Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 2, 2013 - 11:33am PT
|
Todd Eastman,
Thanks for your prior two posts; each goes some way in helping to craft the characterization of the internal ecology, or the art and essence if you will, of classic trad.
I'm going to read them through a few more times, in tandem with a re-read of my twin re-posts and give this some more thought before I kick anything else out in this regard.
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Laramie
|
|
Tarbuster,
"fools" I do current context humor as I put together the bigger picture of what I see has gone on here, the mags and my encounters.
to be called a fool?? Do you feel victim hood? A fool is one who goes a foolish path and I have stated the path to take for such a naming. To call this an ad homin attack is because you think you are on that foolish category and want a way out? Are you a sensitive new age male?? I feel for you brother but you don't win this one.
What is Trad??? It is that GROUP of people or claiming membership to these criteria, California rule followers, that in the past or present, have become disgruntled and narcissistic because others do not follow what was their religious belief of how rock can be used for fun.
Yes Tarbuster,
there are many contexts to define a word.
|
|
this just in
climber
north fork
|
|
Trad is when someone asks if you're a rock climber, you respond yeah I'm a trad climber. Trad is being superior to all other forms of climbing. Trad is ground up, everything else is just rehearsal. Trad throws up every time it sees or someone mentions the four letter word bolt. Trad is always in an ethical debate. Trad is pure. Trad is rad. Trad is ego. Trad is not a form of climbing it is climbing. Trad is adventure. Trad is two chicks at once. Trad is......etc.
At least that's what I heard once. Climb on!
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 2, 2013 - 11:51am PT
|
Dingus said:
"fools" I do current context humor as I put together the bigger picture of what I see has gone on here, the mags and my encounters.
to be called a fool?? Do you feel victim hood? A fool is one who goes a foolish path and I have stated the path to take for such a naming. To call this an ad homin attack is because you think you are on that foolish category and want a way out? Are you a sensitive new age male?? I feel for you brother but you don't win this one.
I find this wholly unintelligible. I don't know what you're saying, sorry.
As to the second half of your post, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on motive here.
The second half quoted here:
What is Trad??? It is that GROUP of people or claiming membership to these criteria, California rule followers, that in the past or present, have become disgruntled and narcissistic because others do not follow what was their religious belief of how rock can be used for fun.
I also asked you to attempt a clarification of one of your prior posts, to rephrase it because I do value your input: would you mind taking a look at that again please?
I do value your input Dingus, although I must say it most often reads merely as both defensive and reflexive.
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Laramie
|
|
Warbler,
It is the word "should" I take offense to using. Or rather, when you say "should" do you think I/we should be part of the should process?
The no trace rant "should" not concern you for you openly admit your history.
defensive?? you (sensitive) guys take me far more seriously than my few short bursts warrant. But again this my current context word play of "how do you make a historical report when all that was done was done with no trace" as some of these post have professed the style they like to do.
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 2, 2013 - 11:58am PT
|
"how do you make a historical report when all that was done was done with no trace" as some of these post have professed the style they like to do. This much I understood. You're either joking or being far too literal, probably both!
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 2, 2013 - 12:01pm PT
|
Nice find Mr. Hartouni!
|
|
this just in
climber
north fork
|
|
"how do you make a historical report when all that was done was done with no trace" Trad waits until someone claims it then trad slashes down upon thee with hidden topos and a pic of the climb. Then trad yells, "DO YOUR HOMEWORK BEFORE CLAIMING AN FA!" Trad returns to lurking, awaiting it's next victim.
In all seriousness, I love Trad climbing and what's been done before me. Traditions change and no one way is the right way, climb whichever way you feel the best.
|
|
patrick compton
Trad climber
van
|
|
Trad is two chicks at once.
If only! More like trying to pull up nudie picks on weak 3g while eating Ramen in the back of the Van.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I didn't post all of the Achey article, which is a typically long Climbing article... replete with the "checklists" of required skills, equipment, venues and routes. [sarcasm] If you used the article as a primer then you'd be Trad for sure when you completed the practical [/sarcasm]
There are a number of articles from the 1970s which set the debate and essentially end by deferring to the future the resolution. We're in the future now, so I thought it would be useful to explore those debates and see how it all turned out.
In terms of Sport v. Trad, obviously there are areas developed as sport crags, and those developed as Trad crags (or perhaps preserved) and there are areas where the two styles mix.
The use of bolts, once controversial, certainly has been resolved, we use them without suffering much guilt, and we even have a stylistic re-interpretation of the practice which can justify just about any situation.
As Dingus McGee keeps reminding us, we've pretty much thrown the "leave no trace" ethic out of the discussion, our presence leaves more than a trace. We may not want to admit that but it's hard to deny.
The "guidebook" problem has also been resolved. While there was a lot of reticence early on, even original opponents of more detailed information like Royal Robbins and Steve Roper (see above Introduction to his 1971 guidebook) fully backed the modern format with detailed topos and access information, effectively eliminating the "risk" factor of a climb.
In an era where we can access almost anyplace on the globe within one or two days, and go climbing there with a custom guidebook created by any number of websites (e.g. Mountain Projects, etc) and with information supplied from emails we've sent to other climbers with local information, the idea of "adventure" has almost nothing to do with risk.
The relatively low injury and death rates from climbing also indicate that climbers tap into their own natural aversion to risk and back off long before they reach situations which have high probabilities of a bad outcome. Even climbing in the rockfall zone that is Yosemite Valley, there are few injuries caused by natural rockfall, these exceeded by climber-caused rockfall.
One can graft onto climbing any sort of philosophical woo-woo one likes, but for the most part this too is a justification for an activity we enjoy greatly and pursue selfishly. We just don't like admitting that...
"Trad" is an idea that somehow we had it right "back then" and we ought to continue doing it that way... in other spheres of thought that is a "conservative" attribute. Oh the irony!
It is better defined as a style, but then who is the arbiter of style? how does the world get divided up into "us" and "them" and what determines the style implemented at a particular crag?
The rock is a limited resource, and the number of first ascent possibilities, though large, are not infinitely so. The issue then becomes one of individual liberty vs. community stewardship, and here style becomes a criteria for first ascents.
We like to say that bolting on rap with machines is necessary in some areas because there is no way to put a good route up using "Trad" style... e.g. overhanging routes. But that is essentially a statement of the current technology state-of-the-art and not a fundamental limitation. Because we have a current technological solution that can only be implemented by installation from the top down we justify our style by playing the "impossible card," it's impossible to put protection in and make a quality route by any other means.
However, the "Trad" criticism of this, somewhat generalized, would say that we do not currently have the capability to do the route in good style, but we should not use up that "resource" by employing poor style when it is possible that sometime in the future the capability would exist.
Inherent there is a view to the future of the climbing, and a recognition and honoring of the fact that climbers in the future will be better than we are now... actually it is an expectation, but part of that expectation is that those future climbers also have to buy into the idea that they will be better... and not just more of the same. This only happens in a community, if there is none then there is no way for the expectations to be transmitted.
Maybe this is just overreaching like any parent with ambitions for their children, but the recognition that we ought not to bring the routes down to our level of ability is a "Trad" concept, and perhaps it is a "California" rule, but it is a good one, I think, and one that can be applied in honesty to other climbing areas. It was, and the result was good for climbing.
But the idea of being able to "do what I want," that is individual liberty, and "doing what is good for us," the general welfare, are conflicting ideas in tension. The dynamic plays out in many areas with more consequence than what routes are where.
For those advocating absolute individual freedom they should just fess up... it is easy to say we'll just go out and chop bolts on those that transgress some artificial threshold, but like Harding commented on the difference between the difference of a 100 bolt route vs. a 300 bolt route, "what's the difference between a $100 a night hooker and a $300 a night hooker?" that frames the moral question well, and reveals the hypocrisy of artificial definitions.
For those advocating strict stylistic adherence, one wonders how it actually is achieved... just recall all those stories of the Appies vs. Vulgarians, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
And what is amazing is the ability this topic demonstrates at getting climbers basically screaming at each other.
40 years of climbing and looking at climbing development, we have to wonder at our ability to hide our own self-interest behind these issues. That hasn't changed. All the arguments are good ones, and we know that they lead to unresolvable conundrums, if they didn't we wouldn't be arguing them still.
As we all know, the only way to get the worms back into the can is to get a bigger can... and so we might have to view climbing from a higher, more inclusive level to get some perspective on this can of worms opened long ago. It is obvious that a single self-consistent climbing style cannot be justified on the basis of climbing alone, it has to be developed in a large arena.
This is happening, the access issues have become larger than just our regional predilections. Like it or not, other factors are weighed in determining whether climbing can occur or not, look at the Raptor closures in Yosemite Valley, or the voluntary moratorium for some time in the summer on climbing at DETO. We don't just negotiate style among climbers anymore, we do it in the larger sense of community.
"Trad" looks pretty small in comparison.
The general cop out is to say "well we all do what we do," which is a recognition of our selfish nature concerning climbing.
|
|
wstmrnclmr
Trad climber
Bolinas, CA
|
|
Dingus.... I don't think the tone of the OP was an attempt to be exclusive (I don't think the thread would have lasted a hundred posts if people thought that way) and almost all of the input has been a fairly civil and for the most part, benign attempt to define a cetain style of climbing. Where it gets touchy is when others feel they are being excluded because the definition proposed doesn't work for them. Maybe you feel their needs to be a balance and debate. That's to be expected. You have been climbing for a long time and obviously people
respect your views. I agree with much of what you say but debate is only helpful when the outcome produces possible solutions. It seems like it's time for you to offer some.
|
|
this just in
climber
north fork
|
|
"what's the difference between a $100 a night hooker and a $300 a night hooker?" According to my calculator it's about $200. Sorry, couldn't help myself and that was a well thought post Ed, thanks.
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Laramie
|
|
Tarbuster,
re: ad homen
the Supreme Court has ruled in slanderous talk. A real person and real name must be mentioned connected to some false attribute. Groups don't count and in fact groups have a narrow definition of what counts as slanderous.
So where does your name come into my post you accuse of being ad homen or slanderous?
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
Maybe read it again, Ding?
You're too smart to get away with pretending to not understand what he"s getting at...
|
|
wstmrnclmr
Trad climber
Bolinas, CA
|
|
Good thoughts Ed. Higgins thought that groups should form and then follow a democratic process. Maybe the discussion Tar started can go in that direction. A definition of a style with the practioners of that style forming a group to support the style and lobby for the preservation of it on rock. A starting point to turn chaos into cohesion. Therr do seem to be loose designations of areas and different styles although they are starting to merge causing conflict. But there does still be a sense of designation.
Edit: Maybe that's why this process is important. Because if we can't decide on a definition, how will we even start to sort through the problems which confront us in the climbing community. This thread is like a litmus test to see if the community can form a consensus on an issue and, so far, it's the closest I've seen this community come towards that.
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 2, 2013 - 01:02pm PT
|
An excerpt from Western climber's previous post:
A definition of a style with the practioners of that style forming a group to support the style and lobby for the preservation of it on rock.
You're putting a lot of great stuff out here in general Western Climber!
But regarding the above excerpt of your previous post, for my part I'd be careful here and say that this thread is pretty much just about describing, celebrating, and perhaps reinterpreting the term trad: this with all and any attendant nuance which help to achieve said goal, such as posting various relevant articles, discussing them, and perhaps simply just describing and celebrating the essence of the experience.
I'm not lobbying here for anything much, other than perhaps arriving at some new usage such as Classical Trad. I'm not lobbying for the preservation of classic trad on rock. I'd be careful that we as a group don't go in this direction. I'm not so interested in influencing what other people do with their free time. If we were to head in this direction, controversy would surely ensue and the discussion would be lost.
Dingus McGee,
So I'm overstepping the correct definition of ad hominem; my bad as they say.
But please, as JayBro suggests: stop sidestepping what I'm getting at and just chill a bit and please refrain from trying to drum this thread up into needless, unproductive controversy.
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Laramie
|
|
Jaybro,
from Wiki: ad hominem
is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument.
Personally Jay do you see that word "personally" in the above quote?
You're too smart to get away with pretending to not understand what he"s getting at...
How does Tarbuster read his personal personhood into my statement?
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 2, 2013 - 01:05pm PT
|
Please read above Dingus.
|
|
wstmrnclmr
Trad climber
Bolinas, CA
|
|
Tar,
I agree but I think the thread has raised issues and gone way beyond what you perhaps intended at the start? And it has been one of the few, if not the only thread I've seen that has managed sensible discourse on an issue pertaining to climbing. Ironically, it's one of the few popular threads to deal with climbing on a climbing forum.
Although the thread is trying to define something specific, it is the process that has facinated me. I'm interested in seeing if a consensus (extremeley rare) can be reached about an issue of this type because I think your thread has led to bigger issues like it or not and has given me hope that the community can perhaps see a way to a Hiiggins type vision.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!