RuMR

Matt and Hawk, there is no doubt whatsoever that Jardine's chopped traverse made the free climb of the Nose [in totality] a possibility even though he was and is widely panned for having done it. That said, it's still an irreversible "damage done" deal. Neither of the folks party to the FFA would have chipped the traverse to have accomplished the FFA and I don't believe any subsequent [free] party or parties would ever either. It was a clear mistake borne of an obsession, but one that can not, as opposed to should not, be undone. The Nose also would not have been free climbed without a couple of rap-placed bolts and rap-removed pins. These decisions were entirely discretionary on the part of the later teams attempting to free climb the route. Would I have done it - no, I would have aided those stretches and I wouldn't use the chipped traverse either. But as a result, had I ever so aspired, no one would ever regard such a climb a 'free' ascent. Not a problem for me, but for folks gunning for the FFA, their call to resort to exactly the same 'methods of last resort' as the FA team were theirs to make or the Nose would likely never have been freed (and ditto for recent free/aid controversies on WFLT). And no, I haven't climbed the Nose, but there is no difference whatsoever between the last pitch of the Nose and the last pitch of the line on Prusik, in deed or method. So again - for me - whatever I think of those two pitches and routes, I am ethically bound to think exactly the same of both; they're either both legitimate in the context of those FFA attempts at the edge of the possible, or they're both bogus and not worthy of an FFA designation. I'm not prepared to call Brooke and Lynn's FFA effort on the Nose bogus and that unalterably leads me to the exact same assessment of the Prusik line. There is no appreciable difference between them at all. And if I hear you correctly Hawk, along with the Prusik line, you clearly do not recognize any 'free' ascent of the Nose. And hey, there are people in the Valley who look at it sideways too, so you're not entirely alone. I'm just not prepared to go there and make that judgment and that's in part because I would have come down on the other side of those calls - but only for myself, at that same time and place. Also, outside of Creek splitters and the odd short pitch here or there, the world of straightup, multipitch .13 and .14 trad climbing is rarely pure or without pre-cleaning and pre-inspection. Not many free, groundup, onsight trad 14's go down to say nothing of free, groundup, onsight trad 14 FAs. I'm not so quick to rush to judgment at the bleeding edge where trad - for short stretches - necessarily gives way in one form or another to what I call "sprad". Containing "sprad effects" at the bleeding edge of trad climbing to me means giving absolutley the least quarter possible to any and all methods and techniques which dilute a pure, clean, trad ascent. But I also recognize there are limits to free climbing - the odds of seeing free, ground up onsight trad 5.16 FA's is pretty damn slim no matter how much you want to look backwards and say "but 5.11 was the top end just xxx years ago". As far as free climbing is concerned - somewhere out there right at the limits we are rapidly closing in on - trad, sprad, sport, pre-placing, pre-inspection, pre-cleaning, etc., etc. all start to bleed into "can a human climb it free in any style, period" - again, much like at an event horizon or when humans play chess against computers. And that is my personal view - that there is a boiling ethical event horizon operating at all times at the very bleeding edge of climbing in all disciplines and just because something may happen there, I no way support the idea that means there is any legitimate ethical grounds, or wholesale carte blanche, to back-propogate it down to every 5.6 in the land. That in no way means 'anything goes' or that anything is 'acceptable' on that bleeding edge in my view - but it's at that bleeding edge where evolution occurs - and exactly because of that, what does occur there should be looked at hard before being simply turned loose into the wild. Jardine's traverse is a good example of one that did not survive the cut on inspection. From what I can tell, the difference between me and a lot of you folks is, that for me there is an evaluative ethical boundary which lives instantly behind the bleeding edge and the rules that apply there (like an event horizon) don't necessarily immediately apply to the entire known universe outside of it. Whereas for a lot of you folks, anytime anything happens at the bleeding edge you do want instant, unexamined ethical carte blanche to apply the same technique the next day to your pet 5.10, and the next guy to the 5.8 he's developing out of the goodness of his heart in an unselfish act of 'community service'. Rap-bolting is exactly such a method to me - my preference by far would have been that rap-bolting have never escaped into the wild of climbs of a lower grade then the practice was initially developed for. I'm no fan of bolting, period - lead, rap, power, hand - I consider them at best an occasional necessary evil. The use of them to push the boundaries of difficulty in climbing I get and can grudgingly accept; the use of them to simply to provide access to suburban hordes I do not. For me it isn't a matter of elitism - it's a matter of believing some things that happen at the bleeding edge should at times stay at that grade and not instantly back-propogate all the way down to 5.6's. I admit it's an inherently different perspective, but one I've held for thirty-three years of climbing and I'm not going to change it now. And by those measures I still consider the line on Prusik a stellar trad and free climbing route. IB on the otherhand - entirely aside from the land management and legal issues - is, for me, a one-ride alpine theme park conceived and put up by people who simply do not know the difference. rapidly closing in on? People are onsighting 5.14b and c now on sport routes...and alan watts damn near onsighted citypark placing his gear almost two decades ago...

methinks that anyone who climbs "harder" than joseph is free to do what they wish...this standard is only upward in application; however... everyone else who climbs "easier" than joseph had better subscribe to his beliefs... its really quite simple...a thing of beauty, no?

ding dong...40 years ago, 5.11 would be where your 5.13+ is now...so, you can't make this argument... perhaps you are too frickin' old to realize that in some places 5.14 is pretty common?? the ratings are irrelevant to the ethics and vice a versa...at least professor don and poopStain are about as consistent as they come...you are a vascillating old lady in comparison... You should be Paris's lawyer, what with your different "standards" and all...

and what bolts to buy...our very own daryl cramer was advising on which way to go...

i have that effect on women, even though i'm a guy...

its good to see my little piggies doing so well!!

I didn't say they bolted next to cracks, I said I could find gear on lots of those pitches. I don't plan on doing more than using the same start as IB and take whatever line appears to be the best to the top. just sitting here wondering whether you will be wearing a tshirt that says "MY BEACH" and using your brass balls or your lead ones... Personally, i'd go with the lead ones...much more "heroic" and worthy of chestbeating...

Nothing could be farther from the truth, Off. I have nothing but admiration for boulderers and always have since early Gill days. Boulderers are taking risks and are totally self-reliant in their endeavors - and the don't dog routes on top of it. I also have no problem with mixed routes, they've always been part of climbing. The problem I have is exclusively with sport climbers. Sport climbing over twenty five years, in combination with gyms, has been a complete and absolute and unequivoval plague on the landscape. A vast majority of folks of 'climbers' today are wholly bolt-enabled and risk-averse and almost none of them would have been climbers back in the day. I make no bones or apologies about it - my clear and abiding preference would be that they weren't 'climbers' today. Again, this 'revolution' is entirely mechanized, and has led to crowding, access problems, and relentlessly threatens trad crags and routes everywhere. When plurality and 'individual freedom' are wholly predicated and based on the application of battery technology and stainless steel to pristine rock instead of personal responsibility I am no believer at all. And hey, I may well be the last guy on earth taking an unequivocal and unvarnished stance against sport climbing, but so be it. The true fascism (or maybe you prefer communism, which is quite a bit more accurate) happening is happening at the point of a drill. dude...get over it, you fuckin' elitist prick... Do you use a wheelbarrow to haul your lead balls around in??

wow dru... SCARY nut case...you can keep her in canada...

redpoint at smith has them...

wow...you must be like a level 62 staffbitch, huh?

Back on topic...i think it depends on the kid my 7 year old cranks...he's been climbing pretty solid since he was six or so and began climbing at 3 1/2...in between digging holes in the dirt and throwing rocks into the river, he gets pitches in... Some of his buddies, well, a couple of them will be naturals, others, definitely not so...but this is the same with adults...

for christmas ecock, i'm gonna get you one of those pill boxes that have a slot for S M T W Th F S to keep you cheery... no go take your pillz, bitch...

excuse me, but where exactly is this codified into law/morals/ethics?? This is simply YOUR opinion. So, what is your opinion on chipping then (aside from that my opinion on it doesn't matter to you)? i think it makes the rock cry....

Very much ego to say they were not nessasary. And to prove to someone else that they were not nessasary buy chopping them is all about your ego. " I dont need this bolt. I can run it out". Is all ego bro. Anyway you slice it. I simply define "not necessary" as the case when there natural protection is available at the same place where you would place a bolt. You seem to be describing cases where bolts that were necessary for the reasonable safety of the leader were chopped. But this is neither about runouts, nor ego. [u] Putting holes in the rock is inherently wrong, but a necessary evil.[/u] This is about not drilling holes in the rock unless 1) you have no other choice, 2) you have the support of the climbing community, and 3) it is legal. The chopping I would support is the recognotion of a mistake on one or more of these counts, which is different from the toughguy ego chop that you are talking about. excuse me, but where exactly is this codified into law/morals/ethics?? This is simply YOUR opinion...and you know what they say about opinions, don't you??

I heard you were joining The View to replace Rosie ??

that's right that you'd better fear my fat ass squashing you!

\ Forget your meds again, ecock?

duh... the comment was in response to muff's drivel about everything being gridbolted with bolts at their knees and hip and headlevel by people who've never climbed before... just cuz something is "bolted" doesn't mean its "overbolted"... oh yeah...fuck off... PS: hope you got your "fear" thing worked out...maybe you should visit Muff's local crag...

:LMAO: assworked just got worked...

Who gets to "declare" it a bolt free zone? in my opinion if you locate and area that has yet to be climbed than you are the grandaddy. you put the blood sweat and tears or sheer dumb luck into locating an area and starting something. i think it then becomes ethical to check with you before i make a drastic (bolt or otherwise) change to the area. it isn't about whether you purchased the area or not. it is about respect. it is also respectful to let you know if i found something i want to clean and that i want to work on, so you can let other people know that i am working that bit. it isn't about what is LEGAL or what CAN be done. anyone can do anything. it is about ethics and morals. my personal rights only go so far as they do not interfere with anyone else's personal rights. this reminds me of the thred in newbies about your friends route that got Ganked. I think that sucks. same goes for bolting in an area that most people agree shouldn't' be bolted because it protects so well. i think if you start a project you should be allowed to work on it or pick the person you want to work on it. is it really so vitaly important? Flagstone is always my example. It is a wonderful little crag, fun, out of the way, cool in summer. it has a ton of stiff climbing. the group of men(XOXOOXOXO love you guys) who started climbing there put up a bunch of really stiff routes becuase thats what they climbed. but there were some really well bolted easier routes too, but then someone showed up who didn't talk to them, didn't hang out with them didn't respect them and started squeezing routes in all over the place. then other people started squeezing in routes and now there are a bunch of shitty routes. on one wall when you lead you can literally clip at your knees, hips, head level and out an arms distance (for me and i am little) to routes on either side. it is so confusing i don't even know where to clip any more. one of the people who did all the bolting (hi dave yes i am still beating the same drum ) said he did it to make climbing accessible to everyone. I respect that, but i don't think new climbers are helped by facing such a massive route finding issue. I think it then becomes even more dangerous than it needs to be. we do not have an american climbing Czar. that means we have to find a way to work together in our own best interests. otherwise...the parks or forestry or someone will eventually take the decision making away from us and we wont get to pick and choose of have a say... and every rock in the US will be grid bolted by people who have never climbed before, because it will be a job like cleaning the port a potty in the national park. now i have heard everything...too many bolts makes it more dangerous? :lmao: hahahaha In Europe, the limestone is pretty much only bolt protected at the crags and you can fall a really really long way... I think it has more to do with the individuals placing the bolts than the bolts themselves...

#1: Leave no trace. #2: There are (almost) no bolts on alpine routes, nor should there be. Particularly at certain crags in the NW where many people climb to prepare for alpine routes, the practice routes should not be bolted except where unanimously deemed necessary (anchors, runout face). #3: YES, bolts can get in the way of climbing, even if you are not using them.#4: Last weekend I led a well-protectable crack at Red Wing, MN that looks to have been been retrobolted and chopped more than once. Because climbers must lead it on gear, they will realize that bolts are not necessary on any climb like it, and will not be tempted to bolt (or support the bolting of) any climb like it. That is a clear virtue of chopping where appropriate (as defined by reasonably safe to lead cleanly). gotta call bullshit on this one, assworked..."uh yeah, gee, i fell off that route cuz of the bolt.."...yeah, righto...NEXT also..."reasonably safe to lead cleanly" is ambiguous...what's reasonable?? that is the definition of an individual...ie Kevin recently whined about a 10 foot fall onto a slab as being "not safe"...everyone else jumped his shit about it...

i don't think mother nature gives a flying turd one way or the other about some studs in a piece of rock...

thats just a little treat my boy friend left me with... kinda salty but fun wow...that's a trick...your BF jizzes coffee cake/twinkie mixes???

the corner of your mouth, honey...you need to wipe it...