:: SuperTopo Rock Climbing Discussion Topic

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 361 - 380 of total 1121 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

raymond phule

climber

Sep 16, 2013 - 06:06am PT

Doesn't that mean conforming to what the rock presents, while doing as little TO the rock as possible while getting up?

If an FA team can get up with very few bolts, isn't that a good thing?

I think this brakes down when the FA team is doing routes way below their level. Is it really good if a possibly nice 5.9 route require the skill and boldness of a bold 5.13 climber because the extremely skilled FA team soloed the route?

I remember the routes in the area that I started climbing at. The difficult bolt protected routes had many more bolts than the easier bolt protected routes. The 5.11+routes where often bolted such that a 5.11+ climber could try to onsite those routes. Many of the 5.10- where really not that good for the 5.10- climbers.

I am not for over bolting all routes but to few bolts is neither good.

I still think that snake dike is a good example. The FA team climbed the route with less bolts than it have now but the current state is still far from a sport climb. Had it really been better if the FA team didn't add some bolts?

patrick compton

Trad climber

van

Sep 16, 2013 - 08:06am PT

can't say

Social climber

Pasadena CA

Sep 16, 2013 - 10:15am PT

Joe, dude, you're exhibiting the same behavior that you showed us early in your climbing career. There's more then a grain of truth to the nicknames bestowed on us C and D team members.

Remember this knock knock joke Joe?

Knock, Knock
Who's there?
Joe
Joe who?

Rhodo-Router

Gym climber

sawatch choss

Sep 16, 2013 - 10:17am PT

I am at best a mediocre climber.

There are many routes that I will not lead because I do not feel that my mental ability is up to the task of undertaking the required runouts, even if the moves are within my ability.

Such is life.

Many, many safe routes exist for me nonetheless.

Why is this such a problem?

Deekaid

climber

Sep 16, 2013 - 10:28am PT

JHedge is holding his own here and makes some valid points, in my opinion. I am with the "leave the route as it was originally done" camp because that is the tradition. If the tradition naturally evolves into something else so be it.

Largo

Sport climber

The Big Wide Open Face

Sep 16, 2013 - 12:36pm PT

unnecessary run outs

You say that as though you had something besides a personal opinion as to what "unnecessary" means? Like some objective truth. Whatever you ropinion is, it's different than those who made the run out 1st ascents, who figured if they could climb a given section sans bolts, then adding holes was clearly "unnecessary." You can't use the argument that active climbers these days are not FAR superior to where we were 40 years ago, because they are. So the technique argument holds no water today, when any old gym climber can dick 5.12 with ease.

JL

Greg Barnes

climber

Sep 16, 2013 - 12:41pm PT

Problem is gym 5.12 = 5.8 slab...OK, maybe 5.9. Definitely not 5.9+.

Todd Eastman

climber

Bellingham, WA

Sep 16, 2013 - 01:36pm PT

The lack of added bolts has destroyed the growth of climbing and lowered the standards of climbing in Britain...

... yea, sure.

johnkelley

climber

Anchorage Alaska

Sep 16, 2013 - 01:39pm PT

Exactly they climb 5.12 in a gym and 5.8 on a trad route. That makes them 5.8 climbers not 5.12 climbers regardless of what they think

patrick compton

Trad climber

van

Sep 16, 2013 - 01:59pm PT

style, speed, difficulty, and minimal drilling.

As Hedge pointed out about 60 times, as the difficulty got harder the drilling increased... so those 2 ideas can't be included in the same list.

People don't do slabs because they aren't that interesting: high step, balance, trust feet, repeat. At least you get a great view in TM. Add 30' run outs on 40 year old bolts because the FA did it that way.... and you have this thread.

People are still concentrating on those 4 things in places like the Peak District.

But the difference is, manky pro in cracks and such is natural pro, so it turns out that is something people want to do.

Following in the footsteps of an FA who chose to place a bolt once in 30'... turns out not so much.

Roger Breedlove

climber

Cleveland Heights, Ohio

Sep 16, 2013 - 02:05pm PT

If someone climbs a 120' of 5.7 with no drilling and then climbs 120' with two sections of 5.10 protected by 2 bolts, then the climbing got harder and the drilling increased. But that does not refute Kevin's point that there are only 2 bolts not 12 on run-out slabs.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Sep 16, 2013 - 02:09pm PT

Who gets to decide when a route is bolted to the "appropriate" level? As John asked just up-thread, who decides how many bolts are "necessary?"

If you are a 5.9 climber, that does not imply that you "can" get up all 5.9 climbs. Unlike gymnastics (or much of "sport climbing"), real climbing involves risk that contributes to a "head game" that goes far beyond mere physical capacity to "make the move." Real climbing ties into that "grace under pressure" aspect of character development that makes climbing a true "head game" rather than just a physical endeavor. The more a route is strictly a physical challenge, without an element of risk, the more that route is a gymnastic endeavor using the rock as apparatus.

Thus, there will be a large number of climbs at a given rating that a climber that can supposedly "do" that rating will not be able to get up... strictly because the climber doesn't have the "head" to be run-out while at their physical limit.

What this means is that a "5.9" climber might have to up his game enough to be solid on 5.11 before he can get up a really wide range of 5.9s (including really run-out ones). Or the climber that really is maxed at 5.9 might have to up her mental game in order to perform effectively at her limit on a really run-out 5.9.

The point is that climbing is ABOUT upping your game (physically and/or mentally) rather than bringing climbs down to the level of "the masses."

There's plenty enough of lowest-common-denominator endeavors in the world as it is! Do we really need to bring climbing to the lowest common denominator also, thereby gutting the very meaning of the word?

rmuir

Social climber

From the Time Before the Rocks Cooled.

Sep 16, 2013 - 02:21pm PT

Think and argue logically, and you might get somewhere.

Oh my. Pot, kettle, black.

I must say that I truly enjoyed reviewing your ST postings and the many responses that you've received, Hedge. I was impressed by the outpouring of <sarcasm>love, affection, respect, and admiration</sarcasm> the climbing community here has shown for your clarity of thought and your stunning logic.

Although I doubt that you will acknowledge this--given your selective reading of ideas other than your own--here goes...

I believe that the tradition of ground-up, first ascents--done without prior inspection, top-rope, or pre-working--represents a much purer type of climbing than what your convoluted, incoherent body of "thought" represents.

Most FAs done using this style have technical moves that are easier that what the FA team was capable of at the time of the ascent. Most routes that--according to your authoritative (cough, cough) judgement--have been done with unnecessary runouts were, in fact, done with the precise number of bolts deemed necessary by the creators of the route. You have heard testimony to the fact that most of us were scared, really scared of doing those "simple" moves on the sharp end.

Again, these FAs were created by people who believed that their routes represent the best of which they were capable. Their routes are representative of individual achievement; they do not represent the hardest technical moves they could do. These routes involve much more that a simple number.

The ownership of these routes (according to my clear and easy to read definition upstream) are incontrovertible. They are human creations done by humans--just like you, it is presumed. You can do them too when you become a better climber. Until then, we must assume that you are just too scared to approach these routes on their own terms.

Should you choose to retro-bolt these fascinating routes, your actions will speak volumes about what an inconsequential climber you truly are.

Hey, Hedge, enjoy building on that reputation you so richly deserve. You've gained a few more converts to the prevailing wisdom around this climbers' campfire...

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Sep 16, 2013 - 03:28pm PT

It could have happened anywhere.

Yes, and so the nanny-state mentality simply must be imposed on "climbing" (producing a mere travesty of the word) as well, because keeping us all "safe" (in the land of the free and the home of the... cough, cough... brave) is the absolute top priority--trumping ALL others!

Gotta level that playing field. I guess in "climbing," that means that retro-bolting isn't even close to "safe" enough. "Level" means level, dang it. So, the retro-bolters should spend their time turning all "unsafe" climbs onto their sides, making them indeed "level." Then nobody can fall at all, much less "too far," and the playing field will literally become level... just as it should be.

Don't want to limit "access" at all. Gotta get the ADA folks out there to measure slope and ensure that the "climb" is accessible to all with no risk whatsoever. Then ALL can call themselves "climbers."

People do all sorts of amazing things, including gymnastics, and those with severe physical disabilities have also done amazing things.

But not everything that is amazing is CLIMBING! Climbing entails risk, and that risk IS the thing that makes this particular game worth playing, imho.

I think there should always be climbs that scare me and make my hands sweat just to think about them; that way I always have something to look up to, to aspire to. "Level the playing field" by retro-bolting for "safety," and the nanny-state mentality assimilates the thing I have cared most deeply and consistently about during my entire life.

Yeah, I might just get a bit emotional about that.

rmuir

Social climber

From the Time Before the Rocks Cooled.

Sep 16, 2013 - 05:44pm PT

Now, for the record, I don't consider the replacement of old, quarter-inch bolts retrobolting. I applaud anyone who replaces unsafe fixed protection with safer gear. If done from the ground up, this does not diminish the character of the route and it encourages repeats for others who appreciate The Game.

And, Hedgemony, your words indicate that you still haven't understood the definition of route that I've proposed. You need not accept my framework of ideas, but without making an effort to comprehend what another person means, you'll just continue talking to yourself. And we've already seen how entertaining that can be...

JEleazarian

Trad climber

Fresno CA

Sep 16, 2013 - 05:53pm PT

And how do you propose to do that when you're 65, 70, 80-something, or dead? You won't. Which is why there is no "law" of the FA. The current generation will dictate what happens. As it should be, since they are the ones using the resource, not some greybeards

Will speaks truth. John Gill recognizes the reality as well. In one of his more recent posts, so does Largo. The fact that Mt 10910's troll has almost 700 takers reflects, in my opinion, both the lack of any generalized agreement on what to do, and a certain fear that the responders' preferences may not reflect the future.

For all of Joe H's posts, I don't see him threatening to retro-bolt anyone's runout "classics," so I see no reason to get too worked up unless someone actually proposes (or takes concrete steps) to do so. While my view of the climbing experience strongly resembles the Warbler's, that probably reflects our climbing origins in the same generation and milieu.

To attempt to return to the original topic, all of this discussion suggests to me that the "law" of the first ascent does not exist. Instead, most climbers seem to maintain a respect for the first ascent, but the extent of that respect depends on both the route and the style people want to preserve.

As just one example, Robbins's main brag about the El Cap West Face was that he and Herbert placed exactly one bolt. As a big wall aid route, one bolt constituted a significant achievement. Now, though, most of us regard the West Face as a free climb. It has many more bolts, but those bolts don't have the same effect as protection and anchors that they would if they were "chicken bolts" on an aid climb. Put another way, their presence doesn't change the game all that much given the current style of climbing.

Fortunately for me, there are still plenty of climbs -- even first ascents -- I can do in the style I want, without fear of physical or emotional retribution. While I've obviously enjoyed participating in this discussion, I don't see a threat to my climbing from what anyone has said.

John

Ksolem

Trad climber

Monrovia, California

Sep 16, 2013 - 06:09pm PT

I applaud anyone who replaces unsafe fixed protection with safer gear. If done from the ground up, this does not diminish the character of the route and it encourages repeats for others who appreciate The Game.

Robs, I've always done the ground up thing on new routes, it's just the way I like to play. But for replacing bolts on an existing climb I usually want to jug on fixed rope(s). I can do a much better job. Removing an old bolt and re-drilling the same hole would be a fancy trick on lead.

Okay, now back to our regularly scheduled topic...

bvb

Social climber

flagstaff arizona

Sep 16, 2013 - 06:12pm PT

both the lack of any generalized agreement on what to do

Is there some kind of ongoing crisis with old school routes on Middle's North Apron, or Suicide, that I'm unaware of and which demands we take action?