Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Gary
Social climber
Where in the hell is Major Kong?
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2016 - 09:42am PT
|
Yeah, after he calmed down, I tried to get him back up, like on Puppy Dog. But he was too frazzled. He told me that he was actually having premonitions of death. He departed shortly thereafter.
Puppy Dog! One of my first leads, I remember looking around wondering where the next bolt could be and feeling a bit shaky.
Leading is a head game,as you say, you just have to wait for the time to be right. Sounds like it wasn't right for your friend.
My lead head seems to come and go, lately it mostly goes.
|
|
F
climber
away from the ground
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2016 - 09:44am PT
|
At one of the (well, the only one really) sport crags here, one of the rock gym owners took it upon themselves to install a 1/2" retrobolt at the absolute limit of his 30' (!!!) stick clip so they could avoid having to lead and place gear on that pesky 5.10 hand crack that leads to the 5.12 face climbing on an uber classic route of the wall.
It's a great example of how climbing is really supposed to be for the upcoming groms!! YAY!!!
|
|
StahlBro
Trad climber
San Diego, CA
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2016 - 09:58am PT
|
I always thought they were for short people trying to reach between aid placements.
I am so out of touch.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2016 - 10:05am PT
|
But this stuff isn't "climbing" per se, imho. Until you add in the mental game of performance while in risk, you're not strictly-speaking climbing.
Since you added imho to that statement it's fine, but really it's all climbing. Sport climbing with the bolts 3 feet apart is "climbing". Climbing Mt. Whitney via the Mt. Whitney Trail is "climbing". Top roping is "climbing".
Some people felt Wings of Steel was not "climbing". But everyone is entitled to participate in their preferred variation of the sport as long as they are doing it ethically.
Some of us like risk. Some don't. That's fine. As long as it's all confined to style differences. To each his own.
I'd agree the average climber is more risk adverse nowadays, but as mentioned that's because climbing has been opened up to way more people. BITD almost all climbers were serious adventure seekers. Today many people are introduced to it at gyms and will never do more than top rope. That's fine IMO, I'm glad people are out getting exercise and having fun. There are more bold climbers climbing today than there have ever been. They are constantly pushing the limits. And in fact they are often thought of as the best climbers of the day, even if they are not the top climbers in terms of technical difficulty, see Honnold and Potter.
Retrobolting is another topic. Yes more risk adverse climbers means more people who may retrobolt, but there's plenty of risk adverse climbers who would never think of retrobolting.
The real risk of changing ethics is from people like Sloan who are visible and promote / try to defend it. That's why whenever the topic is brought up on a thread he's on I try to politely explain why it's wrong.
The good news is that there will always be people who know retrobolting is wrong and will chop added bolts. And it's much easier/cheaper to chop than to add.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2016 - 10:33am PT
|
Don't forget the optional selfie attachment, and drone launch pad, though.
I just found my way out of the ghetto!
And, as usual, the Fet posted what I think about stick clips, sport routes, bouldering, top roping, scrambling, and what constitutes "climbing."
Finally, Robbins articulated his "first ascent principle" more than 40 years ago, but I have yet to see a more practical approach to sharing our limited rock resources. We should leave existing routes alone, with extremely limited exceptions (e.g. Snake Dike, where subsequent bolts came at the suggestion, and with the blessing of the first ascent party).
John
|
|
F
climber
away from the ground
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2016 - 10:53am PT
|
Couchman - I'm pretty savvy with the old how to on bolt chopping. I chopped SEVEN PITCHES worth of bolts some eurotrash installed on a route we had done two weeks before on Cerro San Lorenzo.
I lost track of how many retro bolts have been placed on routes I've done.
The scene around here is weird. You do a route, a few years later somebody retrobolts it. Johnny guidebook renames and recredits to route in his "guidebook". Complete with new bolt count. So when you chop retrobolts on a route that you did before the beaters even owned a harness, you become person non grata because your a vandal or kook in the eyes of the ignorant and weak minded.
These days the congniscetti keep a pretty low profile on the new crags and routes they put up. Specifically to prevent this cycle of BS that has become the norm around here.
Ce La Vie.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2016 - 10:58am PT
|
The good news is that there will always be people who know retrobolting is wrong and will chop added bolts.
But, if "it's all climbing," as you say, then what principle makes retrobolting wrong?
If anything, it would be wrong for first ascentionists to NOT consider everybody who might want to do their route by whatever means. How non-inclusive of them! So, if a bolt every three feet is "climbing," and the vast majority value "fun" over "risk," then it's outrageous that any first-ascentionist would use a section of rock in the non-optimal way! How dare he/she?
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Social climber
SLO, Ca
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2016 - 11:06am PT
|
I've been hearing about the demise of the spirit of climbing for like 30 years now. Hang dogging, rap bolting blah blah blah. All the while nothing has really changed, the retro bolting floodgates have never opened and people climb harder and faster.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2016 - 11:15am PT
|
I've been hearing about climbing's demise for more like 50 years, ontheedgeandscaredtodeath. The best response I've heard or read comes from Lito Tejada-Flores: "Where are the snows of yesteryear? They're still falling."
John
|
|
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2016 - 11:35am PT
|
The Bondo Palace was supposed to emulate the rock experience.
But, the beast turned on us, and the rock experience is now that of the Bondo Palace.
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2016 - 11:40am PT
|
Climbing is alive and well, but retro bolts are sort of like a creeping crud. They continue to appear with greater and greater regularity, and the expectation from some newer (or perhaps some less new ones too) is that bolts are an acceptable substitute for boldness, competence, or even a willingness to bring and place your own gear. Those first two are a matter of degree and it seems that local ethics and tradition should dictate whether new bolts are acceptable. The latter, in my opinion, is an example of pure sloth and are not acceptable under any circumstances. I find it really odd that people want to climb big numbers, which requires effort, but don't want to bother with placing their own gear, which also requires effort.
I don't really care about the stick clip thing, at least in the connection of someone clipping something other than the first bolt that might be high off the deck. Mid route, it's stupid, and pretty chickensh#t, but it's not hurting anyone (or the rock), so whatever.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2016 - 11:53am PT
|
But, if "it's all climbing," as you say, then what principle makes retrobolting wrong?
Robbins' First Ascent Principle and JE noted above. Of course that's not a law, and many people new (and some not new) to climbing are unaware of it or don't get it. So they must be educated. Hell I didn't get it when I first started climbing until the concept was explained to me by a mentor. Later I read Robbins' words and it made even more sense.
If anything, it would be wrong for first ascentionists to NOT consider everybody who might want to do their route by whatever means. How non-inclusive of them! So, if a bolt every three feet is "climbing," and the vast majority value "fun" over "risk," then it's outrageous that any first-ascentionist would use a section of rock in the non-optimal way! How dare he/she?
Well it is wrong IMO for a FA to not consider others who will follow the route, but that doesn't mean they need to equip it for the lowest common denominator. The world has room for all kinds of routes. A lot of new routes going in nowadays do have lots of bolts even on moderates. There is room and a place for hooking test pieces that get one repeat every 30 years AND bolted 5.6s that get dozens of parties every weekend including kids and first time leaders. Neither is "optimal" or "better" in general they serve different purposes and different people, and in turn are more optimal for the people who want to climb them.
You can tell this site has an older demographic due to people still being against sport climbing, hand dogging, etc. Not just for themselves, but for everyone. Sport climbing IS different than trad climbing. It IS about the doing most difficult moves possible with little risk. That's what some people want/enjoy/specialize in. It's not better or worse in general, it's just a different type of climbing.
I would think you would understand that madbolter since you were disparaged so unfairly for doing a different type of climbing than some people considered acceptable. There was nothing wrong with hooking your way up a slab instead of climbing cracks, just as there's nothing wrong with creating a bolted 5.6 for those that enjoy that type of climbing.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2016 - 01:14pm PT
|
Robbins' First Ascent Principle and JE noted above. Of course that's not a law
The basic argument seems to be appeal to authority, and it hearkens back to the "ownership" idea of the FA. If I'm mistaken, please correct me. Just because Robbins thought it up doesn't mean it's principle-based (or based on any principle that can withstand contemporary scrutiny).
Well it is wrong IMO for a FA to not consider others who will follow the route, but that doesn't mean they need to equip it for the lowest common denominator.
Yes, you say that, but I don't get the principle that establishes it.
The world has room for all kinds of routes.
But the very point we've been talking about is what makes it "wrong" for somebody to retrobolt a route that the FA team wasn't "considerate enough" to bolt "properly" in the first place.
According to our discussion, the "stick-kiddies" are risk-averse, so all "climbs" need to be "safe." What entitles ANYBODY to determine what's "safe enough"?
A lot of new routes going in nowadays do have lots of bolts even on moderates. There is room and a place for hooking test pieces that get one repeat every 30 years AND bolted 5.6s that get dozens of parties every weekend including kids and first time leaders.
I completely agree with you! But I don't see how this "room" is established in principle, when you have increasing retrobolting by "kind" (a la Slone) and risk-averse "climbers" deciding the that FA team didn't do it "right" in the first place.
The question at hand, I believe, is not whether or not there's "room" for a wide variety of risk on routes. The question is: If "climbing" is pretty much ANYTHING that any "climber" says it is, then what principle of "climbing" is the "moral" basis for leaving FAs alone in their original character (including the risks that involves)?
You can tell this site has an older demographic due to people still being against sport climbing, hand dogging, etc. Not just for themselves, but for everyone.
I'm certainly not "against" any of that. All that I'm against is people calling themselves "climbers" (but risk-averse, which to my mind is a contradiction in terms) then dumbing down existing routes that are too "unsafe" because for them (and so for everybody else) climbing must be all and only "fun."
I would think you would understand that madbolter since you were disparaged so unfairly for doing a different type of climbing than some people considered acceptable.
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to understand here. The idea that there's "room" for all sorts of climbs is fine by me. We're on the same page on that point.
But retrobolters in effect disagree with both you and I and say, "Actually, there isn't 'room' for all sorts of climbing. There is ONLY room for MY type of climbing, and I'll make all the climbs I encounter conform to that 'level.'"
By contrast, I don't think there's "room" for the dumbing down of existing routes by an increasingly risk-averse "climber" population. And if I'm right, then the question is: What principle can keep existing routes the same in the face of "climbers" that take "climbing" to mean basically anything?
I honestly don't give a rip about "climbers" hang-dogging, stick-clipping, or "cheating" in any way they feel... as long as they are not dumbing down routes to their level. The "level" of a route includes the risks involved in ascending it. This isn't just about ratings or how "hard" a person can climb.
Retrobolting, to my mind, guts the very essence of what climbing is, by forcing an existing route to conform to your level rather than conforming yourself to its level.
|
|
overwatch
climber
Arizona
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2016 - 01:28pm PT
|
nice troll, Gavis
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2016 - 01:28pm PT
|
Retrobolting, to my mind, guts the very essence of what climbing is, by forcing an existing route to conform to your level rather than conforming yourself to its level.
I generally agree, but changes in ethics brought about a lot of retro-bolting. in particular, the move to clean climbing in the early 1970's meant that we either had to keep enlarging pin scars or climb a route with inadequate protection and anchors, when that route had adequate protection and anchors with pins.
I think the history of the West Face of El Cap illustrates the point. On the first ascent, Robbins and Herbert placed only one bolt on the route, climbing it in superb style for the mid-1960's, where they substituted A4 nailing for bolt placements. Nonetheless, we generally think of free climbing as a better style than aid, and we think that any technique that minimizes altering the rock as better than an alternative. As the climb evolved into a clean free climb, additional bolts showed up. These, in my opinion, weren't so much "chicken" bolts as bolts needed to climb the route clean, free and with a reasonable amount of protection.
Was that retro-bolting wrong? To me, it wasn't, because the route remains challenging and maintains, pretty much, the same mental tension it had when it was first climbed almost 50 years ago. Converting it to a bolt every ten feet, however, would change that and, in my opinion, would be wrong (not to mention monumentally tiring and tedious).
And the First Ascent Principle isn't a theorum, but rather Robbins' suggestion for how we treat climbs done in different styles. i cited it because, to me, it remains the most practical proposal for "letting a thousand flowers bloom."
John
P.S.:
Actually they are not still falling, they are taking...falling is so old and gauche don't you know.
Good one, Joseph!
|
|
overwatch
climber
Arizona
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2016 - 01:37pm PT
|
That's a pretty damn good post
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2016 - 02:04pm PT
|
Very good points, John. I agree with you.
You also nicely state the principle of maintaining the character of the route, given the new forms of protection, including the "risks" inherent in it.
Much appreciated.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2016 - 02:12pm PT
|
"Where are the snows of yesteryear? They're still falling."
Actually they are not still falling, they are taking...falling is so old and gauche don't you know.
|
|
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2016 - 04:12pm PT
|
Was that retro-bolting wrong? To me, it wasn't, because the route remains challenging and maintains, pretty much, the same mental tension it had when it was first climbed almost 50 years ago.
What about when Todd Skinner retrobolted aid pitches on Dihedral Wall, so that he could free them? That route is far from being a modern free climb.
Skinner's bolts have since been chopped, as I understand it.
About ten years ago, Gabe McNeely, Brian Law and Ivo Ninov went up the Zodiac and cleaned all the old slings, rotten heads, fixed pins and other trash from the route. Their garbage haul was something absurd, like 100 pounds of superfluous and worthless climbing gear.
Their motivation was that the Huber brothers had gone up recently, and had placed dozens of new fixed pins. At the time, the Zodiac had "gone clean" and most parties rarely used a hammer. The Hubers placed their fixed pins as pro, right next to perfectly good cracks and pockets. They wanted to leave those placements open for their free-climbing fingers. The Hubers ticked their FFA. And then another team had to go up and remove the offensive pitons that made their historic ascent possible.
Free climbing is not always the saintly pleasure it's made out to be.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!