Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2013 - 01:05pm PT
|
I dunno JL, sometimes there's no going back, and some places you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a fool.
|
|
johnkelley
climber
Anchorage Alaska
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2013 - 01:43pm PT
|
Any thoughts on the NCNP's position?
Dave Kos so your position is that all you are going to do is talk sh#t?
|
|
Don Paul
Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2013 - 01:44pm PT
|
There were a few people around before the Bachar Yearian was done that said it was impossible to lead from ground up.
There was a plan in place to rap bolt it by them.
If they had done so, it would just be another obscure face climbing route.
I remember people of my grandfather's generation talking about the Germans and Japanese. No Americans hate them anymore, why? Because almost everyone who lived through WWII has died off. That is, unfortunately the speed of social change for a lot of things. People don't change their fixed views, but new people with different experiences eventually take over, then there is no one left to complain about Krauts and Japs.
So the risk is that with rock climbing now dominated by gymnasiums and bolts, someday no one will left to defend routes like the B-Y. My most memorable and valuable memories from climbing were all scary routes. I have no idea the names of most of the sport climbs I did. They just werent that intense.
|
|
DavidRoberts
climber
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2013 - 02:01pm PT
|
Limp-wristed bellyaching, Nancy boys, shameless poser and poultroon... just a few of the words JL uses in just one post to condescend to those who he disagrees with. Let me return the favor; John, you are acting like an arrogant as#@&%e.
Not all people that climb are playing the same game. Some climb for fun. Some climb to challenge their limits and master fear. One is not better than the other, just different. What game (and yes, climbing is a contrived game) we play on the rock is an individual choice. To disrespect those that don't want to play your game shows you to be quite insecure. You have done amazing things with your climbing, but yet you feel the need to ridicule those who you see as not having "sac." That is just sad.
There is a lot of talk about "style" and not lowering a climb to your level. The second you placed a bolt, you lowered a climb to your lever and "dumbed down" the experience. That is a fact. All this talk about FAs being works of art is just so much hyperbole. You did get there first and did have the experience of going where no one had been. That is great for you. However, that in NO WAY gives you the right to demand that others do the route in the same way. Being there first does not give you the right to control a public resource. I am sorry that you think that it does, but you need to get past this. "Your climb" was an event, and being the FA does not convey any special rights just a unique experience.
Will some people respect the FAs style and try to hold themselves to that level? Yes. But that is a choice that each person makes. Many people could care less about holding themselves to a higher standard on something as inconsequential as climbing. Remember, not all people that climb are playing the same game. The arrogant and disrespectful attitude displayed by many of the "hard-core" climbers in this thread does nothing to convince the "recreational" climbers that your style should be respected. To the contrary, it is quite off putting and shows that many in this thread have much in common with the stereotypical testosterone-loaded, immature HS jock.
In the end this is about three things; respect, access and style. With regards to respect, you give none, you get none. Simple as that. With regards to access, no one owns the rock. You only own your experience. With regards to style, all but a chalkiness, barefoot freesolo is a compromise. Just because you were there first to climb a line and compromised a route to your level does not give you the right to control what others do.
David Roberts
Alpine, CA
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2013 - 02:11pm PT
|
Yeah, WTF with Stoners? I lead that pitch...didn't seem anymore sketch off the deck than P1 of Serenity in the spring when you're usually smearing in water/slime with no gear in.
|
|
johnkelley
climber
Anchorage Alaska
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2013 - 02:16pm PT
|
Kos explain the policy change then
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2013 - 02:23pm PT
|
^^^
Wait unti mid Dec, JAB. When it gets unpleasant to xc the lighted trails at the Uni and cabin fever kicks in.
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2013 - 02:25pm PT
|
Dave Kos so your position is that all you are going to do is talk sh#t?
Pretty much the position of everyone on this thread I suspect.
|
|
StahlBro
Trad climber
San Diego, CA
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2013 - 02:45pm PT
|
You didn't get there first, get over it.
The hypocrasy of saying your usage of a public resouce is better than someone that came before you is staggering, especially if it involves adding more crap than was there originally. Might as well start adding giant parking lots in TM and paved trails so people won't spill their lattes when then they are walking to the base to get their priorty pass.
The solution is simple. Go find your own route and climb it the style you prefer. Quit obsessing over what someone who values a certain climbing experience did before you got there.
I am still waiting for someone to point out the climbing area where d*ck wrenching mega-classics or mega-piles are tying up all the available rock so you can't leave your mark.
|
|
johnkelley
climber
Anchorage Alaska
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2013 - 02:51pm PT
|
Ariagatch(sp?)
|
|
patrick compton
Trad climber
van
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2013 - 02:55pm PT
|
I like the earlier FA analogy of getting a spot in the sand on the beach.
If you get there first, then never come back, subsequent beach-sitters must (including but not limited to): have the same size ass to preserve the correct size hole, wear the same amount of sunscreen (for protection, of course), wear the same style of swim trunks, and not use an umbrella (that would be cheating the sun of it's glorious rays).
Any deviation fo this norm shall result in mass hysteria, nude beaches, gay nude beaches, sharks that walk on land, and permadrawed sport climbing.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2013 - 02:59pm PT
|
It's fun to pull the chains of people insisting that we are the ones who are entitled while they are the ones wanting to change things to their own specs.
Like this daft statement: "Some acknowledge that they did not - and still do not - care about the next generations, yet demand that the future forever honors them."
Now what is totally inaccurate about this statement? It incorrectly shifts the authority of leaving a route alone, once it is established, entirely to the FA party, when in fact honoring the FA has been a century-old tradition in trad climbing. '
Attempting to insist, quite incorrectly, that the FA is being arrogant in saying how you must climb is minimizing the actual authority from a long tradition to the shoulders of a few folks (the FA team). This makes a good argument because you don't have to openly admit that you are willing to sh#t on tradition for your own personal agenda, or "for the good of all mankind." How munificent.
Another thing that gets neatly glossed over here is the idea of working up the ladder till one is ready and willing to take on the run out routes. The "I-need-it-now" school has yet to address the lack of ambition in this regards, to setting a goal and working toward it. Forget that, right? That takes work and commitment.
Or perhaps the lamest ploy of them all: These routes do not mesh with the way I (read - ME) want to approach climbing. This is not my issue, but climbing's issue. So rather than me working to change and grow, it's more better that the sport itself change to fit my yuppy poultroon sensibilities.
What kind of shameless sad sac anti-sportsperson would ever admit to this on a public forum? What are you doing here, rock climbing or gym climbing?
JL
|
|
DavidRoberts
climber
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2013 - 03:17pm PT
|
John, you sound like a religious zealot. You evoke a "tradition" that was never as pure as you claim, conveniently overlook your own hypocrisy, demand that others do things the way you think is "best," and then deride any that disagree with you and don't want to play your game. I have a lot of respect for your climbing accomplishments, but nothing but distain for your attitude.
David Roberts
Alpine, CA
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2013 - 03:36pm PT
|
Largo all that bolting of blank rock you did,
shat on 100's of years of tradition.
-
Where do you live? A cave in Montana? What tradition are you talking about that we shat on. I started putting up routes in 1973 and by that time bolt protected face climbs were a well established and well respected artform peppering Glacier Point Apron, Tahquitez and Suicide faces, and many other spots. You'd do a lot more to further your cause, whatever it is, by getting your facts in line and stop trying to correlate this business with snow tromps.
--
I'm not saying I have an issue with that, just pointing out the facts.
--
If you got those facts from teachers, they should be flogged. You'll have to do an hour in the corner with the pointy hat on for slipshot scholarshop.
The argument for the status qua (sp) based on "It is traditional" has not held up in America for a reason- the logic of "it has always be done this way" is not a stance for a logical argument.
This is deficient and shallow thinking for several reasons. If you are looking for "logic," you are in the wrong sport. Climbing itself is illogical from a survival standpoint. So any argument for climbing in the first place is illogical. Trying to knead climbing into an activity that makes "sense" to one and all will inevitably end up in dumbing down the game to simple upwards movement. And if that is you're life's goal, go back to post holing up that snowy knoll.
Excuse the hyperbole- Woman should not be allowed to vote, mixed "races" should not be allowed to marry, men and men should not be allowed to marry,
why? Because it has always been that way....
-
Woman's rights, interacial this and that, etc. are example of course corrections that are sage and humane and true for society at large. Not only are we not talking about society at large, rather a niche crowd, but you won't get far with your argument insisting that popularizing climbing into a kind of family passtime is an improvement on tradition, which has always put currency on self-reliance, honor, courage, risk management, and sportmanship. Are you suggesting that these values need to be replaced with others in the trad milieu? If so, what are they, and why?
The ladder argument. If you have a route with 10 bolts. You can climb it and clip all ten, then 9, then 8, then solo it. What is the issue?
Because this gives climbers an option, whereas the run out does not. And that's the point of it. You MUST take the route on via it's own terms. And that's what you gals are really complaining about - you simply cannot brook being told what you can and cannot do, by God, and that's got your panties in a wad.
But what still gets ducked here is the idea of working up to a route, setting a goal and making the effort to realize it. This is a viable strategy for all of life, where you cannot simply rearrange the terrain to fit your needs because "women got the vote."
You gots to think through your thoughts with a little more acuity. Thinking climbing rules need to be logical will, as mentioned, only result in a series of rules that will neuter the sport. If that's what you want, and feel is missing in the old routes, perhaps you might look into a canasta club. Or buildig those little cutter ships in bottles. That looks fun and you won't get a scratch.
JL
|
|
DavidRoberts
climber
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2013 - 04:00pm PT
|
It is sad to watch JL bob and weave around his own hypocrisy, and use his literary muscle and ego-fuled bluster to prop-up his dogma.
You did great things. Now you act like a bully. You throw insults to those that don't want to play your game and deride those who dare to question your right to dictate the style in which they climb. The more you rant, the more shrill and dictatorial you sound.
David Roberts
Alpine, CA
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2013 - 04:02pm PT
|
Largo wrote:
Now what is totally inaccurate about this statement? It incorrectly shifts the authority of leaving a route alone, once it is established, entirely to the FA party, when in fact honoring the FA has been a century-old tradition in trad climbing.
Honoring the FA has always been a tradition except in those instances when it hasn’t.
I’ll bring this up again since it seemed to have been glossed over in another post that I wrote (no problem hard to follow every post in a 1000+ thread)=>
What about those routes that have been cleaned up since the first ascent? You know, all those once piton-filled, hammer pounded routes that are now climbed clean?
There are lots of routes that don’t look at all like the FA, hell, start with the Nose, doesn’t seem to bother anyone that no one pounds nails in the Nose anymore. Does anyone still protect it like Harding?
Largo, johnkelley, et al, why aren’t you complaining about this disrespect of the FA for routes that were cleaned up, are now climbed clean and are no longer protected by pounding pitons?
On many routes the piton anchors of yesteryear were much stronger than the gear anchors of today – Largo you stated as much years ago with regard to the DNB or some other route on Middle – is that not “sacking up”? The very generation that you continue to put down has wholeheartedly adopted the clean climbing ethic, and in certain cases putting themselves at a much greater risk due to poor anchor options than the FA who used pitons without a second thought for the anchor.
I’ll ask one more time, why does the argument revolve around a small sliver of run out granitic dome climbs in California to stake the claim that the FA owns the route and the rock? Seems the community has stated otherwise with regard to cleaning up and improving upon the first ascent. Where’s the bellyaching regarding those climbs?
That written, the “least impact on the rock” argument sits well with me personally. So does respecting the FA as a guideline.
|
|
patrick compton
Trad climber
van
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2013 - 04:08pm PT
|
Rong, you were disrespecting TRADition! a whole generation that turned their backs on piton pounding... what a bunch of SACless bastards.
|
|
patrick compton
Trad climber
van
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2013 - 04:14pm PT
|
So is that why you started bolting slabs, because you ran out of cleanly protected cracks in the valley? ... it being all about saving the rock and all.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2013 - 04:18pm PT
|
No, there were still lots of cracks to climb and we climbed those too. We started climbing slabs because it was fun and there were obvious faces where no climbs were. We bolted them because there was no other protection.
We bolted them sparsely because that was the style for routes on the Glacier Point Apron and in the Meadows, and because the free routes on the Northeast Face of Middle did not have many bolts on them. Sacherer and Beck had climbed the DNB all free without adding bolts. Kamps and Higgins had climbed the Powell-Reed original aid line all free without adding bolts. Sacherer and someone else I don't remember climbed the left-hand version of the Powell-Reed all free without adding bolts.
We were comfortable leading without falling because that is way we learned to climb (falling on lead was a positive development that was a few years away). Bolts were not taboo on slab climbs but there were many examples of routes, as John mentions, that were protected with few bolts. We pretty much all followed the same style of bolting slabs, even though we were not necessarily close to everyone else. It was the style that we adopted, in our place in time. We could have adopted a less aggressive style. And later generations adopted a more aggressive style, putting up routes that I think many of the complaints on this thread refer to. With sport climbing and harder climbing for that matter, less aggressive styles were adapted.
The FA rule has been around and well understood long before we started climbing. The Snake Dike and the Dike Route were modified only with the assent of the first ascent parties and those occurred in the middle 1960s. No one to my knowledge has every added a bolt to Coonyard, even though it is very runout. Most other routes on Glacier Point Apron follow the same style.
The FA rule has always been based on some notion that the FA style could be improved upon with the free climbing or clean climbing being the most accepted examples. Adding or removing protection bolts on aid climbs or free climbs has always been resisted. The question seems always to be, has adding or removing FA bolts changed the nature of the climb?
The argument now is that routes that were put up in a runout style, a style choice made by the FA party, is now being questioned as a valid style, because it was a choice. Some say yes, some say no, some couldn't care less. In any case, the FA rule is practical, if flexible in practice.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!