Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
Nothing creative to say
|
|
lol, but he's not in Aussieland. lol
"warning--I have not been to Yosemite in a dog's age but still feel confident that my opinion matters"
...what Richard said...
Eric is not the guy to be doing that work, even if a smart addition.
If it were about safety and 'smarts', there'd be two sets of anchors, one as a rap line for those going to DOLT or Glowering IAD. And another for fixing. The fixing would have several anchors for multiples to jug at the same time.
SAR guys would make money by collecting dropped ropes (and giving them back).
But jeebus, that's a lot of hardware and strung lines. But it's dirty man's ethics we're talking about for quanta of hardware and cord.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
John, I beg to differ. The guys raised on retro-bolted routes (and the mindset that you just slam in a new bolt whenever you "feel" that you are out of your "safe space") might "push new standards" of sport-climbing (read: gymnastic) prowess. But they will by and large not be pushing the edges of the envelope of BOLDNESS.
And if one excels and is actually BOLD, his routes will then be dumbed down by retro-bolts, until anybody that can do the same number of one-finger pull-ups can also "send" the route.
What we're seeing in this sector of America, as in too many others, is the dumbification (accessible to everybody) of all endeavors.
"We're all unique" now in the same way that snowflakes are "unique"... relentless in our "genetic" sameness, just with different clothing and hairdos.
As says the demotivator poster: The tallest blade of grass is the first to be hit by the mower.
And this classic:
|
|
deuce4
climber
Hobart, Australia
|
|
Maybe a vote system. Everyone gets a vote, and then a bonus vote for every day you've climbed in Yosemite in the past 99 days (100 votes max per person).
Now we need a maestro like Clint to tally the results...
|
|
deuce4
climber
Hobart, Australia
|
|
Madboltchopper, as a academic (I think I recall you mentioned your work in academic field?), have you seen this man's work? https://web.archive.org/web/20090912025519/http://www.eurolang.mq.edu.au/staff/documents/bertpeeters/Tallpoppy_Egalitarianism.pdf
But I'm not sure if that really applies here. It's not the past that Sloan is intentionally affecting, he is looking toward his vision of the future. Yes, his actions are affecting some past achievements, like the Great Slab and the 5.10d route on Church Bowl, but most of his work seems centered on a premise of future accessibility. It's the regard for the past that draw people into the argument, I suppose.
Personally, as someone who has done a lot of first ascents, I don't really feel any ownership over my routes--just a privilege-- though there is a deep down hope that someone, perhaps even just the second ascentionist, gets a feel for how bad ass I think I was back then. But I know deep down it won't last.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Why is recent climbing in Yosemite a metric?
It seems to me that the real issue here concerns the nature of "climbing" itself. Forgive me for fervor, but it has been like a type of "religion" for me, and I'm sure for many others here.
What's the difference between "climbing" and "hiking" if the boldness established on an FA can "rightly" just be "paved over" by people for whom boldness is not a value?
Look, such people can put up their own "adequately-protected" routes, so that spectrum of the "climbing" continuum will always be well-populated. Protecting the bold end of the continuum (i.e.: conforming yourself as closely as humanly possible to what the rock presents) is critical, imo.
To the extent that you conform the "climb" to you, you are treating the rock as apparatus, and you're doing gymnastics. Conversely, to the extent that you conform to the rock, what you're doing is climbing.
Take the basic principle of conforming yourself to the rock out of the equation, and there is zero motivation for risk and boldness in the "game" at all. I've risked my life and limbs many times (and am about to go do it again) on the principle of conforming myself to the rock. The more closely I can do that, the "better" my route is, and the more enriching of an experience I have.
The dumbing down path says, "Hey, even though the route WAS bold, nobody today should ever have to leave their 'safe space,' so I decide to make this route safe for all."
I respond, "If you want a 'safe space,' go climb something else, and leave this route alone for others who want to be bold. God knows that you've got plenty of 'safe space' routes to choose from, with more going up every day. Stay at your end of the spectrum, and leave the other end alone for those that want to live there."
What about being something like a "Yosemite local" has anything to do with such general principles? And why shouldn't a "non-local" have something to say about what happens there?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Personally, as someone who has done a lot of first ascents, I don't really feel any ownership, though there is a deep down hope that someone, perhaps even just the second ascentionist, gets a feel for how bad ass I think I was back then.
I totally get that mindset. I think that anybody who has paid the price to put up a bold FA has that somewhere in mind. But even when our drive is "purer," such as literally just wanting to push our own personal limits, without regard for how the "route" is perceived later, we can respect the general principle that a "route" is a thing, a creation, to be experienced as it was done. A piece of rock was USED UP in a strong sense to "establish" this "creation" there. There's an experience to be had there, a self-testing, a self-knowing.
The retro-bolter says, "NO! Nobody gets to have THAT experience. Everybody must have ONLY the experiences I say."
There's a hubris in putting up an FA. There's a much greater hubris in then dumbing it down.
|
|
deuce4
climber
Hobart, Australia
|
|
^^really good post.
But that's also the point, I don't think Sloan is focused or thinking about the dumbing down per se, just accessibility. They are related, but not the same?
Btw, just joking about vote system, but I do think it is a certainty that people who are more active have more valid opinions.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
The people willing to go out and bolt or chop have more valid (or at least more highly weighted) opinions.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
I love what Tom wrote on the GSR thread. It's worth the repost here, I think, as only Tom can say it like this....
He started out replacing bolts with ASCA, but his drill-addiction took over. The Bosch Bulldog turned on it's owner, and made him the bitch in the relationship. The monster became the master.
I can't stop laughing at "made him the bitch in the relationship."
Nicely done, Tom!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
I think this is absolutely wrong.
Not every route deserves the respect of generations to come.
So, you're saying that because there are exceptions, the general (not universal) principle is invalid?
Are you saying that there is no principle that undergirds the long-standing, many-decades-old principle of leaving FAs as close to the original as possible?
I'm pretty sure that I don't understand your intent in your post.
|
|
klaus
climber
Slauson & Crenshaw
|
|
John, I don't think you understand. this isn't about a few bolts on the nose raps. He has already destroyed at least 2 of my routes. Crystal Cyclone on the 9 Oclock wall: he added tons of bolts to it to make it "safe". Also Dante's Inferno on the Falls Wall: tons of bolts added.
Why? why add pussy bolts? He has no skill to do his own first ascent so he has to climb other routes and in the process make the hard parts "safe" by power drilling big bolts.
No Valley locals, especially the most local Werner, care one red c#&% hair about it. That is the problem.
Erik Sloan told me to my face that he couldn't handle the danger factor, and he was scared, so had had to power drill "safety bolts" turning a once proud A5 route into A2 on the second ascent.
If that's not Lame I don't know what is. And no one cares.
|
|
deuce4
climber
Hobart, Australia
|
|
Wow, didn't hear about those climbs. I do think there is merit is keeping Kohl routes as hairy as possible as long as possible, true testpieces of the era. But there's nothing to be done (except reclimb it) if someone goes up and chicken bolts it. Is that what happened?
In the same way, I hope that Bob the Aid Man's route Time Machine never sees a bolt. He went through great lengths to go boltless on that one (including doing a 300' pitch on the solo), one of the few big wall boltless first ascents in Yosemite. But they're just hopes, not directives from the past, i suppose.
It is disappointing when this kind of thing happens, I was dismayed at the 20 or so bolts added to Kali Yuga, some of those pitches were true testaments to Walt Shipley's legendary boldness. But what can ya do?
EDIT : Funny, I agree with main points on all sides of this debate, but also think that it is pointless to sit in an armchair and talk the big talk of action from afar. Dingus is of course correct in the fact that things will change and we can't perfectly preserve the past. Thus the issue is the speedier change brought on by a particular person's actions. For me it seems mo bettah that it is being done consistently rather than randomly, perhaps. And that there is support from many of the active players makes me think twice.
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
Nothing creative to say
|
|
They could be directives from the past, if we outfit ourselves with an ethic as a community. To admit that 'safe for all' on all existing climbs option permits retrobolting at will.
Anarchy, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria. I keeed, but the point is that from a principled approach some of those types of actions can degrade the experience. But even if we let exceptions in, the more important thing is 'who' is ok to do them. Eric believes in his future, but it conflicts with the values and tradition of the past. Gents like Mike. will course-correct.
Personally, I only see territorial defense as the absolute stop on unethical approaches. E.g. pushing Pinnacles ethics at Pinnacles. Pushing Ground Up on the back side of half dome, and at the same time sport climbs have been set up top down in other parts of the Valley. The concern is that we only have so much space on existing 'challenging' climbs to preserve the traditions of the past with the modern use of moto drills, so why not have Eric put up super safe routes that are independent of existing lines? Likely because hand drilling sucks when you have to drill a lot of holes.
He totally could do it by hand and find some nice safe cracks to link up a Grade V. But it would take time. Lots of time. But even then would people get bent at 'too many bolts' just because of the quanta of bolts? Dirty man's ethics.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
That's some high minded principle....
That's a bad thing? That's an invalid thing?
Of course we don't always measure up to the standard at all times. As I said, it's hubris to do a new route AT ALL, because it's logically possible for somebody else, someday, to more closely conform to the rock. That's why when we do FAs, we do self-examine to ask something like, "Am I capable of doing this to a high enough standard that it is 'what's possible' now?" And, if we care, we do grapple with that question. It's a limited resource!
I wouldn't knowingly retrobolt someone else's climbing route, even with their permission.
Why not???
Everything in your last two posts is this fatalistic, "Nothing matters," crap. So, who gives a crap what you do or don't do? YOU shouldn't! Do whatever you feel, without regard to your own feelings, because even your feelings are subject to change. There's just this grand, sweeping, fatalistic relativism. So you have NO basis to even "feel" like you wouldn't do this or that. Or maybe you would. Whatever. Nothing matters.
What BS!
At very best, I can ask nicely, please don't alter my routes.
But, as you posted just upthread, they are not "your" routes. You have no ownership. You had your experience, and nobody can ever have "the same" experience. So NOTHING MATTERS!
Asking nicely doesn't seem to be part of this principle. Its an order, not a request; one that often enough comes with veiled or outright threats of violence.
More fabrications. These threads have repeatedly asked ES to STOP. He's been asked face-to-face repeatedly. He pays no attention. But "nice" has been there countless times!
And only a couple of people have advocated violence. Most here do not suggest nor condone it.
Now you're just making stuff up.
I believe that you've kicked into one of your cynical, self-serving, troll modes. It happens to you now and then.
And it really doesn't matter if your accept it or not.
Riggghhhttt.... Because....
Wait for it....
NOTHING MATTERS.
Okay, then don't bother posting, since it doesn't matter.
To many of us, it does matter. We'll continue to talk about it.
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
But what can ya do?
I already answered that.
And eventually someone will grow a backbone and they will find out I'm right. No need to involve rangers, law enforcement, YOSAR or any other authority beyond one dedicated individual with hate in his heart and a roll of quarters in his hand. I promise you, dental work has a way of changing people's minds.
Not willing to do that? Then climbing ethics will continue down the toilet until they don't really exist. Until someone is ready to fight for it, the likes of ES will continue unfettered.
MB1, your mob incident, I contend, was a horse of a completely different color. So while I can understand your reluctance to agree with me, I hope you can at least recognize that without a meaningful and memorable adjustment nothing will change.
|
|
deuce4
climber
Hobart, Australia
|
|
(Escopeta post above)
^^that's just stupid. Like calling on the "second amendment guys". There's No place for condoning violence here.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
MB1, your mob incident, I contend, was a horse of a completely different color.
I take your point, Esco, and I'm even sympathetic with what's motivating it. My worry is that "we all know" is a pretty scary metric. Anytime a mob decides that it "knows" what the story is (like we all "know" in the case of ES), my worry is that it really doesn't.
"Evidence" is a pretty tricky entity. The formal legal system is the best effort invented by which to objectively define/assess evidence. Mobs are notoriously bad at doing that. Even the legal system screws up, but at least that process is as good as we can do.
When do "we" get to decide that ES has been "warned/cajoled enough," so "it's time to really ACT" against him personally?
The problem with getting it wrong is that that really is illegal (and for good reason).
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
It doesn't take a mob MB1. Just one person.
And deuce....no one is condoning violence. Merely pointing out a fact that most aren't willing to concede; that it's the only choice here that ends with meaningful results.
|
|
Oso Flaco
Gym climber
Atascadero, CA
|
|
I've read through this forum in its entirety and hear two main points of opposition to placing the new rap stations:
1. ethical/respect
2. convenience/dumbing down
My stance: in favor of additional rappel stations
My 'qualifications:' Active stakeholder. I don't consider myself a Valley local but climb there enough and live close enough to feel like a stakeholder in the climbing scene there. I have climbed Nose, but didn't bail off it so have not personally done the rappels from Sickle or Dolt. I've made 5 trips to the Valley this year. I plan to climb The Nose again and also a NIAD at some point.
My opinion:
Addressing point 1 above: I don't see anything unethical about adding new rappel anchors to a routeless portion of the wall, in an existing rappel lane. From Dolt it takes 8 x 50 m rappels to the ground with rap stations every 50 m. I'm assuming Sloan is placing the new anchors half-way between the existing 50 m rap stations so that the result is rap stations at every 25 m for a total of 16 rap stations (placing the new ones to accomodate a 60 m rope would result in the same number of new stations needed and there would be alternating 30 m & 20 m rappels, so not as good of a choice IMO). That would be 16 new bolts at a minimum and the result would accommodate all rope lengths down to a single 50 m rope. Sweet. I think the rappels from Sickle are set up the same, 4 x 50 m rappels, so 8 new bolts from Sickle.
As far as the argument for 'respect,' none of us go out and climb The Nose in the style of the FA out of respect for their ascent. Not even the second ascent did. If you feel that others should have to deal with or suffer through the same difficulties you had to due to the limitations of your day, you need to just get over it. It's not how this world works; invention, improvement, and innovation is part of human nature and change is constant (with the exception of NASCAR). They can respect your tougher ascent without having to do it that way. This argument is, however, a slippery slope regarding retro-bolting for on-route protection, which I think can steal the adventure from a route, upon which much of the traditional climbing sport is based, that others should have a chance at realizing.
Addressing point 2 above: Yes, it does make rappelling the route from Sickle and Dolt more convenient. That is the point. It also should help relieve congestion by allowing teams to climb a bit faster without the weight of an extra rope. Fortunately with The Nose, (Werner had to straighten some of you out about this), the rappel routes from Sickle Ledge and Dolt Tower are completely separate from the climbing route. In this regard, worrying about more traffic on the climbing route as a result of making the rappelling route more convenient and expedient is a moot point. The climbing will still be the same, with the same climbing challenges to be faced by potential suitors. Perhaps having to bring a tagline or second rope to rappel with is a minor deterrant, but I argue that it is the climbing itself that regulates the traffic on The Nose, not the small strategy/equipment detail of bringing a second rope.
Will the boon of not having to carry a second rope up to Dolt Tower increase traffic on The Schnoz? I don't know the answer, but I can make assumptions based on personal experience. Personally, when considering climbs and strategy, I do all I can to prevent having to bring a second rope that is dead weight for most of the time. It sucks having to carry it when you're free climbing; and adds noticeable weight to a haul. However, having to carry an additional rope hasn't stopped me from getting on the routes I want to climb that require it. What has stopped me is the difficultly of the climbing or the reputation of a route.
The Nose isn't a standard multi-day big wall climb anymore. It can be, and probably is for most folks aspiring to it, but it has also become a racetrack. It is the standard track for chasing the speed climbing end. I don't imagine this will change, so in this case the route has and will evolve to accommodate the speed ascents.
A party doing a dolt run carrying 1 rope will, in theory, get there a bit faster having less weight to carry of a second rope. The additional rap stations would probably not benefit multi-day parties that are hauling, since they have the haul line as the second line. NIAD teams will appreciate it a whole lot since they often base their decision on whether to continue and commit to the whole enchilada on their times to Sickle Ledge and Dolt Tower. They will also benefit immensely from weight savings of not having to carry a second rope, and perhaps being able to do the route with a single 50 m.
Should the decisions be left to locals? Or to stakeholders in general? If to the locals, a local meeting would be a good idea. If not, then an internet forum seems appropriate. Most other climbers I know that frequent the Valley, but aren't local, peruse this forum occasionally, so I don't think it's a waste to discuss something like this here. I'm not sure it is the best tool for a public forum, but it seems adequate and better suited than something like the Sunday Climber's Coffee since this online forum is more broadly accessible. One of the conundrums we face is that nobody likes the idea of one person making decisions about a resource we all share, but nobody wants to impose a formal regulatory system to prevent it because it would take away from our freedom and our fun. We should all also consider that the other voiceless stakeholders are those that will be climbing there in the future; all decisions made that affect this common resource of ours should be examined in this light.
Aside:
I find it odd that a thread like this turns half into a Wings of Steel debate and one must fish through the irrelevance to get to anything meaningful. It matters to like 3 people who write voluminous responses that muddy the thread. To everyone else it can be both frustrating and entertaining at the same time, but probably not missed.
|
|
Oso Flaco
Gym climber
Atascadero, CA
|
|
Additionally, I think traffic on The Nose and in the Valley in general will increase much more from climbing becoming more popular, population growth, improved equipment, better training methods, etc. than it will because of a few extra rappel bolts and the option to carry a single rope up to Dolt Tower.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!