Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
patrick compton
Trad climber
van
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2013 - 08:11am PT
|
FWIW, I do buy the 'respect the FA' argument, because otherwise it would be chaos.
but all the armchair chest thumping is absolutely hilarious.
areas these days aren't being developed to worship the ego the of the FA, it is set up moreso by the community as a whole.
With more and more climbers entering the sport, people want access to quality rock.
This isn't to say that all climbs need to be sport climbs, but people are deciding more and more what areas are worth being spicy, what aren't.
It isn't simply up to the guy or gal who happened to stumble across a route first and amount of protection they deem necessary for themselves...
...and the rest of ya'll pussies need to sack the fvck up!
weak sauce, weak armchair on the porch sauce.
|
|
patrick compton
Trad climber
van
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2013 - 10:00am PT
|
Pussy's
You mean 'pussies'. Pussies is the plural of pussy.
'Pussy's' means something belongs to the pussy.
ex: That pussy's bolt on my route made me cry.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2013 - 10:25am PT
|
The Chief: I just go back periodically and chop the retro bolts that have been added to some of the FA's I was a part of.
What about retro-bolting North Peak couloirs and adding convenience anchors? What are your thoughts on that, The Chief?
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2013 - 10:28am PT
|
79 posts about why bouldering is far superior to roped climbing. Keep them coming.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2013 - 01:05pm PT
|
A lot of those guys from JL's era were, easily, 5,12 climbers (or 5.13, or in a few cases, basically, 5.14 climbers) running it out on 5.10 or 5.11 FA's. Sorry, but I just don't buy that the only motivation there was boldness, when they were climbing 2 or 3 number grades below their personal limit. There was ego involved there as well, John - don't try to deny it. You're just simply not making an honest statement or expression of boldness when climbing 2 or 3 number grades below your personal limit. You know that.
--
I would say this to you, Joe.
First, our climbing back in the day was not the fruit of a fraudulant argument, nor was it motivated on an ethic that only honored boldness, with the intentions of scaring every one that followed. Informed by the deep ecology movement, the idea was that you left the rock as close to it's original status as you possibly could. You didn't start hammering into the rock and placing permanent bolt anchors unless you absolutely had to, not to frighten the next guy who had some argument, but because placing bolts was thought to be akin to defacing the rock, or littering the trail. It was always a give and take kind of thing - you had to place SOME pro but the idea was to place as few bolts as possible because that was the ethic. I was profoundly influenced by the 1st ascent of the Salathea Wall which used only 13 bolts. Total. So if you had to be a 5.12 climber to be good enough to pull this ethic off on 5.10 routes, than that's what the game required.
If you have a beef with the old no-bolt ethic, then you have a beef. But blaming the players for adhering to it and calling their efforts fraudulent by virtue of your own "bold" argument, or that we had egos, is just silly and misguided IMO. Of course we had egos. But not as braggarts, but as people who could get out on the sharp end and do work confidentally and without sacrificing our ethics to terribly much.
Also, the fact that some of the run out routes were three grades below our limit did not make this simple work to the point of being fraud, as you contend. For instance, by 1975, I could boulder problems that were later rated V10, so I could do 5.13 at that time, at least the stuff that was geared to my fat ass. Lunges, power stuff, wide cracks, etc. We did many 5.10s with very poor pro back then because the pro was poor to begin with (no cams). Also, the vast majority of this climbing was on-sight so there wasn't an option to falling off.
I can remember doing routes (with hexes and stoppers period) like Twilight Zone, Left Side of Independence Pinnacle, and Right Side of Absolutely Free, all 5.10 routes, with NO pro that I thought would hold anything but a short fall, if that. While this stuff was well below my limit, I certainly didn't feel like a fraud while leading it. Same goes for all that free climbing we did on Middle Cathedral.
I think what you don't understand is that the thinking back in the "limit-the-bolts" era was that in many instance you had to be a 5.12 climber to safely climb certain 5.10 routes. According to your thinking, this is a cheat to the "real" 5.10 climber, who is somehow being swindled out of what is rightfully his by birthright by some ego-tripping Stonemaster running the rope to "keep the fluff off." Not the case, but I believe you think it is so by virtue of the intentionally incendiary statements make back then just to stir the pot.
But all of this is besides my earlier point that it should always boil down to what WE think and believe and bring to the table, not what someone else did long before. If WE are not up to the challenge, as it stands, and we decide to alter the route to fit our comfort level, how is THAT not a profound act of egoism, neglecting all those years of tradition and history believing our actions are justified because egotists and frauds did the climbing world a disservice in the first place by engineering danger into a given route? In fact, the danger was always there. By limiting the bolts, they simply did not dial the comfort down to a level ALL others might find acceptable. But to say this is the FAs fault, that a 5.13 climber on-sight ing unprotected 5.10 is a fraud, is in my mind a total misrepresentation of
what adventure sports are about.
Like I said, adventure climbing - where risk management is very much part of the game - is NOT for everyone. Blaming others because the game is the way it is seems like the declaration of someone who never accepted the game as legitimate in the first place. Which is fine. It makes no logical sense to take risks. But is it really your right to retroactively change the rules because you want to, based on your beliefs about the other guy?
JL
|
|
Vitaliy M.
Mountain climber
San Francisco
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2013 - 01:56pm PT
|
The bolts were already added with FAist permission. Big difference lad. By permission from one of the FAist. Then repeatedly chopped. Never once chopped by either of the FAist that is.
Tom Higgins obviously did not agree with any additions.
http://www.tomhiggins.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=22
What about retro-bolting North Peak couloirs and adding convenience anchors?
Guides adding convenience anchors is old news Gary.
|
|
patrick compton
Trad climber
van
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2013 - 02:00pm PT
|
The thing I take issue with is the claim that 5.13 climbers running it out on 5.10's somehow creates this noble ethical standard that should be adhered and aspired to - especially when that ethic extends beyond the actual FA, to a kind of virtual ownership of the route. 5.13 routes could have existed long before they actually did, as proven by the level of bouldering being done back then. There's tons of x-rated 5.10's from that era. The honest statement of boldness, IMO, would have been routes near the actual difficulty level that those doing them were capable of, not 2-3 number grades below.
that would the difference between creating the line for yourself, or opening it for the community.
Largo,
I do appreciate your explanation of the minimalist ethic of the time. It is true, each bolt is another small hole in the rock. And this stance does lend toward bolder climbing.
The interesting thing is that as things started to lean towards athleticism... surprise! More bolt protection for the harder lines, bolted anchors, cleaning on rappel, even the dreaded hang-dogging, often by the same people that made run-out 5.10s.
I am not saying this was you, but it is human nature to want to succeed in the physical arena by limiting the mental risk. Turns out the 10s can stay 'bold', but the 13s.... well... we're going to need to work those so we needs more pro!
'Bold' has a different face these days. I think it is telling that many of these R/X lines go unrepeated.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2013 - 02:12pm PT
|
Is a 5.12 climber running out a 5.10 FA really expressing their "greatest amount of personal commitment"?
Joe, how did that 5.12 climber know that the FA went at 5.10? I've done FA's where it was not apparent from the ground that the route went at all. Until you complete a pitch on a FA, you often don't know how hard it is.
Largo's response about altering the rock and the various comments about confusing style with ethics I think hit fairly close to the mark. I haven't seen much of an outcry when people climb Twilight Zone with modern protection, rather than limit themselves to the three or so pieces Pratt had on the FA. That's because modern protection on Twilight Zone doesn't change the rock for the next climber.
The presence of additional bolts does, however, change a climb. The post describing the lead with three bolts in a 140 foot slab states it quite well. If someone placed additional bolts on that lead, the commitment level would diminish because of the availability of an easier retreat.
Perhaps the availability of protection doesn't make much of a difference to you, but judging by the vehemence of opinion on this issue, it sure seems to make a difference to most people. I've always considered commitment a major element of adventure, because of the uncertainty that often accompanies it.
Ultimately, I think Roger Breedlove gets to the heart of this issue. We don't have an infinite supply of rock. What kind of climbing experience do we want? Since locals spend the most time at any particular area, they -- even more than the first ascent party, should make the decisions.
John
|
|
patrick compton
Trad climber
van
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2013 - 02:25pm PT
|
until it got hard, then the game changed.
|
|
Vitaliy M.
Mountain climber
San Francisco
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2013 - 02:55pm PT
|
TH was not the one that did the chopping btw. Never.
I think he cares about that issue less than majority of us internet wankers. He did the FA, stated his opinion on retro bolting, and why be bothered after? I was just giving you crap. Never lost sleep over this issue ;)
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2013 - 03:51pm PT
|
Not surprised of your attitude hedge. But YES the ROCK dictated to us what would be done and how. BECAUSE that is the way we played our game.
until it got hard, then the game changed.
-
That's not strictly true. When I made the first free ascent of Paisano Pinnacle at Suicide, in 1974, nobody had ever done any inversion (feet first) climbing, and the route/crack was so expanding that it was rated A3.
All we had were several steel bongs. Richard Harrison spent half an hour on rappel at the lip, trying to bang in a decent bong but it would only go in so far and then fire out as if spring loaded. So he finally got it in and draped it with a runner and that's what I had at the crux. I might have been able to lower off of it but a fall and it would have ripped out for sure and I would have dashed that slab far below (by then). So I couldn't fall and the route went at 5.12c/d, quite possibly the hardest wide crack climbed at that time.
I don't say this to brag, but to point out that the idea that we only pushed the boldness on stuff well below our limit is total bunk.
Joe wrote: The thing I take issue with is the claim that 5.13 climbers running it out on 5.10's somehow creates this noble ethical standard that should be adhered and aspired to - especially when that ethic extends beyond the actual FA, to a kind of virtual ownership of the route.
Nobody cares what you do on any route so long as you don't dumb it down wit extra bolts after the FA. It's a very simple game here Joe. There is the route. It exists like this or that. You can try it or not. What you are arguing about is that "the route" is really not a route at all until it passes mustard with your own self, and the criteria your bring to the game per safety. In that sense, the argument is all about what you want and see fit, with you deriving your bill of rights by virtue of fraudulent behavior of the FA party, which regulates how others must behave ever after if they want to tresspass this particular piece of rock. While you are ruing others for acting shamlessly on the FA, what I really hear you saying is that you don't like others telling you how bold you have to be or not be on a given route, and that you basically want to do things exactly how you please and never mind the egotistical wankers who did the FA. They don't own nothing because I say so.
Really, Joe. the last time I climbed with you like 12 years ago out at Echo you hiked a 5.12 I could barely follow on a top rope. You seem an unlikely person to be harping on this issue. It doesn't reflect poorly on anyone who does not feel the urge to get up there and run the line. That kind of climbing really isn't for everyone one and it doesn't need to be.
JL
|
|
patrick compton
Trad climber
van
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2013 - 03:59pm PT
|
I am not referring to cracks that can be protected at many points that allow gear.
I am referring to slabs with no natural pro. 10, 11s, and even 12-s had 20' and 30' runouts, but as soon as hard 12 and easy 13 came along....
boom! ... all of a sudden the bolts were a lot closer together.
Where did the environmental, deep ecology concerns go? Seemed to maybe apply to 10s and 11s, not so much the 12s and 13s.
|
|
patrick compton
Trad climber
van
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2013 - 04:36pm PT
|
...so I again I say the 'rules' changed when the grades got harder.
Invaded our shores?! LOL. Did the French come over in Lyrca and force feed you snails?
No, it was many of the very same players of 'the bold game' that changed the rules to suit their goals of pushing the physical limits.
|
|
looking sketchy there...
Social climber
Latitute 33
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2013 - 05:06pm PT
|
No, I do understand that you needed to be a 5.12 (or better) climber to do those 5.10's. That's the problem.
To which "those 5.10's" are you referring (specifically). The era John and friends were active is fairly finite -- as are the possible routes they may have established.
But, I'll call bullsh!t on the premise posed by you. Plenty of non-5.12 climbers climbed (established and repeated) the type of route which seems to the subject of your ire.
Perhaps the difference between then and now is that a greater percentage of climbers "then" had strong mental skills, rather than the "now" (current) prevalence of merely being physically strong.
And, accordingly, maybe it would be more true to say that most current climbers need to be able to climb 5.12 to repeat some of these 5.10s.
So the real question is: Should routes be altered because the mental prowess (a shift in demographics) of climbers has declined over the years?
|
|
Greg Barnes
climber
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2013 - 05:07pm PT
|
This sort of argument would have a lot more relevance if there was only a very small amount of rock, particularly if there was no way to go set topropes.
We are so lucky (in the Western US at least) to have TONS of rock around that no one has touched.
Leave the old school routes bold, and replace the bolts for the (few) bold folks and to show that the community still cares. If the FA wants to add a bolt or more to their own old route, respect that (even Kamps added a bolt to Ewe Must Be Kidding). If well protected is your game, then do new routes! There's plenty for everyone...even without much hiking (as Pine Creek, Highway 108, and tons of other crags show). And with a little bit of hiking (no backpacking required) there is ENDLESS rock that no one has climbed...not to mention tons of sport routes, many of which are new to most people (check out the Shuteye guidebook...or for Pine Creek near Bishop check out Mountain Project). Lots to climb, lots of different styles, go have fun!
|
|
patrick compton
Trad climber
van
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2013 - 05:38pm PT
|
Sketch
There is plenty of bold climbing going on, but it is over pads on 40' v10s, not on run out 11s on 30 year old bolts.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2013 - 06:22pm PT
|
I think that in the early 70s there was more reaching for a bold standard beyond wanting to leave only a small trace behind or because we couldn’t stop or didn’t have enough money for bolts. All of those reasons probably played a part in individual cases, but there lots of bold routes were climbed where none of those issued played a part. I think that we have to 'fess-up to run-out leads because we liked it that way. I cannot speak to climbing past the mid-70s and outside of Yosemite.
While there were exceptions, for the most part, good leaders protected easy pitches; not because they needed the protection, but because they had an obligation to the other climbers. I know that from personal experience when you are working your way up a slab pitch, the calculus is always based on where the next stance to drill is, how far above the last piece you are, how bad would a fall be, and how hard does the climbing look to get to the next stance, all filtered through, “Is this line going to go this particular direction.” This decision process is done in sequence, and starts over at the new stance. If everything is easy, in hindsight, a bolt that should have been placed much sooner leads to a long run-out, or if there is a miss-calculation on how hard the next section is, then unintentional run-outs can be created on hard climbing. If you are off route and cannot climb down, a bit of sling is left to confuse the hell out of the next party, who usually came looking for you to complain about bad instructions. It is harder to figure out where to place bolts on a new route than it would seem.
But I know that we ran-out leads on slabs because that was part of the style that we developed. There was a lot of discussion about how far to push run-outs. We liked long run-outs. We practiced quiet and controlled climbing. We practiced run-outs so our heads were together. Part of exhibiting that skill was risking long falls, on both unprotected cracks and on slabs. But we rarely fell. Not because we were climbing well below our standard, but because it was not good style to fall. Taking lots of leader falls to ascend a pitch really only started with Vern Clevenger in the Meadows when he was learning in the early 70s and with Ray Jardine in the Valley on his hangdog routes in the mid- to late-70s. Even if falling became the standard for new difficulties, Vern and Ray were exceptions. Even on climbs where natural protection was available, such as the routes on the highly featured NW Face of Middle, most of us ran-out our leads.
There were specific pitches where bolts were added after the fact to clean up mistakes, but I don't recall anyone ever telling us at the time that we should have put in more bolts as a general proposition. If someone didn't like that sort of climbing there were lots of other routes to climb. That said, I can easily see that for someone climbing today who has climbed mostly on sport climbs with a bouldering approach to many tries and many falls, the 70s routes would seem like they are from another world, put up by ego driven maniacs. I know that was just not the case, but I can see the point looking back. But it only holds up if one assumes that those of us climbing then understood—then--how climbers today climb. But that sort of backward projection is not justified: we didn’t know that our routes would have “x’s” and “r’s” next to them and that so many new climbers would join the sport that they would run out of “safe” routes to climb. Just as climbers today have no easy way to understand what we were doing--until they try it out themselves--we had no concept then of how today's climbers would climb.
On a second point, I regularly climbed hard 5.10 but rarely above that level. So, the whole notion that long run-outs were the result of leaders who were too bored with easy climbing to put anything in is just not true. In the early 70s in the Valley the run-out slab routes were close to the highest standards. In any case, 5.12 did not exist, much less 5.13.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2013 - 06:59pm PT
|
We have a climbing area that is rife with these problems. It is of course a big slab, rarely vertical, with a number of routes in the 5.10 to 5.11 range. Many of them have insane runouts. I took a hundred foot fall trying to do the 2nd ascent of one of them at age 19 or so.
The rules back then were no bolting on rappel, which to today's climbers sounds stupid. The routes were put in ground up, stance drilled, and face it: a lot of the time there weren't places where you could drop your hands and drill.
Today, very few people do any of these routes, but back in the day, everyone did them, or most of them. We were all used to it, and a 5.10 climber would climb a 5.10 route. One of the best routes in the state is a 150 foot pitch with 4 bolts. They are right where you need them, though, so it seems G rated.
Very few people got hurt. A broken leg now and then would happen.
Most of the routes were put up by a very good climber, but he was "just" a 5.11d/.12a climber back then. And yeah, occasionally he would blow off a bolt stance to keep away the riff raff. The vast majority of routes have a bolt at every stance.
What is weird is that many of the routes were climbed daily by the mortals. Now, climbers a thousand times better won't even touch those routes. Slabs, with micro hand and foot holds are just not in vogue.
Permission was granted to add some bolts to about ten of the routes, but the line was drawn there. They aren't even that great, but now they are the only routes that the majority of climbers will touch.
Now we are all old and gone, and I have to say that it wouldn't hurt my feelings anymore if a lot of them got retro bolted, just so people would climb the routes. They don't learn in the same kind of environment that we did, and although the new guys can climb circles around the old folks, they still don't go there often.
Whadda ya do? It is a drag that nobody does the routes other than a few really strong climbers. We still leave it up to the FA'ist, but he's gonna die of old age in twenty more years, and I suppose that it will bristle with new bolts eventually. I would have blown a fuse over adding bolts ten years ago, but now I don't care.
This problem is mainly on slab routes. As I said, slab routes aren't in vogue, but it would increase the amount of climbing without a doubt if bolts were added.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2013 - 07:22pm PT
|
I'm glad I was a 1950's climber. Life on the rock was much less complex and less controversial. The arguments about whether someone grabbed a piton (French-style free climbing) seem now so innocent and inconsequential compared with bolting over boldness and permanently defacing the rock.
On the other hand, current free climbers have reaped the unintentional rewards of damaging the rock with chromally pitons and overbolting during FAs from that period.
Succeeding generations see the sport differently.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2013 - 07:50pm PT
|
Hey JGill, did you know that "Bouldering didnt count fer squat back then"?
;>)
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!