W

Anyone here ever see "Scream In Stone"? Terrible script, terrible acting. Very loosely based on the Cerro Torre FA race and debate. But the end aerial scene of the guy standing on top of the REAL, ACTUAL Cerro Torre makes it worth getting it and fast forwarding to that part. and to see Stefan Glowacz die from taking a big screamer and hitting nothing but air...

nothing, sir...nothing at all.

actually twight trained for several years in martial arts, cavey. You might have to throw your pipe at him.

"This would explain how forrest gets up all those hardcore routes..." No, it ain't suction cups. Forrest is all about the Kung Fu Grip.

what makes you think I am white? Can't you see how pink it looks in my post?

wasn't Omega Man some really bad Charlton Heston movie? "soilant green is PEOPLE!!!!!"

Among the many vulgar Robins/Certa route names at Vantage, this one stands apart from all the rest: Rolfing My Dick

The top-out issue on ice climbs really is something to consider. I imagine everyone has at least one good story about scraping through the top of a climb that lacked ice, in it's place mud, rocks- or worse, snow over mud and rocks. Two stories illustrate this danger to be reckoned with: A friend from Montana was trying to top out as he was finishing the first ascent of a new stringy WI6. He clawed and pedaled his hands through liquid mud and peeled off; his first screw, in a weak section of chandaliers, ripped of course, and he fell 100 feet to the ground; however, his next screw inexplicably held and began to slow him just before impact, and he came to land somewhat hard, but softly enough, to land on his feet, remaining STANDING UPRIGHT, as the rope went tight. No injuries! Another story was not so happy: my friend was belaying in the Ouray Box Canyon a few years ago. A nearby soloist on a WI3 was five feet from topping out, and scratching through poorly bonded ice. He came off and went 100+ to the deck, hitting so hard he bounced two or three feet into the air and then through the ice and into the creek. A whole load of climbers assisted with his rescue which included an airlift; amazingly, he lived, but apparently sustained major vertebral fractures and other very serious injuries. The moral is, if in doubt of the top-out, be sure to get some bomber gear before gunning for the top, if it's available. If it's not, well...ice climbing is just dangerous. Know your limits.

keith, check your pm's.

Keith, I agree- one of my biggest hindrances to climbing "better" has been an obsession with "climbing"- i.e.- the technical grades, numbers, and the attendent bs that comes with it. Funny thing is, I didn't start off with that problem, at first there was nothing but the joy of experiencing life in the mountains and these amazing, high, inaccessable places. Then the mind and the conditioning of society gradually kind of took over for awhile. After I got over the ego trip of comparing myself to others and constantly trying to measure up and perform by an arbitrary and meaningless standard, I am finding the freedom to bloom and "improve" (to use the term for convenience) without all this dead weight holding me down and preventing insight and learning. You put away all the images and ideals and all you are left with is the here and now.

"What keeps you from making your life more fulfilling?" I guess I might rephrase the question as- "what is fulfillment, and why do we seek it?" It's been an arduous task to examine this question in myself. What is really behind this urge within us, to fulfill and to gratify? We are constantly moving from one gratification to another, always seeking something- the object of search frequently changes, but search continues nonetheless- whether it is climbing, your job, your search for a soulmate, or whatever. But we never ask why we seek, or whether what it is that we seek actually has any reality. The end goal of any search is the product of our own thoughts and ambitions, and through the attachment of a system, method, or a supposed "path" to that end, that truth, we actually forever separate ourselves from that truth- for the system, the method, the ideal, is what becomes all important. In other words, we use any means to gain the end- but never question whether the means IS the end. All of this breeds a ruthlessness in society that is quite apparent today, if you look at what is happening in the world today. Saying, I am THIS, and will become THAT, effectively states that you will gradually change, become that tomorrow, while today you will continue on being this in some form or another. We have occasional flashes of brilliance and then idealize them; rather than allowing truth to act upon us, we try to act upon it. Our problem is that most of us aren't actually serious about anything, though we go to great effort to prove and show outwardly otherwise.Again, I stress that it is extraordinarily important to see- not just intellectually- that the person who is trying to control him or herself, is the same person who is being controlled. The dissolution of this dual image of ourselves is the beginning of right relationship, to people, nature, and possessions. Everything else follows naturally when the self is not striving for control. It sounds confusing and self-defeating to say you can do nothing- but that is our problem, I think- We think doing nothing is just that, we don't trust the natural order of truth to guide our actions. Experience and knowledge have their importance, but all the experience in the world matters not if the mind is caught up in projections of what might, what should be, or what it wants. Notice your thoughts and attachments as you do any activity, and with careful attention you will begin to see the traps and pitfalls the mind unwittingly sets for itself.

okay, okay, Holly, you got me. Of course I meant 'guy' generically! Know what I mean, dude? oops...sorry. [ 12-27-2001: Message edited by: W ]

This may sound out of left field, but here goes: I'm discovering that the urge behind having "goals", the need to "push one's self", and "find limits", this striving and effort to BECOME, is actually the very thing that prevents any sort of progress in climbing, or anything else for that matter. All this being caught up in trying to be something other than what one actually IS right at that very moment, blocks insight and hinders understanding. I used to look at climbing subconsciously as "filling up a box" in my life. What I've only recently discovered is that the box has a hole in the bottom. In this realization is release, and freedom. Being free from all this striving has resulted in not only a incidentally drastic improvement in my climbing and mental state therein, climbing bigger and harder routes, but there has been a equal and immediate improvement and stability in all the other areas and relationships in my life. Everything flows when we are not wrangling and stressing out over trying to be "better". The truth of this has its own, liberating action. I think we tend to overspecialize ourselves and pursue one thing to the exclusion of everything else. But everything is related. If one relationship in your life is out of balance, so are the others. Improving one's climbing, in my view, doesn't come strictly from focusing on the climbing, it comes about through a total seeing of what is, and a concern with each and every one of the immediate relationships around you. Finally, I might say, fear is an old acquaintance of mine just like for anyone else. I'm finding that fear is not something to be controlled. The mind produces fear and also produces the entity that says "I must control fear". If one is aware of this dualistic illusion we create for ourselves, fear passes away merely by paying attention to the mind's activities.

Hey Geezers, My dad climbed Rainier at age 61, 63 and then 65, the latter time a carryover of the summit and descent by another route. Age 61 was his first summit of the mountain, also. I was with him on all three climbs, and I think what might be most important is to ensure that the young tigers with you are either not setting the pace, or are setting one with the full understanding that you will probably not have as much endurance, and that they need to be willing to set a slower albeit deliberate pace and take breaks as needed. (Or maybe you are faster than them?!?). Make sure you communicate this with your son or whomever sets the pace. If the other guy is really experienced, he might likely have a good idea how to accomplish an efficient pace that works for all. In advance of your trip, my dad suggests that you mainly work on developing steady and high cardiovascular endurance- riding stairmaster, bicycle, and also, perhaps most important- frequently get out on long hikes that gain lots of elevation- as in 3000-5000 foot gains, which are low-altitude equivalents of the 2 4500 foot climbing days you will experience on Rainier. Work out your legs and stretch as much as possible too. If possible, make a trip or two to Camp Muir (if you live near enough), particularly not long before your climb, and this will help you to experience the effect of altitude and learn more about your ability to adapt. Or climb Mt. Adams, if you have time, which is even higher than Muir. My dad always felt that going to Muir or otherwise up to altitude a week or two prior to his climbs helped him adapt. The one time he didn't, on the last climb, he felt ill from the altitude from 12k up, but still made it. He's in great shape, but what really helped him each time was having the right pace set for him on the climb. At his age, he says, he merely needs to stop a little more often, but with the right endurance training done consistently he can go all day at a decent, slow, steady pace. Good luck and have a great climb this summer.

Rafael, I'm not an "aid expert", but just want to note that there are in fact still a (very) few nail-ups in existence at Index, or at least, routes that have not gone clean. That said, you are all correct, that Index is generally a "clean" climbing area and pinning routes there will generally raise more than a few eyebrows. I have never seen or heard much about the Garden Wall so I don't know about the crack in question, but I would agree that if in doubt, don't. Yos, if you are intent to practice nailing there, my advice is to either practice in some talus pile or junky old wall, or if possible, consult privately with knowledgeable locals about which routes at Index are still considered acceptable to use pins and/or heads. Providing a list here is probably not appropriate, however, given the sensitive nature of the issue. Just dig around and be sure of the local consensus before swinging the hammer. Btw, Rafael is correct, of the above mentioned nail-ups that still exist at Index, none to my knowledge are easier than A3+. In other words, anything left at Index that goes at A3 or under pretty much can be done with clean gear at a moderate grade C3 or less- a good reminder/guideline to keep in mind. Cheers.

You know, it just occurred to me that the peak Philfort has pictured just might be Inner Constance, across the valley to the west of Constance- that peak is similar to Constance, a long, north-south trending ridge-shaped peak that if I remember was quite jagged and knife-edged. Not positive that is it, but it really looks like it.

I can't tell if that is Constance either, but Constance actually does have a pretty exposed, gendarmed/knife-edge summit ridge. I camped about 200 feet from the top once, a great experience. Norman Clyde- great name. He was to the Sierras what Beckey and Exum were to their respective areas- though personality-wise and stylistically I have a feeling he much more closely resembled Exum. There's only one Beckey. I used to read about Clyde's exploits while growing up in California and studying Sierra climbing and exploration history, for me also he was a great hero. He died, incidentally, in 1972. Supposedly he was a school teacher in Independence and got in trouble one time for shooting a gun off to scare some kids playing Halloween pranks on him. So maybe he had some curmudgeonly qualities about him then.

Actually, I read yesterday that Mendoza was one of the cities hit by a fair amount of rioting and looting- it was one of the cities that has been hit hardest by the poor economy, according to the news report I read.

by the way, they can be kept sharpened quite easily- run the file in a forward direction, over the downward arc of the points, which will preserve the width of the points, and sharpen them frequently. The biggest drawback I find with them is that the frontpoints are not replaceable, so when they are done, so are the crampons. Give them a test drive on mixed too-they're way better than you might think.

EPB,I'm with lambone on this one- I've used the Sabretooths on hard Alaskan alpine ice and found them very secure. I too was skeptical about the shape of the points, but don't be put off. Also, for hard mixed ground they are without peer- the screwdriver points are superlative for hooking on rock. The secondary points are also great for hooking and give a nice aggressive feel when you drop your heels on ice. I also have M-10's; for pure ice I will say they might be the overall best choice, but as an all-rounder the BD's are the WAY. [ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: W ]

OR makes a good ankle gaitor made of stretchy stuff; other than that, I've had many of their gloves fall apart on me, literally. They have lots of good designs and ideas, but many of the products I've owned by them have had generally poor construction and quality control. OR stands for "Ol-ready Ripped". And as for the Seattle Sombrero...er...never mind. I won't go there.

I think RURP with only a dozen posts is the funniest person here. It's either RURP or Shlongenshmecker.

Just a few notes: except for two permanent cracks/schrunds on the steep slopes to the right and above the beehive on Cowlitz Cleaver, crevasses are not really an issue until climbing above the top of Gib. Mainly, be careful immediately above the top of Gib, in recent years there have been some tricky and deceptive cracks there, which in winter are particularly hard to spot due to the high winds at that location creating featured, sastrugi snow conditions. Also, two areas of extra caution relative to avy danger: the leeward slopes of Cowlitz cleaver between Muir and the ledges, and also, particularly the chute exiting the upper ledges which leads to the top of Gib- the snow can be unstable here due to loading from east winds which often hit in times of high pressure. Falling rocks and ice from Gibraltar are not usually as serious an issue in winter, however, it's still advisable to cross very early AM. Also, depending on how warm it is and on the snow conditions encountered in the chute (50 degrees), consider descending the DC if coming down mid morning. The route is a great choice for winter and is fast and direct. Good luck and have fun.

PP, I wanted to be more certain of your views in order that I might give you a clearer answer.These are tough questions we are asking. You're right, most are subject to contingencies.I think in some element the style of the first ascent has some merit, and yet from that point on each subsequent ascent has the onus upon them to attempt to do the climb with the least amount of destruction, if in fact the climb began as a nail up. Proponents of bolts will say that the damage stops there...but it is still damage, nonetheless. On Dana's Arch, we get to enjoy both ugly pin scars AND permanent fixtures. You and I both have raised the point now, that perhaps some things just don't need to get climbed, or at least, lead climbed, if destroying the rock is the only way to get up it. Peter, I am not an aid climbing advocate who thinks every seam ought to be beaten to hell, anymore than I think every face with holds needs a line of bolts. Aid climbers contriving new lines are just as guilty. The only place I have ever carried a bolt kit is on big walls which have established fixed gear that has a chance of becoming un-fixed and hence might need replacing. If one chooses to climb an El Cap nail up, one then by extension is choosing to damage the rock with pitons. It's a good-news/bad-news thing: sooner or later the route will go hammerless (depending on fixed gear), but the rock is damaged in the process. I'm not prepared to pass judgement entirely on which form of damage, pin scars or bolts, is worse to look at. However, from a climbing standpoint, for me it is a little more disconcerting to see man-made objects permanently fixed to the rock. Moreover, bolts are all too often placed to "force" routes that do not follow natural features. Royal Robbins declined to finish the Tangerine Trip because it blanked out high up and he didn't want to drill. On the other hand, he mysteriously found the justification to complete Tis-sa-ack on Half Dome which involved long, long bolt ladders. I suppose that my viewpoint has its origins in my gravitation from day one toward alpine climbing, where the tendency is to follow crack systems. Or used to be. Bolts used to be considered a last resort. I think they still should be, at least in the mountains. But I'm not going to play bolt cop. I never carry bolts on alpine routes and never will. I carry minimal pitons on big alpine routes and use them infrequently, but many routes in the Rockies, for example, are virtually impossible to protect without them. I'm only more inclined to use them on seldom climbed routes, but even they remain my last resort. Even when climbing a nailing wall, I consider all of it training for alpine climbing, and hence I nail as little as I am capable. In the mountains, if I come across something I can't climb without bolts, I'll fail willingly.The answer, Peter, to these questions probably comes in people being vigilant enough to keep asking them. there is no fixed answer. This will continue the (what I hope to be) growing spirit of bolting and pitoning only as last resorts. the grey area lies in something you bring up- that one person's "last resort" is another person's cakewalk. Short of having rigid standards and rules for everyone to live by, which no one will ever totally embrace (not climbers!), there is no satisfying solution. Neither bolts or pitons can be totally eliminated, but the issue begs the question be asked of everyone- does this potential "route" really have to become a route? Does it really have to be led free? If it has gone hammerless, do I really have to climb it if I cannot do the same? At least in asking these questions, perhaps everyone will strive not only to do their best, but to respect the medium- the rock- that is the sustenance and arena for many of our adventures.

PP- What exactly is your stance on pitoning? And how would you answer your own analogy at the start of your last post?I would say it has to do with the style of the first ascent. Regardless, either pitons or bolts are going to damage the rock permanently. So, the question then is not whether bolts are bad or good, it is which form of damage is worse? Both methods alter the rock, and both persons have used destructive methods to gain an end. Bolting advocates say it is a one-time hit, then it's over. Someone who would prefer the trad approach would say that pitoning eventually gives way to non-destructive methods, albeit over time. So, which is better? One's answer might be based on whether they look at it as a free climbing project or an aid project. Either way, Peter, would you then suggest that the production of A4 and A5 routes have got to cease? without bolts, many of these will never go without hammered protection, whether fixed or not. The rock will continue to get altered. What do you propose?I am not so against bolting as you might think, but I also feel that as more and more emphasis gets placed on the "climbing" and less on the adventure and the need to be in tune with the environment in which we climb- which were very integral issues when climbing began- we have more mad bolters and more people nailing clean routes. You yourself referred to the Arch as a "failed experiment made with good intentions".So what would a better solution have been? To not climb it at all, perhaps? That's the only way the rock would have been saved, actually.