Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 01:43am PT
|
Should they groom the dbl black diamond runs on the ski hill so everyone can enjoy them & instructors can take ski school down them? F*#k no, obviously.
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 04:43am PT
|
JEleazarian wrote:
I have a quibble with word usage. Boldness and courage differ. To me, courage has no place in an activity pursued for fun. Soldiers going into battle demonstrate courage. Honnold and Pratt climbed boldly (and jgill bouldered boldly, too!) The only time courage should enter the climbing lexicon is in the context of an accident or rescue.
Extremely well put, John! I tried to write such, but much less elegantly. You are absolutely positively right. It makes me cringe in a climbing or any other sports context (especially pro sports) when the word “courage” is used.
Climbing is an activity that we all do for recreation – albeit there is a strong passion, often beyond words for many of us – and the words “courage” or “bravery” should never be used, even on the supposed sacrosanct first ascent. "Bold" is a better term. "Insane" sometimes applies as well.
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 04:46am PT
|
Ron Anderson wrote:
Not surprised of your attitude hedge. But YES the ROCK dictated to us what would be done and how. BECAUSE that is the way we played our game.
Honestly, Ron, how is it that you are so wrong about so many things so much of the time? It would be an impressive feat if it weren’t so sad. You clearly don't pay attention to what you write either. In one sentence you state that the rock dictates, and then in the very next sentence you admit that you made the choice (“how you played your game.”)
So I’ll just reiterate: the rock did not dictate anything. The rock is just that, rock: inert, impersonal, and not alive. The meaning it has is the meaning we as human beings attach to it. YOU are the one who dictated the rules by which to play on you first ascents.
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 04:48am PT
|
Ron Anderson wrote:
seam......
Pretty funny that you of all people are criticizing someone’s spelling. The Internet you really is a f*#king as#@&%e.
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 04:50am PT
|
I find it interesting that the OP never mentioned run out slab routes, and yet this discussion slowly but surely got narrowed down to run out granite slab climbs in California. If you’ve climbed a bit around the world, or even just the US, you’d know that this is just a small sliver of all the routes out there to climb.
I also find myself wondering why those in here yelling (virtually) that the FA’s route should never be altered by ADDING protection, yet not a peep when a route is altered by REMOVING protection. With modern cams, nuts, etc., there are quite a few routes that don’t need that old rusty piton, or in fact where that old rusty piton has been removed and those of us repeating the route have not thought twice about it. No complaints there yet the protection on the route has been altered.
Oh sure, I know the proverbial answer is "progress," whereas adding a bolt to a route is considered a degradation. I’m in general okay with this, but let’s just all stop hiding behind the bullshit “don’t touch the FA’s work!”
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 04:52am PT
|
Everyone keeps using the term “sac” (sic) or expression “sac (sic) up,” and almost in the same sentence criticizing others for only looking at the situation from their own limited personal perspective (which we all do to a certain degree anyway, how can we do otherwise?). Let’ s just put aside the misogynistic and sexist aspect of the term, which has surprisingly been used over and over again EVEN after a few women jumped into this discussion. You could have just as easily used the expressions “rise up to the challenge” or any other variety of similar phrases. No, Ron, Largo, WBraun, etc., you continue to use a macho shithead testosterone “male-charged” expression in the very same sentences where you claim that ego and showmanship never had anything to do with your first ascents.
With the exception of the online personality called “Ron Anderson,” I have nothing against any of you, you seem like good enough people, but nobody’s perfect and we all have our faults, and when you write sh#t like that it just shows to what extent you are out of touch anachronisms so to speak (or rather, write).
Anyway, to make a long story short, you just assume every climber – and that includes all those women climbers out there – step off the ground to “sack it up” and prove themselves, and totally ignore the enjoyment aspect, the heading off into the mountains and great outdoors aspect, that is the major motivator in climbing (as well as mountaineering in my case).
Of course challenging and pushing beyond my limits is also a motivator depending on the day and how I’m feeling, I’d be dishonest if I wrote otherwise, but I don’t feel the need to “sack it up” (and when I’m 15 or 20 feet run out from the last bolt, my sack is usually practically pulled back up into my intestines and not swinging “proudly” between my knees) every time I go out climbing or even when putting up the very limited number of FA’s that I have put up.
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 10:59am PT
|
have no respect for their elders accomplishments
Per his usual MO, Sumner creates a strawman lie. This is simply false.
First, half the style of routes we're talking about were not an "accomplishment" in any form. A guy running it out 5 numbers below his ability creating death routes when he could have adequately protected the route for those who follow is not "accomplishing" anything other than stroking his fragile little ego.
Second, the ones that are actually proud accomplishments are highly respected by the community. A british kid, George, went up on the BY with Mason about 4 or 5 years ago and attempted to up the style by doing the thing without even clipping the protection bolts, just using removable pro, tying off knobs and sh#t. He almost pulled it off too, ended up clipping the last bolt on the last hard pitch. People revere many of them, the Edge in Idyllwild is another good example.
Third, someone can respect the accomplishments without needing to repeat them. In fact repeating many of them is impossible today. I respect Columbus sailing into the unknown. Me sailing off into the blue knowing the world is not flat, in no way changes what Columbus did. The accomplishment was an event, not what is left behind.
|
|
surfstar
climber
Santa Barbara, CA
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 11:18am PT
|
"Placate the masses!"
Take your male ego, and your adolescent male vanity/insecurity out of it, and what's left of your proud, run-out, "go climb something else" tradition?
Not much.
Except you selfishly denying the use and appreciation of a natural resource you have no right to claim ownership of.
No. Doesn't apply to me as I have never done an FA.
Sounds like your ego is the one that is the crux of this thread. If we don't bring down every climb to your level, you don't wanna play and that's not fair to you.
Oh well.
Like we've said many times, climb something else. Get better and eventually get on them or never do. I don't see myself climbing 5.13 ever, but I don't advocate chipping them so that I can. Get over your own insecurities dude.
and... good troll. Way to stick with it.
|
|
patrick compton
Trad climber
van
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 11:43am PT
|
You would know Ron.
Got it now; sac: good. bewbs: bad.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 12:50pm PT
|
Everyone keeps using the term “sac” (sic) or expression “sac (sic) up,” and almost in the same sentence criticizing others for only looking at the situation from their own limited personal perspective (which we all do to a certain degree anyway, how can we do otherwise?). Let’ s just put aside the misogynistic and sexist aspect of the term, which has surprisingly been used over and over again EVEN after a few women jumped into this discussion. You could have just as easily used the expressions “rise up to the challenge” or any other variety of similar phrases. No, Ron, Largo, WBraun, etc., you continue to use a macho shithead testosterone “male-charged” expression in the very same sentences where you claim that ego and showmanship never had anything to do with your first ascents.
--
Did it ever occur to you we were doing this intentionally? Just to stir the pot? Like I don't appreciate what effect my words have on a particular demographic? Or that I didn't climb predominately with Lynn Hill (certainly a girl, last time I checked), who "sacked" it up with the best of us, often better?
It was very simple. Back then, bolts were considered a form of cheating, so we did our best to avoid them and that was defined as skill. It required a big commitment and risk management and none of us were so good that it didn't seem sketchy at the time. Now bolts are not off limits and safety
instead of courage (go ahead and redefine the word, dipshit) and securityh instead of adventure have trumped the old sac ethic. Fine. Go climb your sport routes. But that's not good enough. You want it both ways, can't, and in turn blame the graybeards for limiting your freedom. Now if you don't think we're not going to pull your chain for claiming such selfishness is your natural right (and of course invert this to say when you are deprived from your freedom, it is US who are selfish), some of will naturally have some fun with this kind of fey, new wave narcissism, masquerading as a kind of enlightened, PC ethos. Bollocks. You want something for nothing. We're talking about a few dozen routes here and there.
With the exception of the online personality called “Ron Anderson,” I have nothing against any of you, you seem like good enough people, but nobody’s perfect and we all have our faults, and when you write sh#t like that it just shows to what extent you are out of touch anachronisms so to speak (or rather, write).
This assumes that we who are out of touch have no idea that the new wave you claim to represent lack the skill and resources to tackle the few old "museum routes" out there which challenge your comfort zone. Well, for starters, those routes still get done by the folks who earn them, and second, we perfectly understand that you don't consider mental mastery a skill work risking anything for. You want to do your "adventures" within you comfort Zone. But sweet pea, an adventure is by definition something in which the end is unknown.
Anyway, to make a long story short, you just assume every climber – and that includes all those women climbers out there – step off the ground to “sack it up” and prove themselves, and totally ignore the enjoyment aspect, the heading off into the mountains and great outdoors aspect, that is the major motivator in climbing (as well as mountaineering in my case).
-
This assumes that getting out there on the run out was not enjoyable. In fact some of my greatest memories were pushing past my fears and feeling that blisfull rush of getting past another run out. These are moments worth having, for all generations to come. That is why some of us are pushing to preserve the precious few museum climbs out there. If and when people get up on them, they encounter life altering experiences. Nixing these so people can have "fun," and climb with impunity, which out of the other side of their mouths bad mouth us for being rash, out of touch, macho posers, is to be totally out of touch with the entire history of adventure.
Face it: There is a difference between the voyages of Vasco de Gama and taking a cruise ship to Maui. Some of the folk out there want the thrill and adventure of traveling with Vasco, but the security, cush lodgings, shuffleboard risk factor, and rich viands of the cruise ship, insisting that Vasco didn't know what the hell he was doing, that he was a cheat and a fraud and a macho man with no sense of "fun."
If that's entirely true for you, if you honestly feel that way, then never mind Vasco. Stick with the cruise (sport routes) and the shuffleboard. No one here is saying you are not perfectly justified in doing so. And of course, no one is making you climb Vasco's few "museum routes." We'e only saying that IF you want to climb a Vasco climb, you have to "do like Vasco." If you ridicule Vasco for doing what he did, that is hardly Vasco's problem. Just don't presume to "fix" the situation with your own solution.
JL
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 12:57pm PT
|
Some want to destroy the museum and rewrite history into their own draconian consciousness ......
|
|
patrick compton
Trad climber
van
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 01:30pm PT
|
Does this Lycra make my Sac look big?
|
|
DavidRoberts
climber
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 01:38pm PT
|
I don't believe in the "law of the FA." Just because you were there first, you do not own the route. When a 5.13 climber states that the 5.9 line that he just soled is now off limits to all but other free soloist, and that anyone who questions that doesn't have "sac," I only hear ego, hubris and juvenile territoriality. Even if the climb was at the edge of the FA's ability, they don't gain ownership and control of the route for eternity.
It is interesting to note that as the difficulty of FAs gets closer to ability of the top climbers of the day, the number of bolts gets higher. If the minimal impact ethic is so strong, why place any bolts at all? By the same logic many here are using, it would seem that if you can't do the line as you find it (no bolts), then you should just go home or climb somewhere else. Hey, there are tons of easier routes out there where you don't have to place any bolts. Either sac up and solo, of go home! IMHO, once you add a single bolt, you destroy your ethical high-ground and all your arguments about minimal impact, "just doing the route" and "sac" become subjective and extremely diluted.
That being said, I have immense respect and admiration for the accomplishments of those that are bolder and stronger than me. I just don't recognize the FAs unalienable right to control usage of a public resource (the rock) and their inalienable authority to dictate the risks others must take. That does not mean I think we should retro-bolt every route. However, I do think that there is a middle ground. The FA was a unique experience that can never be repeated or taken away. However, the potential journey that allows us to manage risk and explore fear is always there, regardless of bolts being added. If you want to set sail on that journey, great. just don't clip the bolts or place the pro. To each, their own.
How is this situation managed? I am not sure. I in no way expect the FA to do a route in a manner that makes others comfortable. The FA, and any climbing experience, is deeply personal and I have no desire to control that. Likewise, the FA has no right to tell me how to climb or where I should / should not place bolts. In the end it is about respect and dialogue. Dogmatism, entitlement and raging ego are not solutions.
David Roberts
Alpine, CA
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 02:08pm PT
|
Capintheazz, you seem to have an unhealthy fetish of following me around the forum in critical review- give it up son, find another target more worthy. As far as strawman lies, you couldn't be further from the truth. In the 1970's I did a number of routes that might be considered bold if measured by lesser standards than those exhibited in the major climbing centers. Climbing with partners like Bill Todd, Jay Smith, Greg Dexter, Steve Miller we established routes like Tapestry 5.10x (the first true face climb at Sugarloaf independent of crack systems), Bolee Gold 5.10r, Pigs on the Wing 5.10x, Pearl Pillar 5.10x, Beer Can Alley 5.10r/x, among others. At the time most of us were 5.10 or occaisional 5.11 climbers, so it wasn't well below are abilities, it was near our limits. We did these routes in this style because it was the tradition of the time to alter the rock as little as possible and conform to the consensus view of the time to climb as adventurously as possible while relying on one's self control and wit to perform them within an element of safety. Most of these routes have been heavily retrobolted, some of them completely erased from the current guidebooks. You missed the point of my last post- im not bemoaning the facts, just looking at them in a humorous light.
|
|
ruppell
climber
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 02:12pm PT
|
|
|
DavidRoberts
climber
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 02:12pm PT
|
Hi Bruce. No, not the same.
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 02:21pm PT
|
I feel like this conversation is worthless without specific examples. As it is, it's just arguing and posturing over endless hypotheticals and abstractions. So here's one for you.
In 1984 John Bachar free soloed a line up the black streak to the right of Magical Mystery Tour. He called it Solitary Confinement 5.9X. According to Don Reid, it's one of the best 5.9's on the dome, warranting 3 stars. The only other 3-star 5.9 on Fairview is the Regular Route. In fact, it is one of only 9 3-star 5.9's in all of the Meadows in his guidebook, which includes Crescent Arch and Crying Time Again, which have been upgraded to 5.10 in the Supertopo guide. Keep in mind that he had established the Bachar/Yerian three years earlier.
So, here's the situation. You have one of the best climbers in the world, at the peak of his ability, who solos a route far below his level, which happens to be one of the best lines at that grade, on the biggest dome in the Meadows. Now anyone who wants to enjoy that line is expected to follow suit and risk their life in order to do so.
Does this make sense?
+1
Perfect example of a limited resource and a land-rush ownership mentality. I don't have a good answer though for how to balance things... I don't want to see a free-for-all cause all of the old scary/adventure routes to disappear.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 02:28pm PT
|
Please remember that analogies of people soloing routes and claiming ownership of the style one must use ever after is pushing a metaphor to absurd place. It was really very simple. You tried to limit the bolts. Such run out routes are VERY few and far between. It was always, up to the day these run out routes were established, the tradition in climbing that the FA dictated the style in which others were to do the climb, that is when bolts were added for protection. This is a tradition that some of the newer generation are not willing to brook, and they have made it perfectly clear that they will not be told or informed by any tradition, no matter how old or hallowed. They themselves and entirely of their own authority will decide that they need not be bound by any tradition, that the climbers of old never "owned" the route but they, apparently do, and will do as they damn well please. Fair enough. No body is in a position to stop them.
But if you actually believe that by adding bolt you will have removed everything but danger, you understand nothing about adventure at all.
That's all I've been saying all along. It's just that in an age when climbers are so demonstratively better than we were 40 years ago, it seems nutty that people would want less challenge than more, and write this off as a kind of enlightened philosophy.
I think if these people just came out and said, "I am afraid of these routes," we might have a meaningful conversation. But the first shot across the bow was to disrespect the original folks, to call them frauds and posers and cheats, and macho fakers and lunitics exercising ownership over which they have no say except by traditions no longer consider valid. What gets lost here in this blamfest is that they look up at those owl Museum climbs and say, "I am afraid of this." But this in NEVER discussed by the detractors here, who instead counterattack with aguments about sanity and macho this and so forth never coming clean with their emotional truth. So for this reason the arguments sound narcissistic and dishonest since the fear, which is the pivotal issue here, goes unmentioned.
JL
|
|
GoMZ
Trad climber
Eastern Sierra
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 02:28pm PT
|
I'm probably in the younger demographic for this forum at 39, certainly not the youngest, nor the boldest, or best climber. Average at best really. My mentor was an old east side climber. I was taught to respect the rock as much as possible. This is a tough subject and I can see a good argument for both sides of the coin.
Take a route like Dike route or Fantasia for example. These routes are test pieces for the grade. Climbs like these IMO should take some time to work up to. Adding fixed pro to these routes would be a blasphemy and would promptly and rightly be chopped. The problem is some people don't appreciate the mental toughness required to climb routes like these. This is a big part of climbing to many of us. I think some people want it handed to them. IMO climbing is not about safety, it is about calculated risk. All climbers getting on the sharp end need to be able to assess the risk. If you can't do this even on a sport route with bolts every 6 feet you should reconsider WTF you are doing.
I don't see why we can't have it both ways. There is plenty of room foe both styles and there are many climbers that enjoy both well protected routes and runout puckerfests. Do I always want to push my mental limit while climbing? No. Some (most) days I want to plug gear into cracks and protect a route the way I want to. Some days I want a bolt every 6 feet. Some days I want to challenge myself on a route that is more spicy.
There are plenty of new routes going up in TM that are well protected, pretty classic and super fun. I think this is a really good thing for the most part.
Edit to add:
Mr Long, I am afraid of these routes. I can see 3 things to do about it.
1. Get better and lead them
2. Find someone willing to lead them for me
3. Shrug it off as one of the many routes that weren't meant to be climbed by me in this lifetime
|
|
DavidRoberts
climber
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 02:44pm PT
|
Please remember that analogies of people soloing routes and claiming ownership of the style one must use ever after is pushing a metaphor to absurd place.
No, it is not. This is an actual example that was shown earlier in this thread.
I am afraid of some routes. I readily admit that sometimes I am owned and limited by my fear and will not do some climbs because I don't want to risk death or injury. I also understand the value of the head game. Personally, I love the adventure and the risk... up to a point. That "point" is different for all of us. I am just saying that the FA doesn't get to decide that experience for all of us. I am also saying that the journey of emotional exploration that occurs on a climb is a personal thing. I do not buy that adding bolts to potentially popular lines eliminates the potential for that to occur. How you climb and experience a climb is your business. Adventure can be found wherever you choose to create it.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!