pope

Here's a relevant story. Back in the day on my first trip up the mighty Orbit climb, back when ANY 5.8 climb was an adventure, I climbed that pitch and found it REALLY interesting, with entertaining climbing and gear that was just barely adequate for a novice 5.8 climber. I climbed it with a 45m rope (in vogue back then and destined to cycle back into popularity). Anyway, I arrived at those manky 1/4" bolts, with no hangers or nuts, and looped a couple of wired pieces over them. I could tell that additional gear was available at the belay but nothing remaining on my rack happened to fit. And so, I yelled to my partner, "You've got the best damn belay in the state, but don't fall!" He couldn't hear me, of course, and pitched off in that initial cruxy dihedral. As you can imagine, that scared the snot out of me, especially since other than those two looped 1/4" studs for the belay, the only other gear nearby was a dubious cam 20' below. Anyway, with rope drag diminishing the impact, and knowing I could absorb much of the load with my standing-belay stance (according to Freedom of the Hills), we avoided disaster. The next time I climbed the route, with a 50m rope and a modern rack, I belayed 15' above using extremely secure 2-1/2" cam placements in a horizontal crack. I don't have a reputation for advocating bolts, but in this case, I think it may be prudent to replace the bolts with 1/2" equipment. Today's climbers can pass this stance with ease (with 50m and 60m ropes), and the stance I mentioned above offers a great anchor provided the leader has saved enough gear (especially 2" to 3" cams) after that long pitch. But what if the leader arrives without the necessary gear? I think belaying off of whatever is left on the rack which kind of sort of fits is BS. A belay anchor needs to be bombproof. Anything less is an invitation for a tragedy. Yes, occasionally bolts are appropriate and since there is already a stance at about 50m that has two bolts (or studs), I don't see the harm in replacing them with modern gear.

Well you see, that's just it. You read my statements and, unable to refute their truth ...but simultaneously lacking the courage to abandon your bolt-clipping ways....you find yourself conflicted and you blame me for delivering a message that leaves you feeling hollow about your participation in an activity which you previously identified as real rock climbing but which has been exposed to be something else. Again, you wish I'd go away, and rather than come to grips with this reality, you invent some kind of character flaw, a dichotomy between who I really am and what I say on this message board, when in fact, I'd be happy to carry on this discussion in your company (if you're buyin'). You might be surprised at the impact a small number of vocal people can have when they expose sport climbing for what it is....why do you think Dwayner (and several others including me) were denied participation here? From this I gather that you do remember me (you must have been really dazzled), since you allude to the fact that I am not 220 lbs and burdoned with a beer gut. Sorry that I can't say I remember you...you must have blended in with the chunky Spanaway zombies who pee, break glass, set up zip lines and practice Aussie rapel technique.

""...guy was the source of an online persona that I'd taken a pretty strong dislike to [sic].. It ain't the "online persona" you dislike. It's the fact that my well-stated position on bolting conflicts with your convenient approach to ethics, and that if I didn't participate in the discussion you wouldn't be challenged to reconsider your endorsement of sport climbing. "..would probably still be way more favorably disposed towards the real person if we ever ran into each other.." Didn't you just say we met at Spire Rock? "..running into a guy that was cruising up and down the toughest sections of rock there while casually chatting with whomever happened to be hanging out at the base.." Not an accurate description of my activities there. I generally don't do a lot of chatting. Only with special people. You must be special.

I was aiding a pitch at Index once when a fellow with an aggressive personality initiated a heated exchange of words with my belayer. I remember thinking, "Gee I hope I'm still on belay. That guy must be a total A-hole." I eventually learned the infinite degree to which my initial impression was correct.

Jason Mikos, a former student and a bad-ass rock jock. I'm going to have to drop in there.

We're talking tube steak.

The guy in the middle?

I've been considering getting a reduction so that I can wear bermuda shorts without tripping somebody. Any of you sport climbers need an organ donation?

Are you talking about the folks who stick 'em where they don't belong...to heck with what everybody else thinks? Like the clowns who recently "improved" Centerfold? Cowboy up and do 'em. That might resolve the next issue that you bring up: Huh? Didn't you just comment about how so many routes aren't getting done? Doesn't sound like you need more routes. Just more ability and vision. A lot of people noticed that. Without sport cliffs, most of the "annoying LA types" wouldn't have anything to do with climbing, as has been noted previously.

Actually I never advocated removing that anchor, although I wouldn't have objected. I recently read that part of it was missing and I thought now is the time to at least discuss whether or not it should have been there in the first place.

Fine, until they show up in places where they clearly don't belong.

If you don't know the answer to that..... Obviously, a pitch should end at a logical stance near the end of the rope or when the climbing peters out or dramatically changes direction. BTW 60m ropes are a fad that will fade. What definitely should be avoided is the creation of 40-foot pitches when a route logically continues beyond.

Minx, I would hope every rock climber would cringe at the idea of sticking an anchor a fraction of the way up a crack pitch of ANY difficulty. Whether the full pitch is something way out of your league or whether you could free solo it SHOULD be irrelevant. To illustrate, imagine a climb like Illusion Dweller in Joshua Tree. If you can handle 5.10-, you can probably finish that pitch (which features its crux near the top). Now let's suppose that you, Minx, are a 5.10- climber who loves climbing cracks (which you state to be true) and who can finish that pitch (which we can assume to be true if you can handle the "shorty" version of Japanese Gardens). Now let's suppose a 5.8 Mountie decides that if Illusion Dweller featured an anchor 30 feet below the top, it would "add" an excellent 5.8 pitch to Joshua Tree. Would you support that? What about creating a nice 5.6 climb by putting an anchor below the bulge on Classic Crack? I think you would not. You see, it's all a matter of degree. The "shorty" version of Japanese Gardens appeals to you and that is precisely why you think the anchor is appropriate. Anybody who thinks otherwise must be intolerant of climbers who pursue moderate climbs. Well, I think you're missing the point. That short anchor on Japanese Gardens is a bad idea regardless of how hard the long pitch or short pitch is, and definitely regardless of Minx's desires and abilities/limitations.

Johnny Cash Read about how Johnny single-handedly reduced the population of California condors from 53 to 9 while fishing in 2 inches of water! Great stuff.

Lisa is flashing "the shocker"!

Now, if you photo-shop-crop the bimbo out of this, you get some quality alpine pron.

Don't play that game, for every moderate you name I can name twice or three times as many hard routes. Besides, there are not many more moderates than you listed above. Sure, but for every hard route you can name (and who can't?), you can probably find a point 40 feet up at which, if you built an anchor next to the crack, you'd get a "new" moderate free pitch. Does that make Index a better place to climb? Or does that accelerate the transformation of Index into the Exit 38 of US 2 ? complete bullshit retoric. just pull the anchor, step up and send or go home and eat wheaties. course, who is to say what is a "pitch"... how long of a rope constitutes one rope length up and anchor me here so to speak....natural features or where billyboy and marysue decide to leave permanent anchor???? bolting next to cracks of any size is gay anyways......perhaps lower down anchor needs to be relocated. "Step up and eat you wheaties!" ? Come on - that's just as worthless a comment as above. That would be fine to say to someone who was whining about an old school run-out slab or some beautiful 10a crack that had an 11c start to it - don't mess with what's already established. While this philosophy does not always hold true, for the most part, precedent (in this case a set of mid anchors that's been there for quite some time) is something to be respected, if for nothing else than to maintain some sort of harmony. I've heard people complain about them in the past but NO ONE was that worked up about it (unlike centerfold again). Unless a huge problem for the neighborhood - Climbers need to learn to let sleeping dogs lie. Those mid anchors: 1) Have been established for years. 2) Rarely effect those wanting to do the FULL P1 3) ARE in a natural location 4)Never got many worked up until chain went missing. Once again - CC.com proves not to be a compass of the climbing community but a bar table... Thanks for contributing....to the chain of worthless comments. I thought the anchor was really stupid from the moment I saw it and I've never changed my mind. NOW is an appropriate time to discuss whether or not effort should be made to restore an anchor IN THE MIDDLE OF A PITCH RIGHT NEXT TO A CRACK, for crying out loud. You can argue something to the effect that "since it survived this long, it is appropriate"....but if you think about it, that argument is similarly hollow to cranial cavities of those who think this anchor is a good idea.

Ever seen the Crying Game?

Dude, even "Roj" appreciates the Pope-n-Dwayner plop pad once in a while.

Bet you can't guess where it's hiding!

Don't play that game, for every moderate you name I can name twice or three times as many hard routes. Besides, there are not many more moderates than you listed above. Sure, but for every hard route you can name (and who can't?), you can probably find a point 40 feet up at which, if you built an anchor next to the crack, you'd get a "new" moderate free pitch. Does that make Index a better place to climb? Or does that accelerate the transformation of Index into the Exit 38 of US 2 ?

Run over the Narrows Bridge and then to the Tides Tavern. Get tanked, run back.

Right. Isn't this the latest iteration? Reading this post, it seems YOU are the one in attack mode.