Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
patrick compton
Trad climber
van
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2013 - 11:21am PT
|
Ron,
If my selfie looked like that I would keep blowing my head off too.
Sorry dude, I didn't know.
|
|
Joshua Johnson
Boulder climber
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2013 - 11:49am PT
|
"Patrick", I mean "David" or "JQ", don't you have anything better to do than troll?
|
|
patrick compton
Trad climber
van
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2013 - 12:02pm PT
|
WTF are you on about?
I have no idea who you think I am, but I'm not them.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2013 - 12:56pm PT
|
It's a hypocrisy ethic. Plain and simple. You never did at your level what you're asking people not as good as you to do at theirs. We're too scared to do at our level what you admit you were too scared to do at yours, but we're pussies and you aren't. Sure, pal.
This does not logically play out on anything but run out face climbs. If you're on a crack and it's above your level, you don't do it. The 5.7 climber doesn't have the right to do the 5.9 crack because he's not good enough. He must work up to it. The route, not the FA, determines who climbs it.
On a slab, the FA determines the level of risk, NOT the difficulty. Everyone knows that today's climbers are better than we were, so the "not as good as you" argument does not wash as a logical and rational criticism. If the route is technically too hard for someone, it is no fault of the route or the FA. Again, the FA did not create the physical difficulty, but rather discovered and climbed it. The only factor that the FA has control over is the degree of risk on face climbs. Since modern climbers are technically better, the risk quotient is the only sticking point, and Joe is making the argument that the risk should be lessened via new bolts bacause climbers no longer have the heads - while they certainly have the technical skills. People who don't understand the "mandate" that the FA stays like it always was never grew up on the trad ethic, so it makes no sense to them. The idea that you can increase your mental prowess seems foreign, because it's not a skill you can learn on anything but trad routes.
Where Joe has confused himself, and where he is certain hie is right, is that us old guys had an easy time running the rope on what was technically "easy" for us, which was only true on technically easy routes. Once we moved up to stuff like Black Primo and Greasy but Groovy (in the old shoes), we were barely making this stuff on the lead. So the idea that we are telling others they have to accept risks that we never did is not only falacious, but silly given the prowess of the modern climber.
Again, when your only indicator is the technical rating, one can end up with these wonky illogical arguments that Joe keeps flogging, and actually believe them. But when the psychological rating is also factored in, it makes sense that there are 5.10 climbs only suitable for 5.12 climbers with steel nerves. Joe believes all 5.10 climbs should be climbable for all 5.10 climbers, and that if it was put up by a 5.12 climber running the rope on what as "easy" for him, that leader was being a cheat, telling every other 5.10 climber he or she had to sac it up or go home. Form this perspective, the FA seems rude. But in fact that run out 5.10 climb was never for the 5.10 climber at all, but for the 5.12 climber. But there are those who say the FA has no right to do such a route. That it is cheating, a fraud, a waste of public resources. They want to do the route right now, with impunity, and no working up the ladder.
Which one seems selfish to you? Where is the impulse to self mastery? Looking at a route in terms of what it can give you, as opposed to what kind of performance you can bring to the adventure, is yuppie entitlement strategy that will never fly in the wilds. And trad routes are by nature feral beasts.
JL
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2013 - 01:25pm PT
|
Dave Kos, as usual, raises an interesting question that actually relates to the stated (trolling) topic. In my opinion, Dave, most areas allow the first ascent to determine the style of a route because that method works to create a variety of styles with minimal transactions costs. Whenever I ask for concrete proposals for retro-bolting, I hear very few specifics. That, to me, suggests that the First Ascent Principle works. If people felt it was unworkable, I would expect to hear lots of suggestions for retro-bolts.
I had suggested in an upthread discussion with Joe Hedge that not every climb is for every person. He agreed and suggested that not every FA is for every person either, to which I agreed. Upon reflection, the statements are equivalent. Some lines are better bold and bald, and some are better tame and trouble-free.
The rest of the posts gets dissonant because they argue for or against the superiority of a particular style, whether in terms of adventure (e.g. not bold enough) or morality (e.g. a particular style rests on the hypocrisy of its advocates).
In practice, I say the actual controversy is much less than our discussion (spray?) about the topic, because I just don't see that much angst over what people have actually done subsequent to the first ascent on most routes in most areas.
John
|
|
patrick compton
Trad climber
van
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2013 - 01:36pm PT
|
JL,
Well explained logical argument. I would respond with a suggestion I made pages back: perhaps add bolts (not sport, more like X to R, R to PG) to a route or two at a given grade in a given area to train for these routes. Doing 12s outside on steeper rock, much less in a gym environment, does not necessarily build the technical slab skills, faith in shoe rubber, and certainly not the head skills to do heady, slab 5.10.
I have been to TM, but not for very long, so I don't really know if these 'training' routes exist. I know the Black Hills reasonably well, and I did train for doing a few scare fests at the Needles by climbing at Rushmore.... and yes, I did so by wiring the routes then skipping bolts on the next go.
As an aside, I know bolting sparsely on lead has been established as 'trad', but isn't it interesting that there is such a sudden and drastic shift from the rock dictating the protection (cracks, or natural pro) to the FA, a human, solely dictating the level of sac needed.
Seems areas like the Peak generate a lot of head-strong climbers to this day.... perhaps because the rock dictates the level of engagement as there are no bolts at all.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2013 - 01:56pm PT
|
Drilling holes in rocks on public land for our amusement is really just a form of vandalism that we try to rationalize Implied in the "law" is a tacit acceptance that it is vandalism, and therefore must be kept in check.
Robbins explicitly used similar reasoning forty-five years ago to explain why he didn't like rivets and bat-hooks. He argued that bolting was the climbing equivalent of a rape of the rock, so you should go big or go home. Well, in fairness, the argument was more like hand-drilling a good bolt in a hole of the proper depth made you think before committing the rock rape. Rivets and bat-hooks (not to mention drills) make it too casual.
;-)
John
|
|
Cragar
Trad climber
MSLA - MT
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2013 - 02:54pm PT
|
My opinion is that it boils down to the current "I want it now and all I can get", mentality of the SUV generation. Folks aren't concerned about strengthening the mind and are more concerned with #'s of the game. It is that simple. Otherwise, this argument wouldn't be an argument but more of an understanding, or acceptance. The adamant attitude of everything must be safe is evidence that some folks will never get it. That is fine, gyms are great like that. You'll never need a headlamp, layers, route finding skills and forced bivys will go the way of the dodo. So have at it!! I think the Warbler mentioned way above something about learning to calm oneself in perilous situations? To me, that is the sh#t right there when it comes to what I personally like so much about climbing and is a hella helpful spice in life. We need Spicy Routes!
If a route is too run for you then don't do it, not to state the obvious or what has been said 1,000's of times already, it is really that simple.
|
|
LongAgo
Trad climber
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2013 - 03:42pm PT
|
I said, "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 its 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."
Jdhedge smartly asks, “And if no one's doing them? Would that not be the climbing community expressing a preference as well? Especially since, as you stated, the FA party is no longer active in the area, and therefore no longer relevant to the discussion?”
How to Know Style Preferences in an Area; How to Resolve Conflicts
It’s always hard to judge how often certain routes are being done in an area, short of some kind of log keeping, or how route popularity will fare in the future. Who knows, there may be a backlash against sport in future years in some areas. More importantly, mere logs of how many are doing what routes is no substitute for the hard work of calling for open discussion on the topic, organizing meeting, and then striving for explicit agreements, all area by area as real rather than hypothetical conflicts arise.
But to take your example to your point, if trads truly abandon an area, no longer do the old routes especially the more run ones, and if there is scarce rock for new sport routes with lots of growing pressure for sport action, then as with any political situation absent the voice of a faction, the sportster faction may well win the day and add bolts to the old routes. And if no or few active climbers in an area with strong active trad preferences object (FA parties or otherwise), sport will dominate, including retro bolting of old run trad routes.
If trads want old routes preserved, they have to argue for them to be preserved, make the case for the enjoyment they get from them and others coming along might get too. How? Certainly they have to beyond Supertopo postings. Just as in any political situation, area by area, they have to organize, call meetings, state compelling cases and stories for their preferred style, try to convince younger climbers of the merit of trad even of some old routes don’t get done much, maybe start or participate in an area specific website or blog (see my previous discussion of Pinnacles where Friends of Pinnacles did all this), show up and wrangle.
So, it’s only through the power of suasion and through hard local work that any trad routes will survive where pressures on for altering old route protection, run or not. Well, unless land managers get involved and then lord knows what rules will evolve. Witness the system for new routes in Eldorado Canyon or the near shut down of all bolted climbing in Pinnacles, BOTH top down and ground up, before climbers organized.
Tom Higgins
LongAgo
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2013 - 04:08pm PT
|
These modern lab coat climbers are stupid.
More and more of them are getting hurt rescued and killed then ever before using all their draconian modern safety devices preached to the masses.
The safer they try to become the more sh!t happens ...... :-)
|
|
Greg Barnes
climber
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2013 - 04:15pm PT
|
A narrow mountain road may be dangerous...but far more people get killed on the freeway.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2013 - 04:16pm PT
|
I think a valid point was raised that people need warm up routes to build their mental skills, but for us, the warm ups were high bouldering out at Josh. You need to be inventive to find places where you can inch out of your comfort zone.
I really do think that bolting up a few big run out climbs is worth while to just see how the crowd responds.
JL
|
|
LongAgo
Trad climber
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2013 - 04:27pm PT
|
Ron,
Good to hear Supertopo discussion was part of some form of resolution in Eldorado. Perhaps I discounted the impact of this forum, though I'm sure some local action also was involved, whether face to face meetings or electronic between active parties in that area. And there's the nub of my point - these issues really have to be decided locally among active concerned parties with conflicting preferences. And, I think, some form of organization is needed, as per Pinnacles example I have raised, otherwise it's harder to get agreements which are either known or have standing. That's why Friends of Pinnacles is so important to maintaining the style deal made several years ago among locals.
|
|
LongAgo
Trad climber
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2013 - 05:06pm PT
|
Todd says,
“Lots of great ideas hidden amongst this train wreck of a post. It's all flappin' until the rubber hits the road. I say, start out with one of Alan Nelson's run out Tuolumne routes;......right side of Fairview. Someone sac up and bolt up one of those free solos he did "way back when". Actually do something real besides bark in cyberspace.”
I’m very sympathetic to moving the style conflict discussion from hypothetical to real routes and areas and real ongoing conflicts. And yes, I hesitate to “bark” anymore in cyberspace as I feel I’ve barked the same bark too much. But, one last bark, let’s take you proposal seriously and play it out. Here we have a case where one of the FA party Alan Nelson has said OK to add bolts to some old routes of his as, upon reflection, he felt they were too run or dangerous. I did the same long ago rushing to finish a pitch on Fairest of All in Tuolumne before dark. I discussed the resulting route with a few active climbers of the day, got the drift the pitch was way too dangerous (5.10 way out) and told Vern Clevenger to add a bolt or two to a pitch since he was sure to do the route soon, and he did, happily. So why not honor Alan’s wishes as per your post?
Here’s where we get back to my point about what current and active climbers in an area believe about the mix of sport and trad routes in their area, whether there is a real conflict on the issue and what informal or formal process they use to discuss and resolve such issues. The decision to add bolts to Alan’s routes is not simply a question of honoring his wishes because, as I also have said, he does not own his routes nor me mine nor does any FA party own theirs. He could weigh in on the issue today if he were alive and be one among many voices on the entire subject of adding bolts to run routes in the Meadows, and he may be especially persuasive to some by virtue of having done the FA and changing camps on the issue, and have compelling things to say for his points. He may sway others or not. But he does not get to decide, nor does anyone here who now may want simply to make a point in response to all the posts and bantering on this thread.
No, the decision on any route alteration should come among those vested and active in an area after hearing from all the sides, whether via Supertopo or elsewhere. They should open discussion on this forum, in their get together, in whatever cyberspace site they commonly use, and hear from all the sides. Of course I’d be there arguing for preservation, especially given there is a good mix of both sport and trad run and not in the Meadows, but I would be just one voice which may or may not carry much weight with the current group of climbers. My sense is the current Meadows community is OK with the mix of sport and trad and would vote for preservation generally over alteration, but that’s not for me to say.
In sum, I am very much with you – the more specific routes and areas and conflicts are at issue, the better for grounding the discussion. But to that point, I don’t believe Alan’s routes are on the radar in the Meadows now, only a point of discussion reference here. If I’m wrong, then let the political process I describe begin, the more localized the better. Reasonable?
|
|
Vitaliy M.
Mountain climber
San Francisco
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2013 - 05:21pm PT
|
So who wants to top rope Southern Belle with me?
|
|
Greg Barnes
climber
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2013 - 05:28pm PT
|
I personally wouldn't retro-bolt Silverado (the Alan Nelson 5.6 on the right side of Fairview), even if I wasn't associated with the ASCA - too much new rock to explore!
I would think that if someone were interested, first they should solo or mini-traxion the route and find out: 1) if it's really 5.6 (lots of sandbagging from that era...), 2) if the quality is really good or not, 3) if the climbing is significantly different from well-protected multipitch such as Zee Tree (5.7 slabby), Shagadelic (5.7/8 slabby/knobby), or Errett Out & Bit by Bit (5.7 & 5.8 really knobby). If it were super high quality, actually 5.6 (so easier than the existing knobby multipitch faces), and had unique or superior climbing to those routes, then maybe it'd be a worthy addition.
But I'm not touching it...definitely a somebody else's problem...and Minerals would never even think about retrobolting someone else's route. Don't know who might actually decide to do that, with all the new rock to explore which you can find with just a bit more hiking! Maybe another few decades down the line...if any bolting is permitted at all at that point.
|
|
Joshua Johnson
Boulder climber
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2013 - 05:29pm PT
|
STFU Studley.
You're wasting bandwith with your idiotic/trolling statements.
|
|
rmuir
Social climber
From the Time Before the Rocks Cooled.
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2013 - 06:58pm PT
|
...because all FA's are owned by the community, but not owned by anyone?
Sorry, but just does not jibe with the ethos of many routes done during the 60s, 70s, and 80s in the areas with which I'm most familiar.
Is there any need to reconcile the real desires of the individual with the competing needs of a supposedly increasing need by others? Does precedent count for anything?
Immanent domain?
|
|
LongAgo
Trad climber
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2013 - 07:07pm PT
|
mt10910 says: “You suggest a very interesting situation. Essentially what you are saying is the first ascent "locks" up the route, in the style it was done and afterwards the FAer has no full say in its change, but only the community does as a whole. In other words every FAer is responsible for locking up the stone, ice, mountain route they climb. If I knew this from the get go I would have done many things different because I climbed in my style for me, and not to force the community as whole to climb in that style until they decide something else.” And, “I guess before anyone does a new route, they should consult the community to see how they want the route done, because all FA's are owned by the community, but not owned by anyone?” … “Oy just when I thought Higgins was flying in to sort it out.”
Oy, I’m lost. In what sense does a FA “lock” up a route? I see no “lock” where a FA party is able to do a climb in their preferred style in terms of degree of bolted protection (just as you say “my style for me”) then face the possibility that level of protection will be altered in the future given all the variables I’ve set out: rise of serious conflict on how and where competing styles will play out, scarcity of open rock to allow full play of both styles, lots of hot arguments back and forth in terms of specific routes where trads must make their case and, finally, consensus which might alter one or more of one’s old routes. In what sense is that situation a “lock” on the original style of the route? Seems to me said style is a very fragile and fluid creation, subject to winds of change. And of course, no one is “forced” to do any run bolted route not to their liking, so no “lock” there. In fact, my entire proposition about the need for agreements where conflicts arise aims to provide ample route opportunities old and new for both trad and sport. Closer to “unlocking” than “locking” I would say.
Now if you mean “lock” in terms what is permitted in the way of FA style AFTER agreements are in place in an area, then there is something to talk about. Right, at Pinnacles, I can no longer create FA top down sport bolted routes so, yes, a certain FA style is restricted by agreement, “locked out” you would say. In many parts of England, some cliffs are reserved for trad some for sport FAs, so locked out on one cliff but not another (or “locked in” to use your take, on one cliff and another). So, yup, now we have some “locking” in and out, but compare it to the alternative of surreptitious bolt removal, poisoned camaraderie in an area, inability to create or even find routes in line with preferred style and no vehicle to resolve differences. That’s its own kind of “locked” world seems to me, and a nasty one at that.
O, and of course my intent here is not to “fly in” and sort it all out. My head isn’t quite that fat, I don't think. This discussion needs all voices, as I’ve repeatedly said, and the more local and specific to a particular set of routes the better.
|
|
The Larry
climber
Moab, UT
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2013 - 07:23pm PT
|
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!