Peter_Puget

Quote W: “what you are saying is that what began as an aid line (read: trad, a crack system) and which frequently got TR'd no doubt by some of the same people who in order to get up there pounded pins in it, before the bolts were placed, was dumbed down because the pin scars got bigger and now it's not as aesthetic” Now how did you get that I said that the route was TR’d frequently? You simply made it up. Your remaining discourse is no more clearly reasoned. For example, you say lets follow the example of Yosemite. OK I say lets use the examples of the first three 5.10s in the Valley! In order to fully understand what I was saying you need to read what I incorporated into my post by reference. Stating the decline in difficulty was done only to indicate the extent of the damage that occurred subsequent to the bolting. Dwayner: Inches of rock have come off that route since it was bolted and several additional bolts have been added as well. Regardless of your thoughts on the bolting I do not see how you can consider the bolting of Dan’s Arch at worst, but a failed experiment with good intentions. Not mentioning the extent that rock that has come off since the initial bolting or the fact that additional bolts have been added indicates either ignorance on your part or certain mean disingenuous spirit that I have often decried as residing on this site. Of course the are less flattering options too! Sweet Dreams Peter

For those unaware see my previous comment s under a thread started by Herr Dwayner’s doppelganger “Donna Two Step” Suffice to say that before bolting the arch went from being a solid 5.12 TR to a 5.11 one. After bolting the route became marginal 5.11a. All this was the result of significant damage to the rock by aid climbers.

While I am certain the villain here does have some real concerns about bolting that can in some imagined context be viewed as noble, they are, however, subsumed by his/her more base motivations and thus become merely an excuse to perform antisocial acts behind. Much like Pope's criticisms they miss the mark, overeach and by their own lack of logic and suasion they reveal the dark side of human nature. Sad. Sad. Sad.

Where the hangers removed in such a way that a person leading one of the routes could be put into an unexpected and dangerous situation? Actions like this along with irresponsible bolting or chipping have an impact that is not limited to either the areas or the people directly involved.

How long does it take for traffic to ease up coming from Seattle? That is will most of the congestion be gone after 6?

The use of man made holds has unfortunately placed a shadow over the entire Fossil area. The Boyal Robbins Wall Area mentioned by Cavey is pretty much a "natural" area with climbs offering a wide range of difficulties. The climbing at Boyal Robbins is not unlike that at Smith Rocks. Just don't think holes, think funcky rocks sticking out all over the place. The routes there are less than half a rope length and are pretty fun. My faves are the .11a pictured in the Smoot guide and the arete just to its right. While it would be possible to climb some of the routes in a light rain my guess is that most of the routes at the BR Wall would not be climbable in the rain. Due to the limited (at least if you eschew bolt-ons) amount of climbing and the length of the approach unless you just want to go exploring I would think twice about going there unless you live nearby. By the way to put that last recommendation into perspective:I don't live in the area and planned on going there a week ago.

Interesting Haireball! Please give us some examples in this thread illustrating the phenomenon.

Sexual - Are you saying that every 5.11b you have ever climbed has been rated (at least from your experience) correctly? None have been significantly easier or harder than the rest?

My original quote: "Yikes Tom did you update an old SDS Vietnam War position paper? Apparently the bombing had some effect witness the Taliban’s recent change of fortune. I wonder if the US hadn’t intervened would England have been brought to its knees? Certainly a question but certainly a valid factor you conveniently left out." Toms quote: "As far as my comments on the effects of bombing, PP, they didn’t come from an SDS position paper. The allies commissioned the Strategic Bombing Review after WW2 that came to essentially those conclusions: bombing doesn’t demoralize civilians, it just pisses them off and encourages resistance. Bombing London would have never won the Battle of Britain; only a land invasion, which Hitler never contemplated, would have done that." My reference to a SDS position paper was refering to your post in total and something of a bad joke. I never was in conflict with the review you mentioned . I said what if the US never was involved what wold have been the effect? It's arguable was my point. Imagine a landlocked England, the Germans supreme how long would England accept bombng before it gave up? My guess is the answer isn't forever. Thus I believe that it is possible to at some point to destroy a country's morale. I guess I wasn't clear enough with my point. On a deeper level my point was that the cases you mention are not the same as the current situation. I think we all know there is a significant difference between the strategic bombing in WWII and the bombing currently happening Afganistan. To compare to two is simply wrong. In fact virtually all of your comparison are of a similar legitimacy. Here is a quick survey of the world: Europe subject to Islamic terrorists and insurgencies, Central Asia - the same, East Asia - the same. Africa - the same. Hey guess what! They are pissied at everyone! Now come up with a general theory supporting those facts and I bet you find that the US as such is not an important factor.

Amen Rod

Jon - I think Cavey was using poetic license when he said to bomb them below sea level. But my vote goes for blowing this entire thread up. It simply doesn't belong on a climbing site

Ah Gerg what a sly ad hominem (this word had its spelling corrected) attack: "Put your money where your mouth is. If you are so gung ho about having US troops involved, why not join the services?" Somehow it reminds me of the rap bolters are pussies argument. Taken seriously the only ones who can advocate the use of armed forces would be soldiers. Are you serious? Are you seriously saying that the US should not pick and choose the which international conflicts it should get involved with and to what degree? Are you really serious? Here a quick one: compare and contrast US vs, USSR aims in Afganistan and how the convergence or divergence of aims affects how the USSR experience should be viewed. Obviously you brought this up because you know something. Educate me please without delay I have a meeting to head off to. [ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Peter Puget ] [ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Peter Puget ]

Yikes Tom did you update an old SDS Vietnam War position paper? Apparently the bombing had some effect witness the Taliban’s recent change of fortune. I wonder if the US hadn’t intervened would England have been brought to its knees? Certainly a question but certainly a valid factor you conveniently left out. Certainly bombing had a positive impact from the (US perspective) in Vietnam (eg Ke San ((spelling)) And certainly you must know that! Certainly you know that this wasn’t the first terrorist attack on the US. In fact the press has repeatedly discussed previous feeble responses to previous attacks as emboldening old Osama and certainly you must know this. You also know that our bombing of Afghanistan is nowhere nearly as destructive as it could be, so why the hyperbole about killing everyone in Afghanistan? Whether you are for or against the war these falsehoods and exaggerations serve no purpose and are the perfect example of why these subjects should be not subject to debate here. It is even sadder when such a post is considered articulate and illuminating. No argument is being made. Hope this doesn't upset Cavey but he is pretty much right on this issue.

I agree with you CC and would even go so far as to say that 38/Si ratings in general are a bit on the light side. The main problem I see with that is that it gives people a false sense of what they can do. From the lack of responses adressing the original question, I am guessing that ratings seem to be a point of debate everywhere. The only difference between Si/38 and some other areas is that there seems to be an area wide bias applied to the routes at Si/38 rather than the more random assortment of errors found at most other areas.

Dru, wasn't Sunshine originally graded 11d? As far as the protection goes on Slipping Clutch my only memory is how sticky the shoes felt. I must have some sort of perception problem because there is no way I can accurately rate pitch from its base. For example: if I was placed at the base of ROTC, I couldn't tell you only from visual inspection if it was 11a or 12a. Here is an Icicle example: looking at the route Lazy Boy (to me at least) the bottom appeared harder than the top. When the bottom turned out to be harder than the guidebook indicates I assumed that the ratings were switched on the topo. Wrong assumption. There is also no way I could rate the Blind Faith pitch Wallstien mentioned or even Psychopath on Snow Creek Wall from their bases.

Cavey! Please! Serious replies only! Placing someone into their correct archetype is a difficult combination of both science and art. Only a fraud would attempt to do so over the internet. I must admit that the intent behind your allusion to the Pope is difficult for me to fully understand. Is it a compliment or a subtle insult?

Good question Cavey! The answer of course is a contingency. Are you a traditional trad climber? A neo-trad climber? A traditional sport climber? A steep sport climber? A reformed steep sport climber now traditional climber? A crosswalk table is currently under development which will be easily incorporated into all guidebooks enabling quick and easy rating decoding. Of course the software needed to perfectly determine your archetype will be available at a small charge as well. Details forthcoming!

Yes

Dru - Sad to hear Slipping Clutch is dirty. I climbed it when it was new and very clean. It was the first route on which I used Fires to climb and the new rubber (compared to EBs that is) was amazing. The OW is not thru a roof and does not resemble any of the OW you mention. The route arches to right and becomes almost an arm bar undercling. (as if that makes much sense)I guess there might be various way to climb it tho.

SC - How does Justice differ from Social Justice.

Wallstein - ROTC was done in the '70s I believe. It's a great climb but I do not think it is any where near 5.12. Haven't done the Left Side. I have done the thin crack pitches to the left of Kaukulator. Isn't one of those the section on Blind Faith you're referring to? They are all good climbs but I wouldnt agree that any are 5.12 tho. I could think of lots of other Yosemite examples. For instance: Tips. Here is one where perhaps cams arent quite as helpful: Torque Converter. Any way my point wasn't directed at any climb per se but rather a general statement regarding advances in technology changing the difficulty of routes.

Well when I started this thread I was hoping to get a sense of how people viewed ratings at various areas and wasn’t attempting to start a discussion on grade inflation. Many good points have been made and I thought I’d throw my two cents in quickly without elaboration and bring up one important yet I think neglected factor in grade inflation – improvements in technology Ratings gain their real meaning thru experience. Ratings are a means of communicating this experience to one another. I believe that any rating system over time will tend to suffer grade inflation and that changes in climbing styles, equipment and an increase in the participating population will tend to speed up this trend. This grade inflation does not occur equally over the entire sport and will occur in a staccato manner. This is entirely a matter of social relations and not one of marketing, although marketing can exacerbate the underlying phenomenon. Since technology hasn’t been discussed so far here are a couple of examples to illustrate. Sticky rubber – Clearly sticky rubber made many routes easier than they were using hard rubber. As local examples think of On the Verge at Index, any route at Static Point, Slipping Clutch at Squamish or finally RPM at Snow Creek Wall. With the exception of On the Verge none of these routes have been down rated to reflect the widespread use of sticky rubber. Use of Cams – As a sidebar I should note that some considered cams unethical at first. These definitely made climbing easier and less committing. While some may argue that difficulty of placing protection or commitment shouldn’t be reflected in the YDS rating it is obvious that it is impossible to eliminate the effects of these factors. Here are some local examples: Thin Fingers at Index and ROTC at Midnight. Again these routes weren’t down rated. Good examples at Yosemite would be Pinky Paralysis or Spiderman.

After reading my post its seems evident that I can't even write English. Actually I am here in Seattle but isn't there a poor Peter in a cemetery in Bath?

Plexus is right! The question isn't if a route is hard or light compared to the rating but rather what areas seem to have the most best ratings. That is to say: What areas have their route's ratings best reflected in their guidebook.

I seem to prefer the gorge to the rest of the park. Maybe because it's less crowded than the main area when I have been there. The ratings in the rest of the park while being consistent do seem to be a bit on the overrated side to me. Those in the gorge seem less consistent.