Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2013 - 07:53pm PT
|
Quartz Mountain, Oklahoma.
It is great rock, very much like Josh, but without many cracks. We used to all hook up there on the weekends and climb our tails off.
Bachar was our hero at this point, and we took to soloing something awful. Nobody got hurt until much later. Bad story there.
|
|
rmuir
Social climber
From the Time Before the Rocks Cooled.
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2013 - 08:42pm PT
|
Basically, the best climbers of that era were (and still are) asking everyone else to adhere to an ethical standard they themselves rarely (if ever) did.
I'm sorry. I just don't understand this bizarre, nonsensical statement.
No matter how hard we were able to boulder, that technical difficulty never translated directly into the establishment of FAs. Even the hardest individual problems found on a boulder--albeit perhaps the hardest moves we could do--just couldn't hold a candle to the seriousness of peering from the Sharp End into the realm of the Unknown. Bolts, especially on face routes, were seldom placed for convenience. It could be excruciatingly painful to drill at the best of times, exceedingly so when there were unknowns yet ahead, watching as the strength slowly drained from every pore. Was it any wonder that we approached a new route with conservative, prudent caution? ...a caution that also celebrated increasing the complexity (or boldness) of the Game.
Only now--through your own filter--does all this seem like hubris, ego, and elitism.
Climbing the new line was important. Establishing a new route was a statement one's art reflected in the ethos of the day. Economy, difficulty, boldness, and adherence to the rules of the game, were all factors that helped dictate the quality of one's route. And each of us was aware that we were answerable to the art of our craft.
Ethical standards--of the period--were how our FAs would be judged. Each one of us practiced them as we saw fit, using the tools of the times. Applying a modern lens to the imagined time in question and making judgements about motive and methods is merely conjecture. It means absolutely nothing to the principals involved.
Respect your elders, youngster, and pay attention to history.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2013 - 09:01pm PT
|
Why, then, did the vast majority of bold routes of that era rarely, if ever, exceed easy 11?
Joe, that is a really good question. I don't know the answer, but I think it is probably wrapped up in the differences between bouldering style--lots of no-consequence falls--and no-fall, bold leading. If this is the reason, it pokes a big hole in your a*#ertion that bold routes were well below the climbing standard.
I think someone on ST, several years ago in a similar thread, pointed out that hard slab climbing had to be very well protected since the leaders had to take lots of falls and that easier pitches were run-out. I think that this is true on any bold climb in Yosemite I can think of with the possible exception of Bachar-Yerian. So, are there long run-outs on Mother Earth (1975) on the easier pitches or Space Babble (1976)?
Funny that ST see a$$ in assertion and fixes it in the upper text but not in this.
|
|
wstmrnclmr
Trad climber
Bolinas, CA
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2013 - 09:02pm PT
|
Right on Hankster! Once again the thread dribbles from a more general query (that's been mulled over on many threads with one basic conclusion by general consensus)into the realm of style wars, only to have the original OP buried. The original OP asks about FA ownership in general. It doesn't pertain to a specific style. And since this question's been asked to death with the general consensus (see Clint's reference to the "super chicken" thread) that the FA's original intent, not ownership is to be respected, be it sport climbing, aid climbing, slab climbing, doggystyle or whatever..... That is the current consensus that most agree with regardless of style. Otherwise, as one poster put it, chaos would ensue, or the color brown would be pervasive. It is innately human for us to be communal (even screwball climbers) in some way and be protective of each other in those communal endeavors. But I try my darndest not to be judgmental of others proclivities and to respect them.
Higgins was mentioned up thread. His writings go well beyond what was mentioned and he foresaw all of this (more climbers, more styles, different games and possible solutions. Go to his site and you'll find it). You need to remember that back in the day there were few climbers and most of them practiced much the same styles in terms of climbing.
Today there are many more climbers practicing different styles and playing different games. Dingus mentioned respect for ones style and it's communal respect that is usually followed and it's the FA's intent, whatever the style, which seems still to be the one, if not law, a constant. The only reason I am posting is because I, and others more so, are working hard to preserve bolted climbs, regardless of style, but preserve that styles original intent. Because, if the new paradigm is that anything goes, then there is no reason to do all the hard work.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2013 - 10:10pm PT
|
Come on Joe, since Robs is a standard bearer for 70s California climbing, he deserves a more careful reading, and deserves better than your gloss. Robs clearing states that the technical climbing mastered in bouldering was not the critical element in establishing a FA.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2013 - 10:14pm PT
|
Law number 1.....never repeat a first ascent. Have that first impression be your last....and this comes from someone who loves repeating climbs.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2013 - 10:19pm PT
|
How can we be sure the FA party on a runout route was really being bold, and not just stupid or stoned?
Or out of bolts, broke the drill, arms got tired,
Doesn't mater!
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2013 - 10:33pm PT
|
Sometime during the 70s, hard climbing became a process of lots of falls. Jardine was the first person I know of who practiced this and he climbed much harder routes than he could have done with the older, don't fall approach. In this context, good climbers could only reach new limits with lots of falling; it was necessary to get beter. None of this was necessary for 5.11 and maybe a bit above into 5.12. Separate Reality, as I understand it, took Ron many tries until he was able to piece it together. Once it was established, I am sure that someone flashed it.
|
|
surfstar
climber
Santa Barbara, CA
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2013 - 11:06pm PT
|
jghedge - what's your point? After all of this, what do you want to hear? Permission to retrobolt? Chest thumping from the stonemasters?
We've been trolled.
"Is 20' of thin climbing on a 20' boulder really that different from 20' of thin climbing after clipping a bolt?"
Yeah, actually you can fall twice as far on the route vs the boulder.
|
|
surfstar
climber
Santa Barbara, CA
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2013 - 11:45pm PT
|
Don't tell me that I gotta do what you did, when you didn't really do what you're telling me I gotta do (climb at my personal limit on the run-outs).
That's what we've been telling you - you don't HAVE to climb anything.
5.9 leader? Lead a 5.6R. No one is forcing you to climb a death route at your limit. See, now-a-days, we have these things call 'guidebooks', and not only do they tell you where a climb is, but how hard and whether it is runout or not!!! Problem solved. End of discussion.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2013 - 11:47pm PT
|
Why the FA did or didn't do what they did or didn't so has nothing to do with what kind of challenge we all face when having to repeat the route. If there is a 20 foot runout on 5.10 it matters little to the next person if the leader was stoned, being stupid, bold, absurd or otherwise when he dicked the runout. The only important thing is that he did the runout, and if we want to repeat the route that is actually there, we too have to do the runout. Put diferently, when your get up on the route, your are NEVER facing a reason. You are facing a runout. You don't have to climb the reason. You only have to climb the runout. The crux of the entire biscuit is the runout. The reason left with the FA when they packed their bag and went home.
Insisting that we don't have to do the runout unless the FA can provide a rational argument that meets our approval is taking the issue of self-importance to a strange level, IMO, while we masquerade as truth bearers outing a fraud. The fraud, to me, is the person who is afraid to sac it up and run the cord, but never admits as much, and instead of saying the truth, I AM AFRAID, he blames the FA for (fill in the blank).
The runout is not a fraud. It's just a runout. Sac it up and do it, or go home. Everything else is just circling in your head.
JL
|
|
surfstar
climber
Santa Barbara, CA
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2013 - 12:42am PT
|
"Far as I'm concerned, he had no business running them out in the first place, if he was going to insist they stay that way. He can go run it out on a FA at his level (5.13). "Pick on someone your own size", as they say.
But hmmm...that never happened, did it. Gee I wonder why... "
Ho Lee Fuk - now you're just whining.
Its a rock. No one is forcing you to climb it. If you can't or don't want to - DON'T. Its that simple.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2013 - 12:46am PT
|
jghedge I would think you would have a point that it's a problem when high level climbers put in runout easier climbs but only if most of the climbs (or even most of the classic climbs) done in an area were put up in a run out fashion leaving little choice for climbers at a certain level. e.g. all 5.9 climbs were put up as 5.9 X climbs. But where is that really the case? Usually there are some runout climbs next to easily protected cracks. And perhaps some sport climbs around the corner.
I think there's room for and it's beneficial to have all kinds of climbs. Sport climbs, easily protected trad climbs, run out face climbs, free solos, top ropes,
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2013 - 01:49am PT
|
Merely reiterating that claiming bold bolt-protected routes need to be respected and emulated when the vast majority of the existing ones weren't that bold for the FA party (because boldness is relative to the ability of the individual climber, who in most cases were climbing well below their actual ability).
That statement offends me because your conception of boldness and individual limits, as discerned from the rhetoric of your posts, fails to take uncertainty or commitment into account. Coonyard Pinnacle in Zillertols in 1960 was terribly bold, if "only" 5.9. No one knew it would go, and the available protection was scant. The second pitch of Crack of Doom -- a mere 5.8 -- was harder than most climbers could get themselves to lead without protection for many years. As Kevin stated, the relative lack of traffic on the runout routes speaks to the "real" limit of climbers.
Frankly, it sounds like Monday morning quarterbacking to say that a FA runout deserves little respect because the climber's "limit" was much higher. Maybe that is so after the fact, but during the lead, that was less than clear.
Ultimately, though, my final reaction is "so what?" If someone doesn't like the route, no one is making them climb it. My geezer-plagued generation believed that not every climb was for every person. We also thought that we should minimize anything that changed the rock. If climbing has evolved so that those are no longer the norms, then so be it. Climb only what can be led without risk, but if rock alteration is the norm, don't be surprised if the wilderness purists class us with dirt bikers, four-wheel drivers, snowmobilers, and others they find undesirable, and we consequently find our access severely restricted.
John
|
|
rnevius
Trad climber
San Luis Obispo, CA
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2013 - 02:41am PT
|
After reading all of this, I think I finally get it...
hedge just wants the old guns to sack up and admit that their runout first ascents weren't at their personal limits.
From this, I think hedge hopes to "prove" a few points.
|
|
patrick compton
Trad climber
van
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2013 - 08:10am PT
|
Wow, I go away for 12 hours, it is the same discussion repeating itself, repeating itself...
..I'll say it again, IF runouts are so great, ballsy, holy, ethical, environmental, etc,
WHY did runouts suddenly STOP when 5.12 came along?
Could it be the slab hardmen got scared?
Hedge has it right, pick on someone your own size, stop putting up run out 5.10s and 11s. No one is impressed other than your own ego.
Amazing you guys got laid at all considering 'girlfriend routes' are 10s that are decently protected for the old lady to climb while you are on trying something harder.
ohhh.... big men you ran out the 5.10s, I bet she is impressed while she is down at the beach doing something enjoyable while you play hardman on a glassy 5.10.
I know the routes in question might never be popular, and might fade into obscurity (if they haven't already), but I believe it's possible that climbers and climbing might come full circle to the point where more climbers seek out the type of challenge they offer. That's probably the best reason to leave them as they are.
Again, No one is doing these routes because they are pointless. No one wants to die or be seriously injured on 5.10.
If you are going to take a risk today, do it falling on v10s and 12s in the Buttermilks pitching off the 40' boulders there.
Good work valley 'hardmen', you created a museum of slab clunkers like 1970s Buicks rotting away in an in Arizona desert junkyard.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2013 - 08:42am PT
|
I think that snake dike is a good example of a route that became much better when it was retrobolted (by the FA team) than it was before.
It is now a classic route and the only relatively easy climbing route to the top of half dome and it would probably been an obscure "test piece" with few ascents if it where not retro bolted.
|
|
patrick compton
Trad climber
van
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2013 - 10:06am PT
|
So which are you Chief?
Do you 'sac up'? Or are you a ball-cupping waterboy for the varsity like Ron is?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2013 - 12:22pm PT
|
Again, No one is doing these routes because they are pointless.
-
Run out routes yield fruit only discovered from the doing. "Pointless" merely tells us you don't know this particular terrain - of that we can be sure. Otherwise you wold know the point. What is dishonest here is while you and others circle around writing risk management off as "pointless," the underlying truth is never copped to: I am afraid of these routes.
Own that simply fact and we might have a conversation. Ruing old trad routes armed only with a sport climbing mentality (danger is BAD and pointless) is to mix genres. Every trad route is not for every climber. Period. That seems to be the sticking point for many on this thread - they can't justify in their minds accepting a certain degree of risk management, are locked out of doing this or that route, and blame others for putting them in that situation.
That ever trad route is not for every climber is no one's fault. It's the basic fact of the trad game - and a fact some simply don't accept, all the while trying to concoct logical reasons, ranging from "fraud" to recklessness, why the route in questions is a crime against mankind.
But none of these people ever say what is the bottom line: I am scared of these routes. I will clearly say it: When Kevin W. and I did the FA on route like Black Primo and even old stuff like Stoner's Highway, we were SACRED the whole time. So what. We didn't blame God or Royal Robbins. We accepted fear as part of the gambit.
Sac it up. Or go home. Quite your belly aching that every route is not perfectly "safe." It's an absurd demand on a sport where courage and fear management are central issues. For those to whom such issues are unacceptable, go sport climbing. You have 10,000,000 routes at the ready.
JL
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2013 - 12:25pm PT
|
The Chief: What retro bolting and bolts Gary?? No bolts atal. None. Never have been nor are there any now. Six stoppers and two pins total that can be pulled at any time by anybody Gary.
"Couloirs"? Singular Gary. Singular. Left or #1 Only.
Seems folks kind a like the idea Gary. They are still there after eight years. Received several notes and personal thanks for putting them up.
Got anymore bullshet claims Gary.
I'm cornfused. You did, or did not install convenience anchors on North Peak?
I'm a might hazy on this, so that's why I ask. There seems to have been an Internet posting a while back saying you placed convenience anchors on North Peak. Thought I'd ask you and get the straight poop.
Another question would be, is placing convenience anchors retro-bolting?
I do remember your first troll on summitpost was about bolting the U-notch. I think some took you serious there.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!