Wings of Steel

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 2598 - 2617 of total 2806 in this topic

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

jfs

Trad climber

Upper Leftish

Oct 10, 2011 - 02:02am PT

This thread suddenly got boring.

Prod

Trad climber

Oct 10, 2011 - 02:55pm PT

Thanks for the break down Coz. That being said aid ratings are more or less about the "Hurt Factor" and not about skill? So a 100 footer on a bolt on Zodiac would be A2 if the fall was into clean air?

Is there a consensus of what is the hardest ElCap aid line? That gets done?

Prod.

graniteclimber

Trad climber

The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division

Oct 10, 2011 - 03:15pm PT

Does the article answer any questions or just fan the flames?

Prod

Trad climber

Oct 10, 2011 - 03:31pm PT

Does the article answer any questions or just fan the flames?

It's a good read, and I would say that it does answer some of the questions, as well as pose 1 or 2.

Prod.

Vegasclimber

Trad climber

Las Vegas, NV.

Oct 10, 2011 - 03:37pm PT

I found a great way to answer all the debate, trolling, and dredging of useless bullsh#t.

I sat down with Ammon and talked to him about it, before the article came out. If you do the same, you will probably know what there is to know - fit to print or not. Either that, or go climb it yourself. I can't, so I will accept his version.

30 years, 3000 posts, 1 repeat. Hours and hours of mudslinging, screaming and hate, for what.

Who gives a sh#t what was enhanced. Go look at the report on Hole World. Who's bitching about that? No one.

Climbs happen, ethics change. The Compressor Route caused all this hubbub as well and still does, and people are still climbing that one, hasn't been chopped.

The way I look at it, I don't see what the big deal was or is, by people that can't and never will climb the route, and people who have done a thousand times more "enhancing" and damage to the rock then the FAs ever did.

Studly

Trad climber

Oct 10, 2011 - 03:46pm PT

Am I the only one who has read Ammon's article?

crunch

Social climber

Oct 10, 2011 - 03:49pm PT

The article answers lots of questions. A definitive assessment, that rings true, of the quality of the route. Some uncertainty about the difficulty; where the route stands in relation to other hard El Cap routes.

The article is well worth reading. Some excellent observations about esthetics, style, worthiness.

Great job Ammon, a raw, honest account of what it took to ascend this unconventional climb. There are echoes of the trials suffered by the first ascent party. (I just read the book a week ago. Also worth reading).

But the article also raises questions. One new questions involves dimpled reported by Wagner, Thaw, et al, but not found by Ammon. Another concerns about 30 "dimpled" and essential hook placements found and used by Ammon that are surplus to the number claimed by the FA team.

Who made these dimples? Some are above the highpoint of Wagner, Thaw et al. So they were placed by either Rob Slater, who made it 9 pitches up if memory serves, or else the FA team. Unless they were placed by some other person or persons unknown.

Maybe the peregrine falcons make the dimples when they dive for a swallow and miss?

One thing for sure. The debate will not cease.

deuce4

climber

Hobart, Australia

Oct 10, 2011 - 03:50pm PT

perspective: http://rockandice.com/news/1654-hole-world-gets-second-ascent-finally

Broken

climber

Texas

Oct 11, 2011 - 01:41pm PT

Tip o' the cap to Ammon. 'Tis an engaging, well written account.

And Matt (or other W.O.S. critics and/or defenders) - you should consider holding off until you've thoroughly read the entire article. It clears up a lot.

How dangerous it is depends on how you define danger. The route caused Ammon/Kait some serious stress. Ammon writes about having nightmares while on the wall for the first time (due to the stress of falling again and again). He both compliments and criticizes the route - lauding some portions while critiquing others. The hole count question remains, I suppose, but I don't think that is the take away from the piece.

For me, the general feel was:

The choice of line is a little questionable.

Some pitches are really hard (Ammon took 10+ hours on the 1st 2 pitches).

There is an open question about bathooks.

The route is quite psychologically demanding, despite the lack of "death" potential.

Some pitches are enjoyable/aesthetic.

The FA party, more or less, gave an accurate depiction of their route.

Go out and spend the $6 on the mag.

Broken

climber

Texas

Oct 11, 2011 - 02:01pm PT

I've been mulling over Ammon's article and the route.

I think it serves as an interesting starting point for a debate on risk.

Which of the following is riskier:

a) A route where you will fall dozens of times every attempt. And, once every N number of falls, you will be "injured" (twisted ankle, filleted skin, rope burn).... And once every X number of falls, you will be more seriously injured (broken ankle, etc).

b) A route where you will fall rarely, only once out of every Y number of attempts, but that Z % of the time, the fall will result in death.

You can't really choose until you quantify N, X, Y, and Z (which is obviously problematic). And different climbers would make different choices, depending on their injury history and personal risk preferences.

We could create our ratings from a historical analysis, but hard aid routes are climbed relatively rarely.

Hmm. Perhaps we need to commission 100 ascents of every hard aid route to increase our sample size.. To counteract selection bias, we might have to randomly select some folks and force them upward somehow...

Start the lottery!

Mighty Hiker

climber

Vancouver, B.C.

Oct 11, 2011 - 04:44pm PT

Thanks, Broken. I'm looking forward to reading the article, but the new issue of R&I isn't available here yet, and I don't think it's on the R&I website.

You're right - most of the "issues" we've been presented with are largely or entirely subjective, and require considerable context. For example:
1. Should there be a route on the Great Slab, and who should decide?
2. Where should the route go, and who should decide?
3. Who should be 'allowed' to establish the route?
4. What standard should the route be established to, in other words what style, given the norms of the time and other El Cap routes then?
5. Who if anyone (1982 or 2011) should judge whether the route was established in good style, e.g. following as natural a line as was available, with the fewest drilled holes and enhancements reasonably necessary?
6. Did the FA team honestly report on the climb and what they'd done?

One of the cherished freedoms of climbers, in the Valley and elsewhere, is to do what we want, where we want, within land managers' rules, and community consensus to the extent discernible. (Another is that of engaging in territorial, adolescent behaviour...) So to my mind, the FA team, even if Yosemite nOObs, was free to decide that they'd attempt a new route on the slab, the line they'd take, and the style they'd use. The issues seem to me only whether they might have taken a better line (fewer holes), whether fully-employed 1982 equipment and techniques would have allowed them to do a better job, what holes and enhancements they actually made, and whether they fairly and honestly reported on the climb.

The time which the route took on its first ascent is irrelevant. The climbers weren't in anyone else's way. Sure, it may not have been particularly elegant, but allowing for religious rest days, the climbers only took 2+ the time then usually taken for a new El Cap route, and can argue that their feet fallen/number of falls ratio to the length of the climb was much higher than normal, i.e. more time really was needed. It's amusing that they took so long, and had a somewhat cumbersome ascent, but so what?

As the route clearly remains a major challenge, even for someone who is a leading El Cap climber in 2011, that speaks for itself. It may not be to everyone's taste, as it sounds like significant falls are almost a certainty, unlike many routes. And it may not physically withstand many ascents. But if you accept that sooner or later there'd be a route on the slab, they seem to have done a decent job of it.

Whether the critics can now acknowledge that they overstated their case, and that the route overall is "worthy", even if the style wasn't quite up to their standards, remains to be seen.

But then, what would I know? I've never gotten more than 1/3 of the way up El Cap, and certainly haven't tried WoS.

Transmission

climber

Oct 11, 2011 - 05:05pm PT

perspective: http://rockandice.com/news/1654-hole-world-gets-second-ascent-finally

So in that article we see the following:

McNeely reports that Hole World.... has "quite a few straight-out rivet ladders,"....

The only thing I see is a double standard.

Where is the outrage over that? Why is that climb and climber not held to the same exacting standards as the WoS FA team? That is an awful lot of drilling going on, where are the cries of protest? Who is protecting ElCap? Where are SG and Mimi on this? Seriously. This is an OUTRAGE. That climb is clearly utter garbage and needs to be *chopped*, and the climb derided in the harshest possible way in every guide book, climbing magazine, and online venue that SG and Mimi can think of.

I can't believe that the Valley Locals let that climb go unnoticed and unpunished for so long. What is WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?

mtnyoung

Trad climber

Twain Harte, California

Oct 11, 2011 - 05:21pm PT

I just read the whole article.

Ignoring in this post the controversy over the route, the article is a very, very good piece of writing. It is fair, intelligent and gripping.

Nicely done Ammon.

Gene

climber

Oct 11, 2011 - 05:23pm PT

Couple of quick points...

Hole World was put up solo. We have only one person to burn at the stake.

From R&I:

McNeely reports that Hole World is a more natural line than Wings of Steel, but has "quite a few straight-out rivet ladders," and eight to 10 enhanced hooks. He also reports that Wings is a "more problematic" climb, but that Hole World is definitely more dangerous.

Lots changed in YV between 1982 (WOS) and 1990 (HW) in regard to style and 'acceptable' bolt counts.

Transmission's recent post is his first under that avatar. Have we met him before under another name?

Carry on.

g

Mighty Hiker

climber

Vancouver, B.C.

Oct 11, 2011 - 05:36pm PT

By usual standards, WoS might never be considered a 'natural' line. In a sense, it's an anti-natural line, although perhaps it follows as much of a natural line as there is on the slab.

Although it's not much of a slab, either. 70+ degrees is fairly steep.

climber

Mudcat Spire

Oct 11, 2011 - 05:36pm PT

FRUMY

Trad climber

SHERMAN OAKS,CA

Oct 11, 2011 - 05:37pm PT

I wonder what type of Transmission are you?
Like maybe an old cast iron Hydro-Matic, a Dynaflow, or 2 speed Powerglide?
Or maybe more like a newer lite weight 5R55E or a heavy duty 4L80E?
Just wondering.