:: SuperTopo Rock Climbing Discussion Topic

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 381 - 400 of total 1121 in this topic

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

allapah

climber

Sep 16, 2013 - 07:53pm PT

good god jabbers, what have you done, you've elicited "macho posturing response" from all these icons, when you don't believe any of the spray either way yourself--

i think the trouble comes from use of the word "law"-- isn't it more of a code, a convention, an injunction, rather than a law of first ascent-- the only law is Crowley's law, DO WHAT THOU WILT SHALL BE WHE WHOLE OF THE LAW, which you yourself fully know....

it's time to take a look at "Games Climbers Play"-- Tejada-Flores notes explicitly in the article that there can be no law of first ascent, but he goes on to delineate the role of the "climbing elite" in setting style:

"In this way the creative nucleus of elite climbers can express itself by climbing
with better style than the average climber (like aristocrats playing a more
demanding game than the democratic majority), which certainly provides enough room
for personal expression, yet seems to avoid the traditional aristocratic role of
leadership and direction. In fact, these climbers lead the majority only
indirectly - their responsibility is not to determine and set ethical standards
(rules) for the majority but rather to demonstrate the superior style. Thus, they
stake out the possible directions for the evolution of climbing-games. And this,
aside from suffering the wiles of equipment-mongers, is the only way that such
changes can come about.

Let me give a concrete example. The most evident is the way in which the rules of
the big-wall game have evolved in Yosemite Valley under the influence of the best
climbers of the day whose primary concern was to do their own climbs in the best
style possible rather than to impose an arbitrary set of rules on all climbers.
After the feasibility of doing the bigger Grade VI walls without siege tactics had
been consistently demonstrated, climbers were impressed enough to accept this
approach as a basic rule to such an extent that today even strangers to the
Yosemite climbing community (such as the two Frenchmen who did the Nose of El
Capitan in the spring of 1966) follow it as a matter of course.

In a less dramatic way the rules of all climbing-games are changing constantly,
becoming ever more restrictive in order to preserve the fundamental challenge that
the climber is seeking from the inroads of a fast changing technology. The present
laissez-faire of the uppermost games is disappearing slowly as the complexity of
rules shifts up the spectrum."

rmuir

Social climber

From the Time Before the Rocks Cooled.

Sep 16, 2013 - 08:00pm PT

Seems like we actually agree on something...

Uh... I seriously doubt it.

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.

That is a marvelous way to perform a public service, Ksolem. In doing so, however, you get a little pre-inspection which diminishes the route for you. Agreed?

I don't mind if routes gets a new replacement bolt a few inches away from the old hole. Tastefully patching the hole preserves the character of the route, and makes it practicable for those thoughtful enough to do the heavy lifting and who also want to experience the spice. But that's only my opinion...

LongAgo

Trad climber

Sep 16, 2013 - 09:56pm PT

mt10910 says: “Tom what you say makes perfect sense, that in an uncrowded area the FA owns it law may apply.... Plus just seems strange that one can own public property by crawling across it. Like a dog peeing on a fire hydrant ... Anyone can climb (my routes) anyway they want-doesn’t lessen my experience.”

Jdhedge says: Quoting me, "Once protection is changed, the original choreography of moves, runs, hardware (and sling) frustrations, resulting pumps and rests, the curses and hoots - the entire emotional passage - is altered." Really? “Or is all that just in your head and the bolts are just...bolts?”

“Ownership” Not the Point

It’s not a question of ownership by the FA party peeing along the rock. They own nothing but their own experience of the FA. Nor is it a question of the experience of an old route done in the original way existing as if by magic for anyone who comes along, a guaranteed set of emotions and reactions. Nor a question of whether bolts added to a FA of mine alters my original experience of the route, which of course it doesn’t. I and other FA parties are largely irrelevant to the discussion unless we are active climbers in the current climbing community in an area, or unless the active climbers of the day have an idea or ideal of the FA party alive in their minds and want to honor it in some tangible way. And of course the experience of climbing is in one’s head and may or may not resemble that of the FA party or anyone else.

So what is the reason not to alter old route protection if not related to if not an issue of ownership or sacred history or some other harking to the past and it’s characters? The issue is respecting the preferences of those in a climbing community of today wanting to do a route as it was done originally, for whatever reasons. Whether they believe they will have an experience close to or far from that of the FA party is irrelevant, though I would argue they may well get much of the joy or frustration of the FA if the protection and rock remain unaltered. Again, the point is to allow for those active now and coming along into the climbing community preferring the experience of a route as first done to be able to have it, however it plays out in their heads, whether history or lore or strange imaginings are the basis.

Accommodating Conflicting Preferences

Well, then, if the nub of the issue comes down to a political one between competing preferences for trad and sport experience in real time, area by area, how can that be handled? Differently, area by area, conflict by conflict depending on the mix of:

- strength, prevalence of varying preferences of the climbing community in a particular place
- existing sport versus trad routes
- the potential for new routes in those respective styles.

Where those with sport and trad preferences exist in an area and both types of routes exist and some rock remains for both (isn’t that many areas, still, to be realistic?), the solution is rather simple: agree to respect the routes done in each style and give each some room to establish new routes in both styles. In an area of exclusively trad routes but new and growing community of those preferring sport routes, there still may not be a problem provided there is enough rock remaining to allow for new sport routes. In such a case, trad routes don’t need to be altered to accommodate those preferring sport (I use the term loosely to mean well protected largely or exclusively bolted routes).

Now, where almost all existing routes in an area are trad (run or not, bolted or not) and there is little room for new bolted sport routes (perhaps the Gunks is an example, but is there any raging conflict there now on the issue?), it will be tougher to resolve friction between sport and trad factions as some sportsters press for adding bolts to certain trad routes. How should such a case be decided? Not based on any notions of who owns routes but rather by discussion, argument, meetings and compromise between the factions based on this question: how can we provide for the competing preferences of the factions no matter how crazy each faction thinks the other is in terms of their style preferences (including those who don’t want to “pass” bolts on retro bolted trad routes).

The first stop in answering the question will be reality check. Is there really no room between established routes for new bolted sport routes, however anathema that seems to traditionalists? Are there really no hard well protected trad routes sportsters could come to do and appreciate with growing protection experience? And, horror of horrors, in an area with very few alternatives to X and R routes (will someone please name an area or is this just hypothetical?) and a growing sport preference community, might traditionalists relent and add protection to a selection of routes? And if so, what will be the quid pro quo? Maybe no new sport routes? As Warbler says, such resolutions will “take a leader, a movement and a generation of turmoil, I'd predict, but it could happen.”

Yes, it will take time and effort, as it did at Pinnacles National Monument (now Park) where climbers agreed to only ground up FAs after months of meetings (my preferences didn’t rule as hooking is still allowed – truly old school, obviously - but my voice was heard and I’m fine with how it worked out). The main point is to work the conflict out based on the real and changing preferences of the live climbing community of the day, area by area, meeting by meeting instead of warring over straw men: who “owns” routes; how honorable or horrible were the motives of the FA party; and whether climbing is an objective experience of bolts or a subjective one. That warring will only prolong the day the reckoning.

Tom Higgins
LongAgo

RyanD

climber

Squamish

Sep 16, 2013 - 10:40pm PT

Tom Higgins, thanks for taking the time to share your perspective.

Jghedge, advice for you:

RyanD

climber

Squamish

Sep 16, 2013 - 10:43pm PT

Apparently you don't need anyone's advice.

johnkelley

climber

Anchorage Alaska

Sep 16, 2013 - 10:46pm PT

Haha back to the name calling hedge?

Todd Eastman

climber

Bellingham, WA

Sep 16, 2013 - 10:53pm PT

Call in the orderlies!

johnkelley

climber

Anchorage Alaska

Sep 16, 2013 - 10:57pm PT

Haha coming from a guy that's scared of a little run out. My contribution, in the last year, is 2 new grade VI routes and 1 grade V done onsight without any fixed gear of any kind, including bolts. We didn't leave anything at all on any of the those routes. What was your contribution to the climbing world Hedge?

johnkelley

climber

Anchorage Alaska

Sep 16, 2013 - 10:58pm PT

I build roads for a living

johnkelley

climber

Anchorage Alaska

Sep 16, 2013 - 11:12pm PT

On Sunday a few friends of mine did a new 14 pitch 5.11+ route in the Mendenhall Towers. Guess what, onsight, no bolts. The oldest of the bunch is 30. I'm pretty sure they don't want it retro bolted.

So...what was your contribution to the climbing world anyway? All I've seen is a bunch of crazy sh#t talking. Calling JL a fraud for doing routes in good style and stuff.

I'm not sure but you might be able to use Medicare to get some psych drugs?

johnkelley

climber

Anchorage Alaska

Sep 16, 2013 - 11:27pm PT

An increase in bolts will result in an increase in traffic. An increase in traffic will get land managers attention. Very basic.

I want to hear about your contributions to my generation of climbers. You called me out and I gave an answer so now it's your turn. After all if you consider JL a fraud you must have been at the very top of the sport at some point? I think you're a fraud. Prove me wrong?

kpinwalla2

Social climber

Sep 16, 2013 - 11:33pm PT

Seems like one of the core differences between the opposing views in this thread concerns exactly what constitutes a "successful" route, one that "contributes to the climbing community". One poster actually stated that the more a route is climbed, the less of a climb it really is! Others (count me in this camp) believe that those that establish the routes that get climbed the most are the greatest contributors. While it's certainly an impressive achievement to establish a long, hard, ground-up clean ascent in the remote mountains, I'd personally be more excited about a well-protected single-pitch rap-bolted route in my backyard - that's a contribution I can actual experience. A lot of the folks on this thread strike me as very similar to the music snobs who abandon a favorite artist as soon as that artist's music becomes popular. "It can't really be GOOD MUSIC if it is enjoyed by the hordes." ie - if it's not elitist it's not worth pursuing...

johnkelley

climber

Anchorage Alaska

Sep 16, 2013 - 11:41pm PT

Fair enough. Go to the Doloris, Loiter Land, Lake Wall, Tetons, Granite Lands, South Plate, I could go on for awhile, if you want around 200 of my contributions that get repeated.

Hedges turn

johnkelley

climber

Anchorage Alaska

Sep 16, 2013 - 11:44pm PT

I've never been to the Needles, don't know anything about the Needles

RyanD

climber

Squamish

Sep 16, 2013 - 11:45pm PT

All routes are successful, even the shitty ones. Clip ups, run outs, whatever. they are all good-so long as no weenies show up and take matters into their own hands & add bolts cuz' they're too lite & lazy to get strong enough in the brain to do them.

I don't think this is a bolt/no bolt argument. I think it's about others like Jghedge feeling the need to bring the route down to their nancy level.