Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
426
Sport climber
BALCO wall, Obed
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2005 - 09:59pm PT
|
Mr. Higgins-
-Thanks for clarification on the matter. I incorrectly thought it was like Dike where the later party had express permission, as you can see upthread.
...
In any case, it's nice that the 'chop shop' crew left a warning note....
|
|
Lg
Trad climber
NorCaL
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2005 - 07:42pm PT
|
The bolt removal was puzzling: I found removed bolts elsewhere, but the one that was really needed to make the route reasonably safe was removed, bolt number 2. I have a thing about decking, having broken my leg and now into my 50's.
So, I kind of wish the Runout Climbing Association would have chosen different bolts to remove SO PEOPLE DON'T DIE BECAUSE OF YOUR ACTIONS
Sir, what about your actions? What about your responsibilities as a climber? Could you not even view the route visibly yourself? Do you know that rockfall sometimes wipe out bolts too? So then who should we blame? Sir, with all due respect...but it seems you disrespect the f/a (I'm sure w/out intention) because you say in no certain words, that when his route was altered w/out permission, it was just right for you, but when it was restored to original, you are perplexed because 'now' 'you' feel it unsafe? Even after he gives you the beta...you understand for Fantasia and have even done it, but don't seem to understand for HairRaiser? Your story is the classic example of the saying, "Don't bring the route down to your level." You cite your age, a fall, a broken leg, so you have these things in your mind and body and many of us don't have those things in ours. uh, not all yet anyway ;)
You can do it. You've climbed the route. Next time you follow, do it with a foot of slack. Go back with some 6 mil or 5.5 spectra, tie those suckers off and SEND IT! Heck, even preplace the key slings. Or did someone chop those knobs? Then we'll have the knob-chopper....
Just want to say thanks to Tom Higgins for his post and for putting 'adventure' in his routes. The last route I did of yours was on Chiquito Dome, even after a friend warned, "Don't do any Higgins routes!" I've done others...and that day I happened to get on another one and had a 'hair raising' experience. I finished the pitch, brought my partner up and very carefully, rapped off. I decided to go back to continue the climb by preparing to upgrade the original hardware, w/out adding any additional bolts of course, if you don't mind? Some routes are even harder to repeat now, then long ago, when the hardware has aged so. Thanks again.
Lawrence Garcia
|
|
dodangler
Trad climber
truckee
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 25, 2005 - 09:30pm PT
|
I appreciate Tom Higgins clarification on the addition and removal of the bolts on Hair Raiser. Once again I'll say it, the route looks incredible and the FA was ballsy. Adding bolts to a climb with out FA's permission is rather lowly and I believe deserves an a$$ kicking or at least radical public humiliation. Tom put into simple words what I could not express clearly.....Chopping is counterproductive.
Thanks for the post, James
|
|
Chateau Rico
Trad climber
Davis, CA
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2005 - 12:19am PT
|
Well, my response had nothing to do with the first ascensionists. The discussion was interesting, as a climbing ethics subject. I wanted to provide my actual experience of the confusion and danger that can happen when bolts are removed, specifically on that route. We headed out there to do a 5 star, 3 pitch 5.9 in a gorgeous, remote setting, and not exactly Tom and Vern's route. (Note, the guidebook does say you can skip certain bolts, to reproduce the original ascent; I believe those were the bolts removed, but I'm not sure.) Luckily the note hadn't blown off the boulder that it was on, and I didn't get the sh** scared out of me or worse on lead on that x portion. Could I do it? Probably, but I won't, as most any other guy with wife and kids, and with the close calls I've had - there are plenty of exciting routes out there without groundfall potential. Could I have slung the knobs? Of course, since I trad climb also. And you are right about my responsibility to scope the route and I did spot the runout from the ground and was backing off. But my partner, who had led it about a month previously, said it wasn't bad. I spent a long time hesitating until I saw the note and untied. We then brought some small gear just in case, and found one alien placement, but no knobs, probably because the altered route, the one my partner knew, did not take him that way (to the right). So my point is: the route was already brought to my level, a sort-of hairraising 5.9 slab that had been retro-bolted, (as many routes have). I never ADVOCATED retro-bolting or even retro bolting that route. I certainly wouldn't be interested in that route in it's original state, or, say, the Dike route in its original state. But, hey, thanks for the encouragement, but in MY older state, I'm set in my ways... :)
|
|
WoodyS
climber
|
|
I was the creaky old guy who led Hair Raiser Buttress last month. I am offended by creaky. Those who know me know that I shoot gun oil into my joints before all climbs. What little creaking left could not be heard by those on the ground. HRB (Granite Basin--on the Moon) deserves a comment or two or three etc. It's a great climb but badly protected. Initially it was put up X. It's X to the first bolt and X squared--very dead--to the second. One should hope to be dead or unconscious; otherwise, you'll be lying in a pile of goo trying to blow flies off protruding ribs. I don't care who the FA party was; they were incompetent or unethical. To deliberately fabricate a route as X when unnecessary is perverse. This route was recently retro-bolted then quickly returned to its X status in the ongoing bolting wars. The children who removed the bolts left an anonymous note gloating at their vandalism. By not identifying themselves, they demonstrated cowardice. If they take pride in their act, why not sign the note they left behind. According to another note, the route will again be retro-bolted. Some routes are X because the leader had no choice, others because of incompetence and others because of immaturity, poor ethics and/or stupidity. These twits(deliberate X) should have their eyelids and lips severed, their spines sliced low and thrown into a large landfill on a hot day. Let the flies have them.. At the least, they should be made to climb said route over and over until Karma takes effect. If someone is to die on such a route, it should be they who are responsible for its lame protection. All this begs a question: why did I lead it? It was a long drive and I was silly. By the way, there's a new route not in the guide which the leader will intercept beginning the second pitch. My partner was bouncing around shaking her pom poms and yelling "Go left", "Go left". Never pay any attention to your belayer under such circumstances; left was a boo boo. You end up at the same dike, but the pitch is much longer, and the final moves 9/10A. You can traverse right to the correct anchors. That's a blessing because the rock above the left anchors could be used to build a sandcastle.
Woody Stark
|
|
dodangler
Trad climber
truckee
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 8, 2005 - 06:30pm PT
|
Nice lead Woody!
|
|
LongAgo
Trad climber
|
|
Tom Higgins responds to recent request for adding bolts to Hair Raiser Buttress (Dec. 1, Tricksters and Traditionalists thread):
I much appreciate the request rather than retro bolting without request, as done not too long ago. Request post claims, "you would certainly die if you fell ... before you got to the second ... and possibly if you fell above the third bolt." Because I have posted my general intent in doing first ascents was not to create X routes (T&T thread), the question logically arises, why won't I agree to adding bolts to remedy the X here? I'm willing to rethink my position, but first would like to know:
 Is there confusion about where the route goes? A post by Hardman Knott from 19 April, 2005 indicates he put a bolt in about 40 feet directly up from the beginning of the route where it goes right. Perhaps some climbers are going that way and thinking they are on the original route. Knott's post indicates his variation is hard with "ground fall" potential.
Is it not possible to protect the pitch with slings? I have posted about protecting this pitch with runners on another thread (Hair Raiser bolt removed, September 24). To reiterate the post, once out right onto the main face, I found it possible to snug chicken heads with thin slings (some call the knot a butterfly, but I'm not sure of the correct name). After an early 5.9 move where, I agree, a fall to the boulders would be bad but not killer, the moves seemed 5.8 and less and I don't recall feeling ground fall potential with the protection I used. Has something changed on the pitch to make this protection impossible? Or is it a matter of experience with slinging?
Is it possible the bolt removal which took place (I do not and did not advocate same - see Sept. 24 post) has eliminated any original bolts (I think there were three on the pitch)? Another post (Hair Raiser bolt removal thread, Sept. 24) indicates, "The fourth bolt was removed too, in a hard section ... I found removed bolts elsewhere." It seems possible retro bolting and removal is creating confusion about what were the original bolts. Note the clouding consequence of bolt warring, aside from nasty feelings all around.
Depending on the answers to these questions, I will reconsider my first response - to leave the route alone. I certainly would agree to replacement of original bolts if they are removed. Likewise, if the rock has changed so it is no longer possible to protect it with slings, I would agree to consider one bolt to protect the 5.8X section a poster (Sept. 24) describes as "the one that was really needed to make the route reasonably safe ... is bolt #2." But if the issue is inability or reluctance to sling or to run out 5.7 and 5.8 with the prospect of a long fall, I will stand by my original request to leave the route as it was done. Once I've received information and reconsidered, I will check with my partner Vern Clevenger and post again.
Also, given posts to date, I will alert the relevant guidebook authors to (1) the need to carry slings for protection and (2) the possible 5.8 X nature of the pitch. It seems modern guidebooks reserve R or X for climbing 5.8 or above. Generally, R or X is not given to 5.7 pitches off the ground, on broken faces or traverses out of dihedrals where a fall would have serious consequences. It is up to the guidebook author(s) if and how to add notice, but I will alert them based on concerns raised.
Posters should know they are not alone in their disappointment at turning back from nice walls like HB because the protection/mix is problematic. I certainly have passed on great looking climbs due to a protection/difficulty balance beyond me. See my previous posts about turning back from certain climbs, for example a long sought prize - Super Pin in SD. Closer to home, I was disappointed at turning back from the Bachar Yerian and You Asked For It (sidebar: attempting them with a solo self belay system was stupid). The point is, depending on our abilities and the protection, all of us face climbs too difficult or dangerous for the day. I never thought to ask Bachar to add bolts to insure my safety. Being humbled is part of the game, especially early on when pushing and hungry. Overall, I believe the best response is to alter our own behavior (get sane or better) not the climbs.
Some posts also express quandary at why I kept the number of bolts to a minimum on HB, or certain other first ascents. My motive was not to create death defying or "manly" routes (a poster asks, "You want a bold route that other climbers will aspire to do in the same manly style you did?" See T&T post, Dec. 1). Under clean climbing standards and ground up rules I grew up with (see previous T&T post about strong role of my mentor), bolts were the last resort. Minimizing their number was not to create mind games for others but leave the rock marked with as few bolts as possible. I realize my attitude may seem quaint in the era of sport routes, but we are products of our times and mentors, and that was the attitude instilled in me.
Should bolts be added to routes created under the minimalist bolting ethic so more climbers can enjoy them? After all, couldn't bolts be added, guidebooks still note the original style of the ascent and give credit accordingly, as a poster suggests? Of course there is pleasure being named in a guidebook or history. But to think getting into publications is such a central prize in climbing underestimates the complexity of the game. Preserving original protection is not to insure climbers get scared or first ascent parties get into history as bold. Preservation insures climbers preferring to do the climb in its original style get to do so. Some climbers prefer more risk and complication than many sport routes provide. They deserve their opportunities just as much as sportsters deserve theirs. But the picture is bigger than preferred risk profiles. Not altering routes insures they remain tributes to the time and mentality around their creation. An important joy of the climbing game comes not just from doing climbs, but viewing, pondering, absorbing (as per this very web site) the full well of experiences, the moving stage of heroes, fools and follies, high and low tales, grand and vain acts. In the drama, the features of routes and associated protection are the underlying choreography, the hand and foot sequences set in stone and passing on through time. Once protection is changed, the original choreography of moves, runs, hardware (and sling) frustrations, resulting pumps and rests, the curses and hoots - the entire emotional passage - is altered. And lost is an assessment of how nuts or noble were the makers, our second guessing of all they felt. In short, there is no tribute to the past, no way to tap the well. It is for all these reasons, barring unusual circumstances, routes should be left to stand as they were first done.
In sum, for now I will ask for climbers to leave HB as it stands. I am open to receiving more information on the questions I've raised, consider further and post. I also will consult with my partner for the climb. I hope all this seems reasonable. Ultimately, today's climbers will have to decide what to preserve and not, as the wonder and fragility of the game is each new generation gets to determine how to play it.
Thank you,
Tom Higgins
LongAgo
|
|
Greg Barnes
climber
|
|
Thank you Tom, that is perhaps the best explanation of traditional bolting ethics that I've ever read.
Greg
PS Hardman Knott wasn't the one who did the left start years ago, it was Mike Strassman, and I think he said that the retrobolts were on his left start not the original route.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
"Not altering routes insures they remain tributes to the time and mentality around their creation."
Amen
|
|
looking sketchy there...
Social climber
Latitute 33
|
|
Woody--perhaps you forgot to take your medication? Wow, tell us how you really feel.
Climbing is a voluntary activity. If you head up on a route knowing it to be poorly protected (or failed to use natural pro where available --slinged knobs) it is a voluntary act.
If that route does not provide the "experience" you desire, don't do it. It IS that simple.
Routes have R & X ratings for a reason (so you don't inadvertantly end up with more "adventure" than you bargained for). But, judging from the type of routes you have lead in recent history at Josh, you can't deny that you actively seek out this type of climbing. Please, don't complain about it later.
|
|
scuffy b
climber
S Cruz
|
|
Tom,
Thanks for posting your thoughts.
Your recent posts have been quite
stimulating.
"To ascend! To ascend! To ravage the
walls, ascent on ascent!"
Best Wishes,
Steve Moyles
|
|
WoodyS
Trad climber
Riverside
|
|
Yes, It's quite true that I lead marginal routes now and then; but I don't seek them out just to test my mortality. Karen Bohl and I drove out to HB to do the route in question. Getting there, the anticipation of a good climb etc. led me to go ahead and do it even with reservations. I knew that if I didn't I'd be frustrated and irritable for the rest of the day. Also, I'm quite competent at the rated level and wasn't anticipating dying.
Upon reading the BS note left by the idiots that screwed the route up for their own silly egos, I got teed off and was determined not to let them spoil my day.
Now to the real issue: no route should be put up X if it need not be. To do it deliberately is unethical. I won't repeat my argument; you can read it in my post above. Too many climbers approach climbing as though it's a religion with absurd attitudes
verging on the fanatical. I'm surprised we don't have our own Inquisition; actually, we do. There must be rules; but, when we have a bunch of creepy little priests running about taking it upon themselves to police this or that, it's gone too far. Common sense says fix the route so it's not X. That way people can go out--way out--there and enjoy their day.
If you're going to respond to this be sure to read my post above first. It is more comprehensive in explaining my position.
|
|
Brutus of Wyde
climber
Old Climbers' Home, Oakland CA
|
|
"Years later, I go to do the new and improved Hairraiser and discover he didn't even bolt the ankle breaking move at the bottom. And not only that, he didn't even bolt the first pitch. Since very few sport climbers know much about natural protection, especially how to tie a butterfly knot on a chickenhead, everyone headed for that lone bolt I placed years ago 40 feet up. Alan bolted this line."
So the original Hair Raiser Buttress wasn't retro bolted, and wasn't chopped. So what the F do the Hair Raiser Buttress FA's opinions on this matter have to do with the price of eggs in China??
Hardy -- perhaps the debacle should be named "Knott their line".
"Though you are high up on pot, he can fly and you cannot."
Brutus
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
So Woody, this is all about you having an "irritable day" because the climb you wanted to do was beyond your ability to send? And this is a problem caused by the first ascent team??
Higgins said that it wasn't put up as an X climb: "once out right onto the main face, I found it possible to snug chicken heads with thin slings"... if the chicken heads are gone or no longer slingable, then the climb is different. If the chicken heads are there and you aren't competent to use them for protection, well, that is another story.
It would be easy to have a tantrum because a desirable climb is somehow altered enough not to be climbable, but gee, isn't that what we individually bring to a climb on a particular day? You are pissed off that someone felt strongly enough to chop the extra bolts, but you didn't feel strong enough to put new bolts in... you climbed it anyway, after reading the warning. I don't get it. You climbed it against your better judgement? that sounds really stupid if true.
And as for the fatality statistics, I think that is relatively low, please correct me if my guess of 0 deaths on this route is wrong.
We all take responsibility for being on a route, and we all choose the level of risk we are willing to take. We all suffer the consequences rather directly for misjudgment. I don't think blaming the FA is at all legitimate, after all, you know something they did not when they started up the route.
They made their choice, and you made yours.
|
|
Bruce Morris
Social climber
Belmont, California
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2005 - 01:04am PT
|
Why do people feel compelled to go out and add bolts to old death routes anyway? Why not put up your own safe route with 10 plus bolts and have your own good time instead of sh_tting on other people's accomplishments? Come on! There's plenty of rock left out there to play on. Eastern Nevada out by Cactus Pete's is loaded with new sport lines to rap if that's what gets you off. No one is compelled to mess with what's already there when they can walk a hundred yards to the left or right and start drilling away. "Sure looks scary to me. Let's not do that one!" "OK! No problem."
|
|
Lars Ensign
Trad climber
Zephyr Cove, NV
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2005 - 08:04am PT
|
Tom,
Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply to my request. I appreciate you looking into the mater and talking to Vern. I will respect your request to leave the route alone, though I'm saddened to see such an enjoyable bit of climbing tied up with an x-rated route. I don't think that it significantly detracts from the climbing experience to have enough bolts to keep you from a high morbidity/mortality ground/ledge fall. The person leading the route can choose whether to use them or climb the route in the historical way, but it doesn't work the other way around.
I will try to answer one of the questions you asked about HRB.
I didn't see any knobs/flakes amenable for using tie-offs on the first pitch. I'm pretty familiar with the technique having used slung holds at Phantom Spires, Lovers Leap, and other alpine climbs. However, since I only ever climbed the retro-bolted version of the route, it sounds like I might have been too far to the left to have ever seen them. I'll go back and look, but as I recall from a few weeks ago, all I saw off to the right was a really old rusty quarter-incher 50-60 feet away. I think I recall reading somewhere that the knob tie-offs used to be on the 3rd pitch?
As for the question whether or not only the retro bolts had been removed, I can't help with that one. There are 3 bolts on the first pitch, the first about 10 feet up, the second at about 30-45 feet of 5.8 terrain above that, approximately 25 feet to the 3rd, then off to the anchors. It's that section between the first and second bolt that I am advocating for additional protection.
Thanks again,
Lars Ensign
|
|
LongAgo
Trad climber
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2006 - 03:24pm PT
|
Hair Raiser Wrap Up from Tom Higgins
Background
Posts here have discussed removal of retro-bolts on the first pitch of Hair Raiser Buttress and the desire of some to see them replaced. See Hair Raiser Bolt Removal thread, beginning around September, 2005 and Tricksters and Traditionalists thread, December 1, 2005. Also on the subject is a letter of mine in Climbing Magazine, "A Woolly Mammoth Pleads," June, 2005. In my last post on the subject, I said, "... I certainly would agree to replacement of original bolts if they are removed. Likewise, if the rock has changed so it is no longer possible to protect it with slings, I would agree to consider one bolt to protect the 5.8X section a poster (Sept. 24) describes as 'the one that was really needed to make the route reasonably safe ... is bolt #2." I also said, "Once I've received information and reconsidered, I will check with my partner Vern Clevenger and post again." I got Vern's perspective, considered information posted on Supertopo and RockClimbing sites and here is the wrap up:
Relevant Information
While there is conflicting information about the potential for slinging knobs on the first pitch where some wish to add bolts, no posts indicate the rock has changed and other posts suggest climbers may be getting off route onto harder climbing than on the actual climb. One Supertopo post ("Chateau Rico," Sep 24, 2005) contends slings on HB are not possible; yet, a post on Rockclimbing.com (See "Rocknroll" posts April and Sep 2005, Retro Bolts Chopped at HB Buttress thread) indicates slings can be used. The same poster suggests climbers may be starting the route improperly by heading 40 feet straight up to an off route bolt (instead of going right). No posts I could find on Supertopo or Rockclimbing indicate evidence of broken knobs making slings impossible.
First Ascent Party Position
I have contacted Vern Clevenger as promised, relayed to him all posting information I could find and asked his perspectives. His sense is if the route is back to its original state (no original bolts removed), then it should stand as is. Based on the information above, I am of the same mind. I have detailed in my last Supertopo post on the HB thread a rationale for leaving first ascents as is. Given the pitch difficulty and possibility of natural protection on the first ascent line (up and right after first hard move, not straight up), it seems reasonable now to leave the original protection stand. However, Vern and I agreed it's important to spread the word and alert relevant guidebook authors to (1) the need to carry slings (thin preferred) for possible protection on knobs and (2) the possible 5.8 X nature of the pitch. One or both of us will contact the guidebook authors.
Thank you,
Tom Higgins
LongAgo
|
|
Greg Barnes
climber
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2006 - 04:32pm PT
|
Thanks Tom!
Slinging knobs is not only a lost art for most, it seems to be a lost concept. I've seen people in really dangerous situations because they didn't sling obvious HUGE incut knobs/flakes.
Knob wrapping is easier than ever with the new ultra-thin full-strength runners (Mammut 8mm), you can sling narrow knobs, edges, and plates very easily. I don't know if you need double-length runners to properly sling the knobs on HRB; if so, this might be a good additional piece of info for the guidebook.
My friend did a nice new multipitch route on Sierra granite a couple years ago, and the crux is protected by tossing the rope over a knob. Just thought you might want to know that knobs are still in use as pro on new routes (at least by some folks...).
Thanks again for letting all of us know what you & Vern think about your route! Greg
|
|
Rhodo-Router
Trad climber
Otto, NC
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2006 - 12:55pm PT
|
Thanks, Tom. That should eliminate whiny BS like "we were not prepared to sling chicken heads".
It seems so simple: not prepared? too scared? Irritable Entitlement Syndrome? then stay off it.
|
|
GiftofMadness
climber
mammoth lakes, ca
|
|
I went to Granite Basin with my wife yesterday, May 5, to do some climbing. I had read the warning last fall in the Mammoth Mountaineering Supply and really was not considering Hair Raiser as a route to do. But when we arrived, took a look at the route and thought the bolts were no farther apart than similar routes in Taquitz, suicide and the El Trono Blanco area. I decided to give it a go. I have to say it was exciting and well worth the risk. I will grant you that there were places that you would not want to fall, becuase the ground was your likely stopping spot. yet, with the risk comes the reward and I would not change the route. If you decide to do this route, keep your head calm on the first pitch and enjoy the rest.
Brent Cooley
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!