"Artificial Difficulty"

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 61 - 72 of total 72 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

TwistedCrank

climber

Ideeho-dee-do-dah-day

Sep 19, 2009 - 12:27am PT

WoS belongs in a museum.

Or a side show.

Captain...or Skully

Social climber

Idaho, also. Sorta, kinda mostly, Yeah.

Sep 19, 2009 - 12:32am PT

I use this on the poli-threads, too.
Hi, ya'll. Is someone gonna pack the fricken' bag?

Mimi

climber

Sep 19, 2009 - 12:34am PT

Bad style and ethics. End of story. A matter of principle. Some of us don't find this important. Hence the move along attitude.

A matter of honest disclosure at the minimum is important. Disgusting egotism and a 'manifest destiny' approach to climbing IMO. A bad-for-the-game attitude IMO. An unsustainable approach. These guys attempt to liken their experience to the pioneers. I say bullshit! They dream that they qualify! Even Harding tried a few things around the Valley before biting off El Cap.

I guess Mark Smith is the only one with enough integrity to provide a hole count which will provide a true indication of the 'artificial difficulty' imposed by WOS. Richard studiously avoids answering any questions that might make him look bad or otherwise seem to diminish his position. Or otherwise conflate it with something credible.

Chief, do you believe being honest about what you do on an FA is important?

Captain...or Skully

Social climber

Idaho, also. Sorta, kinda mostly, Yeah.

Sep 19, 2009 - 12:42am PT

Well, It is a big fricken slab that nobody climbs on much,anyway.

a big, untraveled TARGET.

Have at it, I'm out. Do as you will.
That's what we DO.
As we will.

jstan

climber

Sep 19, 2009 - 01:21am PT

Forty or fifty years ago how things were done received a lot of attention. Since that time so many different ways of doing things have come about and become accepted the Chief (and I, for one) don't care. With one proviso I say go do whatever floats your boat.

But there are so many people now you really can't go changing a shared resource. At this time we have a lot of modification going on. But unlike fifty years ago something like the method of climbing is not the issue. The chance for the rock to remain available to others in the condition we found it is now the issue. It is down to the rock itself.

Oh we can toss this off as just another interference that will disappear eventually as have others. In Teddy Roosevelt's time people wanted to do all kinds of things with the Sierras. Now we want to do all kinds of things with the rock.

Same difference.

People probably will know they have finally come to grips with this choice only
when they leave the drill in the car.

That's probably the watershed moment.

Matt

Trad climber

primordial soup

Sep 19, 2009 - 01:26am PT

bolterguy-
kinda wish you could see you through my eyes.
wrt your last post there- yes, others post about "artificial difficulty", but no, they are not the guy that put up WoS, so when they talk/ask about that, it's not going to make everyone think of your route. you on the other hand did pot WoS up, so if and when you post about that same subject, well...

you are either going to learn that is true, or you are going to continue to be surprised by it. makes no diff to me either way.

as for the humor in my suggestions, yes- they were funny, and yes- that was my intention. thanks for catching on (to at least that part).

jstan

climber

Sep 19, 2009 - 06:37am PT

Woke up early.

Chief:
If I posted a picture of a strip mine and said,"Yes it does matter." then we would have a competition between hyperboles going. In my post upstream I tried to deal with that by saying we need simply to get "better." By that I meant our overall impact on the rock needs to become less than it is at present.

I'll give you that it matters that you get up whatever you are climbing,

if you will give me that it matters that others get to enjoy the same rock you faced when you came to that climb,

If that is not fair can you tell us how it is not fair?

If we agree this is fair, the worst is over and we all can begin to puzzle out how best to achieve both.

In another post above I wondered if the turning point might come when we begin to leave the drill in the car. In the early 70's it was a real moment when we began leaving the hammer in the car. The action signalled our intention. It was not clear leaving the hammer behind was always a good thing. Who knows you might suddenly need it very badly. Turns out everyone was very capable and we never did really need hammers again.

So the question in this new situation may be this. Chief, in your opinion is it essential for reasons of safety or for success that you always have access to a drill?

It is really interesting what goes through the mind when facing a big question, such as that of leaving behind something one has never been without. Were I taking the big one, with a hammer I would at least be able to leave a mark showing I had passed that way. Perhaps that thought traces back to the days when we had left the trees and had begun wandering the savannah. While assuredly an odd thought there is no way it was random and meant nothing.

There is also no way our search for a way to live with the rock today means nothing.

hooblie

climber

Sep 19, 2009 - 10:26am PT

overnight, leaves settle in pot. jstan pours a lucid brew

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Walla Walla, WA

Topic Author's Reply - Sep 20, 2009 - 09:26pm PT

Matt, so let me get this straight. You are telling me that even when I explicitly state that I want to talk about general ethical issues (which is my professional training, btw), I am being somehow disingenuous? There are certain subjects that I am unable to talk about because of WoS, even when there is a whole raft of other material out there, not WoS related, to which I might respond? So, I'm somehow lying or not being honest (even with myself) to post on "certain subjects?" Thus, to be "honest," certain topics are just off limits to me???

Well, all I can say is: BS.

I'll post what I want, about such subjects that I have time and interest to post. And I'll call BS whenever you or anybody tries to turn it into whatever YOU imagine it to be by psych-babbling about me.

Back on topic....

Still hoping to get to Paulina's response tonight. But, perhaps I can clarify things and cut through the "ownership" and "impact" discussions by getting to the rivet vs. bolt controversy that is really in the back of my mind.

There have been numerous discussions about whether a drilled hole should have a bolt or a rivet in it. I'm calling the "impact" the same (if anything, a rivet has less "impact"), and I take the "ownership" issue to be irrelevant in this case (assume that the FA team has the "right" to do the route and that it is "legitimate" for them to drill x number of holes). The question in this context is: why is a rivet "artificial difficulty?" Keep in mind the Bird's idea on P.O. Wall to use rivets "to keep the commitment level high."

The tension is between the idea of "keeping the commitment level high" and the idea of "artificial difficulty." What I'm wondering is what is wrong with the Bird's idea. What makes a rivet (or bat hook, or enhanced hook, etc.) "artificial difficulty" in some negative way?