So Ya Think Yer Old School...

[JayB]

This from John Middendorf's Piece in the latest edition of Ascent:

"The Era of mechanically assisted rock climbs in the Eastern Alps was not without competition. Incredibly bold vertical routes were climbed without any mechanical protection at all - what we would call 'free-solo' today. Georg Winkler, a pioneer in such climbing, made a number or impressive climbs, including the first ascent in 1887 of the eastern Vajolet Tower, a year before his death at the age of 18 during a solo attempt of the Weisshorn. Many climbers in later years were to emulate Winkler and reject the use of ropes and aid, even though he himself used a grappling hook on occaision. Footwear evolved from heavy spiked boots to ligher felt-soled shoes developed by the Simond Firm, opening a new era of free climbing with leaders who morally opposed reliance on gear.

Paul Preuss, a vocal and influential Austrian, vigorously denounced the use of pitons and rope manuevers as a lower standard. He wrote six climbing rules:

'First, one shoud not only be equal to any climb that one undertakes, but be more than equal to it. Second, the standard of difficultly which a climber can conquer with safety when descending, and for which he can consider himself competent with an easy conscience, should represent the limit of what he should attempt on his ascent. Third, hence the use of artificial aids only becomes justifiable in the case of sudden threatening danger. Fourth, the piton is an emergency aid and not the basis of a system of mountaineering. Fifth, the rope may be used to facillitate the matters, but never as the sole means to make a climb possible. Finally, the principle of safety is one of the highest principles. Not the spasmodic correction of one's own want of safety, obtained by the use of artificial aids, but that true safety which should result, with every climber, from a just estimate of what he is able to, and what he desires to do."

The word from the original old school. Sounds to me like Preuss is calling you a candy-ass if you need to rely on a rope and/or pitons in any fashion whatsoever during your ascent. Moreover, sounds like the anti-bolting camp will have two eschew the use of both if they wish to live up to the ethics established by Preuss. This guy set the bar higher and paid the ultimate price for it. "Preuss died at age 27 while attempting to solo the north face of the Manndlkogen. It was an era when not many of the top climbers made it to thirty. Perhaps the new safety methods had some merit after all."

[ 12-08-2001: Message edited by: JayB ]

[pope]

High on Lundin mountain, on a 3rd-class ridge that leads to the summit, one will find three or four bolts equipped with enormous, apparently hand-crafted bolt hangers. One may also find a plaque honoring the name of some guy from the Boe-Alps mountaineering club who apparently fell off from the ridge. A third-class ridge for crying out loud. Is there any limit to the efforts to sanitize and homogenize mountaineering? Must we litter the hills with all of these safety nets, in the name of making mountaineering safe for climbers who won't commit to mastering basic rock work before trying to ascend that big alpine prize?

You know, I'm really not that old. I started climbing in the early 80's, and the attitude among my peers was "leave only footprints." We understood that if a pitch didn't offer enough protection for you, you retreated and left it alone. We understood that when you lead a pitch, you need to maintain some kind of control so that you'd have something left if you needed to climb down 20 feet to your last good gear. We maintained a high degree of safety, and we took a lot of pride in the idea that preserving the aesthetics of rock came before satisfying the ego.

And so I ask, are bolts necessary for safety in a place like Vantage, where one could easily find perfect safety from a top-rope? Or consider a poorly protected pitch for which a top-rope is not easily rigged: are bolts necessary for safety? Isn't avoiding the pitch a safer alternative? Sure, few people will try it without bolts. Sure, bolts would make it more climber-friendly. But will that really improve the climb and the area, when the big crowds start showing up to attempt it?

To me, the greatest safety precaution I can take seems to be to get in shape, to attempt to be very solid in a given grade before pushing through it, and to take responsibility for myself. I think more people used to play by these rules; it did mean that you had to lead a few grades below what you could top-rope with a fight. That never bothered me, but I've always felt that the chance to push to leading higher numbers in perfect safety, the chance to get a little ego stroke, was the reason clipping bolts caught on. With bolts for protection, one could suddenly climb grades that only the elite could handle previously, and by clipping bolts, one could get the "feel" of what real leading must be like.

Of all the great reasons to rap bolt (increased safety, the focus on gymnastic movement instead on equipment, the convenience of not having to carry a rack), I could never convince myself that these reasons justified the mess left behind. "Leave only footprints!" is a value that I think is worth making your own. This doesn't mean you never place a bolt, just that you avoid it except in very special cases.

[pope]

High on Lundin mountain, on a 3rd-class ridge that leads to the summit, one will find three or four bolts equipped with enormous, apparently hand-crafted bolt hangers. One may also find a plaque honoring the name of some guy from the Boe-Alps mountaineering club who apparently fell off from the ridge. A third-class ridge for crying out loud. Is there any limit to the efforts to sanitize and homogenize mountaineering? Must we litter the hills with all of these safety nets, in the name of making mountaineering safe for climbers who won't commit to mastering basic rock work before trying to ascend that big alpine prize?

You know, I'm really not that old. I started climbing in the early 80's, and the attitude among my peers was "leave only footprints." We understood that if a pitch didn't offer enough protection for you, you retreated and left it alone. We understood that when you lead a pitch, you need to maintain some kind of control so that you'd have something left if you needed to climb down 20 feet to your last good gear. We maintained a high degree of safety, and we took a lot of pride in the idea that preserving the aesthetics of rock came before satisfying the ego.

And so I ask, are bolts necessary for safety in a place like Vantage, where one could easily find perfect safety from a top-rope? Or consider a poorly protected pitch for which a top-rope is not easily rigged: are bolts necessary for safety? Isn't avoiding the pitch a safer alternative? Sure, few people will try it without bolts. Sure, bolts would make it more climber-friendly. But will that really improve the climb and the area, when the big crowds start showing up to attempt it?

To me, the greatest safety precaution I can take seems to be to get in shape, to attempt to be very solid in a given grade before pushing through it, and to take responsibility for myself. I think more people used to play by these rules; it did mean that you had to lead a few grades below what you could top-rope with a fight. That never bothered me, but I've always felt that the chance to push to leading higher numbers in perfect safety, the chance to get a little ego stroke, was the reason clipping bolts caught on. With bolts for protection, one could suddenly climb grades that only the elite could handle previously, and by clipping bolts, one could get the "feel" of what real leading must be like.

Of all the great reasons to rap bolt (increased safety, the focus on gymnastic movement instead on equipment, the convenience of not having to carry a rack), I could never convince myself that these reasons justified the mess left behind. "Leave only footprints!" is a value that I think is worth making your own. This doesn't mean you never place a bolt, just that you avoid it except in very special cases.

[pope]

Holy shit, Peter! Holy shit, Peter! How's that for being repetitive? How's that for being repetitive? BTW, the girl on Little House in the Big Woods or whateverdafuck it's called....I think her name was Nelly Olson. Her dad's name was Nells, and mom's name was Harriet. Was she hot? Was she hot hot hot? I always thought Laura's big sister was hotter.

[Lambone]

Dear old-schooler,

You think rap bolters are the only ones making a mess these days, you should see the number of ancient fixed ropes above Camp 2 on Ama Dablam...or the number of piss bottels and shit bags stuffed in the crack behind Camp 6 on the Nose. Climbers leave messes all over the place, and arguing about bolt ethics isn't going to solve that problem. Bolts are a reality, now its time to start looking at the bigger picture. The new challange climbers face today is in cleaning up their act. And if your part of the climbing community, most likely you are part of the problem, regardless of what you think about bolts. If you are a true low or non-impact climber great, instead of whining about the faults of lesser individuals, go out there and set the example for the next generation. Stop mocking them and maybe they'll start listening to you.

There's my two cents, "Go downtown and have a rat chew that thing off your face." --Uncle Buck

[ 12-08-2001: Message edited by: Lambone ]

[epb]

I argee with pope. However, I don't see any need into get into an ethical "to bolt or not to bolt" debate though. unfortunetly they seem to be here to stay.

Pope did bring back some earlier memories for me though. When I first started to lead and learned how to aid, my mates and I used to go in to the adirondacks and just pick out a cliff and a fun looking route up and just climb. It was the shit. Most of the routes I'm sure had allready been climbed, but to us it was like we were pioneering the whole wall let alone the indvidual route. If we got stuck, either the section was too sketchy or impossible to do without traditional pro, we would retreat. We would retreat and attempt alternative routes or pitches till we made it to the top. Plus that way, if you retreated from a 5.4 you would never know it, and your ego would still be intact. It was a fun way to climb.

[Lambone]

werd epb!

Oh and Pope, my previous post was not nescesarly directed toward you. Just narrow minded grumpy old-schoolers in general...

[ 12-08-2001: Message edited by: Lambone ]

[JayB]

Well, for what it’s worth, I think just about everyone who posts here would agree with philosophies espoused by Pope in his last post, in general. Few would argue with the notion that it is important to preserve the rock, and with it the integrity of the routes established upon it. Fewer still would dispute the notion that self-reliance, judgement, and adequate preparation are essential before attempting any route, especially those involving a significant degree of risk or commitment. Where Pope and I part company, it seems, is with the notion that placing or clipping bolts on sections of rock that are unprotectable otherwise automatically renders one an implaccable enemy of the values he champions, and a climber of a lower caliber. That’s a philosophical divide that we may never cross, and if not, that’s fine with me. It should be possible for “the community” to accommodate multiple perpsectives on these matters, so long as no one attempts to rigidly impose their outlook on the everyone else, be it through route destruction or recrimination and slander.

What struck me when I read Preuss’s comments, and the reason why I posted them, is the light it sheds on the ethical disputes that agitate the climbers of today. I suspect he’d look at the ethical vanguards out there today who consider themselves the champions of severe, uncompromising ethics as little more than guardians of a corpse that perished long ago when the ethics of his generation faded away, supplanted as they were by a generation shameless enough to incorporate…ropes (!) into their ascents. This aspect of his outlook and the ethical disputes that no doubt raged around it seem rather quaint in hindsight, as do the disputes over 12 point crampons versus step cutting, passive-pro versus cams, sticky-rubber versus standard rubber, and many others that have faded into memory. I for one hope that the dispute about placing bolts on sections of rock that are otherwise unprotectable and at anchors will join its rightful place in this mausoleum of long expired conflicts so that we can focus on more important things like preserving the crags and peaks themselves, rather than engaging in hermetic disuputes about how we choose to climb them.

[ 12-08-2001: Message edited by: JayB ]

[ 12-08-2001: Message edited by: JayB ]

[ 12-08-2001: Message edited by: JayB ]

[pope]

Jay, I enjoyed reading your post; I also get a kick out of reading ethical perspectives that seem a little out of date. Not every bolt is wrong, and I'm very much in favor of having reliable, fixed belays when adequate buildable anchors don't exist. You and Ima and others are correct to say that bitching about bolts probably doesn't change the situation, but if one or two people read this thread and then decide to exercise a little more restraint in their bolting campaigns, then it'll be worth some of the verbal abuse I get around here.

Also, we've got two classes of technological advances: things which don't damage the mountain environment (cams, better ropes, miracle fabrics, 12-point crampons, etc.); and then we've got more damaging items, those which forever detract from the wilderness experience for all parties to follow (pitons and their damage, bolts, fixed friends, and yes, Imabone, a big turd behind a flake on the Nose). In the second category, we could subdivide between those problems which are reversible and those which aren't. Piton damage is not temporary, nor is a rash of bolt holes. We can only hope that big turd on the Nose will eventually disappear.

[willstrickland]

Preuss would probably love the cable-car served, hut system, piton and bolt infested alpine climbing in the alps these days.

I end up bitching in all these ethics slanted threads, but as a wall climber I could be called a hypocrite. Anyone who's been on Thanksgiving ledge on the Capt, or Camp VI for that matter (although I wouldn't know, still haven't finished the Nose) and seen the filth and garbage would argue that wall climbers' ethics need some improvement. That said, I had an interesting experience in Josh last spring.

Having read in some R&I piece on Josh's bolt protected slab climbs that they "may be bolted, but aren't a sport climb" (paraphrased) we decided to do the climb in the accompanying photo. The route is Loose Lady on the Howser buttress. R&I captioned the photo with something to the effect of "Mary Jane's bolt relief will be short lived as it's a LONG way to that next bolt. I think the longest span between bolts ended up being about 12-15ft with a bolt close to each hard section. A thought provoking climb (as slab climbs can be), but runout? Hardly. Plenty of stuff on the GP Apron in the valley has much longer runouts, as do many of the dome routes in the meadows. It gave me an idea of the "standard" R&I considers when looking at climbs...they are pretty clearly coming from a sport climbing perspective (yeah, I know Eller et al climb trad too). So are we seeing a slippery slope? From free solo to hemp and pins to nylon and chocks and now 6ft bolt spacings and stick clips, bolted cracks, power drill rap grid bolting, hood ornaments as aid pieces, and piles of oxygen bottles and miles of fixed ropes in the Mtns. What next?

[MysticNacho]

Maybe someone came through and added a bolt or five after the article was published. Hard to believe that R&I would put the word "runout" on a route with bolts 15ft apart, but hey, I've never climbed it so who am I to tell.

[Dru]

I thought loose lady was pretty easy and well bolted but Im used to Squamish slab and LL was so featured it more of a low angle face. short crux at second bolt then 5.8 face up above! oh, hmmm actuially I think i seconded it, ahh i must be weak. it was years ago anyway!

[Dr.E]

Is some of the negative sentiment toward fixed gear motivated by a "dumbing down" or "de-adventurizing of the wilderness?" If so, what about packing walkie-talkies, cell phones or gps units? It seems to me that these items take a lot of the good old fashioned risk out of climbing much like closely spaced bolts.

Don't tell me about "your actions bolting infringe on my rights to climb clean." If I'm looking for adventure and the guy climbing the route ahead of me, or anywhere near me for that matter, is infringing on my adventure when his cell phone rings and reminds me of easy access to help in case I need it. I'm not saying I always feel that I want unimpeded adventure but it is a sticky issue.

Unfortuately, this logic taken to its extreme is ludicrous. A line in the sand is easy to draw and we don't all agree on where to draw it. Ahh, freedom. Should we do as the former USSR "champions of alpinism" and climb only the way a central planning committee dictates?

[pope]

We should all grow some balls. That's what we should do. Any number of things make climbing easier than it used to be; climbers respond by climbing more difficult routes. Make the gear lighter, man can go higher and faster. Make the protection better, now we find gear placements where previously they did not exist. I'm not against any of these developments, and I don't care if somebody chooses to employ them when another guy doesn't. We can all find the adventure we're looking for without interfering with the next guy's adventure....until we leave a mess. The bigger the mess, the more permanent the mess, the more it interferes. Bottom line. Get some class, get some dignity, get a wilderness ethic. Try to leave it the way you find it. Try to minimize the number of exceptions to this idea you're willing to make.

[plexus]

Ahh Josh!!

I remember that some climbs the bolts were about 10-15 feet apart and then some only had one or two bolts on it.

The most annoying thing was finding places to anchor into on the top. I remember I used 40 feet of webbing to set up an anchor at Roadside Rocks (???). Two other leads, I'd get to the top and realize there was nothing to anchor into, no cracks, no nuttin. Ended up being the anchor for the second. Getting down one was fun/scary boulder hopping.

[Dru]

yeah j tree! if you dont place a #4 camalot on route you will place it for the anchor!

[willstrickland]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dru:

yeah j tree! if you dont place a #4 camalot on route you will place it for the anchor!

---

If you do anything on the Blue Nubian formation that's exactly the case...no anchors on top, the only crack will take a 3.5 and 4 and you still need some creative use of slings to make it happen. That said, the climb "Blue Nubian" on that formation is cool, fingers and thin fingers through the crux to steep hands. Looked like it hadn't been climbed in years when I did it.

[Dr.E]

Pope,

You are correct sir!