Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Hangerlessbolt
Trad climber
Portland, OR
|
|
|
Nov 29, 2006 - 10:12pm PT
|
Nothing more to be said
|
|
Anastasia
Trad climber
Mammoth Lakes, CA
|
|
|
Nov 29, 2006 - 10:44pm PT
|
A response to Fracture...
What is a better climber? The guy that hang dogs a route using the rope as aid to learn a route? Or the guy that flashes and free climbs the route?
As Bob Kamps once said, leave hang dogging at the gym and do it right.
|
|
Cuckawalla
Trad climber
Grand Junction, CO
|
|
|
Nov 29, 2006 - 11:17pm PT
|
Since I do a lot of climbing solo, I usually establish the free climbs aid first and clean it as I go up and place anchor stations as I go. Do I get to be in the cool ground up clan? Or must I first balance on one toe on a friable flake while rubbing my crotch on a small nubbin for balance as I daintily slam on a drill?
Jesse
|
|
Cuckawalla
Trad climber
Grand Junction, CO
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2006 - 12:02am PT
|
shoot, ill work on that.
|
|
golsen
Social climber
kennewick, wa
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2006 - 12:08am PT
|
Well Cuck, it does sound like a certain uh, satisfaction may be gained from that.
|
|
Cuckawalla
Trad climber
Grand Junction, CO
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2006 - 12:09am PT
|
I hear its only in circular clockwise directions. You counter the actions and things get..ah rubbed the wrong way
|
|
Russ Walling
Social climber
Out on the sand, Man.....
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2006 - 12:34am PT
|
Applicable?
From: Russ Walling
Date: Sat, Oct 3 1998 12:00 am
Gary Clark, naclassics...@usa.net writes:
>In Rock & Ice #87, we have Jim Bridwell' s essay "Where Are We Going?"
>containing this well-worn bit of climbing philosophy: "Climbers of lesser
>skill or lesser commitment had begun adding bolts to existing routes,
>destroying the dignity of other people's achievements and bringing them
>down to their level."
>Then in the photo-essay "2 Days in the Valley", we
>come upon this caption to Galen Rowell's photo of Ron Kauk climbing Cookie
>Monster: "Traditionalists may have screamed when the bolts when in, but the
>climb's popularity leaped exponentially and dozens of climbers each month
>now enjoy its technical liebacking and sudden exposure."
>Is the style of the first ascent somehow sacrosanct, or can
>ensuing generations "improve" on it?
Yes it is and I'll tell you why. In this sanitised world of diminished
returns and quick gains, some things should just not be within an arms reach or a minds grasp. Some things are just not for everyone. Call it what you want, but every climb is not for every person.
>First, I fail to see the logic of considering a particular piece of a crag
>or mountain to be evermore the exclusive property of whomever may have
>first shown up to climb it.
For the same reason that we do not add a moustache to the Mona Lisa.
For the same reason we don't rename Everest every time it gets climbed....someone put the time and effort into making a route, be it for whatever reason, and much like a conquistador has claimed this rock and put protection in as he saw fit. History dictates this as an acceptable style and method.
>Often the style employed by first ascensionist is aimed at simply getting up the route * they may have little
>time or intention of creating a route for those who will follow
>(sport routes are the exception, hence their popularity).
Flat out wrong. This is not the case where I climb, though it may be
where you climb. The modern first ascentionist actually puts in a lot of time and money to make the routes not only good, but equipped with sound bolts and other points of protection for those who will follow. Not only on Sport routes, but "sporty" routes as well.
>Second, it is obvious that the quality of protection is but one element that determines
>the risk involved in getting up a route. If we are to be so intent on retaining the same risk of injury or death
>for a leader fall as that experienced by the first ascensionists, why is it then permissible to improve on all the
>other risk factors? Shouldn't we all be doing The Nose
>in Vibram soles, using prussik knots and goldline ropes? Anything less is
>an afront to Warren Harding et al! They suffered with terrible gear and
>technique, so should all that follow!
You are correct. Technical advances have taken the teeth out of many
things, making the adding of bolts seem even more puss. New advances in gear are an accepted part of the sport. Adding or changing routes is yet to be an accepted standard.
Why, then, is it such a sin to
>improve such a basic element of a climb as the quality of the protection or
>anchors?
I can agree with the anchors portion of the argument, though some will
differ claiming that sh#t anchors add to the challenge. If sh#t anchors are indeed part of challenge of a given route, then I guess these too should be left alone. Same argument as adding protection bolts. Adding bolts to an existing route changes the route. Say you decide you need three extra bolts to make the route fun for you...someone else decides six makes if good for him...then ten...then? Where does it end? It should end where the guy who put the effort forth
to do the FA decides.
>I would suggest for two reasons:
> First, the first ascensionists want to make sure those who follow are
>sufficiently impressed with how bold they were,
In some cases this is true, and even so this effort should not be
watered down by some ball-less coward. This is what was attempted in the Needles of California. A disgruntled would be FA guy started to add bolts to numerous runout routes, thus making the climbs safe for "him". Wrong answer. He should have either whipped his sad ass into shape and then go and do the routes as designed by the FA party or just sucked it up enough to admit to himself that he just did not have what it takes to do some of those routes. Another point is that what seems to be a dangerous runout to someone doing a later
ascent was truly dangerous for the FA guy standing there trying to drill the bolt you now so easily clip. In his judgement or because of the nature of the area climbed, it is possible he could not stop to drill the bolt until a substantial runout was formed. So, now some guy comes along and says "gee, he's just running it out to be bold...lets add bolts". Wrongo. How about just doing the route, and saying "gee, what a good route. Nice effort for the FA guy on this one..."
>I suggest it is a notion whose time has come and passed. If a well
established and
>popular one route can be substantially improved by the careful and
>strategic placement of new protection, not only will the experience be
>enhanced for hundreds to follow, but perhaps some serious injuries or
>deaths will be prevented.
The question being why must hundreds follow? Why must injury or death
be prevented? Some climbers prefer to get outside the sanitised bubble of "gym"
climbing outdoors and test themselves and their mettle against not only the rock but other men. Example: The Bachar/Yerian in Tuolumne. If you go up to do this route you are not only testing yourself against the rock, but also against Bachar; or Gullich who whistled for 60ft out of the thing, or Menestral, another hard puller who took the ride. At least some of these guys are probably one of your "heros" or should be. Which would you sooner have: a level playing field where you can match your skills with a truly great climber, or some clip and go bush walk where all you do is pull and never think about the consequences? I'll take the first one, thank you.
>All this at the cost of a bruise to the ego of the hard men who believe that the route should remain a perpetual
>monument to their courage and boldness. Let it be recorded in the guidebooks that the route was done in
>bathroom slippers with railroad spikes for protection
>so that all can be properly impressed, then let's get on with making it
>something worth climbing!
It is not the ego of the hardmen that are bruised, but rather the soft
flesh and accomplishment of the climber who cheapens the event. To those with the requisite skill and nerve, these projects are the only things worth climbing, not some flaccid clip up with no sense of history.
>For those who bemoan the loss of adventure, I make two suggestions. First, there are vast ranges of unclimbed
>objectives out there where you can find a climb as challenging as you wish.
Won't happen, bad suggestion. The loss of adventure was not there for
the FA party. They got full value, before you even showed up, and at the time the route probably was an unclimbed objective. The flip side of this argument is why don't all the safe and sane wusses go and find something they can bolt the sh#t out of and then play happy all over, their own ball-less masterpiece, a climb just a safe as you wish.
>Second, if you want to do a route in the style of the first ascent,
there's often
>nothing stopping you * grab a rack of Hexes, put on some hiking boots, and
>make sure you don't clip any offending bolts or fixed gear as you go up.
Discussed above, and yes, some guys still do this. More power to them.
>None of this is intended to indicate I favor immediately leaping on
>someone's new route and grid bolting it because you can't climb it. But a
>route that has stood the test of time, but for which an improvement here or
>there could change it from a dangerous undertaking to a real classic, or to
>eliminate an aid section in favor of free climbing, is a route that will
>eventually be improved. This is already happening, and the trend will
>accelerate, to the benefit of the vast majority of the climbing community.
This is such sh#t. Just leave it alone and go to the gym. Routes that
stay the test of time are something to aspire to, not something to defile. Your
improvement may be fine for you, but will surely not be enough for someone else.
Just leave it alone. Everything does not need to be safe. Everyone does not have to climb everything. Face up to the fact that there are some routes you will never be able to do. You can cloak your own limitations in the old "good for the masses" battle cry of the retrobolter, but the real motivation in doing this is not for the masses. It is all about bringing something down to your level because you cannot rise up to meet the challenge head on.
>The first ascensionists should treat it as a complement that the route was
>worth repeating. That's my view of "Where we are going."
Retrobolting is no compliment. It is a slap in your own face, and hopefully not where we are going.
My .08
Russ
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2006 - 01:03am PT
|
Russ quoted
"Then in the photo-essay "2 Days in the Valley", we
>come upon this caption to Galen Rowell's photo of Ron Kauk climbing Cookie
>Monster: "Traditionalists may have screamed when the bolts when in, but the
>climb's popularity leaped exponentially and dozens of climbers each month
>now enjoy its technical liebacking and sudden exposure."
Sometimes the devil is in the details. Folks cite Cookie Monster as a retrobolt but in fact it was preprotected by somebody else aiding it first and leaving the gear in, including a few fixed pins, which, you guessed it, damage the climb. Smith almost ate it being lowered off the pins on an early burn when they started to come out while he was on the rope. The proud "used to be a trad" climb rep was a fantasy.
Show me any legendary hardman and I'll show you somebody who probably added a bolt to a climb via the devil's details department.
Example. I think Vern added a bolt to Sunshine on Daff in TM on the second ascent. Why? There was a one 1/4 inch bolt belay. Why? Not because the FA was bold, but because they either ran out of bolts or their bit broke, cant' remember which.
Doesn't mean the basic "don't retrobolt" principles don't apply but again "abstinence only" is something we tell the kids but act differently ourselves.
Peace
karl
|
|
Greg Barnes
climber
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2006 - 03:16am PT
|
Russ nails it perfectly: "Face up to the fact that there are some routes you will never be able to do."
Every climber knows there are routes that are above our abilities. The problem with this whole argument is that many are so focused on numbers. Most of us here can't even consider 5.14 as a realistic goal. But that number is just that - a number. A number that tries to reduce the rock to a strange subjective system. And a number that says nothing about pro and psychological difficulty.
Wes focuses on this "5.13 climber putting up runout 5.11" when a much more appropriate description would be "really strong climber launching into the unknown on unheard of runout climbing on way-too-steep-to-stance-drill super-steep knobs with NO KNOWN good hook placements and lots of knobs that might break especially if hooked."
Too much focusing on numbers instead of the challenges of the rock. That leads to this idea that if you can get up some number climb somewhere you are entitled to do it anywhere you choose. Forget the numbers and challenge yourself with the climbing - considering all the factors of the climb.
Or, to put it bluntly, if you don't like runout climbs, climb protectable ones or put up your own new routes however you like. I'm not "entitled" to make it up a 5.14 if I'm not physically strong enough - and I'm also not "entitled" to make it up a Higgins 5.9 in Tuolumne if I'm not psychologically strong enough.
|
|
ec
climber
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2006 - 03:39am PT
|
Thx Russ!
I always liked Doug Robinson's piece, "The Whole Natural Art of Protection." Here's the applicable stuff:
"Where protection is not assured by a usable crack long unprotected runouts sometimes result, and the leader of commitment must be prepared to accept the risks and alternatives which are only too well defined. Personal qualities - judgment, concentration, boldness - the ordeal by fire, take precedence, as they should, over mere hardware.
..."But every climb is not for every climber; the ultimate climbs are not democratic. The fortunate climbs protect themselves by being unprotectable and remain a challenge that can be solved only by boldness and commitment backed solidly by technique. Climbs that are forced clean by the application of boldness should be similarly respected, lest a climber be guilty of destroying a line for the future's capable climbers to satisfy his impatient ego in the present -- by waiting he might become one of the future capables. Waiting is also necessary; every climb has its time, which need not be today.
..."And having the humility to back off rather than continue in bad style - - a thing well begun is not lost. The experience cannot be taken away. By such a system there can never again be "last great problems" but only "next great problems."
http://www.climbaz.com/chouinard72/ch_page12.html
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2006 - 04:51am PT
|
Thanks for posting about clean climbing.
Wall climbing seems to be where boldness and perservation are at odds. Folks like to clean fixed pin and head to preserve the difficulty but in doing so sometimes create a situation where further damage to the rock is required.
Where you think we should draw the line between hammering the rock more and leaving some things fixed until some better solution presents itself?
Peace
karl
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2006 - 05:08am PT
|
Weschrist, again, have you ever done an FA? If so, were they rap bolted sport climbs or ground up trad climbs? If you haven't put up any FA's than you're really more like a painter who doesn't paint but instead criticizes with a brush and who is sure they know just what a 'difficult' painting needs to make it more "accessible" to the general public.
And analogies to the arts can be a fairly useful tool in this discussion. Van Gogh was a gifted painter, but let's face it, he had no shortage of personal problems many of which bled through onto a few of his canvases. We recognize that today, but you don't see anyone rushing to 'repair' them so we can all have a better appreciation of some of his lesser works. And Hemingway was talented beyond question, but decades of literary criticism have built consensus around the weakness of a passage here and a passage there - no doubt each easily subject to simple fixes for all our benefit.
I suspect we can agree those are unpalatable prospects for obvious reasons, and so I suspect analogies to music would be more to your liking. Mozart - clearly a genius - has been interpreted and reinterpreted for centuries for the enjoyment of all without any harm to his legacy. True enough I'll grant you, but then again, hearing Mozart play or listening to the performances of his work in his time is sadly lost to us; all we have is approximate interpretations. But what B-Y or a Kohl A4+ solo line has in common with say, Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 24 in C minor, K. 491, is that listening to Mozart's concerto is like watching Bachar, Kohl or another of their ilk climb one of their routes. Playing the concerto, however, is like climbing one of those routes. Dumbing either down so they can be played or climbed by lesser mortals unavoidably destroys the very essence of each. Not everyone is capable of producing or performing these difficult classics and that is in large measure exactly what makes them classics.
But of course you claim you aren't talking about classics and I agree. Rather I'm saying you are using the pretext of 'repairing' a few FA F#ckups to provide cover for a broad retrobolting of runout climbs that aren't protected by the imprimatur of fame or infamy. Your convenient indignation over prior art is made wholly transparent when you inadvertantly let fly with gems like '...could have brillant experiences if only...' and reveal your real motive - risk-free 'consumptive' entertainment.
And that's 'consumptive' as in consuming rock with bolts. The Pandora aspect of the impact of gyms and sport climbing has been to generate a reality distortion field of denial over the entire sport. That is evidenced by sport climbers who in general simply dimiss as non-existent many intangible aspects of rock prized by trad climbers. LNT and reverence of stone were swiftly, summarily, and sacrificially dispatched in the early 80's as sport climbing necessarily commoditized rock. And make no mistake, unbolted rock is an undeniable commodity getting more precious by the day (and oh, the absolute inhumanity of our grandchildren deprived of the orgasmic heart beat of a Hilti rapidly thumping home on a cleft of virgin rock!). If you doubt how strong the distortion field and denial are you need only head East to see beautifully colored overhanging sandstone walls literally carpeted with draws and chains and despoiled by chalk and then realize most climbers are totally oblivious as to why some folks might have a problem with that.
And don't get me wrong - I'm all for compromise, but not one that means I'm supposed to stand idly by and watch our legacy, trad climbs, and the last vestiges of pristine rock consumed for mere entertainment by people who aren't even aware of, let alone appreciate, what is sacrificed and lost in the process.
|
|
fracture
Sport climber
Austin, TX
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2006 - 10:03am PT
|
Don't be ridiculous, Joseph. An FA of a climbing route has nothing in common with painting or composing, regardless of how much you want to pretend it does. The only situation in which you could really consider routes artistic "creations" on anything remotely approaching that level is if the route is fully chipped and manufactured.
|
|
fracture
Sport climber
Austin, TX
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2006 - 10:06am PT
|
Hedge wrote:
Someone who is a proficient sport climber is cheating everytime they trad climb, because they hangdogged to get to the level of climbing ability they're at. If your climbing ability benefits in any way from doing just one rap-bolted climb, you've tainted your entire trad career, and you will never be able to actually trad climb anything ever again. You will always be on an invisible top rope, on every trad climb you ever do, whether you like it or not. In fact, just knowing that sport climbing even exists creates moral and ethical conundrums for the would-be trad climber, who would otherwise think that the ground-up, sub-warmup level 5.11 they were flailing on in fact represented the pinnacle of human achievement. It is therefore dubious at best that trad climbing really even exists anymore.
Best post in the thread. Thanks for that, Joe.
|
|
fracture
Sport climber
Austin, TX
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2006 - 10:16am PT
|
Anastasia wrote:
A response to Fracture...
What is a better climber? The guy that hang dogs a route using the rope as aid to learn a route? Or the guy that flashes and free climbs the route?
What are you talking about? The latter, of course. But the people who use hangdog tactics are far better at the latter than the people who don't. (Cf. Bob's posts.)
(And, as Joe points out, real traditional, ground up climbing doesn't truly exist anymore. Just so much as thinking about sport climbing ruins it.)
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2006 - 11:22am PT
|
Karl wrote:Show me any legendary hardman and I'll show you somebody who probably added a bolt to a climb via the devil's details department.
Most great climbs have been done by somewhat dubious means...Jim Erickson..."On the Rocks".
The purtian ways/thinking of some trad-climbers cracks me the f*#k up!!!
|
|
Broken
climber
Texas
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2006 - 11:49am PT
|
Fracture wrote: "Don't be ridiculous, Joseph. An FA of a climbing route has nothing in common with painting or composing, regardless of how much you want to pretend it does. The only situation in which you could really consider routes artistic "creations" on anything remotely approaching that level is if the route is fully chipped and manufactured."
This is true in a sense, since the rock is already there. However, I think the analogy has some validity when it comes to permanent protection on a run-out climb - the spacing of protection in the context of the climbing between could be seen as a piece of art.
However, I could see how choice of line on a big face could also bear some semblance to art.
And while a repeat is never the same as the FA, we can appreciate a degree of what they went through when we do the route ourselves. Climbing is unique in this aspect. There are few other sports (or whatever you want to call it) where you can do this.
You can't repeat a superstar's action in a team sport. The fact that so many kids fantasize about this in the backyard shows how powerful it can be.
If you take away the history of climbing by making all routes "safer," you eliminate this element.
And, actually, I think there are some parts of the music analogy that apply. When you play a piece written by someone else (or sung), you can catch a glimpse of the emotional/creative ride they went on during the creation.
Similarly, you can marvel that the FA stood on that nubbin long enough to place a bolt when you barely feel secure enough to take a hand off and clip-in.
And then when you cast off upwards, uncertain of what's above, you can share a little bit of the past and put yourself through a similar test to that which the FA underwent.
|
|
Broken
climber
Texas
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2006 - 11:55am PT
|
Fracture-
How would you feel if someone chipped a sport climb or boulder problem you revere down to an "attainable" level?
What if Realization was chipped down to 5.13b?
There are many people that would have a similar feeling if bolts were added to the B-Y / Perilous Journey.
Either action destroys the climb - even though each climb would be climbable by many more people.
This analogy is not totally invalid.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2006 - 12:14pm PT
|
Fracture, our extreme difference of opinion over whether FA's are art or not is very much part of the heart of the argument here. Not only are FA's art, they are an art that keeps on giving being both a piece of original work and then providing a unique experience to every one who subsequently climbs the route. High art indeed, but it's fundamentally a different discussion for a separate thread.
Oh, and some of us still put up routes exactly the same way we ever did - ground up, no previewing, cleaning on lead. The only affect thinking about sport climbing has on me is to redouble my appreciation for trad climbing. That and raising my curiosity about an equation that might (on an annual basis) juxtapose the number of bolts per pitch, total bolts installed, and the number of new routes against the annual tidal flow of gyms (the number of climbers who both start and stop climbing each year) since the first gym was built. Basically something that would give you a sense of the number of bolts per climber served each year. It would also be interesting to see the longevity / attrition stats the day folks first walk into a gym. In short, how many bolts and new routes does it take to sustain the industry.
The necessary annual output of a ceaseless stream of risk-free bolted routes and crags to feed that annual tidal flow is the very definition of consumerism and it's associated costs. That crags are now developed wholesale, sometimes with little more than passing consideration for individual routes beyond their contribution to the mix of the developers 'portfolio', is just so antithetical to all the reasons I climb as to almost defy description. I live to obsess over the potential of each individual line be they FA's or not; I climb purely for what each line offers with little or no thought of the route before or after it. But hey, that's clearly just me...
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
LA, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2006 - 12:20pm PT
|
This idea that skills gained through sport climbing techniques taint your trad ascents is kind of like saying a musician who practices scales and technique is tainted if they venture into jazz improvisation. I mean sure, it's an argument one can make. But it's silly.
The best climbers I know are, like great musicians, athletes, etc., diversified in their approach. Sport, trad, boulders, mountains, walls, gyms, they're all part of the game. It seems to me that these days trad, sport, ground up and top down are all alive and well.
Personally I like doing it ground up. I find the process challenging and exciting. I do it in places which are well suited to such an approach. And while I would discourage someone from showing up at an established ground up area and commencing to rap bolt a bunch of lines, I also would not show up at a place where rap bolting is the best way to establish good lines and start trying some goofy ground up sh*t. I'd just start clippin' bolts and have fun.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!