Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
JuanDeFuca
Big Wall climber
Stoney Point
|
|
Its really a shame it was not dean potter that did it. Imagine how much fun we would be having
Juan
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
primordial soup
|
|
sh#t...
what kind of a shitty world is it when we cannot completely disagree with both dadisbad and PtHP at the same time?
i really wish you guys would conference in advance, and then line up on the same side of an issue, so the rest of us could safely be on the opposite side of every fence. it just feels dirty being near either one of you in any way.
oh- and i'd suppose that ptHp would have been perfectly happy if you'd drilled a ladder up the slab and patched it up behind you in order to leave behind a free route that you hadn't even climbed- that makes a ton of sense...
in all seriousness, if he says you are not legit, you guys must be onto something here- so good on ya.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
JL - I went out and bought that R&I issue specifically to read DR's article when the issue was published. I have read it through several times and I've been looking at it carefully in bits here and there more recently as this thread has unfolded.
...DR describes nights of sitting around the campfire discussing ethics and style and vision. I think it supports the fact that the climb was put up in an intentional manner, which is important to me, at least, that the FA team had an idea and a vision.
Whether or not my upthread comments are considered relevant, they are not intended to be judgmental regarding this particular route. As I tried to point out, there are many climbs that fall short of the "best style" criteria but are considered classic and important. Some of the tactics used to establish those climbs are still a matter of debate today, with no real resolution, that fact doesn't detract from their status.
This discussion is really about future climbs, future choices that FA teams make. It is also important that those reading this discussion fold it into the decisions they will be faced with when sending their "dream line."
|
|
Doug Robinson
Trad climber
Santa Cruz
|
|
Healyje,
I get it that you are proposing "strictly a logic exercise," and I already mentioned a few reasons I distrust same.
Here's another. In college I signed up for a course in symbolic logic. Thought it would be useful, but I ended up disgusted. The logic part was fine. But the crux, and the difficulty, was translating problems from real life into symbols. Once you had symbols, it was just math.
But the translation part fractured the class. Students couldn't agree with each other or with the instructor about how to get the meaning of the problem into symbols. In easy cases where we agreed, finding the logical result was trivial. But with any really interesting problems, different interpretations fractured us.
Have you noticed here how everyone seems to want to frame this discussion in a different way? If we agreed on a frame, we'd probably agree on an answer. Ain't happening.
Just as climber are a lot like humans, this is a lot like life.
After my excursion into symbolic logic, I ended up with a degree in interpretation of English Literature. Lots of room in strings of words for different interpretations. In fact, the more artful the literature, the more possible interpretations. Many of them right, simultaneously. Climbs are a little more like art than like logic.
But that too is just another analogy, and when pushed far enough analogies always break down. Back to listening to the stone...
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, Ca
|
|
Great thread.
The example mentioned earlier of Christian Griffith vs. John Bachar (and Bachar's subsequent establishment ground up of the B&Y) illuminates a question central to this discussion.
What would mean more to climbing, Griffith's proposed rap bolted line (which would surely see more ascents) or JB's proud and bold ground up creation, a test piece for the few who are able?
My friends will recall the days when I was a rabid advocate of ground up climbing. Then I started doing some sport climbing, and decided that I could do things my way and others could follow their own path. But in this case I stand with The Coz. And although I don’t want to be confrontational, I have to say that I am surprised and a bit disappointed to see how many of the old trads seem comfortable with this development.
I used to think of Mr. Robinson as a kind of statesman of traditional climbing. I remember also reading the words that EC quoted above. But then came those ads looking for paying clients for a backcountry F.A. Now he is rap bolting as a public service on the great south face of Half Dome. If this is moving forward, I would hate to see what going backwards looks like.
|
|
KP Ariza
climber
SCC
|
|
Has anyone climbed GU at all? Just curious. One push, or in two sections w/ fixed ropes, or individual pitches. I'd like to hear more about the actual climbing on the route. A topo would be really cool to checkout as well. BTW, I think Coz is right when he says there aren't as many routes back there as people think. Acres of blank stone is probably more like it. GU may have been one of the last great free lines on the SFHD and it doesn't even go free.
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
Hawkeye wrote: i dont have issues with the route, i just dont think the motivation of climbing for someone else rings true.
Well it does ring true for some people who established new routes. It a foreign concept because climbing is basically self-serving.
Lot's of me, me, me and I, I, I, going on in the sport.
The only way to explained this to you is like this...I climb 5.12-5.13 and have done numerous new routes in the 5.9 to 510 range...I could have easily put in a quarter to half the amount of bolts, used crap bolts and not quality anchors when doing the FA and felt ok doing it. In my mind it is the wrong to do...the right thing is to put quality gear that is appropriate for the grade so other climber climbing at that grade can enjoy the route with quality protection and safe runouts for the grade.
Joe...you see a train crashing and I see one running it's course...like it or not...that's the way it is and this and future generations are going to do what they need to do....just like ours did.
I also don't believe that our generation always "got it right" about climbing and many other other issues.
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
I'm confused by the attitude of some of you traditionalists.
Looking at the topo of Cataclysmic Megasheer posted on the other South Face thread, there's basically 2 consecutive pitches of bolt/rivet ladder.
I don't quite understand how this is better than rap bolting. Certainly it damages the rock more. But that is somehow outweighed by the fact that it was done ground up?
If you all are going to say the Doug and Sean shouldn't have done what they did on Growing Up out of fear of setting a bad precedent, or out of respect for future generations, then the same type of argument should be applied to other routes.
|
|
ct
climber
CO
|
|
One thing that intrigues me about this debate is the context in which the Growing Up article was published. Alluded to upstream and mentioned in another thread, there is another article in the same issue about the FFA of Arcturus, on the other side of Half Dome, that provides some interesting contrast to this debate.
The opening photo has Rob Pizem (about to fall and break his back) liebacking a very clean-looking crack, with some nice stainless close at hand. Later, Pizem writes their ascent combined 'ground-up, rap and preview ethics.' This included hand drilling on lead, and 'working' the crux pitches. And placing bolts next to cracks, evidently. He writes that if it "would take an hour on lead to prep a section that you could have done in five minutes on rappel, the choice is obvious." Anderson says: "We established the route in a mix of styles, based on what was appropriate at the time."
The article talks further about working crux pitches on top-rope, installing variations to the original route with new bolts, and the ethical dilemma they faced if clean gear was out of the question. Anderson, talking about a decision to place bolts. "I also weighed the value of the aid climbing here: The pitch was straightforward A1, so it wasn't a classic or crux aid pitch."
There's some statements in there that could be pretty inflamatory! Especially in the context of this debate. So where's the outrage over this ascent?? Many of the same criticisms (and perhaps more) could be leveled against them. How come these guys aren't getting the rain of fire brought down upon them that Doug and Sean are facing? Can it all simply hang on the fact that this was a FFA and Growing Up is a FA?? If the style of free climbing established big wall routes has progressed to that used in Arcturus, then it makes sense that the style of establishing routes will also evolve.
Personally, the most timely and appropos quote from the Arcturus article comes here. "Before we got on the climb, Mike talked to Royal about the route. He said that he and Dick Dorworth climbed it in the style of the day (free and aid), and that we should also climb it in the style of our day."
The evolution of the sport is inevitable. Ethics and acceptable style will evolve. Dogmatic adherence to the accepted style of a different day will not prevent this.
|
|
Russ Walling
Social climber
Out on the sand.... man.....
|
|
600 bitches! I'm Rick James!!!!!
useless opinion edit:
I'm not a fan of rap bolting on giant walls with limited line potential. South Face of Half Dome probably falls under this umbrella.
|
|
Melissa
Gym climber
berkeley, ca
|
|
"There's some statements in there that could be pretty inflamatory! Especially in the context of this debate. So where's the outrage over this ascent?? How come these guys aren't getting the rain of fire brought down upon them that Doug and Sean are facing?"
Perhaps it's because Coz started this one.
I haven't read but a couple of the previous 600 posts, so I don't know if it came up on this thread.
Here's a link to that discussion...
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=529019&msg=530563#msg530563
|
|
GDavis
Trad climber
SoCal
|
|
"How come these guys aren't getting the rain of fire brought down upon them that Doug and Sean are facing? "
Because it wasn't near cosgroves line :D
-edit- someone beat me to it...
|
|
Buju
Trad climber
A Sandbar
|
|
I think it would be wise to not pass judgment on the characters involved with this project until you personally know them. Both Sean and wildone are EXTREMELY respectful of the resoruce, the planet, and other human beings. Wildone will go on for eons about good style...
If you dont condone the style of the route,dont do it. (For that matter, dont do the nose, or any other climb put up in questionable style). There are WAY larger problems with the environment caused by climbers to be focused upon (how about guzzling gas to go on road trips to climb, climber induced erosion, disruption of wildlife that rely on clifs, eating agribuisiness food).
what do I know...im only 24
|
|
the Fet
Knackered climber
A bivy sack in the secret campground
|
|
So they could have done it ground up as an X route, then returned later and retro-bolted their own line to give it reasonable protection so other people would enjoy climbing it (ala Snake Dike) and that would have been ok?
|
|
Ihateplastic
Trad climber
Lake Oswego, Oregon
|
|
I have been thinking long and hard about this and I can now say for a fact I have never rap bolted. Every hole I ever drilled was with the aid of Jimi.
EDIT:: Russ, did you mean to say "limited?" It would seem UNlimited would fit your sentence better. Not trying to be the corrector-of-all here, just wonderin' out loud.
|
|
Domingo
Trad climber
El Portal, CA
|
|
It seems like a lot of people are equating rap-bolting with a less runout route, including Sean.... I'm curious as to why this is being done (genuinely curious, as I don't understand this aspect). Why does that mean a less runout route? Can't you retroplace bolts once you've climbed it?
Furthermore, is it really "better for the environment" if it opens the door to a host(e) of asinine 'ascentionists' who want their name in a guidebook, regardless of whether or not they've spent time in Yosemite learning the ethics and working the rock?
|
|
426
Sport climber
Buzzard Point, TN
|
|
What the hell are my babies gonna look forward to if rap bolting "for the future" is condoned?
It's ironic that you should mention Bridwell...the nefarious Cookie "Monster"? (On rap) Course, that don't compare to Bird's "Palm Spring" boschkateria work...
And Robbins? "It was a route worth bolting for"...110 bolt "Maestropiece"...
not that the 'hos' bothers me; (evar!) just the hypocrisy of holding up hallowed heroes whose ways and means be "rather dubious"...
hmmm...I think Bob D's quote upthread is rather apropos...
|
|
GDavis
Trad climber
SoCal
|
|
buju, how many of these guys happily clip the bolts on WFLT? Haha!
Point is we wanna be safe. I totally respect the abilities of guys like coz and for him that ascent means more than the sum of any other climbs for a lot of people. However this whole First ascentitis is kind of bogus. When you do a crazy ass bold route you do it for yourself and the next guy to get on it. TRUE death routes aren't repeated all the time, if they are. They are to prove something to yourself, to overcome your own fear and to set your standards high.
Which is great! However there isn't enough stone for everyone to put in a FA. The saying goes "Go do the route!" but no one is lining up for Southern belle or Karma. Hundreds of climbers are capable phisically - but why bother if its not an FA?
There isn't infinite stone, so we don't all need to do a glory FA.
That came out kind of harsh, but you get it eh?
|
|
caughtinside
Social climber
Davis, CA
|
|
Seeing as how there hasn't been a new guidebook since what, 93 (?) can we stop saying people are just trying to get their name in a guidebook?
|
|
GDavis
Trad climber
SoCal
|
|
And Peace?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!