Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
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
WA
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2011 - 03:46pm PT
|
Am I the only one who has read Ammon's article?
|
|
crunch
Social climber
CO
|
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
yo
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.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2011 - 06:16pm PT
|
Ummm, yo? Can you possibly explain that one for those of us who may not be quite so with it?
|
|
11worth
Trad climber
Leavenworth & Greenwater WA
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2011 - 11:58pm PT
|
What happended to Kait's post from a few minutes ago?
|
|
Transmission
climber
Dallas, TX
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2011 - 04:58pm PT
|
Uh, Transmission bro, why did you edit that quote to cut out the part that don't jive with your viewpoint?
Let's give the rest of it for context, eh budday?
Actually, budday, it jives just fine and thank you for playing the pawn and pointing that out -- what you fail to realize is that that just makes it that much worse -- it's a "MORE NATURAL LINE" but the guy had to use freakin' bolt ladders to get up it.
So I ask again in as sarcastic a tone as I can: where is the outrage? Where are SG and Mimi condemning this blow-hard? I thought we were going for a standard of ethics here? YOU CAN"T HAVE A STANDARD IF THE TARGET KEEPS CHANGING! That is the opposite of what a standard actually is.
Some cummon, SG and Mimi, where is the sh!tstorm over this? == pun intended.
Hypocrites.
|
|
deuce4
climber
Hobart, Australia
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2011 - 06:07pm PT
|
a good point, if essessively expressed.
i would argue that the amount of "unnatural" placements ( bolts, rivets, chisselled heads, bathooks, enhanced hooks, etc.) determines the "naturalness" of the line.
In this sense, both lines are similar.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
primordial soup
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2011 - 06:17pm PT
|
some people might possibly argue that linking natural features still makes for a potential "natural line", and that the absence of said features was why nobody had ascended the slab before, since it would be just linking of drilled placements.
again, hard to have a discussion in 2011 in the context of what was valid in 1982, since tube socks and ball hugger dolphin running shorts were then popular.
another often repeated metric (as related to "outrage") is the honest reporting of tactics and whatnot, so what did kohl report originally? harding after all did famously drill his way up off the nose through the middle of the night, and nobody can say that's an unnatural line.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
The choice of line is a little questionable. 
Let us know!