Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2009 - 10:57am PT
|
If you ever needed any adittional evidence some people will not listen to what the other side has to say and are just interested in personal attacks.
No ankle injury? Yet another outright LIE
He said it was dislocated, not sprained. How could you possibly get "No ankle injury" out of that? Then claim it was a LIE. Wow. I wonder if an apology is coming for that? I'm not holding my breath. CLOWN? Look in the mirror.
|
|
Steve Grossman
Trad climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2009 - 11:47am PT
|
So it was a dislocation not a sprain, my bad. The point is that he left the ground badly injured about which there is no argument. Without the chopping and defecation incident and their resulting declaration of war (or whatever you would like to call it) these guys would have quit the route right then and there.
|
|
Prod
Trad climber
Dodge Sprinter Dreaming
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2009 - 11:59am PT
|
Hi Steve,
I was not there. Could you explain how they declaired war?
Prod.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2009 - 12:06pm PT
|
Personally, I think guys who head up El Cap with bad feet are bad people....
;-)
Karl
|
|
Mark Hudon
Trad climber
Hood River, OR
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2009 - 12:08pm PT
|
You guys all know that this is never going to end, don't you?
|
|
Tork
climber
Yosemite
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2009 - 12:12pm PT
|
Seek help dude!
Jeff
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2009 - 12:16pm PT
|
And I'm unbelievably stupid and naive for even ever talking to you .....
Werner, it seems you have been the only one looking at this contoversy from both sides since the begining. There's a lot of insight in your last post I hope Richard listens to.
my bad
Steve, I really respect you were able to admit a mistake. I wish you would take a fresh look at the whole climb and the incidents surrounding it.
|
|
Steve Grossman
Trad climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2009 - 12:24pm PT
|
Back to the style issue. To use Robbins' short defintion, style is the manner in which technology and tactics are used to overcome a climbing problem. No team of two climbers in the history of alpinism globally have ever laid siege to a rock climb with the excess of equipment and supplies that went into the FA of WOS. This makes WOS an all time low water mark stylistically.
Short of sculpting holds for free climbing purposes, there isn't anything that these gents weren't willing to do to get up this route. Bathooks, batheads, "enhancemants", chiseled copperheads all came into play. To be clear, most of these uses of gear have shown up on other routes done by other climbers. Richard and Mark have repeatedly proclaimed that nobody else could have done a better job on WOS than they did and climbed it in better style.
One problem here is a glaring lack of relevant climbing experience and technical proficiency for a route of this character which hides nothing.
Another problem is their continuing lack of a forthright and honest accounting of their methods. It has taken years of constant badgering for the batheads and enhancement count to finally come out after starting with this unambiguous statement by Mark Smith:
MS 10/26/05 To reaffirm, we climbed the entire Great Slab without a single bat hook. If you can look at a Wings placement and say “that was done with a drill or chisel,” then you are looking at a rivet or a bolt.
|
|
Prod
Trad climber
Dodge Sprinter Dreaming
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2009 - 12:29pm PT
|
Steve as I understand from reading these threads, the Bathooks were used only on the last exit pitch after the Slab was completed. Are you saying that this is not true and that bat hooks were used during the entire climb?
Still interested in their declairation of war as well.
Prod.
|
|
bringmedeath
climber
la la land
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2009 - 12:31pm PT
|
Steve have you ever heard of the Sea Horse on El Cap???
|
|
Steve Grossman
Trad climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2009 - 12:44pm PT
|
A Bathead is certainly the equivalent of a Bathook and is even worse because these guys in all their excess couldn't spend the money for stainless steel cable leaving the "frustrating" climbing that Calder talks about.
The state of war post is going to require more time than I have this morning but to claim that these guys left the ground in a peaceful mindset with no hard feeling toward their tormenters is hogwash. It takes some effort to piss Werner off because he has seen it all with respect to climbing in the valley.
Consider the following cautionary note that I wrote in a chapter about doing first ascents in Strassman's book Big Wall Climbing.
The WOS boys were howling for an apology about this before I actually showed up on this forum and began prying into the history of their route. The "from the valley forever" ending is poor usage and something that Strassman put in while doing his editing.
I haven't heard of the Seahorse. Do tell...
The hilarious thing is that Richard so coveted this line that he had convinced himself that others also did. In 1983 I picked out eight separate lines that hadn't been done on El Cap and I mean lines that followed features and were worth doing. I like hooking far more than most and really wasn't the least bit interested in what became WOS. That doesn't mean it was futuristic or a shift in paradigm or intimidation or anything besides plain disinterest.
These guys actually have a wierd distain for cracks and feel that the measure of a man is the blankness. They referred to the existing Yaniro pitches as The Bogus Start. The great irony being that if they had began their route on those two pitches the entire chopping/crapping episode would likely never have happened and they would have quit the route.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2009 - 01:07pm PT
|
The first ascent party ingored local ethics and bolted excessively.
there isn't anything that these gents weren't willing to do to get up this route.
From every person who has been on the route they said it has not been bolted excessively and the bolting and rivets were minimized. So the FA team obviously were trying for the best style in that regard.
You can question the amount of gear they took and the time it took, and say someone else could have done it better in that regard. But so what, unless they jumped on someone's elses project they have the right to do it how they want. It sounds like no one else was/is interested in that type of climbing, so who cares how long it took? They didn't take the climb away from anyone who would have done it in better style.
One problem here is a glaring lack of relevant climbing experience and technical proficiency for a route of this character
It sounds like they had the experience to climb it with a minimal amount of bolts/rivets. Maybe they could have improved on the amount of time it took, but that's part of their FA experience and doesn't effect the rock and other climbers, that's their prerogative.
Another problem is their continuing lack of a forthright and honest accounting of their methods.
To me it seems they have been forthright ad nauseum. If they wanted to hide the "enhancements" they could have just kept their mouth shuts, since no one can see them. Why would they admit to "enhancements" which opened up a whole can of worms if they wanted to hide them?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2009 - 01:11pm PT
|
The poor, victimal Valley Boys. Wow! Steve, you're really putting off some shrill notes trying to fan flames back into that charcoal. Bottom line from [everyone] who's been on the route:
"The hooking at times was not obvious and didn't appear to be enhanced with a drill..."
You clearly have nothing of substance to bitch about beyond that except hackneyed cultural hobknobbery. And oh, the humanity!
|
|
Steve Grossman
Trad climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2009 - 01:31pm PT
|
The only way to really settle the enhancements issue is to take a second look at the route. I have no interest in repeating this route and thereby validating it in its current condition. A quick trip up to the top of the Great Slab and a closer look just might be in order, however. That would put this to bed once and for all.
Richard are you willing to state that 90% of your 146 NARROW Logan hook placements did not involve the use of a hammer and drill at all? If 10% were enhanced by your definition in the OP then this should be easy for you. If you can't do so then please explain after crowing about the accuracy of your record keeping.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2009 - 01:38pm PT
|
He's already [repeatedly - as in once again just] said if anyone 'enhanced' at the top of the route it wasn't them. And the guy who just said:
"The hooking at times was not obvious and didn't appear to be enhanced with a drill..."
was taking a 'second look' at the route. Or are you claiming they went schizo and totally changed behavior on pitches 6 - 9.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2009 - 02:11pm PT
|
I have no interest in repeating this route and thereby validating it in its current condition.
Well you could always repeat it, and if it IS a travesty chop it. That implies the exact opposite of validation.
|
|
atchafalaya
climber
Babylon
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2009 - 02:15pm PT
|
"I have no interest in repeating this route and thereby validating it in its current condition."
You have already validated it by whining incessantly about it, and offering no facts to support your allegations. If you went up on it, maybe someone would care what you have to say about it. This sour-grapes bs from your armchair is really unbecoming.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 25, 2009 - 02:44pm PT
|
SG says: "They are pathological liars, plain and simple." So, yes, Joe, SG asserts WHATEVER at the moment will make his point of the moment. The ninth was possibly the easiest pitch of the slab, yet it is HERE (also in the place easiest to scrutinize) that we supposedly went hog-wild with the drill.
And, SG, unlike you, I have EVER answered forthright questions honestly. And, in answer to your latest (utterly redundant) question, I am happy to say that the vast majority of our hook placements (yes, something like 90%) were entirely natural: we placed the hooks on the otherwise untouched flakes and started weighting them.
SG tried to float the idea that HE is the one that, through "badgering" has caused the truth to emerge. Exactly the opposite is the case! From years ago, when Mark and I finally decided to engage on these threads, we started responding to the seemingly endless tide of lies, defamation, and distortion, starting with the claim that we left a line of urine and feces all the way down the slab.
We have been more forthright about the tiniest details of what we did and what we were thinking when we did it than any team in the history of climbing. These threads have offered more insight into the DETAILS of this route than any other route in history (to the point of absurdity in the minds of many). But ALL has been attempts to set the record STRAIGHT in the face of distortions and outright lies about the route and about us personally. Everything from our hole tally to our religion has been the subject of wildly-speculative derision. (Not sniveling, just pointing out the meta-lie of the whole idea that it is the CRITICS that are really trying to get to the truth.)
Indeed, if you look at the motivation for the start of this very thread, it responds to SG's endless attempts to OBSCURE what we have endlessly made CLEAR. Despite the additional explanations, in this very thread he continues to refer to our "enhancements" (falsely so called) as "dimples," when this very thread has clarified both the "count" (as best we can remember it) and the nature of when drill touched rock.
Even the claim that WoS marked the stylistic low-water-mark in ALL of "alpinism" (which apparently includes mountaineering) would be laughable (and is obviously false) if it were not coming from a man that many respect.
And THIS is the nature of the problem from the very start of the "war" that was declared on us: RESPECTED people perpetrated the lies and distortions. And, in the form of SG, this continues to the present moment.
EVERY bit of evidence thwarts SG's continued perspective. EVERY team that has been on the route denies SG's claims about the nature of the climbing that is there, and EVERY team on the route brings back reports that verify what we have been saying for decades. Yet, in the face of all of this, and in the face of THIS very thread, SG has the audacity to YET AGAIN ask for a percentage???
It is ridiculous.
And, since SG quotes so heavily from the book, let him quote the section concerning the third pitch and then continue to float the idea that we were willing to do WHATEVER to get up.
I don't have it in front of me, but I'm sure SG does, so let HIM in honesty actually quote the relevant passages. I well remember the gist of Mark's and my conversation after the third pitch was up, and we SERIOUSLY contemplated aborting the route at that point.
The third pitch goes through what turned out to be the only band of rock on the slab where the rock gets friable and crusty. The hook flakes would not hold even initial weight, and I ended up drilling a virtual rivet ladder up about half the pitch. Afterward, we were saying things like, "We have about as high of a drilling ratio as we can cope with already. If the next pitch is anything like this one, we must realize that this slab cannot be climbed in good style, and we'll just have to give it up."
This was after we had already hauled our armada onto the route and were "committed." We would have been the laughingstocks of climbing history had we bailed from that point, yet we SERIOUSLY consider it, and we WOULD have done so if the climbing had not dramatically improved with the fourth pitch.
Responding in advance to what will be SG's yet again utterly uncharitable assessment of the gear list in the book, the explanation for taking 200 rivets is simple and non-nefarious. Rivets came in boxes of 100, and we had boxes around from our Quarry exploits. We considered how many rivets the route might take, and it was clear that we might well use some number more than 100. So, that opens another box. At that point we reasoned something like, "Well, they don't weigh anything, so just bag 'em up."
A mistake that our critics make at this point is to assume that we were coldly calculating about all the details. We weren't. We actually laughed often and long at Harding's description of how he and Caldwell "geared up" for WEML, something like, "Just gather tons of stuff together and start throwing it into haul bags." This is very much what we did. The tallying came long afterward, after that seemed to matter so much to people. We grabbed a sling full of bolts: into the bag. Two boxes of rivets: into the bag. Oh, we have a bunch of extra hangers (what were we thinking???): into the bag. Do we have a sharpening stone in there already? Well, here's another one. Can't hurt: into the bag. It's a blank slab, so how many Friends could we need? We have dozens, and there could be a use for them above the slab (good thing we thought this): into the bag. About the only things we were really calculating about were the food and water amounts. So, the idea that what we took indicated something about what we INTENDED to use is "hogwash."
Let SG quote from the relevant sections of the book that indicate that we were NOT willing to just drill our way up (if he's honest enough to do so), coupled with what is ACTUALLY on the route, and these FACTS clearly demonstrate that SG's claim that we were willing to do WHATEVER is flagrantly false.
At some point people will realize that SG has been doing the opposite of "digging for the truth." At this point, the truth about what we have said for decades is crystal clear (and it always has been), yet SG continues to call us "pathological liars." (Just a point of reference, SG: claims like that, in the face of the evidence you have before you, constitute defamation per se in the legal sense. If I thought you had a pot to tinkle in, that would be more than a merely academic point.) The current debate has NOTHING to do with SG trying to "badger" the truth out of us.
Werner, it amazes me that because we remember an almost 30-year-old conversation differently, you would call me a liar. Are you really suggesting that YOU know the content of our intentions better than US? What I am telling you is that, whatever you remember being said, we did not consider bailing BECAUSE of the "heat." It is simply astounding to me that you CAN call that a LIE. Wow... are we really at THAT level? Better to keep accusations of that nature reserved for cases in which the truth conditions are a bit more objective! Mellow out... meditate a bit, my friend.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 25, 2009 - 02:52pm PT
|
In answer to LEB (and others that have voiced similar sentiments), that's easy: it is OUR reputations and even personalities that have very publicly been called into question. Nobody else on these threads has been publicly chastised the way we have been, and that on the basis of utter distortions and lies rather than on the basis of the actual facts. So, we are committed to defending ourselves. Our "endless" defense is the only reason the truth has come out on these threads.
Look at other threads, like about Growing Up, where people have felt the need to assert points and defend themselves, and you will see that these threads quickly sprout hundreds and hundreds of posts. It is not "defensive" to be committed to defending oneself.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!