Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 07:40pm PT
|
You know exactly why we're using the terms "vain fraud macho cheater" - and that ain't it.
No, Joe, what you are saying is that a run out route is only valid if it is at your max. You will find none of us who used to run routes out who had that experience, and in fact what you say is simply not true - for us. We would know, not you, since we were the ones having the experience. Period.
What you're saying, without listening to any one else, is that every 5.10 route has to be engineered to be doable by a 5.10 climber or else the 5.13 climber is swindling the former by sandbagging him.
I am saying that the number rating of a climb was never the main issue on these run out routes. The point was to see just how little we could get away with pro wise, and in my experience, it was a VERY heady game running the rope on 5.10 knowing we could not fall. That was the game - you could not fall.
You are simply saying that others who come along should not be expected to do the same run out and I am saying the route declares in simple terms what is required. You either accept the challenge or not. If you don't, you are insisting the problem and the crime lies with the first ascent party, but they weren't climbing according to your code, Joe, rather their own. If you don't like that code, for whatever reason, then don't do the route. If you do, tie in and have at it.
But one thing is incontrovertible: the trad ethos said that the route declared to the climber what the challenge was, and it was the climber's task to rise - or not. Now, Joe and others, for reasons that are totally secondary to the main point, are saying that the route no longer has the authority to say anything to anyone. The climber is now the judge of what is just and unjust.
Anyway you define it, this is a reversal.
JL
|
|
wstmrnclmr
Trad climber
Bolinas, CA
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 07:41pm PT
|
I'm not saying "me". I'm saying the "community"(meaning the larger consensus). And perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe the "community" has changed it's point of view but so far, I don't think so. In other words, I would submit that right now, your and mt10910's view is in the minority. But that may be changing...... I certainly have been on some of the "museum climbs" (a term with which I disagree) and had partners questioning the validity of the FA's intent, but I haven't had a partner disagree with the FA's right (I wish I could come up with a better word denoting less "ownership" then respect for) to maintain their view of their "use" of the rock.
I think that right now, the community accepts, and defends, your and mt10910's right to maintain your originality, or idea as to how you use, but not own, the rock. I don't think the consensus of the community supports one's right to alter your use of the rock without your consent.
Edit: And Largo..The questions been asked before but I'd be interested in how you'd handle this. When/if the community/consensus changes and if the consensus were that retrobolting (LeDemacratization)becomes the norm, how would you handle it. I have to admit it's been tough watching the rules of the road change be it in the surfing line-up or literally on the highways as the population grows.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 08:36pm PT
|
Then do the same thing you were requiring of others not as good as you!
-
Most any modern, active sport climber is better than we ever were. Remember, we are "museum climbers."
And calm down, Joe. You're starting to define a fanatic - He won't change subjects and he can't change his mind.
And Joe, you might think about changing medications, because the one you're taking is making you crazy.
JL
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 08:38pm PT
|
Either that, or double the dose.
|
|
johnkelley
climber
Anchorage Alaska
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 08:48pm PT
|
Why don't you just climb something else? There's no shortage of rock. Why must everything be made safe for the masses? If a route is too hard for you do a different route. If you can't do a route because it's to scary or dangerous for you then it's to hard for you. If you can't lead a runout 5.10 then you don't lead 5.10. This is true for every grade. WTF? It's not that hard to understand.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 08:52pm PT
|
It's not that hard to understand.
LOL
For some people they make it hard for themselves to understand a simple thing.
Their brains will suddenly take over their own selves and run amock.
Like riding a horse with no bridal.
Most will not be able to control the thing that way as they don't teach this stuff in modern education.
This why I call them stupid ......
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 08:52pm PT
|
Like I said, johnkelly, it's about entitlement.
Same thing that is tanking the USA.
Some people just refuse the concept of making do without.
Werner!
LOL
The Mongols created the largest empire in history by steering their horses with their legs so that they could fire bows from their backs.
The halters were for securing your 4 or 5 mounts while sleeping, although with designated edge riders the interior riders slept while riding!
Thats how they beat the news of their arrival, early shock and awe.
|
|
johnkelley
climber
Anchorage Alaska
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 09:00pm PT
|
F*#k old timers for bringing us rock gyms and sport climbing. The root of the problem.
|
|
johnkelley
climber
Anchorage Alaska
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 09:02pm PT
|
Hedge I learned to climb in North Carolina over 25 years ago. It was the norm. Wouldn't know a thing about sport climbing, other then it's neither, always avoided it like the plague
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 09:03pm PT
|
After the horses get married they get a bridle ....... :-)
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 09:40pm PT
|
All those stomemasters will be reborn in their next life looking up at the routes they put up in their previous lives and then saying;
"Who is the psycho that put up these routes?"
"We need to add some bolts" they'll say.
How ironic? LOL
:-)
|
|
johnkelley
climber
Anchorage Alaska
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 09:41pm PT
|
Mt there's tons of unclimbed rock too. Go put up whatever kind of routes you want. Sure a lot of it's public so do whatever you want. I'll do the same. Including doing routes ground up and getting rid of any bolts I want. It's really very simple
|
|
LongAgo
Trad climber
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 09:46pm PT
|
Case for Leaving Routes as First Done
Here's my case for trying to do routes as they were first done, especially on the point of adding bolts, all from a 2006 Supertopo post around the time of the Hair Raiser Buttress debate:
"Preserving original protection is not to insure climbers get scared or first ascent parties get into history as bold. Preservation insures climbers preferring to do the climb in its original style get to do so. Some climbers prefer more risk and complication than many sport routes provide. They deserve their opportunities just as much as sportsters deserve theirs. But the picture is bigger than preferred risk profiles. Not altering routes insures they remain tributes to the time and mentality around their creation.
An important joy of the climbing game comes not just from doing climbs, but viewing, pondering, absorbing (as per this very web site) the full well of experiences, the moving stage of heroes, fools and follies, high and low tales, grand and vain acts. In the drama, the features of routes and associated protection are the underlying choreography, the hand and foot sequences set in stone and passing on through time. Once protection is changed, the original choreography of moves, runs, hardware (and sling) frustrations, resulting pumps and rests, the curses and hoots - the entire emotional passage - is altered. And lost is an assessment of how nuts or noble were the makers, our second guessing of all they felt. In short, there is no tribute to the past, no way to tap the well. It is for all these reasons, barring unusual circumstances, routes should be left to stand as they were first done."
From Principle to Application
So there's the underlying rationale or principle from which to start. What about its actual application in climbing areas where there are strong differences and contentions between those preferring more protected or sport like routes and those preferring more risk and traditional feel to their climbs? The issue becomes more than theoretical where the pressures is on to fix some old run routes or do future first ascents on scarce remaining rock in one style or another. Here's my take on what to do in such a situation, this time from a 2012 Supertopo thread:
“… I think we need to understand climbing never was and never will be a purely harmonious enterprise with all agreeing on climbing styles generally and protection styles in particular. Instead, we need to accept both the stellar and horrible routes around us, and our great hodgepodge of saints and sinners, however we define them. We can and should argue about better and poorer ways of climbing and resulting routes, but we need to let multiple styles have their place and day as long as they don’t impinge on one another. So, sport away on your sport cliff. Trad away on your trad cliff. Curse and pass on an old R or X route, fair enough, but leave it untouched for those who want the quirky pleasure of doing it. Scold and pass on the sport route bolted every 10 feet, but leave it for those who like it.
While not easy, the way I suggest through tiffs like on this thread about bolting style is to agree area by area just how protection style preferences can play out without curtailing the options of anyone. Argue to the death (keeping as civil as possible) about what styles are superior as a climbing experience, but don’t chop the sport routes and don’t retro bolt the trad routes. Preferably, stake out cliffs to provide opportunities for each style and enjoy. If both styles have to play on the same cliff, go with caution when crossing old trad routes with new sport routes to avoid effectively retro bolting the old lines (the new Southern Sierra guidebook makes just this point). I think this is the way (and maybe only way) to insure maximum climbing satisfaction and minimum harm to camaraderie of the game.”
These and other posts and articles on style issues going back several years can be found in two places on my website, for those interested:
http://www.tomhiggins.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=2&id=5&Itemid=19
And:
http://www.tomhiggins.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=2&id=11&Itemid=22
Tom Higgins
LongAgo
|
|
Jim Clipper
climber
from: forests to tree farms
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 09:56pm PT
|
All those stomemasters will be reborn in their next life looking up at the routes they put up in their previous lives and then saying;
"Who is the psycho that put up these routes?"
"We need to add some bolts" they'll say.
How ironic? LOL
perhaps, already happened
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 10:10pm PT
|
Great post Tom Higgins!
Thanks.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 10:22pm PT
|
The claim of "entitlement" is pretty ironic!
For years, decades, a route was a simple calculus: It offered a challenge, as is. The route offered an experience, and the ethic of the day, the name of the game, was that if you wanted to play game, you followed the dictates of the route. Or you found another route. You didn't go to the ballpark, so to speak, cry fowl because you didn't like curve balls, and suddenly declare that you have henceforth changed the rules to fit your own needs and comfort level because, after all, nobody "owns' baseball.
That much said, when a climber looks up at a "museum" run out climb, and decides that the challenge it offers is invalid, by their own evaluation, and that it needs to be retooled according to their own standards, who, in clear and actual fact, is asserting their "entitlement" over the route?
Fey, shamelessly craven efforts to try and flip this equation by accusing the FA party of anything at all is known in psychology as a "reversal," an attempt to try and deflect what you are doing (claiming ownership of the route so you can do exactly as you please, and to hell with traditon because I say so), and lay some concocted blame on the FA.
A person not only has to have no shame to do this, and no pride in their ability to muster an effort (dumbing down 40 years old routes is an embarrassment considering how good modern climbers are), but you have to have an inflated sense of entitlement to even think this way. What's more, what does the first ascent party have to do with you? Their not holding you hostage. You either do the route as is, or not. What's wrong with having to work up to something. Nothing, unless your need or in this case your "right" to climb the route needs to be immediately gratified. Postponing gratification till you develop the necessary nerve and self mastery is the ticket to ride here. By changing the route you swindle your own self out of a chance to grow and improve. But as they say in the recovery movement, "I know what I want and I want it NOW." Never mind working up to something. That takes effort.
JL
|
|
johnkelley
climber
Anchorage Alaska
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 10:50pm PT
|
So I should change professions too?
|
|
DavidRoberts
climber
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 11:17pm PT
|
JL, thanks for your reply. I appreciate you relating your personal experience with Harms Way.
For me, the crux of the issue is where you talk about "the route" as if it is a natural thing. "It simply was." I disagree. A route is a contrivance of a man, a journey undertaken by one person, protected to suit his standard. I would NEVER presume to tell the FA how they should climb, and have respect for those that are stronger and bolder than me. By the same token, I don't think that the FA has any right to dictate anything to anyone just by virtue of them being there first.
Jhedge said:
(a route) was "tooled" to somebody's arbitrary standards in the first place, which were neither more or less valid than anyone else's. Claiming your standards are valid, and the standards of anyone who wants to change it aren't, strictly because you got there first is, obviously, entitlement.
I agree with this. When I combine it with the fact that the adventure, the challenge of the runout or solo, can still be had, regardless of bolts, I come to the conclusion that FA ownership is less about the preservation of the challenge and more about ego or territoriality.
Not all routes are for all people. Not everything should be dumbed-down to sport climbing standards. Cracks that take gear should not be bolted. A three star 5.9 pitch that was soloed by a 5.13 climber should not be off limits for a party willing to put in the work to bolt it. Dogmatic adherence to the "law" of FA ownership is flawed. That is what I believe. Others see things differently. The rock where we all come together is a public resource. Neither one of us own it. We need to work through our disagreements with respect, dialogue and compromise.
David Roberts
Alpine, CA
|
|
allapah
climber
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 11:54pm PT
|
the law was installed by the founding fathers in the golden age as a way to protect the rights of the stone itself- these are human-centered viewpoints on this thread- we have been trolled by sir jabbers and now i have been foolishly drawn in as well to point out that the rock is imbued with mental process and would most certainly say sack it up
the law is also an inalienable mammalian directive, playground rules, a Y2K bug embedded in our triune brains, there's nothing we can do about it: you must do it in the style of the first guy to make it up there, hence all this talk of scrota
in the choss fields, where each protection point is theoretically worth zero, the law is of course irrelevant
|
|
patrick compton
Trad climber
van
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2013 - 11:58pm PT
|
Warbler,
Not really a fair challenge considering the old school's solution is to do nothing and address dissent from the community with 'sac up. '
Seems like some routes are more fitting of retrobolt consideration than others. Identify those, then there is a place to start a discussion.
When my mother asked my grandmother what was most valuable of all the antiques in her basement, she looked shocked and said 'well, all of them! ' They weren't, and these routes all aren't.
A good way to maintain control of the situation would be to let few go.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!