Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed H
Trad climber
Santa Rosa, CA
|
|
|
Jul 31, 2016 - 10:13pm PT
|
Did another lap on Super Chicken P1-P2 today - love this route! Would love to lead the upper pitches someday. Happy to help with the project Rick if you decide to make P3 R instead of X.
The cool face move finish of P2
Looking up at the gorgeous knobs of P3 (5.7X)
|
|
ß Î Ø T Ç H
Boulder climber
ne'er–do–well
|
|
|
Jul 31, 2016 - 10:39pm PT
|
Happy to help with the project F*#k off
|
|
Bad Climber
Trad climber
The Lawless Border Regions
|
|
Well said, Hoipolloi. I've rarely had the stomach for big runouts, so I've done very little climbing in the Meadows, even during my "storm years." I'll go do the first two pitches of Super Chicken, though! Looks super.
BAd
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
You must be physically and mentally strong
Nothing - except possibly espousing the notion climbing should entail risk - will identify you quicker as a never-was neanderthal than this statement. 'Modern' climbing long since left such throwbacks notions behind in the rearview mirror. And that's wrapped up in the fact trad climbers are really pussies who can't climb hard because they lack the willingness and discipline to train to climb hard. Or at least so I'm told again and again by sportos over on MP.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
the ego does get stroked by others finding the pitch/route "bad ass" and it lets one relive the hard(ish) man of our youth.
I never wanted the acceptance of the self-styled hardmen of Yose and their sometime narrow attitudes or pithy rectitude and get far more from the wide-eyed stoke of a newbie seeing the miracle of Yosemite for the first time on one of my routes.
I personally find these statements both overly broad-brush and generally lamentable. They don't in any way take into account lot's of people did and still do clean, onsight, ground-up FAs and take what they find on a line, go with their gut, and aren't in any way attempting to put up a 'hardman' ego-fest of a route. I personally could give a rats ass if an FA of mine every sees a second ascent and I don't climb for anyone else so I don't try to make routes easy or hard, risky or risk-free - I just climb them, go with my feelings and what happens happens.
I dunno, maybe I just am moving the goal posts for my own edification....who knows.
Well, to be honest, my experience has been that, way more often than not, people's ethics around bolting and retrobolting of their youth tend to evaporate and become quite convenient (and not so much for others as themselves). I know I'll quit climbing my FAs before I retrobolt any of them just so I can keep climbing them.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
5.7X? Its amazing the FAists creation has been shown respect for this long. With as much press as this has recieved here i wouldn't count on it not sprouting bolts in the near future.
A 150 miles north, the FAists creations recieved no such respect. I can count at least a half dozen of my BITD R/X routes on considerably more difficult terrain that have been reduced to sport clipups without any attempt at permission, sometimes even renamed and called new routes. Such is progress.
|
|
Jon Clark
climber
philadelphia
|
|
But there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that many routes in Tuolumne were put up with the competitive spirit and ego of the FAers in mind for their edification and entertainment and to one up their bros, not out of some purist quest borne of Kamps', Higgins' or Bachar's seed. Fundamentally it was done to equal or surpass their forebears to claim a Hardman's piece of Yosemite history, a fully human thing to do.
I also absolutely buy into that people do their own routes for themselves and follow your ideals all the time, when they don't report the routes. I may in fact have done dozens of routes that meet that criteria, not telling more.
But as soon as you ask that it be remembered for all of the remainder of recorded climbing history in a commercially sold guide, or use that fame for sponsorship or sales marketing one ceases to be an ego-less purist climbing for oneself, imo.
As to whether you lament my sentimentality and desire to share it with those repeating my routes, means nothing to me. You got your climbing, I got mine. Personally, I find little of this life of value that can't be shared with another. You can't take it with you my friend, but the experience you had that day can be passed on and on and on.
Over on MP you're adamantly opposed to the addition of rap stations on The Nose. You argue, and I agree that it will increase access to less prepared parties and lead to even more congestion. But here you advocate for route modification in order to increase access to underprepared climbers. I find the notion that all climbs are to be available to all climbers to be nonsense. Besides, there are plenty of well protected options in TM for climbers of all abilities.
I find it condescending to reduce the efforts of those very skilled in a little practiced arena of climbing to the tired argument of ego driven affairs. Does ego drive and motivate climbers? Sure it can in varying degrees, but as the sole driver for their efforts? That's a gross oversimplification.
As to whether or not the third pitch of Super Chicken should have bolts added: Once you make the justification, it becomes easier to do so on other routes in the future. Where does it end?
|
|
Spiny Norman
Social climber
Boring, Oregon
|
|
Aptly named route, it seems.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
5 years seems such a long time ago, sometimes...
Bryan's post is worth revisiting, and taking it at face value it is a statement about personal choice. The wording brings back another encounter on the Koven Couloir on Mt. Owens. My climbing partner Mike and a guy working for the Climber's Ranch had the notion we would do Mt. Owens in a day from the ranch.
This involved ascending most of the route 4th class, and in the Koven Couloir we encountered a party of two belaying up the snow/ice. As we passed them one said that they couldn't engage in our level of risk because he was married and had children. I replied that I was married with children and so was Mike, and said that everyone had a level of risk they were willing to take, it was an individual choice.
I don't know if my choice was justified or not. Apparently I survived my admittedly mild adventures so the risks may not have been as grave as they seem when you are in the middle of them, but I still believe that an important part of climbing is that you take full ownership of your choices.
Rick and Jim certainly did when they put up Super Chicken, and there are many other FAs that have posted here that fully embraced the risk to put up routes which, in their vision at the time, were worthy of the risk that was engaged. Those risks, in many cases, had consequences that were life threatening, and it is not dramatic to recognize that.
Personal choice is an important aspect of climbing. We don't have to climb, we choose to do it. And for the most part we would like to choose to do something with less risk than with more. At a certain level of accomplishment, a 5.7X lead is not such a big deal for someone, but it still entails risk.
It is not the responsibility of the FA to ensure that a climb they author will be climbable for every one who might want to climb it. What they can assume is that people who venture up on their climb have made a choice to do it, and that those people accept the inherent risks in so doing.
Not all climbs are for all climbers.
Learning to recognize when to back off a climb is an important, perhaps the most important skill a climber can develop. And accepting what your limitations are an equally important aspect of growing up.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
Let's be clear....the FA's do not own a route just because they were the first to do it. A route should conform to the local ethical standards.
Rock climbing should serve up exciting fun but shouldn't be the way into a casket. If that's what you want I invite you to enter the world of extreme alpinism. No, I am not referring to routes in the Sierra..
|
|
G_Gnome
Trad climber
Cali
|
|
Its funny how routes go sometimes when you are putting them up. Dave Hauser and I generally aimed to create routes that were safe and that everyone climbing at that ability could do, like Loose Lady and Chalk Up Another One in Josh. At the same time sometimes you just can't or don't want to stop and add a bolt and end up with a risky classic like EBGBs. Generally the ego involved was in how happy we were to get up the route and it did not involve how risky they were.
At the same time I was in the Meadows some during the Bachar era and saw how oneupsmanship lead to some of the horror fests on Medlicott. Again though, it wasn't so much about ego as it was about playing the game better than the other guy. And if you don't want to play 'that' game then stay off those kinds of routes.
|
|
Cragar
climber
MSLA - MT
|
|
And if you don't want to play 'that' game then stay off those kinds of routes.
I can't argue with that, maybe some can? My first partners from Sonora took me to the Meadows and man, I fell in love. Not only the beauty of the place, but how heady pitches were or could be if I would try. Never did anything hard as I moved away a couple years later and maybe I wouldn't have been able to do anything remotely hard? Don't know. But I do know that it is up to you to bring yourself up or just stay off. Have some respect and learn to grow yourself up, pun intended.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
The Bachar/Yerian is one thing a 5.7 totally unprotected pitch can be quite another. When John led the B/Y he showcased his skills in putting up a testpiece that has stood the test of time. If an excellent climber puts up an unprotected easy pitch that was a walk in the park for him and refuses to allow retro bolying he/she is doing a disservice to climbers at a lower pay grade.
I'm not saying that applies in this case....I am just introducing a hypothetical. Years ago Jim Erickson put up a fabulous and exremely bold route in Eldo. The route is 5.9+, a grade Jim could have easily onsight soloed. He graciously allowed a couple of bolts to be added....it is now a wonderful, still spicy, climb that is available to climbers whose names are not Jim Erickson.
I think that most of you know that I have done many climbs that are very thought provoking. I find the mental part of climbing to be as important and rewarding as the physical components.
I also feel that moderate climbs put up with little or no gear by talented climbers are not bold in the sense that they were not challenging for them.
A 5.7 totally unprotected pitch for some climbers will cause no pause and will not be a mental or physical challenge. That same pitch for many others, with the addition of a few strategic bolts, will present a mental challenge that will be a memorable experience for them without fear of death or serious injury.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Let's be clear....the FA's do not own a route just because they were the first to do it. A route should conform to the local ethical standards.
Rock climbing should serve up exciting fun but shouldn't be the way into a casket. If that's what you want I invite you to enter the world of extreme alpinism. No, I am not referring to routes in the Sierra..
Oh what a pile.
So, the FAs do not own the route, but some "majority" or "community" do? The FAs don't get to decide style or ethics (as if there even is such a thing!), but the "majority" or "community" do?
And in a national park like Yosemite, just WHO are the "locals" that are establishing "local ethical standards"? Good luck with those definitions. You're just babbling nonsense here. If the FAs don't DEFINE what the route is, then nobody does. Or, on the other hand, if everybody defines what the route is, then, really, there IS only the lowest common-denominator, and ALL "routes" should just become ADA-compliant escalators. Yayyy... everything accessible to the masses (of obese, risk-averse types).
Then you build on the nonsense with this gem: "Rock climbing should serve up exciting fun but shouldn't be the way into a casket." Says who? That's just an opinion, and it's one that actually threatens what differentiates rock-climbing from gymnastics. What is "exciting fun" that has no risk (or just the "right amount" of risk)? Go take a walk in the park. Be sorely accosted by the evil pidgins! That's some "exciting fun." Give me a break!
GREAT climbing can occur on 5.0 or 5.15, or even A-something-or-other. Once a particular sort of experience has been established by the FAs, how about just leave it that way? Then, people can decide whether or not they want to seek that particular experience. If not, they can go elsewhere, like the tens of thousands of other climbs that will be right up their alley.
But the best line was the one that compelled me to respond: "If that's what you want I invite you to enter the world of extreme alpinism. No, I am not referring to routes in the Sierra."
Ahhhh... I see now. NO 5.7 in Yosemite can be "worthy" of being "risky." In fact, NOTHING in Yosemite (or the Sierra) can be "worthy" of being "risky," because the ONLY places people SHOULD take risks are places that "matter," like the places YOU'VE climbed. (Surprise, surprise.) ONLY your risks are properly worthy and awesome.
What a steaming pile of narrow-minded, elitist snake-droppings.
Personally I applaud the OP for his commitment to the standard that drives ALL real climbing, and who thereby left behind a rarity in climbing: Something at a generally-approachable grade that requires one to really think: "Do I feel lucky? Do I feel solid?" And then the self-assessment is ON! The fact that there's a route at 5.7 where that inner assessment can take place is awesome! Leave it alone! Don't turn it into just another "R" that is "sporty" without being really in your face. There IS a place for REAL risk at all grades, not just in the realm of "extreme alpinism." And here's one that gets it done.
There are "styles" aplenty, so nobody is going to be lacking "R" or easier 5.7s to do. How about let's respect this one in particular for what it IS rather than turn it into yet another common-denominator?
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
Don't take what I said out of context and work on your reading comprehension.....over and out.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Don't take what I said out of context and work on your reading comprehension
I took it IN context. I quoted almost your entire post. And there's no denying the elitist, "Only my risk-taking is worthy" crap.
If my reading comprehension is so bad, then you can explain your argument that literally says, "This 5.7 is not a worthy place to take a real risk, because ONLY extreme alpinism is." Tell us all what I'm missing.
My rebuttal is that ANY place an FAist takes the risk, it's worthy! And it's worthy of being left in that condition, because there are precious few like it! If some FAist is content to have retro-bolts added, so what? YOU said, the FAist doesn't own the route, so why does s/he get to decide? Incoherent. Not all routes are for all people in all times. That's a simple, coherent principle that's easy to "enforce." Just leave FAs in their existing character, and you're done. How simple is that?
YOUR way lies the madness of Woot-boy, and almost everybody on this site decries his unilateral dumbing-down of existing routes.
There IS no "slippery slope." There is only: Leave FAs in their existing character, or there is the "bottom" of the slope Woot-boy has shown us. And your "extreme alpinism" elitism fails to explicate.
|
|
G_Gnome
Trad climber
Cali
|
|
Sorry Jim but Louie read your posts exactly the same way I did and had the same reaction. Maybe you should reply in a meaningful way if that is not really what you meant.
|
|
rmuir
Social climber
From the Time Before the Rocks Cooled.
|
|
the FA's do not own a route just because they were the first to do it.
As has been argued before, FA parties DO own the route. They don't own the rock or the formation, they own the ROUTE.
The route is an abstraction that is imposed on the mountain by the FA party. It is a creation as much as a painting created by an artist. I submit that the FA party, and they alone, may dictate how route may be altered.
If Rick and Wild Jim believe that extra bolts are appropriate (or not), no one else is better suited to make that decision.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
I personally could give a rats ass if an FA of mine every sees a second ascent and I don't climb for anyone else so I don't try to make routes easy or hard, risky or risk-free - I just climb them, go with my feelings and what happens happens.
So if you get your jollies on the FA, it matters not a whit if anyone else ever enjoys that climb. Bully for you.
If you get yours during the FA and don't care about any other climbers, should it matter then if someone else does the climb by adding bolts?
Or is that you really do care about other people climbing your routes?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!