DCramer

From Piana's guide: Looks like the bolt was added before sport climbing!

As far as the bolts – big deal. I am not worried about them. In the years after we climbed it I saw no one climb it. Now I have seen a several parties on it and SC calls the "new" route the best new route at Index. I have even seen Timmy O’Neil on it. Call me a wimpy poser but I take more pleasure in seeing people climb the route as it is now even if they think that it is a ‘new” route. I only mentioned it because of the crap I see on CC.com. The posing and posturing and the certainty of the beliefs presented when they are most certainly wrong or at best uncertain is amazing. This is merely a case in point. Here’s another one just yesterday Ben claimed to have climbed all the routes right of the Fault. Turns out he hasn’t. All posts here that assume Croft placed the bolts are another example. Did he? I don’t know. I was told that he didn’t. I could be wrong. Certainly if he climbed the route with preexisting bolts pre-slung with long slings that should make a difference to the analysis. Everybody is out to make the other guy look small. Sad really.

Except for the first 15' it had been climbed. The first 15' was squeezed in between Snow White and All Purpose Duck. SOme of the handholds on Dwarf are in fact footholds of All Purpose Duck. A section that had been {edit to add word free} led free onsight without bolts now has an additional 5 bolts.

The layback section above the bolts is pretty straightforward. Back when there were only stoppers it was difficult to protect the main layback section. The thin crack at top, which is easily avoidable, is a bit trickier. Isn't this route .11 not .12? I am not sure that Croft even placed the bolts. The first one isn't just high off the ground it is simply in a fucked up location. Usually there is an old sling hanging from it. Certainly in the '80s there was a sling of variable worth virtually 100% of the time. If Croft didn't place the bolts and the sling was there when he made the FA does that change things? Just a question for all you deep thinkers. SC - Frog Pond is nothing like SPM. You once claimed (on CC.com) that a retro bolted route at Index was the best "new" route at Index. How should an outside observer take your comments?

So Squeak is to the right of the Fault?

Your thinking of Shriek of the Mutilated aren't you? I am thinking of what's between JJ Overhang and Gorilla Desparado? Is there no route?

How's Squeak of the Humiliated? Details please I always wanted to try it.

I think this logic is not supportable by reality. Examples: Index Keith’s Crack 5.11c Super crack climb. Was cleaned and then lost popularity and Cal thought he found a new route when he retrocleaned it. It’s a bit scruffy now. Definitely one of the better crack routes in the state. Top Pitches of JG 5.11c When cleaned these help make one of the best multi-pitch crag routes in WA. Now they are pretty dirty. I cannot think of any crag routes in WA that are clearly better. Leavenworth Apesville 5.11b Fun roof crack. Never seems to get done. Why? Who knows but it’s fun as hell. Monkey Lip 5.11 Mostly protected by old fixed KBs/Bugaboos. A good scrubbing and gear upgrade would bring this back to popularity. Ben, I would think that you would want people to climb existing routes at Castle rather than move out to other areas.

I went climbing last weekend with someone who has put up about 30 ground-up ascents this year alone. (Rock routes in Washington) I do not think that ground-up ascents are a thing of the past. By the way when did the extra bolt get added to the Superpin route? Wasn't it a long time ago?

Well I think we have pretty much talked this one to death. I am surprised by the italicized quote above. After all I wrote this in my last post: "I also never suggested that you or JH didn't adhere to what you say you did believe in." Also your response regarding the Nose climber does seem a bit cynical. In parting I offer the following comments. The % of clean routes ascended is relatively meaningless. For example a simple reason for that might turn out to be that bolting was just too hard and not that anyone believed in clean climbing. Another explanation might be that with so many crack lines waiting to be climbed climbers just didn't need bolt when putting up FAs. I was cleaning out my ofice and pulled two Mountain Magazines out at random. From their info section: Mountian 70 New Hampshire Paul Ross reporting: This short report compeletely recapitulates what I have been saying. The last line, where I added emphasis, is particularly revealing. Also same issue regarding Suicide Rock: Mountian 65 Yosemite Valley: Interesting sidebar the FA party was Peter Croft and friends. Our views on bolting might not be as far apart as you think - consider Flashclimber's post regarding Phone Calls From the Dead elswhere on this site. Anyway thanks for the discussion. I use to climb several times a year at Beacon so thanks for your efforts there.

1) I do not believe that there are two fully drilled holes. 2) It just seemed like a silly thing to do.

Gosolo - As the above quote demonstrates I do think tht there have been change in "Ethics" I also never suggested that you or JH didn't adhere to what you say you did believe in. What I say is a myth is that everyone behaved in some noble manner or that everyone even believed in the same thing you do/did. I provided examples supporting that position. Simple. I suspect that already and even back in the day there were those who practised a different sport also called "climbing". That is exactly the problem - "climbing" is really a variety of sports. I do not deny that you left the enviroment close to spotless; however, you must agree that others did not hold as close to your ideal as you did? Certainly lots of bolts were added to existing El Cap routes in the '70s. Fully 25% of the new routes in the South Platte had bolts or pins. (mostly bolts) While you held tight to your style others abandoned it readily. One of the guys who made the second clean ascent of the Nose became a rap bolter. He got back into climbing when rap bolting became more acceptable. Here is a guy who at one point was at the cutting edge of clean climbing becoming excited about being able ot rap bolt. One of those New Hamshire FA guys was excited as hell about climbing Endliss Bliss. (By the way this is a route I have no desire to do) Where these guys card carrying members of the 70s club or just passing through. And for the umpteenth time I have never said that someone should go and add bolts to any routes. I have never even said it is a goofy way to climb. Is the only reason someone would disagree with you because they are a wimp?

As I said in my first post.. I also said later I wasn't saying anything about "group responsibility" or bolting existing routes but merely arguing against what I thought was a poor argument infavor of effort to develop a better way of relating to each other. You are basically wanting the government come in and protect your preferences. I admit I am suspicious whenever anyone advocate that. Matt will verify once I was complaining to him about too many bolts at a local area and when I felt he was saying that we needed a group to make those decisions my reply was that I would rather every one of my routes be bolted to death.

Hmm now just who is being political…. First it seems as fairly straight forward that hangdogging, preinspection, pre-protecting bolts are not really features of “clean” climbing. All were ridiculed in the ‘60s and perhaps earlier. I would note that the first 5.10 in the Valley had a rap placed bolt. It seems we all have ended up agreeing that “clean climbing” (me for the sake of argument)in the ‘70s meant using pins and bolts as a last resort. Matt and I noted that that is what people are doing now. From that position calling “clean climbing” in the 70’s as something distinct from the 05’s seems to be an incorrect assessment. I would note that while the results may differ the climbing ethic remains the same regardless of the boldness or timidness of the climber making the decisions. The problem isn’t so much the ethic changed as much as more climbers are free to be wimps now. You frankly have not created a good counter argument to this. In the broader context of hanging preinspection, pre-protecting…if the leading lights of rock climbing bend the rules when they see fit why can’t the grubby masses? Is it so hard to understand that basic concept? By the way just to clarify I am not arguing that climbing ethics are the same today as they were in the 70s. I do think that the ethics in the 70s were vastly different than the way you present then. And by the way you are presenting them for express political purposes here in this thread. I leave it to any interested readers to go to the Mountainers library and read the Mountain magazines of the day, read the Climbing mags and decide for themselves just how unified climbers were around ethics.

That is not what I am saying Bill. What I am saying is that we all have different values and goals related to climbing. We as climbers need to develop a system for gettign along that actually works. Or at least one that isn't based on a "my dick is bigger than yours" approach. Something better than a "Locals Only" philosophy. The way JH has become the subject of the thread evidence of a poor system of thought. Personalizing these discussions seems simply a way to avoid talking about the real issues.

On my first ever lead I placed a Crack-n-Up.[edit]ok now I remember it was somethign else so ignore this first sentence - getting old is tough[end edit] Once while aid climbing on a seaside cliff (with only clean gear if you can imagine)I had to lead to the top on my haul line via a 30' runout and my last piece was a crack-n-up. In the right conditions (basalt in this case) they worked ok. Of course then I was young and wanted different things out of climbing. I wouldn't say that those goals were better or worse than today. Just different.

Matt I couldn't agree more. Perhaps the biggest problem with the whole (I believe mythical) "70's Ethos" is that in practice it becomes nothign more than a self-serving method of controling others whose actions you might not like. As with most controling myths it cannot be rationally argued. It gives those judging others a platform to feel superior and a justification of appealing to a greater authority. The myth contains the seeds of its own destruction.

It is indeed very sad to hear of John's passing. We went on a couple of trips to Squamish with the same group and I remember them fondly; however, whenever I think of John I do not think of those trips but rather an interaction I had with him before we ever met. It was in the early 80s and I had spent the day climbing at Index. I was living with my parents and upon arriving home the first thing my mother said to me was "Did you leave your pack at Index?" It then hit me that I did. "How did you know?" Mother replied: "Well a friend of yours, John Stoddard, called and said he had your pack" Me: "John Stoddard?" Mother: "Well he dropped it off." And there was my brown pack loaded with my gear. To this day I find it incomprehensible how he beat me home. He noticed an unattended pack foud out whose it was and returned it all before the loss was noticed! Best regards & condolences, Darryl

JH - I can distinctly remember the "if you can't do it without a bolt wait for the better man" argument. Another one was along the lines of "the real clean climbers will approach a big wall with only clean gear no hammers." This strict clean approach was advocated by many. The way I see your approach is that it becomes meaningless => "I climb clean unless I need pins or bolts." This is pretty much what we have today. The problem is that each climber is left to make the decision as to whether a pin or bolt is needed. Arguments between climbers just turn into some form of the statement "you're a pussy" tempered by the occasional "I made an erorr in judgement." Read Matt_M's post earlier in this thread he seemed to clearly be hearing a voice saying "all you pussies." I would like to believe that there is less judgemental approach available to help climbers get along better not only with other climbers but also land manager's and other users. Banks Lake is pretty cool I have never climbed any of the boat stuff and climbed solely on the shore across from the park. If I can find it, I'll post a scan of the rock and a crag. From your description you are certainly thinking of another Cramer.

In some cases they were improvements. For example on NLC there was a KB protecting a 5.10 move. If it pulled you would have quite possibly hit the deck from 40’ up. When the KB was new it was bomber, but how long was it new? No one asked permission for this, but why bother asking; it seems the safe thing to do. With regard to replacing a critical pin with a bolt I don’t think that my permission matters. If I was to say no, I should be ignored. The first bolt on the route was placed on lead and consequently was not in the best position. I think someone may have asked about changing it, but can’t remember if it was before or after. A few bolts were added near the top replacing some pins not sure what I think of that because I can hardly remember what it’s like up there. It was done before the days of small TCUs. In other cases am not sure that the additions were improvements. For example , one route had bolts added to a section we climbed clean and was once called “the best new route” at Index (post bolting.) Anyway once a friend asked what I was frustrated about and I said I wasn’t sure. To my knowledge not one climber ever climbed it when a tied off pin (not fixed) protected the crux. Now it has had a bunch of ascents – in short I am somewhat conflicted over this one, but leaning towards the “its cool people are doing the route” side. Changing gears slightly I was completely against the bolt(s) added to JG/10% but everyone seems to like them. I have read a bunch of TRs saying they climbed the first pitch of JG. This was never the top of a pitch. Clint added the p1 short notation in his guide despite my objections. The anchor was an old bolt to protect a wide section and a pin several feet below. It is now two chains. On a crowded day I am guessing that the bolts are well used and probably a good addition. I have never been a big sport climber, the last 5 pitches I have cleaned at Index have had 3 bolts placed. I think the bolted crack argument is for the most part pretty weak. I guess if Numbah 10, a bad example in my opinion, is the poster route, things can’t be so bad considering Max bolted it almost 20 years ago! New Crags as express developments for the masses are something JH and I do agree on. At the initial WCC meeting I voiced my opinion on how these were bad for climbing. Not every area needs to be extensively developed. Part of the tradeoff I am willing to make is that some areas like Index have some chains I am not fond of while others are left less developed. Several years ago I was climbing at Banks Lake (early 90s) and we had a bolt gun and plenty of bolts. We approached the area on foot and in the heat and with all the prickers and scrambling we kept joking about being in Africa. When it came down to actually bolting a route we decided to just do TRs (one was multi-pitch) and leave our Africa undeveloped. The trade-off philosophy in action I guess. Matt - as far as your rising tide at Index the last ten years has been pretty quiet. The last explosion of bolting was by a climber who was retro-bolting his own routes and was in no way a product of the gym enviroment.

Well actually ChucK the reason I responded to this thread does indeed have something to do with the initial post. The other day I came to the realization that virtually every route I did in the “trad” style at Index has seen additional bolts placed. Take for example Clay, p1 of NA Overhang or Natural Log Cabin. (Well to be honest I am pretty sure I placed the second bolt non trad style on NLC)

JH you misrepresent my position. Read my post two up. You will see very clearly that you are incorrect. here I copied a pertinent part: Now how can you reasonably interperet the post that this is taken from as saying that there was no baseline clean ethic? I have always said that the world is a Rainbow. Then and now. I also said that that baseline clean ethic exist for the most part today. here is another quote from two posts above. Odd because I didn't mention routes, I mentioned areas. (ie South Platte. Meadows) I would simply ask someone to scan a Meadows guide, a Valley Guide, a Suicide guide and note how those route put up in the '70s used pins or bolts.

As far as clean climbing, a couple items may be lost in the fog. In general clean climbing pro is easier to place than pins! (I’m talking ’70 gear) Perfect example: Butterfingers. Clean gear is often stronger than a pin! I’d much rather have well placed hex than a well placed 3” bong. In the late 70’s when Friends came out things got a whole lot easier. Look clean climbing up protectable cracks became the norm in the 70’s. Today it still is the norm. I believe it would have become the norm even without the ethics question. In many cases it is simply the superior technology. You claim that I bring up odd exceptions but frankly I cannot consider your response reasonable. You are clearly saying that it was the norm that people chose not to do FA if they would require a pin or bolt. I point out the Desert, South Platte, the entire state of Califronia and you call it the exception - a very small percentage of the climbing (fas) going on. Are you really serious?

So "no pins" was standard in the Desert? No bolted routes were put up on the South Platte? To be clear I am talkin FAs.

I completely disagree. The idea that a ground up, no hang dog ascent is best is one thing, but to claim that people didn't hang is simply wrong. To claim that they didn’t use pins is also goofy. For example, Robbins put a route up at the Leap, Incubus, he used pins. This in the '70s. In a sense I am not sure what you are saying. That most people climbing stopped bringing a hammer along? That is certainly true. But that is not to say that those putting up new routes abandoned using pins or bolts. Look at the number of ground up routes put up in Yosemite, the Meadows, Suicide and J Tree in the ‘70s using bolts. There were hundreds. To say that all these routes were outside the norm is unsupportable. What you seem to be saying is something like saying that the prevailig ethic of those who climb at Exit 38 is not to bring a hammer. True but since these guys are climbing existing routes - big deal. This would have been true in the 60s quite probably as well if one was climbing a fully bolted route. My comments shouldn't be taken as being for or against retro bolting or any other ethical issue. I am merely trying to make a point about the "good old days."