "ended," which is because everything "sequenced" at that point FROM the position of the "hook anchor."

I just ignored their anchor sequence and set up anchors where they make the most sense. Of course, in many cases, that meant doing full-length pitches.

Well, that's as much as I can MAKE some time to do at this point.

Enjoy!

Captain...or Skully

climber

Sep 22, 2012 - 01:16am PT

Haha.

justthemaid

climber

Jim Henson's Basement

Sep 22, 2012 - 01:30am PT

Just stoopid PERIOD. Doesn't matter what bizarro aid-planet you hail from.

I generally refrain from commenting on any route I haven't laid eyes on in person but the photos are pretty clear. To the depths of my core I just don't "get" this "route". I refuse to call this breed of vertical progression "climbing" .

Drilling a hole-ladder is not "climbing" anyway, because CLIMBING is about taking whatever risks are necessary to conform to what the ROCK PRESENTS to you! If you are not even trying to conform to what the rock presents, then you are NOT climbing!

^^^ Pretty much hits the bashie on the head.

This thread rocks BTW. Carry on.

Reilly

Mountain climber

The Other Monrovia- CA

Sep 22, 2012 - 01:41am PT

This is totally a function of the sponsorship whore syndrome.
People who climb just to climb don't do sh!t like this.

BlackSpider

Ice climber

Sep 22, 2012 - 07:40am PT

WOW! Those pictures are just something else. What a disgraceful mess the FA was. If they were just going to drill straight up and were trying to manufacture a rating, why not just use bathooks the entire way?