Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 07:20am PT
|
Werner: "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." Since the star ratings and the R/X ratings were invented and applied after I left the Valley, I am not really sure how they were arrived at. I understand the intent, but I don't know who decided which rating was applied, retrospectively, to so many climbs. In any case, my being gone from the Valley for a long time has nothing to do with it with what Reid published in his guide book; I had nothing to do with it.
Joe, the ratings for Green Dragon and GBG are from Reid's, as early as the 1987 edition. The stars were added to later versions, so I cannot check them. However, your comments are a not too subtle reminder that rating, run-outs, and quality are in the eye of the beholder.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 09:38am PT
|
Dingus, you might get awards for spittle, but you suck at history. Royal's FA rule was proposed after he had left serious climbing. He was looking back at the climbing in the late 1950s and 1960s and on the arguments and cat fights of big wall style and bolts and trying to both make sense of the awfulness of it all, and to provide some sensible structure. Royal figured out that folks running around chopping routes was a deadend.
It was in hindsight that he articulated a call for high standards on FAs, but once the FA was done, it should stand. While he found a middle ground, he also eat crow for some of his ascents. Royal has never shied away from any of his actions, even the indefensible ones. He owns them all.
The 1970s generation took this to heart and created its version of high standards in the new routes on bolted routes on Middle, the Apron, the Terraces, and, of course in Tuolumne Meadows. The same sort of standard was being applied to crack climbs, and to big walls. While there were exceptions, we pretty all agreed with the same standards, from all over the country. The fact that the Valley and Tuolumne have such a high percentage of routes done in a consistent style and that the FA rule is, as a practical matter, the rule everyone falls back on, says that it worked.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 11:47am PT
|
Okay I accept your point, but I it leaves me with a nervous feeling that in your world the only folks who can propose solutions to problems are folks who have never learned anything in life. It might work.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 11:47am PT
|
As I read along in the thread, with a few posts of my own, I was able to better expand my understanding of the points of view of younger climbers and how bolted, runout slab climbing might seem strange and indefensible. I am also preparing for the Oakdale Climbing Festival and have been politely told that the Yosemite that I knew no longer exists. So I am playing closer attention than usual for me.
I didn’t believe jhedge’s assessment that early to mid-1970s climbers were climbing well below their limit, several grades is I think the bench mark jhedge stated, on runout first ascents, but John led with his chin in claiming he could climb hard on boulders and jhedge took this to mean he could climb as hard on lead. I don't see any convincing evidence to support this contention as it applied to 1960s and 1970s climbing, but it might apply to later generations who used hang-dogging or sport climbing to advance their skills. I suspect that there is the normal foreshortening effect in which something that happened in the relative long past, say in the 80s, can be attributed to motives and actions in the 70s. While earlier generations can influence later generations, the reverse is not true, even in the mythical world of climbing.
That said, the current climbing community can decide to retrobolt 'museum' climbs for whatever reason they want.
Putting the runout slab list together from Ed’s database has allowed me to see a broader perspective in the arguments in this thread against the actual universe of actual climbs, not just my memory. I tried to reassess the points made, both the ones I find sensible and those I disagree with, by applying any conclusion on a specific climb to how the conclusion would work if it were applied to all of the climbs with similiar characteristics--the only way to make good judgments: search of evidence that you are wrong. Said in a more practical way, how would any suggestion work if applied to Coonyard.
This is a selected list of the routes to show the history of Valley runout, slab climbing. It is taken from the longer list I posted up-thread.
1 1961 Coonyard Pinnacle 5.9 R Apron, Center Chuck Ostin Frank Sacherer Rich Calderwood
2 1964 Flakes, The 5.8 R * Middle Cathedral Rock, Gunsight Gully Area Frank Sacherer Mark Powell
3 1964 Goodrich Pinnacle, Right Side 5.9 R *** Apron, Center Royal Robbins Liz Robbins TM Herbert
4 1965 Lucifer's to the Oasis 5.9 R/X Apron, West Ken Boche Russ McLean
5 1966 Punch Bowl, The 5.10a R Apron, Far West Bob Kamps Tom Higgins
6 1972 Paradise Lost 5.10a R * Middle Cathedral Rock, Northeast Face Ray Jardine Rik Rieder
7 1972 Mother's Lament, A 5.10c R/X Apron, East Rab Carrington Rik Rieder
8 1972 Shakey Flakes 5.11a R * Terrace Area Chris Falkenstein Ken Bishop Edd Kuropat
9 1972 Fecophilia 5.9 R * Eagle Creek Area Yvon Chouinard
11 1973 Freewheelin' 5.10b R *** Middle Cathedral Rock, North Face, Apron Kevin Worrall George Meyers Roger Breedlove
10 1973 Quicksilver 5.9 R *** Middle Cathedral Rock, North Face, Apron Kevin Worrall George Meyers Vern Clevenger
12 1974 Greasy but Groovy 5.10d R/X * Terrace Area John Long Rick Accomazzo Richard Harrison
13 1974 Black Primo 5.11b R * Middle Cathedral Rock, North Face, Apron Kevin Worrall John Long George Meyers
14 1975 Misty Beethoven 5.10d R *** Apron, Center Mark Wilford
15 1975 Orange Peel 5.11b R ** Middle Cathedral Rock, North Face, Apron George Meyers Bruce Hawkins
16 1975 Mother Earth 5.11c R ** Middle Cathedral Rock, Gunsight Gully Area George Meyers John Long Kevin Worrall
17 1976 Starfire 5.10 X * Lower Cathedral Rock, East Face Rick Accomazzo Richard Harrison
18 1976 Shake and Bake 5.10a X * Lower Cathedral Rock, East Face Rick Accomazzo Richard Harrison
19 1976 Spooky Tooth 5.10a X * Lower Cathedral Rock, East Face John Yablonski Fred East Richard Harrison
20 1976 Jigsaw 5.11a R * Middle Cathedral Rock, North Face, Apron Kevin Worrall George Meyers Mark Chapman
21 1976 Space Babble 5.11a R * Middle Cathedral Rock, Northeast Face Ron Kauk Kevin Worrall
So here is what this list tells me: Many climbers, across a long period, and a wide range of difficulty, created run-out slab climbs. Below is the list of FA members who have routes on the runout slabs. It became more intense in the early 70s when more climbers were putting my routes, but it was not new.
Billy Westbay
Bob Kamps
Chris Falkenstein
Chuck Ostin
Dennis Oakeshott
Ed Barry
Frank Sacherer
Fred East
George Meyers
Gordon Webster
Jeff Foott
Jeff Schaffer
Joe McKeown
John Long
John Ohrenshcall
John Yablonski
Ken Boche
Kevin Worrall
Mark Chapman
Mark Powell
Mark Wilford
Merle Alley
Pat Timson
Rab Carrington
Ray Jardine
Rich Calderwood
Richard Harrison
Rick Accomazzo
Rik Rieder
Roger Breedlove
Ron Kauk
Royal Robbins
Steve Shea
TM Herbert
Tom Carter
Tom Frost
Tom Higgins
Vern Cleavenger
Vince Goetz
Yvon Chouinard
Coonyard is the first widely recognized runout slab route first climbed in 1959 and free climbed in 1961. I stopped the list in 1976 because that is the last year I climbed full-time in the Valley and it includes the North Face Apron routes and Space Babble, which get lots of attention in this thread as “museum” climbs.
The argument that jhedge has stated insistently is that FA parties were climbing well below (2 -3 grades) their leading standard. Generally the runout slab routes were about one grade behind the lead standards of the day. There are exceptions, such as Yvon's Jump for Joy, which might fit jhedge's criteria. Frank Sacherer’s and Mark Powell’s The Flakes in the Gunsight at 5.8 in 1964 is two grades below at least Sacherer’s capability at the time. Space Babble also comes close to meeting jhedge’s criteria since Ron Kauk and Kevin Worrall put the route up when they were also leading the hardest new routes in the Valley. The three routes on the East Face of Lower also seem to be a step in jhedge's direction since they are rated 5.10a when the leading standards were near 5.13. They are also rated X, which puts them into a class very nearly their own. What I don't know, if I follow jhedge's argument, is how big the gap is between the FA climbers and their highest leading standard at the time. Since Rick posts on ST, maybe he can tell us. I also don't know if it is possible to stop and place bolts on that face. I looked at it many times, while on Middle, but never convinced myself that anything would go--stupid assumption.
So here is a sampling of the runout slab routes from 1961 to 1976 relative to the standards of the time. The range of difficulty of runout slabs climbing seems to be about one full grade behind the highest leading standard at the time.
Coonyard was climbed at 5.9 in 1961, when 5.10 was just being lead by Robbins and Pratt.
Bob Kamps and Tom Higgins climbed the Punch Bowl at 5.10a in 1966, just before the first 5.11 leads were done in the Valley (Tom, Pat Ament, and Loyd Price in 1967).
Jay Jardine and Rik Reider climbed Paradise Lost in 1972 at 5.10a just about the time that 5.11 was moving into mainstream possibilities.
Kevin Worrall, George Meyers and I put up the first North Face Apron route in 1973 at 5.10b.
John Long, Rick Accomazzo, Richard Harrison climbed Greasy But Groovy in 1974 at 5.10d.
Kevin Worrall, John Long, and George Meyers climbed Black Primo on the North Face Apron in 1974 at 5.11b.
Mother Earth was climbed by George Meyers, John Long, Kevin Worrall and Mark Chapman at 5.11c in 1975.
Space Babble was climbed by Ron Kauk and Kevin Worrall at 5.11a in 1976.
Also in 1976, Rick Accomazzo, Richard Harrison, John Yablonski, and Fred East, in two combinations, put up the three 5.10a X routes on the East Face of Lower. These three routes seem to a step out in two respects: they are only 5.10a relative to the standards of the day and they are rated X.
A major point that is missing from this discussion is the difficulty of the climbing in the runout sections of the route, not the crux that determines the route's rating. I made a suggestion up-thread that it might be useful for an interested climber to have a roadmap, so to speak, to practice leading on runout slabs. Part of this requires good information on the hardest difficulty that is the longest way out on these routes. For instance, Freewheeling is rated 5.10b, but all of the hard parts are well protected. I would guess that the highest difficulty that is more than 15 feet from protection is 5.8--Kevin may have a better memory. However, the second route on the North Face Apron, Quicksilver, has 5.9 leading a long way above protection, especially since it is easy to miss protection opportunities and to pick the wrong series of holds.
In this context, jhedge may have a point. But the argument to add bolts is much harder to make. Many slab routes have long sections of easy, unprotected climbing, and at some point we all seem to accept that if a leader is not comfortable on easy climbing, maybe the he should not be on the route. Certainly I climbed with young climbers in the 1970s who 3rd classed moderately hard 5th class approach pitches where I insisted on a belay, so I know that the willingness to climb relatively easy rock without protection is a matter of choice. There has never been a good rule of thumb that applies to all routes.
The second issue in adding bolts after the fact is to assess the skill and strength of the leader to stop and drill on hard climbing.
And the third issue is how many bolts to add. What seems obvious on a retrobolt might not have been at all obvious to the FA. There is always a calculation in leading on conserving energy and trading off protection for more energy to apply to getting up. On slab routes that I have done, this was not an issue--there were lots of places to stop and place bolts--but I can see that there is no objective, universal rule to decide how many bolts should be added to a route.
So, where does this leave the argument? I think that anyone who thinks that old routes should be retrobolted should apply the new rule they support to all of the bolt protected climbs in the Valley or, if the retroboling is in the Meadows, to all the routes in the Meadows. I think that any assessment of retroboling should also include run-out climbs on routes other than slabs. I cannot see an obvious reason why runout crack climbs or steep face climbs should be exempt. While the case for adding bolts is easier to see on slabs, if retrobolting makes sense to the current climbers, they should specifically decide how a new rule applies to crack climbs.
The same argument should be applied to aid routes (I especially like the rejoinder, “If you don’t what to clip the bolts, just stack pins in the seam and don't clip the bolts. It will be just like the first ascent.”) The only benchmark that we have is the FA rule, so if that is gone, a new rule or rules need to be articulated to specifically decide why Kamps/Higgins routes are okay as is or why BY should be left as is, or why PO wall should not have protection bolts on the aid pitches.
But back it the relatively easy point of adding bolts to “museum” slab climbs, a good place to start is to figure out how many bolts should be added to routes on the Apron put up in the 60s. I don't think adding bolts to Apron routes is a good idea, but if there is an agreement on rules to apply to Apron routes that have been classics for 60 years, then it will be easier to apply rules to other routes.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 11:53am PT
|
Only on this stupertopo place is this stuff rehashed and digested ad nauseum by a bunch of old guys and hero worshipers.
In real life the young don't bother with stuff.
They go just climbing and leave all you old farts sitting in your chairs drooling on and on about the past ......
|
|
patrick compton
Trad climber
van
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 12:14pm PT
|
...finding self strangley in agreement with the smoking duck.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 12:19pm PT
|
Werner, that was certainly true for us when we were climbing in the 70s. We didn't much care what the 50s or 60s climbings thought, much less what the climbers from the 30s thought.
But just a point of clarification, do any of the young climbers you know climb or want to climb 'museum' climbs? Do any of them want these climbs retrobolted to make them less runout?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 12:32pm PT
|
Roger
I'm around these people daily.
They rarely talk about what they've done or what they're doing.
They just go out and "CLIMB" or do what ever they enjoy.
Your museum climbs are just that "Museums".
People are doing their own thing and don't even need your Museum climbs in their minds.
They don't go there. There's a 1000 climbs better to do then waste their time thinking they might die.
They don't even care.
When they get to be in their 60's some of em might just end up like this barber shop of old drools like us here blathering about the past too :-)
Time for me to go out and drool in the shop .......
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 12:56pm PT
|
Well I guess that settles the argument.
Personally Werner, I have embraced my irrelevancy to younger folks—my kids are older now than I was when I left climbing. Some of our climbs are still popular, but people enjoy them without caring who did the first ascents--it does not matter. I have met a few young climbers who seem interested in what it was like to climb in the70s. Sometimes the compression of history is too much to keep track of much less correct, so I have learned to say it is pretty much the same as now, only different, and change the subject back to what they are doing.
|
|
susu
Trad climber
East Bay, CA
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 02:53pm PT
|
Huge appreciation for some of the climbers from long ago posting on this thread. Gems. Every bit relevant. Many may never come close to touching what you've done but treasure your achievements and hope they remain testpieces. Many others on this thread advocating for greater safety, your voice probably has its influence at least regarding new route development going forward.
Another like for Sully's post a ways back.
I'm a female who has no problem with Largo's use of "sac" and cowboy analogy earlier on this thread. Read his previous works and recognize his signature style. It melds Raymond Carver with Samuel Clemens. Must everything be so pc with writing sanitized and free of metaphor? He chronicles this sport like no one else.
Love Largo's passion for the sport, what it was, is, and continues to be, as no matter how you slice it, risk will always be innately part of climbing.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 02:54pm PT
|
Warbler -- "Those big cams are expensive and a pain to carry..."
Meh .... only supertopo people carry those dinosaurs.
Real men run it out .......
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 03:02pm PT
|
Dingus, actually I believe that the 70s generation did learn from other because Bridwell called the tune when we were otherwise wet behind the ears.
Jim was every bit a young a buck who wanted to make his own decisions and steer the community his way. But he very consciously absorbed everything that the 60s crowd had to offer. He had a huge respect for Royal's route making abilities, even as he knew that he was becoming a better climber (and they didn't particularly get along so well--talk about two bulls in the same pin.)
He could also see from Royal's missteps how to avoid getting boxed into a corner. (By the way, there is no major criticism of Royal in this because he was a pathfinder in figuring out how to think about the appropriate style for Yosemite climbing. It could have gone a different direction but Royal had the interest, skills and passion to keep bringing it back to a sensible path.)
Jim's heroes were Frank Sacherer and Layton Kor--on the face of it the two most dissimilar climbers you can imagine. Kor used to tease Jim about being a "Free climber," but taught Jim aid, bigwall and speed. Sacherer used to threaten Jim with harm if he touched any protection, but taught him how to push the limits for free. The only thing that Sacherer and Kor had in common was they were both very fast (so was Royal) and Jim was very fast. Jim was also very safe and never rash.
Jim integrated all of those skills and, more importantly, the competing styles of all free, bigwall, sparsely bolted slab routes, sparsely bolted bigwall routes, clean climbing, caulk, and new gizmos, all into the 70s style that nurtured all of us with our various skills and interests. Jim kept the peace with the Park Service and maintained our home in the YOSAR camp. Jim also welcomed any new climber to the Valley without prejudice, and absorbed what they brought to the community and its skill set. Jim was the impresario for the 70s. What is still amazing is that he did it with such a deft, soft touch.
We didn't make many mistakes because Jim didn't make many mistakes; even through the climbing world was being turned on its head. He didn't like the bolted, runout slab climbs we were putting up, but he was never anything but supportive and enthusiastic. He also instilled a great sense of ethics (even if there are moments when they slipped). Although I was not around, Jim encouraged climbers to get over the 70s style that had resisted first yo-yo’ing and then hangdogging, and to embrace sport climbing, because he could see that that was the future.
So, the 70s generation of climbers did learn from others mistakes because we had a great leader who built and maintained a great community.
Did all of this matter? After thinking about it for 40 years, about why the 70s became such a compelling time, I think it made huge difference. I think it shows in the number of climbers who came back multiple seasons to put up great new routes and in almost all cases in great style.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 03:19pm PT
|
Kevin, in all seriousness, how did runout, slabs in the Valley run away with so stars? I think that Werner is telling us that current climbers might not agree that the slab routes deserve so many stars, and that is okay; things change.
But I have to believe that the stars represent some sort of consensus for the climbers at least up until Reid's 1994 guide was published. In the 1970s, it always seemed to me that not so many climbers were interested in those climbs--splitter crack climbs were so much more compelling.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 03:47pm PT
|
StoneMasters did that Dingus.
What a royal fuk up that was and still is.
It was stupid thing to do.
Ya all should fix it. It's a fuking mess.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 03:53pm PT
|
Sorry but --- You both ARE stonemasters .....
Me ---- I'm just a stupid duck ......
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 04:05pm PT
|
Well Dingus, to remain consistent, by my point of view, strictly speaking, Jim chopped Royal's bolts, through his agent Mike.
You have stated that Royal should not be passing on his conclusions about style because he made some mistakes, and further, than no one can learn from anyone else's mistakes. Since I know the people involved, I don't agree with that.
Now you are offering proof of your position by pointing out that Jim didn't learn anything from anyone else's mistakes because Mike chopped Royal's bolts on the Salathe Slabs.
I am a big believer in the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and I don't believe that the world is perfect and nobody should expect it to be. But in my book it matters plenty to the outcomes that people learn from their mistakes and the mistakes from others and try to take past outcomes into account when doing whatever they are doing. I see plenty of folks trying to varying degrees of success do this, to learn from indirect experience, and I see that it makes a difference. Apparently Kevin knew what was coming with Mike responding to something that was in the past and acting rashly. Mike and Royal both let it pass. Neither gathered in the storm clouds that way Royal had done in the 60s. But I am not particularly interested in debating it since I know that there are so many examples of people—me, my family, my friends, colleagues, and climbing partners--doing stupid, regrettable things. By your arguments, any one of those mistakes or missteps proves your point and disproves mine.
So, you win.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 05:28pm PT
|
So, Kevin, since this was a watershed moment in the early days of the FA rule, what happened?
I have a vague recollection that at some point Royal and Mike met, something about cloudy skies, Ningas, and preparation for castration with a blow torch, or maybe a sac hardening ceremonial thing associated with the Ningas—not sure of the details. Warren was hiding in the bushes but cackled so loudly everyone knew he was there. I heard the blow torch would not light. I have no idea which of the two protagonists it was intended for.
|
|
LongAgo
Trad climber
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 08:09pm PT
|
Yosemite Scene – No Problem?
Roger, Thanks for the work on the climbing database and your finding:
“Given that R/X slab climbs represent such a small percentage of total climbs—3%--and that there are twice as many R/X non-slab climbs, it is remarkable that they create such a ruckus.”
And, WBraun offers: “Only on this stupertopo place is this stuff rehashed and digested ad nasaum by a bunch of old guys and hero worshipers. In real life the young don't bother with stuff.”
So do we have an issue or not, either in terms of proportion of desirable climbs or in terms of perceptions on the part of the current active community? Looks like maybe not or pretty low on the radar for Yosemite at the moment.
Overall Scene – Constantly Variable
But, to WBraun’s point, the current temperature around new bolt routes or adding bolts to existing routes in Yosemite may not reflect the scene elsewhere. In the same way we should not wander the issue into purely theoretical terrain nor should we equate it to nothing of consequence. Certainly the Pinnacles case I’ve described was so hot when it was hot the Park Service threatened climbing closures. I sense conflicts around bolting of old routes or even new still comes to simmer in Tuolumne from time to time, perhaps not now in terms of adding bolts to old routes and more around where new sport routes will go, especially in proximity to longer traditional routes on Fairview. We had mention on this thread of a retro bolting controversy in Eldorado resolved in part by forum discussion. I recently had long interchanges with climbers in Southern Yosemite area about how sport routes were to fit with two old traditional and somewhat run bolted routes, and the new guidebook reflects agreement among climbers there to keep separation between the two categories of climbs. So, as usual, the reality of the bolting issue is both time and area dependent, meaning all the discussion here may indeed be relevant if not to the current Yosemite scene then elsewhere.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 08:44pm PT
|
I like doing first ascents both on rock and in the mountains. I do them because i love the discovery aspect, especially on the alpine climbs. Once done, i certainly do not feel that i have ownership. I trust, but certainly don't demand, that climbers doing the routes will respect the style they were done in. Hell....in a few cases i hope to see an IMPROVEMENT in style.
Much better to move onto the next first ascent than to stress out about climbs already done. Honor the past (to an extent), live for the PRESENT and eagerly anticipate the future.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!