Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
wstmrnclmr
Trad climber
Bolinas, CA
|
|
Right on Tom Higgins! End of discussion for me. FA has the say. And "cheers" to you August West for pointing out the obvious. But I still get to care......
Tony
|
|
Studly
Trad climber
WA
|
|
Lets put out egos in our back pocket, let Rick put some bolts in, and then go do the route in its entirety. Enough already. Get er done Rick! Some things (and climbs) are just supposed to be about having fun.
|
|
G_Gnome
Trad climber
In the mountains... somewhere...
|
|
Quote "Some things (and climbs) are just supposed to be about having fun.".
But not everything should be just about having fun. Sometimes it should be about self control and testing how high one can fly. There are millions of routes to 'have fun on' but there aren't very many to 'test yourself on'. Leave the few that are there alone.
|
|
Studly
Trad climber
WA
|
|
Its 5.7. In the time tested manner, solo it if you want to test yourself.
|
|
wstmrnclmr
Trad climber
Bolinas, CA
|
|
Right on G-Gnome....missed you this summer. Let's all meet up and climb SC when TM opens next year before anything happens to it. It was on the list for last summer but we got on other stuff. Never occurred to us NOT to do the third pitch. Always thought it was part of the climb.....
Tony
|
|
shipoopoi
Big Wall climber
oakland
|
|
hey jack, how's it going?i think one thing that we are learning on this thread is that
IT IS UP TO THE FIRST ASCENT PARTY TO DECIDE IF A ROUTE SHOULD BE RETROBOLTED
so, when i think about it, Get Into The Groove(11a) is the ONLY route i ever retrobolted, and that is out of 60 or 70 FA's i did in TM. Here on this thread, rick is talking about retrobolting a single route. You see, if only the FAist have license to retrobolt, and since we are all getting older and will be deadish in 30 more years, the history and runouts of tuolumne will be well preserved.
and G_gnome, your point about preserving the third pitch of SC in its original state because it is a valuable source has merit, but when i think of all the runout 5.7 territory in tuolumne that is still out there...i mean, like there is soooo much of that that if a couple of routes get retrobolted, the resource is still there, there will always be more than plenty of runout 5.7 territory to test your mettle on.
i mean, does anybody think all the FAist that ran it out in the 60's to 80's are going to flock back to TM and start retrobolting everything they did 30 years ago? no, it's just not going to happen.
so, in conclusion, we are not going down a slippery slope here, the old, bold routes in TM are here to stay. shipoopoi
|
|
Bldrjac
Ice climber
Boulder
|
|
Steve, I'm well, thanks. Life is good....
I agree with Shipoopoi and others that the FA party has the final word. I'm still not convinced that it is in the best interests of the climbing community to add bolts. Mainly because I've seen that sort of action spread to other routes, and usually for the worse. But I believe that Rick A has the right to do that and will do "the right thing"... Of all of us he can probably make the best decision ........HA! does that make him an ELDER STATESMAN like Largo?
BTW, I'm going to the Needles next week. What was the final outcome of Super Pin?
|
|
LongAgo
Trad climber
|
|
On a FA Registry
Karl writes:
"This is now the case and I'm cool with it. It will likely not be the case 75 years from now when most FA parties are fading memories and no longer accessible. That's why at one point I advocated a "First ascenders" registry where FA parties could tell the story of their route and their feelings about ethics and the area involved. That way the tradition of an area could be better preserved and articulated into the future and we'd have a better sense which routes were intended to be bold and which were just put up by folks in a hurry with no bolt money."
I like your idea of a FA registry and would appreciate any link you have where you fleshed out your thinking. Such a registry would serve both to give us more insightful history I often suggest can enrich our climbing experience, and force FA parties to face themselves on their motives both admirable and suspect, provided they write honestly (as tough and rewarding a challenge as climbing itself, turns out).
Such a registry, as with good journal articles, would open the door a bit more on an important issue, for one: there is much presumption the old guard (guess I'm there, like it or not) minimized bolting in TM for noble reasons, but in truth, the reasons were as varied as the human heart taking on any endeavor (and what else would we expect?). So, speaking for myself and I think for Bob Kamps but he's gone now, yes, we tried to wring out every bit of natural pro possible, minimize what looked like a blotch on the pristine landscape (to us), but equally got tired standing on 5.8 and 5.9 drilling, were in angst over the setting sun, broke one too many drill bits (found you could drill with a broken bit, but not too well), or just felt immortal and glued to the rock some days. We did try to think of those who were to follow, but sometimes may have missed the good pro to difficulty balance with the mishmash of motives i cite. There's the truth as I understand it.
We also should not deny the amount of protection was in play in TM as a point of competition, and some felt they could gain more reputation by reducing or eliminating protection. It's no news but still needs stating out loud: climbers, especially when young, understand kudos go not simply with the level of difficulty achieved but if and how one protects. In fact, to this day, we give high praises to solo climbers using no protection, though frankly, I think such praises may need rethinking (another and different thread much needed, if approached honestly by all, especially in the aftermath of Bachar's death).
You also raise an excellent point about how long we can expect some bolted routes to stand as is given the passage of time, the fragility of written history, changes in community beliefs and perspectives, and especially once the FA parties are gone and beyond asking about any modifications. I have praised RickA for asking the community about the last pitch modification, but there are many cases where the FA party is alive but silent or disinterested (as my partner Vern Clevenger seemed to be on the long threads on adding bolts to Hair Raiser Buttress, though I did consult him, and he too agreed to leave it alone as I requested, a wish not respected in this case). I've come to see we must rely solely on engagement such as via these threads, persuasion, reasoned discussion and argument in any written form reaching climbers, and the occasional loose and ad hoc climbing organizations (such as the Friends of Pinnacles which tries to keep up certain style agreements among climbers via a website and community building events such as clean ups and keeping credibility by representing climbing interests to the Park Service). Climbing – unless officially regulated as in Eldorado Canyon - is not a rule bound activity, thank God, with monitoring and enforcement and oversight whether on bolting or where/if to climb in one style or another and nor should it be.
So, off we go into the sunset, our words, wishes, thoughts, pleads, reasoning and writings blowing in the wind, little squeakers who the next generation (or some of this one) may or may not hear or care to hear. But squeak we will until we find, contrary to the soaring feelings on some sunny days climbing along on lovely Tuolumne knobs, we are not immortal. Indeed those to come may entirely remake Tuolumne climbing, and all of climbing and smile and shake their heads at some old FA registry, journal article, thread, website with funny tiny pictures and ramblings like mine and think, "So that's what it once was about." So it must be.
Tom Higgins
LongAgo
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
We already know the rule: it is the first ascensionists’ prerogative to change the route. But … given that Rick asked, we get lots of opinions, broach the subject in a very broad way, reflect upon the past, open our minds to the future, ... and Rick also quite smartly reduces blowback in the event that a change to the route occurs.
The fact that Ricky asked: this has helped to set the tone for a very meaningful discussion. There is another reason this discussion has been so civil and productive; it is because, in my opinion, we pretty much all agree in the inestimable value provided by doing these kinds of run out routes and we cherish their history!
Do guys get old and go soft, becoming a little too amenable to retrofitting scary things with bolts? They certainly do and so do some gals! Although I would be wary of this factor, I’m going to suggest there is something else at play here which may indicate a greater service to the Tuolumne ethic, tradition, and collection of routes. Regarding the slippery slope: I’m suggesting that retrofitting this route with say, two bolts, might in fact stave the urge in climbers of the future to make too many changes to our route catalog up there in the domes.
Think back to the time when these things were done. The community was small and the rich oral history then at play was the crucial link to one’s understanding and targeting of those ladders in the sky. You could get a sense of what a route proposed in terms of risk and reward, a very good sense of it mostly through talking to your cohorts and they could help you build towards that goal with alternative route selection.
Fast-forward 30 years from now and all that is completely gone. No one will know firsthand what so-and-so’s climbing style was like and what to expect from one of their efforts. All one will then have is guidebooks and an evolving oral history that is much different from the one that served us in that compact and focused era. There will be more diversity of style for the climber of the future, with an emphasis on sport climbing and effectively no link to those heady aromas and the singular game that encompassed them.
It may well be that the best way to preserve the test-piece adventure routes and the whole feel of the place in general, is indeed to encourage future generations to participate… and to accomplish this we may need to build a better ramp, a ladder if you will, with fewer gaps between rungs, that will serve in the absence of that immediately accessible oral history and a simpler time when this style of climbing was the norm and in fact the only game in town.
This may mean identifying routes that are somewhat out of balance and sacrificing their original state to serve the purpose of laying out a more graduated ensemble of climbs that point the way, that will prepare and lead tomorrow’s aspirant to the heady test piece. It’s not as though this isn’t already in place, but it could probably be made a little better in terms of the spread between very safe routes on one side and quite risky routes on the other end of the spectrum.
To me, composing a full pitch 5.7 run out on top of a 5.9 crack represents less balance than putting it on top of a 5.10+. That’s what makes this route a candidate for retrofitting in my mind, as opposed to changing something like Piece of Grass. I’m not buying that a 5.9 climber is ready to on-site solo, dragging a rope, a 5.7 slab. Soloing 5.7 rehearsed, yes, this is more likely for the 5.9 climber. I see the 5.7 full pitch run out much more suited to the 5.10 or 5.11 lead climber, so in my mind Super Chicken is somewhat botched.
It’s fairly natural that the 5.11 lead climber occasionally ignored easy sections of rock and created something out of balance like this 5.9 followed by that full pitch run out. A 5.11 climber of Ricky's caliber would just run over the 5.7 slab, especially in their prime. I doubt that would ever have been so for the 5.9 climber of the past and I would imagine it even less likely behavior for the 5.9 climber of the future.
So perhaps we fix a few routes that were never quite right in the first place in order to smooth out the continuum, to create a map, a physical map that relies on no oral history, to point the way to what we find so valuable and to what we hope others will find valuable as well. After all is that not why we care so much to begin with? It’s not just that we enjoyed the heady test piece and want it preserved as a testament, more so, it’s that we understand it has intrinsic value due to its connection to self-reliance and the extension to the mountains and a more raw overall experience, fortifying as it does the soul and more importantly producing safer climbers in as much as their abilities to judge unprotected ground very much helps them hone their own self-knowledge, ultimately effecting their safety more than bolts.
I’m not particularly passionate either way about this route, I have not climbed it, I could be wrong, and I’m fine with the way things are now in Tuolumne, but some adjustments, rather than eroding our legacy, may in fact help to preserve it. You’ll notice more and more high-quality guidebooks also include some very good histories and this would be a component of that plan.
Essentially, if you want people to care, you have to leave a path for them to follow, leave some signposts that point the way and avail them of a route selection which helps and encourages them to generate the skills to experience that hallowed ground all on their own.
There ... 'said the same thing 5 times in 1 post, so I don't have to post 5 times saying the same single thing!
Cheers all,
Roy
|
|
tom Carter
Social climber
|
|
Just what I would expect for you Roy....Good ideas spiced with insight, experience and humor!!!!
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
And yes, if we commit ourselves to the unthinkable and soil this dove with a couple of bolts, they should be as CragMann suggested, of the quarter-inch rusty spinner variety and absolutely nothing else will do in their stead.
… or they should at least look like them.
Think about it: the RustySpinner™ ... a soul stirring, tummy wrenching, come-hither beacon from the past... which is actualy a full strength look-alike.
(see Grossman’s PinBolt for examples of the genre)...
|
|
LongAgo
Trad climber
|
|
Karl,
I'm looking at the links you noted to see the discussion. As I say, I like the idea of a registry and probably cyberspace is the place for it, under what auspicious I don't know. We do get the American Alpine Club Journal climb reports and of course magazines and website tales of ascents, but what appeals to me about a registry (presuming it attracts use) is it might have a template explicitly asking about protection and climbing quality and style of ascent, as well as if and how the route connects (or not) to emerging and past history of the area, or compares to like routes. That way one might actually get FA parties thinking on such matters and reveal some information on the topics at hand. Let me ponder and go to one of your threads with any other thinking.
Tar,
Yes, ideally an area has climbs of varying difficulty and protection level to suit a host of preferences, and has climbs each with its own balance, though of course Fas can’t always have such balance. I mentioned Golden Bars last pitch as an unprotected 5.8 on top of some pretty stiff 5.11 which, as you say, makes more sense as a combination of pitches than 5.9 with a 5.7X last pitch, just because of the probable ability of the climbers facing those last pitches having done the first pith or pitches. More generally, seems to me Tuolumne has a pretty wide range of climbs by technical difficulty and protection style, providing overall "balance,” though there is much on the run side.
In line with some of the thinking on this thread, we might also revisit the role of the area guidebook. Guidebooks might do better than list topos, give route stars, index FA attribution and provide a few pages of history from early through latest achievements, the typical approach. In line with Karl's thinking, perhpas guidebooks could include some words from a range of leading FA parties over time as to their perceptions and intentions. Guidebooks also could suggest groups of climbs varying by difficulty and degree of protection, and perhaps recommend some progression from modest group to more challenging once a climber feels comfortable moving on. Of course, if an area does develop a registry of the sort Karl is suggesting, the guidebook also could highlight the registry for further information.
Tom Higgins
LongAgo
|
|
Bldrjac
Ice climber
Boulder
|
|
This is getting WAYYYY too complicated. I think I am going to go climbing....
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
This is what happens when guys get old.
They over think and analyze too much.
A young guy would have smacked the bolts in a long time ago and let the rest weep ......
|
|
hooblie
climber
from where the anecdotes roam
|
|
man, the junk we have to wade through searching out grist for the mill like that
posted by roy and tom et al.. and then when it appears, all i can express
is copious respect, and the wish that we could stay up here forever.
thanks you guys. i shan't pretend to be able to engage,
but you've sure got me doing the best kind of grinding
edit: second best
|
|
Guck
Trad climber
Santa Barbara, CA
|
|
Slowly but surely, the old trad climbers die off or pick up golfing instead. The new breed of gym climbers is taking over, with their expectation of a "safe" bolted route, which requires technical ability, and no head.
The head component is what differentiates trad climbing from the rest, and unfortunately, trad climbing is slowly dying. RIP!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
... unfortunately, trad climbing is slowly dying.
Probably .... ?
Then you'll have 2 camps?
The guys with no heads and the "crazy" free soloists.
LOL, which camp will one join ..... :-)
|
|
Bldrjac
Ice climber
Boulder
|
|
A compromise might be to place two 1/4 bolts and paint them so well that they blend in with the rock really well and are difficult to locate.............
RIcky, the suspense is killin' me. Whatcha gonna do?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!