Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2007 - 11:59pm PT
|
You can count on it. I've always had a problem with revisionists. And the fools that believe them.
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
sorry, just posting out loud.
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2007 - 12:06am PT
|
er, not to interrupt this love fest, but the vitriol thread is a couple pages back and needs a bump. can we stick to ethical dicussions of practice and precedent on the WOS threads?
gracias amigos,
M
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2007 - 12:10am PT
|
That discussion begins with how many times did you whack, chisel, or drill in the midst of your carefully and lovingly tabulated 151 hook placements.
This would be an excellent place to begin. Thanks Munge for the prompting.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2007 - 12:26am PT
|
I'm puzzled. "Revisionists?" I don't get it. Who has done the revising over time?
First the route was a "bolt ladder," and the claim was "a thousand bolts to Horse Chute." However, from the ground it quickly became apparent that the route could not be called a "bolt ladder," since there were obviously more rivets than bolts.
Then it was a "rivet ladder," and that was the charge that stuck for decades despite our constant denials and despite the fact that from the ground the route is obviously not a rivet ladder.
Yet, that flagrantly ridiculous charge stuck throughout most of the WoS threads, as anybody can verify. Only when that claim proved unsustainable in the face of too many first-hand accounts to the contrary did the real revisionists try to make it appear that they had actually been opposed to "enhancements" all along, despite the fact that we denied doing that as well.
Let's be clear on the sequence here. The "damage" even our critics attempt to hold us accountable for keeps getting reduced and reduced, until now all they can dicker about is the exact number of supposed "enhancements" we actually created.
We have forthrightly admitted to knocking a crystal of rock off of an otherwise horizontal micro-flake on a few occasions, with the number being unclear after 25 years, although not more than about 15 times on the entire route. And, we have stated that we do not consider these occasions to be "enhancements" in the sense that the term is always used, because EVERY time we drilled straight into the rock to create a hole we counted that as a hole rather than an "enhancement."
We have consistently stated that the few crystals we knocked off of otherwise horizontal micro-flakes resulted in hook placements that could not be distinguished from natural flakes because (and I repeat) we did no straight-in drilling that would result in a pit or "dimple" of any kind, as one sees in traditional "enhanced" hooking. Our statements to this effect have been repeatedly verified by both PTPP and Ammon (and Rob Slater, btw). So I continue to say the same thing we have always said: there are no "enhancements" in the traditional sense of that word, and the very few times we chipped a protruding crystal from a micro-flake, the result was a hookable EDGE (not pit or dimple) that cannot be distinguished from a natural edge.
If mimisoft insists on an exact number of times that the drill touched a hooking edge, as we have repeatedly and consistently stated, after all these years that is impossible to produce. But, as we have also constantly said, that number is a small number, like less than 10% of the total hook placements.
Despite the consistent clarity that my many posts, including this one, have shed on the subject, only mimisoft persists in its own "revisionist" slanders that simply repetitively deny (in the face of ALL the evidence) that we are telling the truth.
I think it's time for the few remaining rabid critics to see for themselves what is really there. It's cheap and easy to criticize and pontificate from the comfort of one's chair (or security of one's microchips, as is the case with mimisoft). Far better to bring a camera along and climb the "pile." Bill Russell famously asserted, "My grandma could do that POS in an afternoon." So, I continue to challenge: "Then you should have no trouble romping up the POS even faster." Take pictures as you do, and have a few unbiased people along to verify your "work" so that no further "revising" continues.
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2007 - 12:34am PT
|
Mark Smith states above, "I have to confess that for all the brew-ha-ha that's come of our modifications I wish we could have found a way to be forthright and at the same time let people assume that there were no modifications since there are none to be found at this point in time. I will say that having to do over I wonder if we could have accomplished the same end by grinding the tip our hook back and forth and/or banging the top of the hook with a biner. I think that would have been better accepted."
Bwana, do you have any regrets about how you did the route? And after all that's been written and said, do you really expect many of us to believe you?
How about WOC and ROF? People heard lots of tapping there too. 10-15% enhancement on those routes?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2007 - 12:57am PT
|
mimisoft, I wonder what it will take for the data to get into your algorithms. The tide has turned, and now most people DO believe us. They believe us not only because we have been so obviously forthright and honest in our discussions, but also because other first-hand accounts have verified what we have said all along. There are very few "thinkers" left as dense as you and as unable to grasp the simple and obvious facts.
Regarding regrets, I would say that "regret" is too strong a word. To do over again, like Mark says, I would simply have come up with some other way besides hammer and drill tip to accomplish the few crystal-removals we did, and then I would have said nothing about it, since these would not count as "enhancements" by any estimation. A few have effectively turned this issue into a red herring and created a tempest in a teapot about an aspect of the ascent that is truly insignificant.
However, one good aspect of this red herring is that the very fact that the few have fixated on this point is itself overwhelming evidence in favor of how little they have left to cling to in their insane efforts to vindicate their decades of slander in the face of the truth. The route is, very simply, NOTHING like what our critics have endlessly asserted and written over the decades, and that fact is now undeniable. So, "regret" is too strong a word, because the contrast between the facts and the slanders stands in sharper relief due to the "enhancements" debate.
Regarding WoC and RoF, mimisoft makes it sound like there's some dark secret there to be revealed. But the dark mysteries are only in mimisoft's convoluted algorithms. We have repeatedly stated that our style on those routes was consistent with the style on many other El Cap routes, including highly respected ones: namely, we DID drill straight-in holes and dimples to enhance hook placements. We have never shied away from "admitting" that fact, and I don't regret a single one of those enhancements. That was the style we intentionally employed on those routes, and, as we have said, there is no comparison between the style of those routes and that of WoS.
Mimisoft continues to try to obscure that which is clear. Not only DO I expect REASONABLE people to believe us in what we say, the beauty of the situation as it now stands is that people don't have to believe only US; they can also believe PTPP (who was a former critic, remember?) and Ammon.
Steve, again, please figure out a way to get some of the actual data into mimisoft's algorithms. I won't respond any more to the same old questions and slanders. The last few posts have clearly summarized the many hundreds of posts of discussions over the years, and I leave it now for reasonable people to see the clear truth.
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2007 - 01:06am PT
|
Out of curiosity, why did you enhance so freely on the latter two routes and not on WOS?
By the time you left the ground on WOS, how much hooking on lead had either of you done before establishing the hardest aid pitch in the world 'conservatively rated A5' when A5+ did not yet exist? You've avoided a similar question in the past.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2007 - 01:21am PT
|
Deleted cruel picture of Mimi.
|
|
'Pass the Pitons' Pete
Big Wall climber
like Oakville, Ontario, Canada, eh?
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2007 - 01:59am PT
|
Wow, Mimi - you truly are a remarkably bitter woman. I am so sorry for you, you must have really been hurt in the past. Your posts drip with venom so much of the time - do you have any kindness in your heart? Do you even have a heart? I think you do, I just wish you would show it more.
Why do you persecute Mark and Richard so? What have they ever done to hurt you? I don't get it.
Mimi, how can you say that Mark and Richard have been imprecise in describing their "enhancements" to the route? They have described in excruciatingly precise detail what they did and how often. To say that they didn't is ludicrous - can you knott read?
At first, I thought Mark and Richard were a couple of wankers who liked to rant. But their posts were consistent, and had the ring of truth. To me, they seemed credible enough I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. So I went to have a look myself. I've had a good look at the first two [crux] pitches - I say "look" because they were too hard for me to climb - and they are hard, way hard. I was specifically looking for enhancements,and could find none. What I found was a really hard couple of pitches where you were certain to take long lobs, skidding down the slab and hitting ledges and wrecking your ankles and everything else, way way way too sick for me.
Most significantly, everything I found was consistent with what Mark and Richard had written, and their credibility was more or less intact. I agree with you, however, that their later enhancements of other routes reflects badly on them, but they have admitted this is so, too.
I heard Bill tried and failed on the first pitch, too, and he's a damn good climber.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
primordial soup
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2007 - 04:57am PT
|
re:
"We have consistently stated that the few crystals we knocked off of otherwise horizontal micro-flakes resulted in hook placements that could not be distinguished from natural flakes because (and I repeat) we did no straight-in drilling that would result in a pit or "dimple" of any kind, as one sees in traditional "enhanced" hooking. Our statements to this effect have been repeatedly verified by both PTPP and Ammon (and Rob Slater, btw). So I continue to say the same thing we have always said: there are no "enhancements" in the traditional sense of that word, and the very few times we chipped a protruding crystal from a micro-flake, the result was a hookable EDGE (not pit or dimple) that cannot be distinguished from a natural edge."
i don't have a dog in this figet (i.e. i could give a rats ass when it's all said and done), but to be clear, the argument you make above is one that basically condones ANY enhancement, if don in such a fashion that a later cimber cannot identify it as such.
simply put, i do not think we ought to accept that principle.
i really don't see why this debate needs to continue.
some can say that the fact the route has not been repeated validates it as a futuristic visionary masterpiece, while others can say that it indicates that the route is uninspiring/ contrived/ forced, or whatever else.
like it or not, the one lesson that cannot be ignored is that when you ignore the apparent concencus, beware, it may haunt you for the next 20+ years...
(now back to your regularly scheduled mudslinging, already in progress)
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2007 - 09:14am PT
|
Mimi, so exactly how many times do these guys have to repeat themselves verbatim in describing their 'enhancements' or their statements re-quoted and re-linked? Look, you can call them liars or you can disagree with what they did, but it's getting way past the point of simply asking the same droning question of what they did again and again when they have answered it as clearly and succinctly as even the most erudite Valley regular. And just how much clearer does an evaluation of the line get than this:
Ammon: "From what I have seen, the climbing is very challenging, BUT, it is very boring as well (to me). It took me a couple of hours to figure out where to go on the second pitch. I was standing in my aiders for twenty-five minutes trying to figure out what to do. To me, that is boring. From what I did see on the first two pitches was: It is NOT a bolt ladder like I previously thought. They used every possible features to climb the slab. No lack of balls, either. I took some pretty good rides and was impressed with how far they made their run-outs."
Yours was the first post after this one of Ammon's and all you did was slam PTPP with regard to Ammon questioning his TR'ing on the line - all without a shred of acknowledgement of what Ammon actually said about the line itself. Can you not accept Ammon's words on the matter? And if not, why not?
And as stated by others above - with the exception of Ammon's comments, it's all talk until someone completes a second go of the line. And while you can certainly claim no one should climb the slab, or you can claim like Werner that it's uninspiring as an aid line, or like Ammon that it's not your 'thing' - but none of those positions in any way negate the reality of it being a hard aid line that's never seen a second ascent. And in that regard I believe there's still a trove of alcholic treasure up for grabs to anyone who conjures the interest and manages to do it - at the very least a case of Oregon microbrew and another of Pinot Noir is still on the table.
But, then maybe that will be you're biggest contribution - endless bitching that eventually gets someone serious enough about the route to do a second of it.
|
|
'Pass the Pitons' Pete
Big Wall climber
like Oakville, Ontario, Canada, eh?
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2007 - 10:48am PT
|
"i really don't see why this debate needs to continue."
Concur. What do you say we "agree to disagree" and leave it at that?
|
|
deuce4
Big Wall climber
the Southwest
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2007 - 11:03am PT
|
Second on Pete's concur.
"Dwell not on the past. Use it to illustrate a point, then leave it behind."--Eileen Caddy
The points have all been illustrated.
|
|
mojede
Trad climber
Butte, America
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2007 - 11:21am PT
|
Correct, Deuce. Doesn't the definition of "aid" climbing ALWAYS include: ascending a rock by ARTIFICIAL means ?
Maybe the definitions need to change to fit each aid climber's own PERSONAL views--yeah, a subjective definition, that's what we need. Give me a break.
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2007 - 12:41pm PT
|
Matt pretty much summed it up with regard to the 'anything goes mentality.' As long as these guys and their submen continue to get on here spraying, I will post up and remind people that these guys really stunk up the place. These guys were identified as unskilled boobs when they made themselves known in Camp 4 that spring.
Joe, with your appreciation of old-school ethics and style, it's dissappointing that you'd defend these guys and what they did. You can refer to it as droning on and on but as I recall the few answers they've provided over the last couple years have changed. They're very adept at blathering their way around any question that actually makes them look bad.
I guess no one wants to acknowledge that the information taken directly from their book exposes how utterly incompetent they were when they began the route. Reading their posts of spun blather 20+ years later is a joke. And once again, technical difficulty doesn't necessarily eclipse other consideratons when establishing the worth of a route and the quality of effort put in by the FA party. These guys have been willing to judge other climbers in comparison to themselves but sure don't like it when they're called out.
Of course we can agree to disagree, but don't expect everyone to roll over and let these guys whitewash the truth.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2007 - 12:45pm PT
|
"These guys were identified as unskilled boobs"
But since then they have been identified as skilled aid climbers, more skilled then you. You are the boob here.
Deleted cruel picture.
|
|
Lost Arrow
Trad climber
The North Ridge of the San Fernando
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2007 - 12:56pm PT
|
Is it not possible after the drill and chip fest they went back and fixed the rock to make it appear harder?
Did the NPS save the ropes that had sh#t on them possibly enabling DNA testing that did not exist in 1975?
Lost
|
|
Hardman Knott
Gym climber
Muir Woods National Monument, Mill Valley, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2007 - 04:05pm PT
|
Welcome back, Crowley!
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2007 - 04:21pm PT
|
I don't know Lois.
Imelda probably had more shoes total, but I'm pretty sure Mimi has more CLIMBING shoes than Imelda.
|
|
'Pass the Pitons' Pete
Big Wall climber
like Oakville, Ontario, Canada, eh?
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2007 - 05:33pm PT
|
"These guys were identified as unskilled boobs..."
For unskilled boobs, they sure as heck put up a damn hard route, that nobody has yet been able to repeat!
I think it was very sporting of them to do it in a ground-up push without fixing ropes. They might be unskilled boobs, but they sure have my respect and admiration. I am proud to be one of their Submen. [Do they have any others??]
Mimi - can you please explain to me how Mark and Richard have [allegedly] whitewashed the truth? I would appreciate it, thanks. To my observation, when it comes to honesty, Mark and Richard have possibly even been "too honest"! How many climbers would 'fess up in such precise detail the exact way they modified the rock, when such modifications are not in any way visible on the first two pitches? If they were trying to whitewash the truth, would they not simply remain silent about this, since nobody can see the enhancements anyway?
Incidentally, I apologize for my unkind personal remarks above, they were unnecessary.
Oh frig, I just reread the quote. They were identified as unskilled boobs... Hey Hoser, put me down for the five bucks, eh?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!