Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 03:01pm PT
|
Werner, "Still carrying her? She's a pretty damn heavy one." Who is still carrying her? Maybe she seems heavy to you, but to me she's light as a feather and delightful; I love the touch of her, and I would never, ever put her down. I for one am having FUN, even though this matters to me (and obviously matters to many others--I didn't start this thread)!
Still waiting....
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 03:06pm PT
|
re:"When SOME people beat the rock into submission (reread Peter's posts on the subject!), that's just fine, but when OTHERS do far less, then that's fodder for hundreds of posts and vilification"
NO
if you want anyone to follow this argument you are trying to make, YOU supply these quotes you are reffering to, or link to them. otherwise, you are just masturbating alone.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 03:06pm PT
|
Fet, you had lots of things to say that resonate with all of us. Of course, as you know, what you had to say isn't usable to draw LINES of the sort this thread was supposedly seeking. But, perhaps our vague sympathies with what you've expressed is exactly where we SHOULD leave the matter. Of course, it's difficult to make WoS a BAD route with only such vague sympathies, so I predict some argue on, and I'll respond. But I'm with you!
|
|
Roger Breedlove
Trad climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 03:12pm PT
|
I wrote this way upstream. I see that lots of other posts have intervened that I have not yet read, and I know that this may not seem to fit. I'm going to post it anyway.
Hey Richard, I may not be following all of the trains of thought here—there are a lot bouncing around, but it seems to me that you are mixing two different facets of the issues with WoS and a statement of ethics from John in an unhelpful way
If I have this right, most of the complaints towards WoS are based on the assumption or assertion that you and Mark manufactured the route in three distinct ways:
1. You enhanced hook placements
2. You used poor rivets to maintain ‘commitment’
3 You used too many bolts for the amount of climbing.
You have consistently said that you barely did any thing to enhance the hook placements and that you did on some occasions make placements to maintain ‘commitment’ (I think) and that your hole count is accurate with regard to the rivets and bolts. Ammon’s and Pete’s comments seem to support your contentions.
At least with regard to enhancing hook placements, I don't think that you can speak of an ethical issue raised by John about not enhancing features if you didn't do it. I don’t know if John accepts your account of your enhancements, but if there is no evidence of enhancement and no risk of ‘bogus’ placements failing with use (resulting in subsequent ascents having to redo the enhancements) then John’s comments don’t apply to WoS. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that it would be a silly argument with regard to climbing ethics since it is getting close to saying that the outcome doesn’t matter only the brand of tool that you use.
Your strawman—it would have been okay to pound away on the rock with only a hammer as long as you don’t use a second tool—says that you either you aren’t understanding the arguments on why the distinctions John and his cohorts made or you are just in a pissy mood.
In your last point you state..”I deny that there is any clear or even sensible line here. I assert instead that the term "ethics" has been bandied about ignorantly and uselessly, and I await hearing the genuinely ethical theory that can explain why anything we do to a rock matters…”
I certainly don’t agree with that. I get the sense that lots of folks have worked hard to understand what you and Mark did and why. It seems that John also tried to make a clear statement of his line of thinking and why. The lack of sensibility that you fail to see seems to be more the result of a tortured point-of-view that you have exerted onto the bare facts and onto the attempts to hang sensible words on the ethical issues that all first ascentionist face—at least on hard routes.
I am also at a lose as to why you seem to be taking the term ‘ethics’ off the table as a general descriptor of the rules and rational that is used by first ascentionist. Are you saying that these issues are not deserving of the name? There is a long history in Yosemite to referring to these issues as ‘ethics’--at least back into the 60s. And, lots of accomplished climbers have worried the issue that what we do on the rock does matter.
Roger
|
|
deuce4
Big Wall climber
the Southwest
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 16, 2006 - 03:19pm PT
|
Madbolter-
Of course, you are under no obligation to do so, but since this topic keeps getting revived, I was hoping you and Mark could offer us a compilation of the route's statistics all in one place, so in the future, nothing is deemed 'out of context'.
Since the climb of the slab was quite unique for El Cap, it would be interesting to know for posterity the details of the slab part of your climb (and for potential future El Cap slab climbing ascentionists). In order to do so, it would be noteworthy to know:
On the nine slab pitches, how many drilled holes total, with the count broken down for a) belay anchors, and for b)aid placements?
Besides the 151 hook placements (were these all on the nine slab pitches?), roughly how many other gear placements were used for aid on the slab portion of the route? Also, how many feet, if any, of free climbing was done on the slab? And, of course, the final count of enhanced aid placements.
I'm also curious to know the estimated total climbing distance on the nine slab pitches, verses the actual vertical height of the slab (i.e. how much rope was left after each pitch?).
An original topo would be nice to see, and whatever details (similar to above) of remaining four pitches of the route (I'm assuming the final four pitches were more traditional pitches in terms of new climbing on big walls, following cracks and the more obvious natural features).
As you mention, "after all these years" I am still misinformed about your climb, but to be frank, until recently, I had never given the route much thought. Now I'm curious, from a big waller's perspective, of the definitive details.
cheers
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 03:19pm PT
|
Well, Matt, "masturbating alone" seems pretty redundant to me, and clearly on this thread I'm NOT alone, but I'll rise to your challenge anyway and supply a few passages from Peter earlier.
Peter says, "I think that there is lots of grey, and infinite shades of grey, black and brown depending on where you swing your hammer." I quote this first because I want it CLEAR that I'M not holding ZM to some artificial "ethical" standard, and I'M not the one attempting to say that a "modified" route is BAD! MY views are consistent with BOTH ZM and WoS being valid routes!
However, the "swinging of the hammer" IS the point of what Peter goes on to say:
"[Bridwell] admonished me, 'Don't go pussyfooting around up there, beat that sh#t with your hammer! swing it hard!' 2nd go, I pound the loose stone like Thor, sending a black barrage of detached diorite to the talus...."
"Can't get a freehang twisting hook to quite stay on the gentle slope, I whack the hammer a few times, now there is a powdery little spot and my hook stays."
"Sometimes the drill, aimed straight down, made a sloper hook work on an obvious big feature that would have felt wierd to dowel around. The limits are subjective...."
"If you are good, you know when artistry turns to a travesty and you take the other path."
You challenge me to supply the quotes to justify my "beat the rock into submission" line, and I think to any reasonable person I have just done so. We did FAR, FAR less than this, and WoS has been called a route "beaten into submission." BRIDWELL said, "Beat that sh#t with your hammer! swing it hard!" And many pounds of rock go to the talus. If WoS was "beaten into submission, then so was ZM!"
Again, I say that if we would have employed such tactics on WoS, the results would have been obvious (rather than invisible, as our FEW mods are). Contrast "beat that sh#t" with our oh-so-gentle tap with the tip of a drill to remove a single crystal, and you can MAYBE get my point.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 03:47pm PT
|
that's just great richard, but you clearly miss my point and supply these snippets out of context, expecting that anyone interested in the context is willing to seek it out, in order to follow along.
EDIT-
i'll do your work for you, here is the whole post that you selectively quoted. for the record, it seems that in the context of peter's post, those quotes are not what you paint them as- for examplt the "thor" bit was wrt rotten loose rock, is that "context" unimportant to you?
"Thanks John for adding a rational new begining out of the emotional chaos on those 'other threads'.
I liked your description of Walts ethical stance. However, I think that there is lots of grey, and infinite shades of grey, black and brown depending on where you swing your hammer. I liked that one photo of the little hook on the flawless white rock, laughing at my memories of some hooking on black and brown dried mud on the other side.
My second aid wall was our first try on Zenyatta Mondatta. (the first 6 pitches had been done years before). Bridwell showed me how to place a copperhead at the base then sent me up there on the first pitch, days later I got the first new lead, the lightening bolt roof. I was 2/3s up the first black corner when I ripped about 40 ft. (first and last fall on new ground) I had been trying to copperhead and nut through some hideous loose chunks stuck in the corner. When eye to eye with Jim, dangling there after the fall, he admonished me, "Don't go pussyfooting around up there, beat that sh#t with your hammer! swing it hard!" 2nd go, I pound the loose stone like Thor, sending a black barrage of detached diorite to the talus, behind the choss is some interesting terrain, cam placement, good copperhead, then a really strenuous roof. One tier in the roof has a shelf crying out for a hook. Can't get a freehang twisting hook to quite stay on the gentle slope, I whack the hammer a few times, now there is a powdery little spot and my hook stays, next move is the most strenous machine head rivet I have ever placed, over the lip on the crystal flawless black wall. Did I agonize over the hammer taps that made a rare mid roof hook move possible?,
f*ck no! It was cool, and people still like that pitch.
I watched Java punch holes in the outside of strudel like layers of brown junk on the crux pitch of what a later party finished into Wyoming Sheep Ranch. He hooked on the 3" holes his hammer punched through when he was trying to drill a rivet.
Sometimes the chisel would be good to scrape away the grey soft stuff and lichen in the corner so you could get your copper to stick. Sometimes the drill, aimed straight down, made a sloper hook work on an obvious big feature that would have felt wierd to dowel around. The limits are subjective, I too have declined to do a chop job on a flawless gold corner on the headwall of Aurora, the most obvious feature on the upper half of that whole headwall was what we were aiming for, and chose to hook and drill right to join the Trip. If you are good, you know when artistry turns to a travesty and you take the other path.
Its all grey and it all comes down to taste and results. And the ethical consideration of those who will follow was always paramount in our minds. We did not beat our chests about how hard that stuff was, though we found it so, but how cool the climbing was, with killer aid moves on beautiful, swirly, consistantly overhanging stone. Though we made a couple of pitches slightly long for 1981, we set out to craft a classic that others would enjoy for years, and by all measures with ZM and Aurora we pulled that off. I have never had anyone come up to me and state that so and so section was a chisel job or a pegboard, and yet we clearly did not have any black and white limitations on what we did with our hammers. You were supposed to make the best possible move in every instance, be bold, and not waste time.
Maybe the later 80's saw JM, Walt, et al. responding with a purer stance in reaction to our more pragmatic style of reporting. Certainly standards should advance and all, but I think all the best nailers, did it more or less the same, after a few ascents every route seems A3+ or as I prefer, Not Too Bad, anyway. Even though I was a teenager then, like Bridwell in mid-life, I was dealing with starting a family etc. We did not take it all so seriously as you new turks, but we had a great time aid climbing!
Perhaps this is the right moment for a classic Birdism, in the middle of the Kauk/Chapman/Bacher rap bolt wars, Jim said "On your dying day, do you think it will matter what you did on this rock or that?, no, all that really matters is how many people you helped along the way."
|
|
Maysho
climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 03:52pm PT
|
Yikes!
Richard, I feel that the major point is being missed. You keep harping on the fine scale of rock alteration when the issue that caused you so much grief was large scale, ie. choice of line, and total holes to force that line. ZM and WOS do not compare by virtue of geology, one is a steep line through big sections of loose black rock, the other a glacier scrubbed slab (albeit steep) of some of the finest grain solid granite anywhere. And the counts of rivets and bolts are pretty far apart.
I gave as an example the worst section of ZM in terms of deadly dangling chunks that needed to be removed. (I never claimed we only used a hammer and never a drill or chisel either). Regarding WOS, no one back then really knew what you had done up there, at the time it did not matter, since the impression was that the "line was forced" by virtue of its seeming blankness. Since, as stated above no one was that interested in trying your line for aesthetic reasons, no one knew or seemed to care what the actual climbing consisted of.
ZM became an instant classic and is still sought after by aid climbers from all over the world. No one came down and complained about any alterations, because there were few, and made sense in the overall quality of the climbing. A couple of years later John M. and crew were looking to take the lead in establishing the next generation of aid climbs and their ethical stance about alteration made total sense in the context of fewer "natural" lines remaining. The game had to be refined or less experienced climbers would take some of the tactics we judiciously applied and really ruin a route with heavy handedness.
You might not want to go into the "aesthetics" issue, but I think that is the main point and the traditional point (see references to RR above).
How about this for an idea. Did the widely publicized condemnation in 1982 provide a note of caution for other would be first ascentionists? Perhaps your "crucifixtion" made everyone else think hard before embarking on a new project. Maybe what was a terrible experience for you was a good thing for big wall climbing in general.
Peter
ps. what is RoF?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 05:17pm PT
|
Peter, you make many points, and many of them have been made before. So I'm not sure what will be the most effective way to respond. Perhaps I should just address your points about ZM first.
Matt suggests (and your post seems to make room for) the idea that "beating that sh#t" was an isolated incident. I have two comments.
First, you now call the rock you removed "deadly dangling chunks that needed to be removed." Perhaps I'm mincing fine points now, but I have sizable experience with "deadly dangling chunks" (as anybody who knows my background will enthusiastically attest), and I know this: stuff that's really "deadly" doesn't take "beating that sh#t" to remove it. If you were beating away like Bridwell told you to, then I submit (again, with LOTS of loose-rock experience) that such "chunks" could have taken some other placements. It's a happy convenience that your "removal" revealed some very nice-gear placements. But, seriously, who knows what I could have done with your "deadly dangling chunks;" perhaps you beat the difficulty level down, and thereby ruined that route for ME! And before any of you are TOO dismissive of my audacity to suggest this, keep in mind that I cut my teeth on the loosest, most "absurdly dangerous" (according to Yaniro), overhanging, dynamite-blasted wall imaginable. None of you are in a position to know what I am capable of with loose, hanging chunks. There are others on these threads, however, that can weigh in about this very point: I KNOW loose! So, don't beg the question against me here. It is a legitimate concern (since it seems to be so when leveled against WoS) that perhaps the "modification" on ZM actually dumbed-down the route compared to what I could have put up. (Actually, I am NOT concerned about this, although I do think I can use chunks that others would not; I make this point just for the point.)
Second, I talked to Bridwell personally within a couple of years of the ZM and WoS events. I ran into him at J-tree, and we got to talking. He stated to me that he felt people were completely missing the point (as your quote from him earlier suggests) about WoS and that there were "lots" of "modifications" (not just drilling) on ZM. While, in virtue of the Bird's reputation, everybody would be inclined to grant that the ZM modifications were "judiciously applied," WHAT counts as a "judiciously application" just IS the issue at hand. You say you "judiciously" cleaned off "deadly dangling chunks," while I can reply, "Dude! You just 'beat the sh#t' out of perfectly good rock!" It's all a matter of perspective, isn't it? I say again, if you had to try THAT hard to remove that stuff, then I am confident that it wasn't "deadly dangling chunks" from MY perspective! (Don't mean to piss you off or trammel your--justly deserved--pride, Peter. My point IS that people just don't know what others are capable of, so don't make ignorant presumptions about me either.)
Now you suggest that I "miss the point," and then you try to turn this into an aesthetic discussion. But that has NOT been the point of this thread from its very first post. (Maybe we should start a thread ABOUT aesthetics.) John started this thread TO address what counted as "legitimate" modifications, and that has been the driving question behind all the "ethical" discussions so far. If there has been this or that mention of aesthetics, I have seen that as an aside rather than THE point.
(It DOES seem, though, that as people fail to answer my ethical questions, they turn instead to the same old arguments about why WoS is bad, bad, bad; all without ever dredging up anything ETHICAL to discuss about it. So, perhaps aesthetics WILL be the magic bullet that will once and for all make it CRYSTAL clear to everybody WHY the Valley boys did what they did and WHY WoS really is the POS they insist that it is.)
However, since you now think that aesthetics is THE point, I will turn my attention that way for a moment.
Here you seem to suffer from some misinformation: "as stated above no one was that interested in trying your line for aesthetic reasons, no one knew or seemed to care what the actual climbing consisted of." Hmmm, several points here. In point of FACT, many people have been "interested in trying [the] line," both before and after WoS was put up. I'm not sure who the "no one" is to which you refer, since SA attempts began almost immediately after the route was finished BECAUSE the locals felt they had something to prove. Mike Corbett (later echoed by Bill Russell) assured me: "My grandmother could do that route," to which I replied, "Then I guess your grandmother could chop it legitimately." MANY people tried. I know for a fact that Bill Russell's grandmother must be a MUCH better climber than he is, because at least HE couldn't even do the first pitch, and he assured me that SHE could get up the route! Of course, who knows what condition she is in now--I shouldn't expect a vindication ascent from her, I guess.
Regarding the reason why more people have not tried (how many would be enough to threaten your perspective???), you beg the question to assert that the aesthetics of the line are the reason. And, even if that were the case, the aesthetics of the route have no bearing on its validity, nor do such considerations justify decades of slander about the route (slander that has been about entirely different points), as you seem to suggest. The fact that "no one knew or seemed to care what the actual climbing consisted of" IS the point we have decried for decades. If you don't CARE, then you aren't behind a multi-decade campaign of lies! But if you DO care enough to maintain an ongoing slander campaign, then you OUGHT to care enough to walk up to the base of the thing and SEE that it is not what it was claimed to be. Certainly the many who tried and failed on SA attempts knew that what was said about the route was lies: there is no bolt/rivet ladder there.
But, aesthetics aside, YOU seem to get back to THE point when you again reference the drilling ratio. You assert that ZM was an "instant classic and is still sought after by aid climbers from all over the world." Hmmm, by that standard, WoS is also an "instant classic." It, too, has been tried by climbers from all over the world (I happen to know first-hand of an Austrian team who came over to give it a shot and decided upon LOOKING at it that they would be better off not trying it.) But you move on from the "instant classic" point to THE point yet again: "No one came down and complained about any alterations, because there were few, and made sense in the overall quality of the climbing." Hmmm, the fact is that NOBODY has come down from WoS and "complained about any alterations," because ours were even fewer and INVISIBLE!
THE point you and others seem unwilling to acknowledge is that if WE had done on WoS what YOU did on ZM, we would have gotten even more castigated for it than we already were. WE are the ones who in hyper-honesty admitted to our few TAPS, and we certainly were NOT "beating that sh#t" at ANY point.
You make much of perception, but there was NO perception at that time of any modifications we were doing. You even admit that nobody really knew (nor took the time or mental energy to find out) what we were doing. Far better to take the "simple" view: Ugh... big, blank slab... ugh.... unknowns!... ugh... ugh... ATTACK!
I have no problem, in the face of this juvenile behavior, to say that the climbing community has benefited from the whole debacle. But I think the benefit has not largely been as you suggest. Even John himself earlier admitted that the 80's were "special" and that things went to hell in a handbasket in the 90's and beyond (there are many examples). So, apparently, people weren't getting the message: "Do new routes exactly the way WE tell you to, or you WILL pay the price." No, I think the message the climbing community at large has been getting instead, and will continue to get as this whole thing becomes more and more revealed, is that the Valley boys of that time OVER-reacted in an utterly idiodic and unprincipled way: "Dogs pissing on trees" (Harding).
Some have tried to float that response as something noble and lofty, as you suggest here: "The game had to be refined or less experienced climbers would take some of the tactics we judiciously applied and really ruin a route with heavy handedness." On the face of it, as we have been discussing above, this SEEMS like a good thing. But it presupposes a lot of baggage that people don't want to come clean about, like issues of OWNERSHIP and RIGHTS; and I await hearing the "ethical" lines that are supposed to give a person or group the right or responsibility to judge another route and justify human rights violations like what happened to us. Again, I'm not whining, but the ENFORCEMENT policies of these supposed "ethics" seem WAY more important to me (and should to all of us) than the stylistic issues that people have made so much of in this thread. On that note, people should pause and take a good dose of Bridwell's quote (as delivered by you): "On your dying day, do you think it will matter what you did on this rock or that?, no, all that really matters is how many people you helped along the way."
Did we get any "help" along the way??? Ask yourselves that question, seriously. Did we get any help?
I'm happy to discuss the aesthetics of WoS compared to other "classic" lines and compared to other slabs (because, surely, slab climbing--even with its higher dependency upon drilled placements--is valid and aesthetic), but nothing about THAT discussion can be elevated to the level of ETHICS; and none of that discussion can account for the intentional ignorance (even in that historical context) of a few rabid people.
Compared to ZM, it's actually amazing and a testimony to our restraint that WoS has as few holes as it does. We did about 1800 feet of new climbing, about 1300 feet of it on a "blank" slab. Given that ZM ascends almost entirely crack systems, AND it is 16 (rather than the claimed 18) pitches, AND its total climbing is at most 2000 feet, I think our drilling ratio is looking pretty good by comparison. But, that's a purely subjective, aesthetic call, isn't it? WHO gets to ENFORCE such calls, and on what basis? THAT is an actual ETHICAL question... finally.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
Trad climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 05:18pm PT
|
I don't agree,, ,Richard, that ethical arguments are as bankrupt as you say. For sure they are tiresome, and until you have a drill in hand or are why strung out and deciding if you should go down or continue, they don’t make a bunch of sense. Climbing ethics are all about competing issues--I tried to name them--that demand absolute trade offs--there is no single solution that resolves all of them on hard aid. That doesn’t mean that there are not better answers than others.
You seem to be arguing that because the stated differences between ZM and WoS are hard to articulate then the distinctions don’t matter. There are two big problems with this: One, it becomes an argument about the words that one chooses and the number of tradeoffs one keeps in the argument rather than the problem itself. Secondly, it may be the case that differences in the ZM wall and WoS are not worth arguing about, but this doesn’t support an argument that climbing ethics are meaningless.
The first problem with ethics arguments in climbing is that it is all based on rules that we set for ourselves. There is nothing beneath them other than what we decide. So an attempt to define the metaethics in a pure sense without reference to the normative and applied ethics is nonsensical in rock climbing--you can always walk up the back, forcryingoutloud. None of us would ever argue the ethics of walking up the back versus climbing up the front—that’s not an ethical distinction.
This is also the reason that the local community is so important in formulating what the rules are—even if they act badly. If this problem of defining the metaethics blocks a discussion on what is okay to do on first ascents, then change the spelling or give it a new name. (There is also a useful distinction to be made between ethics in climbing and style—style can reasonably be restricted to what you do on your lead that has no lasting effect on the climb. I might also add there are elements of ethics that apply to way climbers treat each other—from belaying carefully to truthful beta.)
The second problem is that these trades offs are real. In Peter's hammer swinging, he was knocking off loose rock to find something solid underneath. (I think that there are also statements of other enhancements for placements to avoid rivets or bolts, but the hanging in space pep talk with Jim was about loose stuff.) I have done the same on free routes, sometimes to reveal a nice crack or good edges, and sometimes to create a really 'stuck-on-dumb-why-did-we-ever-come-up-here-let's-not-tell-anyone-piece-of-crap' Knocking loose stuff off is really different from the points John made about not enhancing placements (John even said that he couldn’t pull the block off because it would hit Walt.) and the points that made about only squaring up the edges you were hooking. A logical heuristic to follow in the one case—remove loose crap--gives nothing useful in the other—if you have to use a drill, fill it with a bolt or bolt.)
A third issue is pin scaring and hole maintenance as permanent damage to the rock. As a free climber 35 years ago, I worked through these issues and concluded with my cohorts that nuts, slings and bolts were all that we should use. We made a decision that bolt holes were less damaging to the rock (leave no trace behind is a poetic construction that means minimize your impact) than pin placements, and we learned to run out our leads to account the greater freedom in placing protection when ever we got scared. (We still pulled loose stuff off.) Lately we have caught some flak, collectively, for not putting in bolts more frequently. Aid climbers have a different set of criteria and reach different conclusions. El Cap climbers do not take this step until the route is hammered out and will accept clean gear. There is no way that I know of to reconcile these two starting points. It is a choice that each climber makes. Some happily follow one set of rules on El Cap and another in the Meadows.
I also don't agree with the idea of the quality of the line is not part of the argument becuase historically that is has been part of the argument. Changes in defining what is acceptable have always included this attribute. If it is hard to get your head around a heuristic based on the line, welcome to the club. But, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I think someone posted remarks about the 'Prow' and the trade off of the number of bolts versus the quality of the line. I remember the very well written account in Ascent by Glen Denny and that is what he talked about—the fine line and the thin nailing (including bolts). That's part of the deal in Yosemite climbing.
All of these elements are of part of the equation, but it is one equation with several unknowns—resulting in lots of potential solutions. Mentally I think of it as a spider diagram with each of the attributes on a vector moving away form the center. It is the combination that matters, but clearly the assessment of every attribute is conditional. (Royal stopped chopping on the WEML—because it wasn't a bolt/rivet ladder as he had assumed.) The spider diagram is useful also in the sense that once a certain standard is met along one attribute, then that new high point sets the stage for what is expected the next time it gets tested.
It sounds like by John's time, there was a calculation that manufacturing difficulty by avoiding holes at all costs was no longer sensible. Partly because the routes wiht enhanced features cannot sustain multiple ascents without being redone and partly because there is no breakpoint once you start down that slope to distinguish between ego-driven manufactured difficulties versus hard climbing up a natural line. This sounds like a pretty logically constructed point of view, one that leads to a cleaner set of rules that one can follow as the lines become more tenuous. This is a pretty clear example of the Yosemite ethic debates working in a consistent way through time.
(Just a note to everyone. None of this is a judgment of the ethical merits of ZM versus WoS. It is diatribe on keeping the lines of the argument straight.)
Time to sign off in these parts. Best, Roger
Good progress on the word count per post.
|
|
Bilbo
Trad climber
Truckee
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 05:23pm PT
|
Lets see the topo!!
|
|
MSmith
Big Wall climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 05:47pm PT
|
Deuce: ”I was hoping you and Mark could offer us a compilation of the route's statistics all in one place.”
A reasonable request, although not something I can do today, however. Also, those facts might be better placed in the WoS XXVI thread. A few answers to your questions which I can recall without finding a topo. I think we only used 1 hook placement above the Slab. There were a number of heading seams (esp. pitches 2 and 8) and perhaps 70 -100 feet of free climbing over the 9 Slab pitches (will need a topo to be more specific). Pitch 10 is a couple of parallel-walled cracks connected by 5 rivets. Pitches 11 and 12 offer some great heading in continuous, natural, overhung seams. We calculated pitch lengths by the amount or lead rope left.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
Trad climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 05:47pm PT
|
Richard I just read your post in response to Peter. I don't think this thread is worth continuing.
It is a problem that no one has repeated your route, so comparisons are difficult for everyone. For a few days now, there has been a sense that the original gripe about WoS was based on faulty information, but you seem not to have noticed since you keep arguing what Peter and Jim did on ZM versus what you did not do on WoS.
Since you appear to have made some progress in getting folks back to a factual basis, this is sort of fruitless, in my opinion. I think WoS should be evaluated on its own merits. John’s last couple of posts seem to solidly on that ground.
There is also a bigger problem for me in your last comments in several posts that you don't believe that there is any ethical issue to work through because there is no metaethic and there is no one to decide. There is no ethical problem because you don’t accept that this is about ethics and we are not here to discuss anything else. That is sort of like saying "we can discuss any issues you want but I get to pick the issues and the terms of debate."
Your argument settles quickly to "do what ever you want, nobody can judge it." Is this what you mean?
Roger
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 05:51pm PT
|
Roger, YES, something meaty, finally!
You say: "You seem to be arguing that because the stated differences between ZM and WoS are hard to articulate then the distinctions don’t matter. There are two big problems with this: One, it becomes an argument about the words that one chooses and the number of tradeoffs one keeps in the argument rather than the problem itself. Secondly, it may be the case that differences in the ZM wall and WoS are not worth arguing about, but this doesn’t support an argument that climbing ethics are meaningless."
No, I'm saying that the fact that the differences between ZM and WoS are hard to articulate indicates a deeper problem with the "ethics" of climbing than people on this thread have been willing to own up to. You seem to recognize this point in your second point. FIRST we've got to acknowledge that the common comparisons, such as between ZM and WoS are indeed "distinctions without a difference." Only THEN can we start to get clear about what really matters in climbing ethics. I maintain that as argued so far, climbing ethics (falsly so called) have been vacuous. But that does not suggest that I think that climbing ethics are meaningless--I myself have risked my life for my climbing ethics.
You then say, "The first problem with ethics arguments in climbing is that it is all based on rules that we set for ourselves. There is nothing beneath them other than what we decide. So an attempt to define the metaethics without in a pure sense without reference to the normative and applied ethics is nonsensical in rock climbing--you can always walk up the back, forcryingoutloud and none of us would ever argue the ethics of walking up the back versus climbing up the front—that’s not an ethical distinction."
THAT is what I've been driving at: the "rules" are simply ones we have set for ourselves. Climbing "ethics" are entirely subjective (unlike what most philosophers take ETHICS to really be about). This is why I keep putting "ethics" in scare quotes. While many on this thread have acted as though there is some firm, even hard-line underlying principle(s) that the rules derive from (and THIS has been used to tacitly justify enforcement), my ongoing pressure has been to make it clear that things are WORSE than just that there are "grey areas." In fact, it's ALL grey in the sense that it is ALL entirely subjective. "Climbing ethics" rely on an ethical theory like cultural relativism or even egoism. Such are entirely debunked "theories of ethics," yet, climbers subscribe to such theories to TRY to give some moral weight to what is nothing more than "rules to a game," so to speak.
Now, where things go astray in climbing is when people fail to recognize that they are just playing a game. They see people playing by different rules (as the perceive them, perhaps in error), and they respond like THEIR rules are THE rules that define the game! John doesn't put hammer to drill (or chisel) in HIS modifications! Wow! That's cool, and all, but it's NOT ethics! It's just how JOHN chooses to play the GAME. Peter puts hammer to chunks of rock that I might have been able to find placements in. Cool! That's how HE'S playing the game. Mark and I tapped a tiny crystal off of a FEW tiny flakes rather than to drill straight-in holes. Cool! That's how WE were playing the game. Distinctions at this level really are "distinctions without a difference," and at this level of discussion, we are NOT talking about ethics.
If you want to talk about ETHICS, then let's talk about the cultural relativism or egoism that underlies "climbing ethics" as they have been suggested so far. THAT would be an ethical discussion. The rest of this is just playing (marginally) different games. No more, and no less.
You make much of the distinction between hiking up the back side and climbing, and I think that's entirely right; but NOT as a question of ethics. There ARE "ethics" to hiking (thought of as rules to the game) in exactly the same way there are to climbing. True, it's a different game, but both are games nevertheless.
Once we recognize that these "rules to the game" are ENTIRELY subjective, and we acknowledge the moral bankruptcy of theories like cultural relativism and egoism, then it becomes clear that no one set of rules is "more pure" than another set, and people holding one set are not at liberty to set themselves up as the gatekeepers to keep others "in line."
Peter has expressed the great concern that has EVER been at the heart of WOEML and WoS: People HAVE to be kept in line so that newcomers don't adopt heavy-handed tactics and ruin things for the rest of us! I WELL understand the intuitive appeal to this refrain, but historically is just doesn't hold water. After our "chastisement" from WoS, Mark and I went on to learn even more "heavy-handed" tactics to be employed on other routes. I was WAY more scared, for example, on Winds of Change (solo) than I ever was on WoS, and the fact that I modified to run it out even more is what contributed to that fear. I didn't expect to die on WoS, yet I worried about death at several points on WoC. So, for what matters to ME about climbing (and what distinguishes it from hiking) is the RISK I perceive, the extent to which a route gets right into my face. Sometimes, "heavy-handed" tactics can make a route "better" insofar as it accomplishes what you want in your game--AND WoC is STILL no "hike." Furthermore, MANY others have adopted heavier and heavier handed tactics since WoS, so the grand "historical" message seems to be entirely lost! The gatekeepers aren't doing their job! Maybe Walt Shipley really should have picked us off with a high-powered rifle, as he threatened to do. Maybe nothing short of THAT sort of enforcement is going to get the message across to people. CLEARLY WoS didn't get it done! What the concern instead comes across as is something like Harding said: "YOU don't play the game right! So, YOU can't climb this rock! I climb it RIGHT, so this rock is MINE, because ONLY I treat it like it should be treated." So, PEOPLE are treated like sh#t in the distorted attempt to "save the rock," which instead usually means "saving MY right to do any route I have in mind whenever I happen to get around to it, and without any threat from 'newcomers' who might just get to it first." This has never been about purity; this has always been about perceived ownership.
So, you seem to be ready for an actual ethical discussion, Roger, and I would be very open to such a thing.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 06:03pm PT
|
"Let's see the topo" (Bilbo)??? Turn to your trusty guidebook. We haven't hidden anything, and that topo is as detailed as any other in the guide (actually, more so, because Meyers wanted to be sure that nobody would miss ALL those X's, so he "notes" that "there are many rivets on this route").
When I get a free minute, I'll scan the one topo we do have, and I'll post it on my site along with the other WoS pics and stuff. But you will see that there's no real additional detail than what the guide shows. We don't have the x-for-hole topo that we submitted to SAR way back when, so something of that level of detail isn't going to be forthcoming.
Regarding the other detailed data, I'll let Mark compile that for you, John, when he gets a chance. THIS thread will not be the end of it all, and it gets tiresome to be asked the same questions over and over. Of course, I don't expect everybody to read all the threads, but another point is that this information has been publicly available in the back pages of my book for many years now. Once Mark answers your questions on this thread, we'll take that info and post it to my site, so it will be easily accessible for all.
|
|
atchafalaya
Trad climber
California
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 06:05pm PT
|
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....
|
|
Nefarius
Big Wall climber
Fresno, CA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 06:08pm PT
|
I think there's really only one way to settle all of this...
--OR--
--OR--
My vote is for the Sumo Suits, personally... Of course, there was also the human bowling game too.
Edit: I take that back. The good ole boxing would be fun to watch! Those big giant gloves.... The jousting would be a hoot too and probably full of all kinds of action. Regardless, this all has to be done in the meadow.
|
|
madbolterI
Big Wall climber
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 06:25pm PT
|
Roger,
You wrote -
"Your argument settles quickly to "do what ever you want, nobody can judge it." Is this what you mean?"
No, Roger, that is NOT what I mean.
I am not interested in the throwing our hands up in despair. SURELY you've learned by now that I'm PERSISTENT!
I do agree that it is DIFFICULT to discuss WOS without information gleaned from a second ascent. We CAN still discuss ethics, however.
I don't particularly want to rehash EVERY point that has been brought up about the route over the course of the last THOUSAND posts.
I do appreciate John's new effort to focus on the route as it IS, not as it was SAID to be by members of the Valley clan who've SLANDERED us for the last twenty-five years!
I still feel chippy in my dealings with him, and for that I apologize. In re-reading his posts, I can see that he was making what seemed to be a GENUINE effort at real OBJECTIVITY in how he looked at our route (even claiming that he was "curious as a big-waller!").
Our route is FINALLY worthy of the great Middendorf's big-wall curiosity! Hurray!
Sorry, that was the OLD animosity. I'm turning over a NEW page.
John, I'll still allow Mark to compile that data. Perhaps it CAN be of some use to other potential El Cap SLAB climbers.
By the way, I still anxiously await answers Healyje's query: Was the slab OFF LIMITS to climbing? Could SOMEONE ELSE have climbed it in SIGNIFICANTLY better style?
I think it comes down to three factors: one- I'm religious and a philosopher; two - I can be SLIGHTLY wordy and come off as MILDLY pretentious; three - I'm a little bit of a computer nerd.
That is, apparently, THE FORMULA for future EL CAP HARDMEN!
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 07:04pm PT
|
richard-
in response to both yours and H's posts-
(and as i posted at 11:42am):
"regarding repeats of WoS, isn't it one possible, entirely reasonable interpretation of the fact that no effort has been sustained on the route, and no other line has been established up the slab, to conclude that the sort of climbing (be it the style or the aesthetic value) is simply unappealing to the vast majority of modern aid climbers? (didn't ammon describe the climbing as "tedious"?)
EDIT-
the same could be said about cutting edge free-climbing slab routes, how many climbers lie in bed at night, visualising themselves sending hard slab? it doesn't mean more climbers couldn't do them, they are just into other aesthetics, for whatever reason(s).
/EDIT
so perhaps others view the route as not worth the trouble?
i am not saying that is 100% the case (how could i or anyone know?), but i think it's at least woth considering, on some level, that if the climb were viewed as appealing, there would be more interest in it. look at pete and ammon, was there interest in the line itself, or in the controversey that surrounds it? "
|
|
Russ Walling
Social climber
Out on the sand, Man.....
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 08:51pm PT
|
yeah, but is it ethical to be Madbolter1, and MadbolterI at the same time????
Who is who????????? Name change or spoof troll???????????
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!