Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Landgolier
climber
the flatness
|
|
As much as I support the respect the FA mindset, which Russ has a great defense of in the other thread, sometimes I get to thinking about how not all FA's are respectable FA's. Don't get me wrong, you'll never catch me out there with a drill on someone else's route, but how far do we take it? If someone goes and free solos a bunch of new .11+ slab lines that don't take any gear, are they off limits to everyone not willing to go on a suicide mission?
This does happen, there are a bunch of Jim Thurmond routes in southern IL that were established as solos/highballs and now have bolts on them. Totally respectable FA's in this case, of course, and mostly moderates and not suicide missions, but you see what I mean. I wish we could get Jim himself on this board, but I don't think anybody regards it as a tragedy that these routes get climbed nowadays in a less dangerous style.
And Juan, how many people have you seen die on the rock? Seems like you've posted quite a few stories.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
So far as ego goes, to imply that ego alone was the driving factor in running the rope, also subely implies that the first ascentionists held everyone else in disregard, or at any rate, didn't take their well being into account. But back then, there really was no "everyone else" who had any interest in doing such routes. Back then, the only other people who were interested in repeating these routes were a handful of friends, or a few foreigners who were working off the same philosophy. The idea that we did not magically read the future, and safeguard a route for those who did not have the required skillset, but got on the route anyway--well, that's too much to expect.
The idea that all climbs are supposed to be "safe," meaning anyone has a right to try them with no consequence if they muff it, is a relatively new one, born from sport climbing's clip and go protection. In our time, "safety" was mostly a matter of what a leader had betwen his ears and between his legs--mental control and sack. In other words, a leader took full responsibility for his actions out on the sharp end. And if things went wrong, he didn't blame others for not considring, thirty five years prior, that he might get up there and fly off.
A death is always a sad business, but putting the onus on the first ascentionists only becomes meaningful if the original agreement was to make all climbs fool proof--that is, eliminate the adventure, or so water it down that there's no Piper to pay if things go wrong. Adventure was the earmark of climbing in the 60s and the 70s. The theme shifted in the 80s to the present (at least on the popular level), but revisionist thinking cannot retroactivly lay blame on those who came before simply because they played a game whose rules have since changed.
JL
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Melissa is well qualified to talk about FA team intents... she knows a number of people who put up routes in the Valley (and probably has participated in FAs herself).
An FA is such a pure thing in and of itself that it might be difficult for someone who hasn't done one to really understand all the things that are going on.
First off, you spot a line that you think might go in the range of difficulty you can climb. What you find is by no means guarenteed to actually fit your perception from far off. Every move leads to the next, but you don't necessarily know what the difficulty will be or whether the route continues to go. Putting bolts in is time consuming. I think that Eric and I put around 9 bolts in to finish Waiting For The Sun in January. The major factor was how to finish the climb before the sun went down.
On lead, you might push it a little farther, you might get more imaginative with the gear placement, or with the route direction, to meet a whole lot of competing problems.
The thing about an FA is that you don't really know until you finish it whether or not it is worth reengineering for subsequent parties... if the route is good, you might think, "gee, we really should put a bolt into that runout section on pitch 3". Then you might or might not get a chance to go back and do it. You will probably report the FA anyway. By the same token, you're not out there thinking "gee, this will really f*#k with the gumby's mind." More likely it's "don't be a pansy, push it out a little more, it's not like you're going to die or anything (I hope)."
But Roger's initial post is, in part, the acceptability of bolts in "natural" climbing. My wife Debbie doesn't climb, but she's been around me and climbing for a long time. She is appalled that we do the things we do, bolt in rock, garden and clean, remove trees, etc. She asked me "why do you have to climb there? isn't there enough to climb without having to do those things?" Those are a good couple of questions.
Gary and I climbed Faux Pas in Tuolumne Meadows on Mountaineers Dome. The belay anchors at the end of the 1st and 2nd pitches were put in as bolts by the FA team (Clevenger/Kamps/Higgins). But there are cracks that protect well with modern gear, but probably wouldn't have with nuts and hexes. The question is, couldn't the FA have waited for someone later to have done it in better style? i.e. with fewer bolts.
The inevitable has happened, and was happening right from day 1. Once we accept bolting as legitimate, then how many bolts are ok? What factors into a climb to set the minimal number of acceptable bolts? Should these lines be climbed at all if the gear doesn't yet exist to protect it, or the climbers are not good enough to pull the lead off without bolts?
There is an age old conflict between forcing a line to go where you want it and picking a natural line. There really is no right answer, I think. A route is judged over time by the people who climb it after the FA; was it a good idea, was it a good route, can the style be defended?
In some ways, the FA team has gotten something very special out of the route that no one else gets. And it is perhaps also true that the FA team could care less about what happens to the route later, the route will never be the same for them as when they put it up, it is changed because it is known.
Part of the adventure is the unknown nature, the unpredicability of the climb. That dies when the climb is completed.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Largo wrote
"A death is always a sad business, but putting the onus on the first ascentionists only becomes meaningful if the original agreement was to make all climbs fool proof--that is, eliminate the adventure, or so water it down that there's no Piper to pay if things go wrong. Adventure was the earmark of climbing in the 60s and the 70s. The theme shifted in the 80s to the present (at least on the popular level), but revisionist thinking cannot retroactivly lay blame on those who came before simply because they played a game whose rules have since changed. "
Putting the onus on the first ascentionists only becomes meaningful if they insist that their one bolt per pitch death routes remain as they were before the rules changed. I'm not talking about Stoners and BY here. I'm talking about the X zone vitual solos and the like.
I'm curious how many folk died doing routes like Juan is referring to back in the day? Was it many? Was it few because they were so far below the limit of those climbing them? or was it few because so few climbed them even then?
Did folks go back and repeat their runout face routes or did they tend to just move on?
Just asking questions and probing. If the population increases and the resource is limited, future folks will be making calls about how much to leave untouched as testament to the past, and how much classic 5.8 to 5.10 should be lifted from the death zone, if any.
PEace
Karl
|
|
JuanDeFuca
Big Wall climber
Stoney Point
|
|
Why is it every time I bring up the possibility EGO could enter the equation everyone wants to dog pile.
I have no problem with danger, that's why I climb.
I used to like dangerous routes.
Sorry for suggesting climbers are any different from the general population.
JDF
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Warbler wrote "Even after a route is done, named and rated it still offers a different climber the challenge of the unknown in the form of unlocking new sequences that confront him. Certainly not the ultimate experience of the first, but a form of adventure in my mind. "
Yup, plenty of adventure. I'm sure a lot more people get hurt or killed following an established route rather than putting up new ones.
And, as we see in this thread, the FA party gets to decide they are scared and need a bolt, but the ones following have to accept whatever they get. (granted they don't have to drill either)
peace
karl
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Warbler - I agree with you, which is why I said "Part of the adventure...", and that is the part that dies with the FA.
Karl - the others also have some idea of what they are getting into... whereas the FA team didn't know. Given that information, the others may decide not to do the route.
|
|
JuanDeFuca
Big Wall climber
Stoney Point
|
|
"So far as ego goes, to imply that ego alone was the driving factor in running the rope, also subely implies that the first ascentionists held everyone else in disregard, or at any rate, didn't take their well being into account"
I have met many climbers that didn't take thier well being into account.
|
|
Steve Grossman
Trad climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
A little boy inside a dream just the other day
His mind fell out of his face and the wind blew it away
A hand came out and happened to pin that badge on his chest
It said get out there man and do your best.........Jimi
I began climbing in 1970 and was heavily influenced by the whole clean climbing movement from the outset. The writings of Robbins, Chouinard, Robinson, Stannard and Bruce Carson, to name a few, by drawing on their own experiences to expand our collective sense of possibility, clearly set the parameters for the game to come. The 1972 Chouinard Equipment manifesto was arguably read by everybody climbing seriously in the entire continent. No excuses for not having heard the word!
The integrity of the transformation away from repeatedly hammered protection depended entirely on the conduct and style of the climbers on the leading edge. It wasn't difficult to see rock as a limited resource so establishing routes implicitly required your best effort. Free your mind and your ass will follow is I believe how it went. Well, what followed was an explosion of new route activity that for the most part clearly demonstrated how absolutely mind blowing everybody's best efforts could be. I'm talking boldness here as it seems to be the core of this thread.
The climbing world was much smaller thirty years ago and it was simple to keep up with the outstanding efforts of others. Once I become historically aware of the true talent and accomplishments of those climbing before me and my peers, less than my all just wasn't acceptable. A place like Yosemite was the ideal crucible for excellence because of its living history. Add to the mix a group of highly skilled and motivated climbers and away we go.
All the wild tales lately speak to the committment and resolve necessary to send these amazing lines wandering up into the air. Once up, they inspire others to follow. Having your mind blown by your friends and then returning the favor is really about as good as it gets. Inspiration gets accumulated in some strange cosmic capacitor and eventually discharges itself creatively. To repeat these extraordinary routes is to tap into that energy which allows curiousity and wonder to overcome dread and will to best self doubt. How else to better know yourself than to truely witness, absorb and appreciate the dimensionality and depth of others? We all spark each other. History is the cosmic glue. Shine on you crazy runouts!
Roger, Speaking of inspiration, perhaps this would be a great place to post your Mountain article on Middle Rock if you would be so kind.
Tom Higgins, your thoughtful, clear and concise posting over on the hellish Ground Up thread was a pleasure to read as always. Any chance you would repost here away from that flack fest? Thanks
|
|
bhilden
Trad climber
Mountain View, CA
|
|
One could argue that Ego is a motivator for the people who denounce runout slab climbs. Climbers lacking in either the physical or mental abilities (or both) to master these sorts of climbs need to find a way to massage their bruised egos, the easiest way being to put down the first ascensionists.
Bruce
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Ego is a huge factor in all our rockclimbing ethical tirades on all sides.
In defining "ego" I'm talking about the more Eastern concept of it, which includes our self-boasting and our self-doubt. basically our attached mental idea of ourselves.
We see "our way" without understanding other's ways. We use climbing to justify our existence and make us special. When other criticize our climbing perspective, our whole "ego" feels threatened and lashes out.
Of course it's not so much about old routes that we won't do again, or may never do. It's like arguing about religion. God may not care but we feel threatened.
PEace
Karl
|
|
Maysho
climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
It is all a matter of perspective and what you are used to. In the 70's, I was a 90lb weakling, and a very eager kid working my way through the grades in the Valley. The Glacier Point apron was the place to climb, and my first 5.9 leads were done there. Sure, I would think, wow that was kind of scary, but with no well protected face climbs for reference, these routes did not seem exceptional. "R" and "X" are recent constructs only relevant in the age of Owens Gorge. By 1977 I was 15 years old and having succeeded on a handful of 5.11's was part of a group of what could be called "stonemaster little brothers". Middle was where we climbed that autumn, I did Freewheelin, and all 10 pitches of Stoners Highway. These routes were known for their high quality, the boldness required was just assumed as it was the face climbing standard of the day. Also, having never experienced cams, we thought a couple of wired nuts behind a flake were pretty bomber. But no one went up on these routes with falling in mind.
I agree with Bachar, a few of Robbins' routes in Tuolumne were terrifying. One time I guided a couple of nice women up the Grey Ghost on Daff. The polished 5.9 at the end of the pitch must be done looking at a ground fall. I swallowed down the fear of my sweet clients being splattered by my plummeting body and tiptoed through the moves. TM told me he remembered Robbins getting a pin or two in the flared horizontals, but since he was probably in blue hiking boots, I credit him with a truly visionary lead.
Juan is right about the Apparition death fall, I will never forget consoling and wiping the blood off of Doug Nidivers cheek when he got back to the Rat room after trying to give that guy CPR. Story back then was that the guy got lured off route by the fresh chalk on the nearby soloists line between Apparition and RCA.
The only time I was angered by the idea of runouts was during a short weird trend in the mid 80's. The little general bragged to me about his new route "the kid". He climbed up a homogenous black street and had his belayer mark the rope so he would know when he was in ground fall territory, then he climbed 10 more feet before hooking and placing a bolt. At 10b he was climbing grades below his limit, and I told him he had ruined a decent line in a contrived way, a shallow parody of the nearby "You asked for it".
It is what you are used to. Some years back, after a long absence from Tuolumne friction, I soloed South Crack, on the long blank upper slab, the wind started to blow. I could not believe how glibly I used to run up that thing while guiding in my 5 tennies, chatting with the clients, and even a few times with rain startin to fall.
Bold routes are a vital part of our climbing landscape. I still have not let go of the desire to train on some runouts and lead the Bachar Yerian some day, just as years ago I always had the goal of training on friction and doing Greasy but Groovy, which at 5.11 was the heroes journey of the 70's. Thanks Roger for a great thread, and especially for your visionary climbing back then!
Peter
|
|
Forest
Trad climber
Tucson, AZ
|
|
The person responsible for someone dying on an x-rated route is the person who made the conscious decision to climb it despite knowing that it was dangerous.
There's been many a route (more than a few of them put up by you, Steve G!) that I've not been willing to do for this reason.
And then some of them, as I've become a better climber, have become things that I could go back and do later. It would not have been the same experience at all if I'd been able to jump on and try those routes as soon as their rating was something that I *might* be able to get up.
When I find that one of these routes is now something that I'm okay doing, completion of such a route is many times over more rewarding than it would have been as a G-rated clip-up in the first place.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 1, 2006 - 11:40am PT
|
Steve and Peter, thanks for the posts. You guys grew up with the early 70s climbs already established. You have an interesting perspective.
Peter, I don't think any one climbing in the 70s was visionary, as nice as it is having you put it that way. John talks about all the folks who worked out 'Stoners' in cluster fashion to figure out how to get up what looked like a blank face. I suppose Ray and Rik could be considered visionary since they just pushed off, so the speak, onto 'Paradise Lost.' That was just audacious. No fiddling around for those guys. Nice route, but no frame of reference for those who followed.
My recollection of the time was that we were just trying new stuff. We all climbed cracks, but we were following Jim's lead. We were also all, ultimately, trying to make our own way in climbing--finding our style and climbing the routes that fit our individual skills the best. Since it was such a small group, we all knew each other, it was both very personal while also being public. The slab routes were mostly new, so everyone had to try to figure out what would work. Once yo-yo 'ing became acceptable and Ray got all of us past hang-dogging hang-ups, the rest of you guys blew the roof off the place.
Steve, there uesd to be copy of the Middle article here on ST. Clint Cummins site has a copy: Middle Catherdal Commentary It is a slow load.
Roger
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
It would be an interesting reality check for folks to specify some of the routes in question here. Are some of us talking about x routes with no bolts while other talk about pg routes with mere 25 foot leadouts?
For credibility's sake and to note if people just talk about wanting to get on these routes but don't actually do any, you might note if you've led an X rated route in TM or the Valley in the past 10 years. What was it and how close to your onsight level was it?
Just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing.
I'm not sure one of the best climbers in the world leading a 5.9 face with pitons is visionary, and leads to the question.
Do we bring pins on that climb. fix pins on that climb and hope folks don't steal em, or put bolts where the pins used to be used?
peace
karl
|
|
G_Gnome
Boulder climber
Sick Midget Land
|
|
Roger wrote: "G_Gnome, I didn’t intend to slight the slab route done after the mid-seventies. There are lots of them in the guide. My point was that for someone who has grown up with hang-dogging and sport routes is not going to understand what run-out slab climbing is about. They are sort of on opposite sides of the spectrum. (Both are fun and both have their place,)"
Roger, I think you may have missed my meaning a little and I certainly wasn't clear enough. I was using the next period in time to indicate why I thought the long runout slab climbing sort of came to an end. It wasn't that the people putting routes up changed much, after all there were still only a few of us climbing in those days, but rather that once the difficulty of those slab climbs reached the point where they were not "walkable" then the distance between bolts started to decrease. So in reverse, I would say one of the contributing factors to those long runouts is that those routes WERE walkable, with little chance of falling if one kept one's head together, and so the runouts were acceptable.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
The lack of stances might have caused runouts in some cases, but I'm not buying that as the answer.
Those climbers that put up (and drilled bolts on) the 5.11~5.12 slab climbs on lead (which I still can't imagine how they did that), could have (I would imagine), if they wanted to, stop wherever they liked and drilled bolts on the 5.9~5.10 climbs (whether there was a "stance" or not). Sure, some of the 5.9~5.10 climbs were put up by people leading close to their limit, but other were not (and they are just as run out).
All that that [mostly unclimbed] rock on the Apron [in the sense that so few ever climb there now] is sad. Since some routes don't even get enough traffic for anyone to bother replacing the 1/4" bolts, those routes really are free solos. Its too bad there isn't a Crest Jewel sort of route on the Apron. (A place to spread out some more of the moderate, multi-pitch traffic that Yosemite sees.) If there were more (or at least) a route or two like that on the Apron, maybe more Yosemite climbers would climb slabs.
[If a route gets to the point where the bolts can be broken by hand,] can a route "fade" (rust?) away and decades later be fair game for someone who wants to "put it up" by adding new bolts ground up? Maybe in a decade or two we'll find out.
|
|
Doug Hemken
climber
Madison, WI
|
|
I'm surprised there is no discussion of the aesthetics of the movement here. I find that I really enjoy routes where the pro has a rhythm that flows along with the climbing movement. My sense of rhythm varies from season to season, and according to the rock and according to my current ability. Where I'm not climbing at my gymnastic limit, I have been told that I space my bolts differently than my partner would have - different sense of motion.
For me, a route is overbolted if constant clipping interrupts the flow of the climbing. A route is underprotected if I am stopped, trying to read the next moves, well above my last piece.
It doesn't sound like that was a primary consideration for Yosemite climbers of the 70s? It sounds like risk was the primary aesthetic concern, and not the pure animal joy of free-flowing motion?
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
Doug,
Sounds like you should just free solo routes (at whatever level seems safe).
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 1, 2006 - 12:55pm PT
|
Karl, Ray and Rik were not world class climbers when they put up "Paradise Lost," 5.9 climbing and pins or not. (Rik was injured a few years later on El Cap and stopped climbing; Ray worked out his ‘hang-dog’ style a few years later.) Aside from the DNB and the Powell Reed there was not really anything to rely on by just starting up the Northeast Face. Both of those climbs were nailed first, then free climbed, later. I am not sure that I would call 'Paradise Lost' visionary, but I think it may be the only climb of that era that came close since it did not rely on a crack system to define the route. It just stayed in an 'area' of the face, wandering around until it connected to the DNB.
While they were looking at the blank faces, Jim and I were scoping out the crack system to the left of the Chouinard-Pratt. I am pretty sure that it happened the same day as we were all waiting in the El Cap Meadow for a potential rescue. Most everyone else was milling around or looking at El Cap. I had a new set of binoculars and pointed out what became CPoF to Jim. Jim was skeptical since the climb didn’t seem to go anywhere. I argued that getting to the ‘U’ shaped bowl was all that was needed since that is where everything except the DNB ended. Jim looked again with more interest. He then abruptly put the binoculars down, told me not to look, and whispered that others were watching. A few months later Ray and Rik, who were part of the group in El Cap Meadow did ‘Paradise Lost’ and Jim and I reconnoitered CPoF.
Until 'Paradise Lost' it never occurred to me or anyone else to just go to the base and start up. That's what we did on 'Freewheelling' over on the North face Apron and what the ‘Stonemasters’ did for “Stoners.’ But everyone followed Ray and Rik.
Thanks for the clarification, G_Gnome. I had missed you point, and it is a good one, to show the historical progression to more bolts and less run-out as driven by the increases in difficulty rather than a style change. Great call.
Roger
Edited
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!