Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2009 - 12:45pm PT
|
Was that held by the free or aid masons...?
|
|
Russ Walling
Gym climber
Poofter's Froth, Wyoming
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2009 - 12:46pm PT
|
Pete, if 5.5 beers over the course of an evening gets you that gurgled.... and for a Canadian no less..... you need to do some more practicing.
Wes edit: I will leave it to ya'll to resolve this.
Thank fuk for that.... Thinning of the clueless herd might move this along some.
|
|
drljefe
climber
Old Pueblo, AZ
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2009 - 01:07pm PT
|
You guys could have just waxed their windshields.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
primordial soup
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2009 - 01:18pm PT
|
it seems to me that all of the defenders of WoS don't really grasp some very simple concepts:
the amount or rock removed during the intentional enhancement is not what sets the precedent.
the regular and repeated act of intentional enhancement is what sets the precedent.
the amount of rock removed is subjective, and different criteria, rationale, or circumstances would serve as justification for another party to follow in these footsteps and apply their own subjective interpretation to what level of chipping would be appropriate and acceptable.
(and true- nobody else followed and in a more heavy handed fashion, chipped a route up the slab, but would that have happened if WoS had been accepted or embraced? we can never know.)
is it the point that the route is hard or scary?
is it the point that the route, as climbed, required hooking skills-
is it the point that it may be hard (even very hard) to see the chipped placements* ?
(people continue to shout these justifications from the roof tops, let us all agree to accept them as fact. they are not in question. what IS in question is whether or not they are the measure of the route)
perhaps, to many, the point is that 'the chipping option' was in the quiver from the start:
1)hook
2)can't hook -> chip and hook
3)can't chip and hook -> drill
(it was even noted in this thread that more than once, failed points of "enhancement" were then drilled for a rivet, which some might argue, illuminates the decision tree)
so the rock required some drilling and some alteration to be climbed, and other than drilling and alteration, offered not much else. that's probably pretty much what everyone else saw there as well- primarily drilling and alteration was going to be necessary to ascend the great slab, and in seeing that, they all walked away, leaving the slab unclimbed- ergo, prevailing ethic/ community standard.
richard and mark believe(d) their skill and desire was the difference which allowed this passage, but they also were willing to drill and alter to the degree necessary, where apparently all others at the time were not.
it seems to me that many believed then (and still believe now) that what actually made the difference was this willingness to intentionally alter the rock itself as needed in order to gain passage, whether with a rivet, a bolt, or a chip that one cannot easily see.
"_ did the same thing on __ route!"
"you can't see it, go climb the route for yourself!"
"[we chipped in a way that was way less visually apparent than the way that others were chipping]"
now it's also true that they apparently did whatever they could to minimize their impact, and that the route requires skill and courage. there are sections of continuous difficult hook moves w/ poor protection. however, they achieved this having made the choice to chip regularly and drill as needed, which others felt/feel was the more significant truth.
even now, richard, mark, and/or their advocates revel in the fact that others have been turned away by WoS (to some this fact validates the route more than anything else, while to some it's evidence of something else). in the view of many, they don't seem to consider the glaring possibility that others are turned away (or turned off) at least in part because they are unwilling to use the same quiver, unwilling to use the same tactics, unwilling to accept the same rationalizations ("just a micro-gram", "you can't see it", "a pea gravel of rock in total", etc.)
i have stated many times my belief that it's simply invalid to come back 25 or 30 yrs later to hash out these issues with whomever happens to be around. this is a historical question and the route exists in the context of the time it was done and the community standards at that time, as enforced, however imperfectly or arbitrarily, by the community at that time.
there may be some who agree with you, that's fine.
there will also be some people who do not.
you did the route. what happened on the route happened, and what happened off the route happened.
you can't go back for a re-do.
was the community fair to you?
it really doesn't matter.
it was those same attitudes that protected the rock itself in yosemite (at lest to some degree) from what has happened in so many places around the world. in fact those attitudes were in no small part a reaction to what has happened to the rock in so many places around the world, and those attitudes were borne from a desire to aspire to something better, to progress, to improve, to innovate, to continually raise the bar.
it was those same attitudes that made yosemite the cradle of north american rock climbing. argue if you like with the way you were treated 25+ years ago, the sad yet simple fact is, that's how many loose knit communities self regulate.
unfortunate though some of the behavior directed your way may have been, that poor behavior does not in itself validate your tactics, your approach, or anything else. all these disagreements are just that, disagreements. there are people who disagree with you, such is life.
* IMO "micro-enhancements" is a clever but transparent use of 'spin' in the bigwall vernacular, it's equally accurate to say "a smallish but very intentional chip or alteration to the rock, without which the hook move cannot be done, and there can be no passage, unless we drill a legitimate hole". by the same standards a free climber could carve and sculpt out just enough of a climb to ascend, and in that case, most would agree that even 15-20 or so instances in 9 pitches was a travesty.
|
|
'Pass the Pitons' Pete
Big Wall climber
like Ontario, Canada, eh?
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2009 - 01:22pm PT
|
I can no longer read long posts like those of Matt, Mark and Richard. I haven't read any of Richard's stuff over the last few days.
Russ - the ledge is SUPERB! And yeah, I'm a lightweight. But remember, that was after climbing all day with no food since breakfast, no supper, and I think one power bar during the day. Oh yeah, and not enough water. Sheesh.
|
|
mojede
Trad climber
Butte, America
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2009 - 01:24pm PT
|
As aid climbers are clanking their way to the wall with more metal than used to make a bicycle, are they thinking about the aesthetics in saving the rock?
OR, are they just going out to conquer the dam things by whatever means that THEY deem necessary--because that's why the BROUGHT the metal to the rock in the first place?
Just wondering on the aid climbing egotistical mentality here...
|
|
Hardman Knott
Gym climber
Muir Woods National Monument, Mill Valley, Ca
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2009 - 01:24pm PT
|
|
|
Russ Walling
Gym climber
Poofter's Froth, Wyoming
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2009 - 01:25pm PT
|
Pete: hopefully it will be a little easier to use than the twisted hulk you sent down here!
Working on a few things for next time. I'll keep you posted.
|
|
Cracko
Trad climber
Quartz Hill, California
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2009 - 01:28pm PT
|
I have just read Matt's post and can come to only one conclusion......Matt's the one who shat on their ropes !!!
Cracko
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2009 - 01:48pm PT
|
Matt, point for point that is more twisted logic than I've seen in a post in a long time.
Overall, its relentless underlying drive and tone is the twisting distortion of the sideways removal of a sub-1mm crystal into 'drilling'. As obfusticating inflation goes, that ranks right up there the Big Bang. And the reason your entire tact is disingenuous (as are all the 'ultrapure' ethical arguments) is because, given any two hooks of your choice, could you or anyone else (then or now) aid a line up that slab any other way. Are you really claiming someone could have then, or now, hook their way up that slab without such tactics? Because if you are I'm calling complete bullshit here and now - no need to do another post.
The questions I listed above are valid ones that can be answered; maybe try taking a crack at them.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
primordial soup
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2009 - 02:00pm PT
|
so you are then arguing for no standard whatsoever?
isn't the opposite of what you are saying that the rock is better left for someone who can climb it without bringing it down to their own level?
wrt me, you, or anyone else and any two hooks, what about a climber in the future with tools we are not yet familiar with?
when you rule out purity as unrealistic, aren't you then are forced to accept any (and therefore every) version of what divergence is acceptable?
and in the decades old context of WoS, clearly the local community, who were the standard bearers and the protectors of the resource (right or wrong) felt at the time that the tactics available were not adequate. all i am really saying about WoS is that we cannot go back and review their collective judgement, and in fact the example set by the reaction to WoS may have even had positive impacts upon the collective psyche of climbers in general, who knows...
one other point-
what climbers may resort to when desperate may not always be equal to what the same climbers may aspire to. that does not nullify the aspiration, nor the collective goal of continuously raising the standard rather than lowering it (or seeing it lowered by others). that point goes to the widespread pointing at their gear list, which to many illuminates what they were prepared to do. call it irrelevant if you like, but clearly it's not irrelevant for everyone.
btw the natural extrapolation of your arguments would lead directly to bolt ladders or chipped lines up every rock face that nobody in a given era could ascend without those tactics, which is the opposite of visionary, IMHO.
edit-
btw if you don't believe in the Big Bang, that's all well and good, but do keep in mind it's a scientific theory, so we can say that it explains or agrees with observable data, and as far as i know, it has yet to be scientifically disproven. (speaking of endless multiple St threads from hell, where are you on evolution?)
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2009 - 02:24pm PT
|
Oh, I believe in the Big Bang inflationary universe, what I don't believe is you detractors consistently inflating the sideways removal of a sub-1mm crystal to "drilling". Never will. And hey, I'm more LNT than you're ever going to meet today, hell, I still don't use chalk.
What I'm saying is that you can't compare the tactics required to aid a featureless slab with those of a conventional route - it's an utterly pointless exercise. And the 'wait for a better or better equipped climber' hash again fails the 'scale challenge'. We're already talking micro-scale, what else would you suppose that future climber be equipped with other than sharpened hooks? Van der Waals pads? Adhesive pads? Or, now that we have 36v lithium batteries, maybe a couple of sloppy silicone rimmed, pump-assisted suction cups? If that's what your conjecture is then the whole discussion is pointless as folks will just be free 'climbing' up the thing in vacuum or Gecko shoes. But if you leave high tech out of it then you're left with hooks and, again, are you then suggesting that anyone could do it differently or any better? Ammon certainly didn't appear to think so.
The logical weakness in your argument is the fundamental attempt to paint this route as just another climb when nothing could be further from the truth. If what your and others' argument boils down to is "no one should climb that slab" so be it, but at least be honest and just say that. If that's not your argument then the question of who could climb it differently and better given two hooks of their choice stands.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 23, 2009 - 02:30pm PT
|
It's all pretty simple if you strip away all the micro-analyzing. (Short post here, Pete.)
We found a line (yes, there's an actual line there; it's not just work straight up the slab). We were willing to drill a certain amount to get up it, as has been EVERY FA team on the big stone, including the prophets of purity. We were willing to "enhance" some, as has been EVERY FA team on the big stone.
If you deny this fact, Steve, then I cry BS until you produce a COUNT approaching the detail we have. Until then, you're just blowing smoke.
EVERY FA team "enhances" at AT LEAST the level of impact we did. "Intentional sculpting" is a BS term to magnify our "atrocity" beyond what everybody else does. If you've used the pick of your hammer ONCE to take out a wayward crystal in a copperhead corner, or "intentionally" use a beak itself to break off an offending edge before driving it, then you have done EXACTLY the level of "intentional sculpting" we did.
ANY team (with the sack) can do the route in the same style we did it. Like with EVERY route, some new drilling will be done. It won't take much. The flakes are there.
And anybody talking about the supposed "purity" of the 80's is living in fantasy land. I don't want to hear about "aspire!" We "aspired" too! What was DONE is what matters. All the rest is spin and BS.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
primordial soup
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2009 - 02:31pm PT
|
joe-
i disagree
you expect innovation to be limited to things you can imagine
that's the fundamental flaw in your own line of reasoning
the FACT that i cannot tell you how it might be climbed does NOT mean it cannot be climbed
what's more, you want your judgement (or mine) to matter, which removes the climb from it's true historical context
MB-
you can't go back.
now you want to define 'purity' as it was in the 80s, but you want to trump the judgement of people in the park in the 80s with that of the people on the www in 2009...
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2009 - 02:32pm PT
|
"the FACT that i cannot tell you how it might be climbed does NOT mean it cannot be climbed
"
Weak, Matt, very weak...
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2009 - 02:37pm PT
|
MB - So you say you followed pattern tangible enough to be called a line. Ok, are you also claiming that that line is in any way repeatable hook-move-for-hook-move; that had you done an SA a week later you w/could have used (or even found) the same edges?
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2009 - 02:53pm PT
|
"EVERY FA team "enhances" at AT LEAST the level of impact we did. "Intentional sculpting" is a BS term to magnify our "atrocity" beyond what everybody else does. If you've used the pick of your hammer ONCE to take out a wayward crystal in a copperhead corner, or "intentionally" use a beak itself to break off an offending edge before driving it, then you have done EXACTLY the level of "intentional sculpting" we did. "
Bears repeating. It's more than obvious that many, many 2nd, 3rd, and even 25th ascents of some route have involved as much or more damage to the stone as was done in WOS. The Shield headwall didn't get to accept sawed off angles on the first ascent. Every new El Cap route has drilling and banging. What's really so different here.
And Matt's argument is flawed because the community at the time really didn't know WHAT the FA party was doing or not doing so their actions and judgements could have been flawed from the start. Now that we are getting details, it's time for a SA party to check the condition and cry BS or Bravo
Peace
Karl
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 23, 2009 - 02:57pm PT
|
Joe, what I'm saying is that there are patterns of flakes up there. You probably can't find our route "flake by flake," but we did find "lines of flakes," where the density of usable flakes was higher than several feet to either side. It's subtle, and we often hooked left or right then up, then to the side again. It's not just "straight up." You have to look ahead to try to avoid cul-de-sacs.
Which, by the way, is one way in which the existing route makes things easier. Even if you don't have a great feel for the subtlety, at least you can look up and see basically where you're supposed to go. You don't have to worry about cul-de-sacs, as we did. The idea that we just went basically straight up, drilling merrily as we forged UP, is patent and obvious crap, as even a look from the ground will show.
Furthermore, viewed on a more typical scale, there are copperhead seams and even cracks on the route, we pieced these together. The existing topos "macro" this to a large degree, but the route actually wanders on the slab a great deal. Again, it's not just straight up.
Regarding the "purity" of what was actually DONE in the 80's, there are lots and lots of honest posts at this point from the people that were there and putting up the classics, so the story isn't conjecture. It was common to be far more heavy-handed than we were, as the SA will show (if there ever is one).
|
|
PhotogEC
climber
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2009 - 02:59pm PT
|
the FACT that i cannot tell you how it might be climbed does NOT mean it cannot be climbed
Matt - just a clarifying question: based on this, is the extrapolation that you're against aid climbing in general? By this statement, are you invalidating all aid lines, as, in theory, someone, eventually, could do any given line free, without the need for drilling, driving pins, etc.?
To be clear, I'm completely new to this discussion, but utterly fascinated by the religious zeal with which it's being argued on both sides. Just trying to understand the extent of your intent with your statement.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!