mattp

Off White is right. This is sincere: if you can actually safely fall on those things your gear skills are very impressive. OK, so maybe they (crack-n-ups) are underappreciated marvels, but we're still left with "DCramer's monster of subjectivity" and the question "who decides," are we not? More or less by definintion we all think our own vision for the sport is the correct one, and we tend pretty much to get to the point where most folks are saying: "I decide (along with those who agree with me)." If I understand you right, you've said your own approach is more "valid" than others, not only because you may be leaving less hardware on the rock but also because your methods (not just the result) show "respect" for the rock. Isn't that a highly personal choice? Why should others emulate your style? P.S. I hope you're enjoying this discussion as much as I am -- in my view this has been one of the most interesting discussions we've had on some of these topics for quite a long time around here.

Just to recap: We've got the group campsite reserved. Come one come all. In the past, folks have set up and supervised some top-ropes for novice climbers, and others have paired up at the campsite to go climbing, while still others have spent the weekend just hanging out in the canyon. Expect some kind of a party on Friday and Saturday nights, with maybe a slideshow on Sat. Chime in here or contaxt Minx or Olyclimber with ideas.

I took one of my scarriest aid falls ever on those things (crack-n-ups). Using them for pro would be one aspect of your Beacon ascent, Joseph, that I think may not have been in "good style," or at least not what I would call a "good idea." Anyway, in the context of this discussion, it raises the question: whether it ever was universal nor not (we never resolved this question), should everyone else be held to your standard because you are willing to go out and scare yourself in the name of a "good time" and a "pure" ascent?

Given the variety of rock soundness, the reality of gravity, and the frailty of the human body, I'm not sure this would even be possible on natural cliffs and mountain walls. I doubt even Pope's via ferratta would comply in many locations ...

Many here and elsewhere make good arguments against bolting practices -- more specifically against overbolting, against bolted cracks, against adding bolts to this or that existing route, etc., but I think we need to be somewhat skeptical when we see folks invoke the "first ascent rule" in support of their position. I believe the "first ascent rule" is a generally good idea, but it seems it is frequently used as a one-way ratchet to argue against adding bolts or for removing them; rarely if ever is it invoked in the other direction. Take the retrobolting of Cunning Stunt at Index - a task undertaken by the FA and then chopped by some who felt he had butchered his own route. Might these same individuals or others who approve of their actions argue that for someone else to ADD bolts to an existing line nearby would show disrespect for the style of the FA and hence they should not add those bolts? I know little of that incident, but I believe this would be the "customary" way such discussions might proceed (the FA or those who think they are defending the FA have veto power over the addition of bolts, but the FA or those subsequently maintaining his route do not have a right to come back and add bolts). Has anybody ever said the "first ascent rule" means we cannot remove a bolt from someobody's overbolted atrocity? Having said that I am skeptical of many applications of the "first ascent rule", I don't endorse Hanger's proposed "compromise" or agree that we should abandon that rule if he or she means that we should not maintain any significantly run out routes. Most if not all bumblies avoid 5.8X death routes and in fact I cannot recall a single accident where some bumbly blindly failed to do so and this caused a serious accident. It could happen, I suppose ... we often see people venturing onto routes where they find themselves over their head and accidents do result from these mistakes in judgment once in a while, but does this mean that every route needs to be bolted into some ill defined standard of "safety" in the name of compromise?

The group site, which you guys have reserved, holds lots of people so it should be clear that nobody HAS to have their own site and no advance registration or reservation is necessary to attend. The Icicle Creek area offers a variety of climbing / hiking / etc. opportunities at pretty much all levels of ambition. The annual ropeups have offered a fun oportunity to get to know some of the faces behind the spray names and, for some, an opportunity to explore a new area or even a new sport. Make it happen!

Joseph, you certainly get extra points if you are putting up routes in that style. Especially if they turn out to be viewed as "good routes." In such a case, not only would you have had a great day or days yourself, but you'd have set a good example for "style" and you'd have created something that others can enjoy! Added on edit: Back on page 2 of this thread I thought you were arguing that one should put up routes however they want to with no regard for those who may follow, or something like that. Does your discussion with other climbers, and your immediate retrofitting the route with pins and (I'm guessing) bolts at belays, some of it in lieu of hardware that other climbers may not be carrying, indicate that maybe I misunderstood your position somewhat?

We have seen plenty of histrionics, Jay, but to be fair you'd have to agree that when it comes to bolts on crags there is a generally rising tide, no? Attitudes are indeed changing as fewer climbers are interested in risking serious falls and bolts are seen less and less as an anathema to be avoided if at all possible.

Chuck, I think that comes up as an example as how the "first ascent principal" has limits and maybe we shouldn't feel bound to preserve a climb that was developted by a butcher or a showoff or something, but I agree that I am not aware of a lot of this having taken place.

We may have difficulty agreeing upon how many of who were doing what in the ‘70's, but brts is correct that this need not prevent us from talking about today. I'd have to agree with you, Joseph, that times have changed. For example, few climbers think it is a good idea to develop crag climbs from the ground up these days and I can't remember the last time I saw someone who is actually putting up new routes suggesting it was a good idea to throw themselves at an unclimbed line, only to repeatedly fall and then pull the rope until they can fairly succeed in making a first ascent via a redpoint. Maybe you and your buddies are out there doing that, I don't know. Others are suggesting that a more careful, thought out and, yes, "engineered" approach to crag development is actually a GOOD thing. Also, undeniably, bolts are used more liberally today -- even at "so called" trad areas. But there are limits, no? Even at Vantage and Smith most climbers don't much go in for bolting the crack climbs to elimiminate the need for gear (much as some climbers might like to see this).

Joseph, you make a valid point that there was wide acceptance and general promotion of the clean climbing ethic in the '70's, but I think you are not completely correct if you suggest that clean climbing and ground-up ethics, as portrayed in many of the discussions on this board at least, were unversally practiced with only very rare exceptions. I climbed in the midwest in the '70's and at my home crag we did not much go in for pins or bolts, for sure, but I believe every single climb there was only first led after being fully rehearsed on a toprope. This is not exactly a "ground up" approach. I also climbed a couple of times at the 'Gunks in the '70's. Fixed pins were formally maintained by John Stannard (I may not have the name spelled correctly). Using pitons and nuts, most of the climbs there protect fairly well and they have avoided bolt protection, to be sure. but formally maintained fixed pins are not altogether different from bolts in how they affect the climber's experience though of course they could theoretically be removed with minimal damage to the rock. Also, they do maintain bolted rappel stations right next to or near trees that could take slings. In addition, I have read in more than one history of the place that hang-dogging and rehearsing climbs was accepted there before it became more generally accepted elsewhere with the advent of sport climbing in the 1980's. I agree with your statment that Chouinard/Robinson/Frosts/etc. were very very successful in promoting their clean climbing ethic and very few publicly questionned their ideas -- but I also think DCramer is right on in suggeting that things were not as "pure" as you seem to recall. As you note, every area had its peculiarities and eccentricities and I believe those often included deviations from the generally publicly accepted "norm" and that lots of people were in fact, as DCramer suggests, not willing to be completely honest about what they were doing. Also, I think we should not ignore the fact that, in the case of Chouinard, his campaign had a lot to do with marketting as well as with a sense of environmental ethics. I am sure he was sincere -- after all he started writing about these issues at least ten years earler. However, while I have ultimate respect for Mr. Chouinard, I believe he himself was not an absolute purist: didn't they chip holds up a flake during the first ascent of the North American Wall (maybe I'm mixing up routes here)? Does it matter? Perhaps not. In many respects we are splitting hairs here. However, I just get the sense from your posts that you are suggesting that climbers in the '70's were better more moral people than climbers are now. I'm not entirely sure that is a fair statement.

JZ, I have said that I realize that anonymous posting is the “norm” on this website, and I am not arguing that it is necessarily improper – only that some misuse their anonymous status. Several here have replied along the lines of: hey wait a minute, mattp, anonymous posting is fun. I agree. It has brought a lot of fun and liveliness to this website. Where you argue that people are not anonymous if you can play jr. detective for a year and eventually figure out who they are, I disagree. Where you argue that I cannot complain that some people abuse their anonymous status as long as some of the moderators remain anonymous, I disagree. Just say it: you like stirring the pot but would prefer not to use your real name and you don’t have to. You're a fairly tough guy, and I don't think this will result in your having been beaten into submission.

If there was an olive branch in your post, Fairweather, please accept my apologies for missing it. Care to repost?

Fairweather, re-read my original post to this thread: I believe the incident you are referring to took place two years or more ago. I agree that your anonymity may be "useful" and, as I've said, your ability to post anonymously may in fact add to the character or content of this site. However, where you engage in personal attack, I find it at least somewhat hypocritical.

Thanks for the compliment, Dred. In this case, I am actually stirring the "garbage" that you may have to wade through, but I hope that my point is coming through. Again: There is nothing wrong with posting anonymously. It is part of the whole setup here. But as off white put it: there is a fundamental difference between anonymous posturing and saying "this is what I think." err, dru... wtf?

Fairweather, I very much appreciate the fact that you are in many ways a lone warrior around here, and I not only enjoy sparring with you but I actually think I've learned a thing or two from you. I DO find it sad, however, that you protect your hidden identity while personally attacking others, including me. I will withdraw this statement the minute you start posting under your real name or providing links to your real identity in your user profile.

Since when have I been unwilling to rebut someone's arguments, Dru? Spewing B.S. and diverting the subject like trying to rebut my argument here with an attack on "moderators" is for sure a sign of weakness. You've had offwhite celebrate the brilliance of your dazzling spray, and I'm not questionning that recognition which you very much deserve -- but don't push it.

CJZ, I'd be willing to bet that most posters here in fact DO NOT know who you are, or who brts, Pope, Dwayner, PP, Rumr, Archenemy, Capt. Caveman, etc. are. Further, I bet MANY regular posters, including some who feel they are "insiders" here, wonder about the identities of most if not all of these individuals. It isn't a legalistic splitting of hairs: there is a fundamental difference between providing your identity or not -- offwhite's self-examination notwithstanding. I agree with offwhite that there are a lot of different colors in the rainbow, and everybody has different reasons for concealing their identity but at least four of the six posters you named have gotten extremely upset whenever anybody brought their real name into a thread. Paradoxically, some of them and several other individuals who conceal their identity engage in personal attacks using their target's real name as a tactic for intimidation. Anonymity is a big part of the charm of cc.com, and indeed it is part of the fun around here, but I believe that some posters abuse it.

Most avatars on cc.com are anonymous. The user name gives no hint of who the poster actually is, and you get no real contact information or identity if you check the user profile. Most posters here seem to think that is a good thing, allowing fun and freedom of expression. On balance that may be so. I don't know. In a thread today, one guy denied that he was not trying to conceal his identity in failing to provide his identification information in his user profile or in his screen name. Others have made similar arguments in past discussions of this topic and, when pressed, they sometimes say "OK - my name is Mr. Smith -- are you happy now" but then they resume posting anonymously knowing that nobody reading their posts except the few who read that thread on that particular day or those who spend all day every day on this site know who they actually are. I'm not arguing for a change in cc.com policy. This site is built around the anonymous avatar. Just don't pretend you are being all up front and taking responsibility for what you are saying when you are not.

Benjamin William Robert Thomas Stanton, putting your actual name in one thread (or ten) does not change the fact that you have chosen not to put real contact info in your user profile and your screen name does not tell anyone who you are so that, on any given day when you want to insult somebody or be "provocative" in some other fashion, you and I and everybody else here knows that only the insiders actually know who you are. Like I said, though, that is OK. Now what about the original questions regarding retrobolting?

bwrts, your avatar name is NOT your name, but an unrecognizable set of letters that means nothing to anybody else. When we check your user profile, we do not get any identifying information whatever. My avatar is my name, my picture appears next to every post, and my user profile provides email contact as well as a home page that has my telephone number and address. I stand behind what I post here and make it very easy for anybody to track me down if they have questions about what I've said. Like I said, there is nothing wrong with being anonymous -- it is cc.com standard practice -- but don't try to pretend you are doing something else. Anyway, though, good post. Bolts are indeed intrusive and permanent or semi-permanent installations that we should all think carefully about.

You could easily get this impression if you talk to climbers at sport crags and ask them what they think about this or that overbolted route. I have gotten dumb stares along with replies like "why would we want fewer bolts?" Assuming they learned in a gym, it is not hard to understand how they might have a different vision for the sport. Where they learned, everything is pre-marked with tape so the sequence is largely something you don't have to figure out on your own, the bolts are laid out to prevent you from ever climbing above your anchor point; bright colors, corporate logo's, hard bodies, and loud music are the dominant aesthetic. In terms of accomplishment or performance, the emphasis is on pure athletic performance rather than any element of adventure, routefinding or appreciation of a semi-natural setting. However, the very fact that many gym-trained climbers head "outside" (a significant and vaguely intimidating step for most of them) shows that they are probably looking for something the gym doesn't offer. In many cases (not all), that includes a greater sense of adventure and a quest to learn "trad" or ultimately to pursue alpine rock climbs. If all they were interested in was the pure athletic performance of crimping on ever smaller edges and mastering the figure four or whatever, they could more easily pursue that by going to the gym three nights a week. If you want to share with them your vision of a more adventurous sport and promote a different aesthetic, it is probably not going to help to tell them how an entire generation of climbers is assbackwards, lacks intelligence, and caters to the "lowest common denominator" -- even if you are confident that you are correct in your assessment. I'm sure you know this. How do you present these ideas when you meet someone at the crag?

bwrts, you post under what is to anybody else a nondescript set of letters and there is no personal information whatsoever in your user profile. In fact, you ARE using an anonymous profile. There's no problem with that - it is perfectly "legit" on cc.com, but you have failed to provide any identity or contact info whatsoever. For anybody who doesn't know who you are based on an obsession with cc.com, you have either actively or passively chosen to be anonymous.

RuMR, I'm with you if what you are suggesting is that you'd like to see a variety of climbing opportunities maintained and, if you are thinking that "worrying about others" means grid bolting everything or whatever, then I'm with you on that point too. However, I think putting up routes at crags is NOT something that one should do just for their own personal satisfaction with no regard for how others may react or what their experience on our climbs may be. And I think this includes consdering what our new masterpiece will add to the area, whether it may cause this or that problem, etc. in addition to the "safety" factor we seem to be focussed on here. If "that guy's" manner that he saw fit was to bolt gym holds on a line at Index Lower Town Wall, I bet you'd be critical, right? Yes, that is an absurd example -- but is it? There are climbers who would think it was OK.

Catbird and duroxmainie on Total Soul: