What about the Slabs, Oh Wise Ones....

[erik]

matt, that was one of the better posts i think i have read in along time.......

a standpoint of reason!!!!!!!

[JayB]

quote:

---

Originally posted by chucK:

JayB, In the first part of your above-quoted post you decry climbs where people can get hurt. In the second part you describe the joy you find in climbing such routes. If a mentally and physically challenging climb is established in an area that subsequently becomes popular, are those that enjoy the challenging nature of that climb required to suffer the loss of their climb to ensure the safety of the newcomer beginners?

---

Chuck:

I've enjoyed reading your posts and I think you've made some good points. Sorry if the points that I was trying to raise in my own weren't entirely clear.

In the first half of my post I was just trying to say that R/X rated routes have their place. If they were established in that fashion as a result of necessity or out of respect for an ethic that prevails at a given crag I have no problem with them. Also, if the ethic at a particular crag evolves in a manner that stresses safety over boldness - the lines established in a different era should be left as they are. But I think that I fall into the same camp as Matt when it comes to new lines that are intentionally established as "Death Routes," to make a "statement" at popular crags where an entirely different ethic is the rule.

In the second half of my post I was attempting to address the "Why do you lead sport climbs" question. The feelings I described weren't those that I encounter on R-rated stuff, but on typical sport routes. Maybe it's just me, but I encounter standard sport routes fairly often where the bolts are a bit too high to be considered safe, or where the position of the second bolt exposes the leader to groud-fall potential, or the fall will be especially long. I don't seek these lines out, but deal with them when I have to. Other poster's may feel that leading a sport route involves no more difficulty or commitment than TRing it, but I'll have to respectfully disagree with them on that one.

On the rare occaisions that I intentionally venture onto an R-Rated route (2-3 times a year, tops) it's usually so far below my top leading ability, and I'm so mindful of the fact tha the consequences for panic are so high, that I'm usually quite a bit more collected on them than on sport routes that are at my limit. On sport routes I can push my limits without dying - and I sort of like that.

So, in the end what it all comes down to is that while I respect the ethic and commitment behind R/X rated routes and would not want to deny climbers who seek them out the opportunity to do so, I don't think that all climbers should be forced to adopt that ethic if they wish to climb (lead) anything at all. I think there's room for both styles out there, and for those of us who aren't always looking for the same thing when we head to the crags - heady leads one day and safe climbs where the challenge is primarily physical the next.

And Matt: Awesome post - I think you should publish it so that I wider audience can get the chance to read it. Great stuff.

[roger_johnson]

I agree. A thoughtful post on a "button" topic. Properly spaced and placed bolts make a climb possible with a reasonable amount of commitment(risk) while bolts too close together eliminate the commitment; it becomes almost like hiking a ladder.. On long slab climbs with easier sections the bolts can be spaced further apart because the commitment factor goes down. The long runouts at Tuolumne are legendary; bolts place on lead. After climbig there for a while the long runouts that gripped at first become much more reasonable, at least in the mind. There is a learning curve and a numbing curve.

[Latch_Holeflaffer]

Great post Matt. In Rodgers post he states "In The long runouts at Tuolumne are legendary; bolts place on lead. After climbig there for a while the long runouts that gripped at first become much more reasonable, at least in the mind. There is a learning curve and a numbing curve." Very true, but that does not mitagate the danger that some of those beautiful routes entail. Take Grey Ghost as an example, full pitch runouts on 5.8 with no climbing harder than 5.8. and many knobs to stand and drill on. The way old school first ascent team did not want to stop and drill for whatever reason. They should allow at least one bolt to be placed so that more climbers do not die on this route. A route is like a trail and the more it is traveled the easier it gets. Some well used trails need a little maintance. And some heavily used area's need more trails that are safe for the masses. Variety the spice of life.

[Don_Gonthier]

Matt, I understand your arguments and have thought of them myself but after getting on a few first ascents I have to say I don't agree. First if the crux is really 5.12 then 5.8 shouldn't be much of a problem. Most climbs I have been on were protected with a climber capable of doing the route in good style in mind. Second, on the few sport routes I have put up where I knew other climbers would be repeating those routes I have spent a good deal of time making sure they had enough protection and were clean. But on longer routes put up from the ground, I don't feel any responsibility to parties who may follow. The amount of work you are talking about is enormuse. Frankly most of the time I go climbing I don't think about the saftey of anyone but those in my own party.

[DLunkman]

Bringing up the urban legend of a 5.12 climber putting up a 5.8 death route does not justify placing many bolts on a completely topropable pitch.

[mattp]

It's been said many times that we are never going to have consensus, but Roger, Matt, Latch, Clyde, and ChucK have agreed with my thesis that bolt dependent slab climbs are OK, if they are "reasonably" and "properly" bolted, and I think it sounds as if their ideas of what that may mean may be fairly similar (Matt is the only one that set forth his idea of what might be proper spacing in any real detail and I am sure that we could quibble over the dimensions but the general concept seems to be that the average climb should have protection somewhere near moves that are within a number grade or two of the crux rating, and easier terrain need not be protected as thoroughly). It doesn't sound to me as if Peter would disagree to any serious degree and Pope, too, indicated that he might find a route equipped in this manner not to be over bolted -- as long as the bolts aren't placed next to cracks (on this point -- bolted cracks -- it seems we all assume there is general agreement). JRCO says extreme runouts are no good though he doesn't say what is good, Erik says thumbs up, Alpine K seems to be more or less on board. So everybody who has commented on this particular point has reached consensus!

Bullshit, you say? Have I put words in your mouths? Yes I have. But my point is that I think there really are some areas were we generally agree. Does this mean OK EVERYBODY, AS LONG AS YOU PLAY WITHIN THESE PARAMETERS IT'S ALL COOL, SO GO FOR IT? Of course not. All of us know that quite apart from what might be OK when talking about a particular pitch, there are issues of over crowing, overuse, overbolting, and just plain overdoing it. And I think all of us agree that our crags are a limited resource that isn't to be all drilled out like the plains of eastern Wyoming. In addition to safety considerations, there are aesthetic concerns, environmental concerns, political concerns, and yes, stylistic concerns. These issues will not be resolved so easily.

[pope]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Puget:

Pope –

By the way months ago I suggested that one thing that can be done to help reduce sport bolting was to encourage TRS as an valid means of FA.It would surely discourage the addition of bolts at places like the Fun Forest where bolts were added to existing TRs.

.

---

I think this is an excellent solution in many cases, although certainly not every route can easily be top-roped. I was not aware of the developments at the Fun Forest. Shit.

[Matt]

The South Platte is a truly wonderful place to climb. I was lucky enough to visit it this past summer while visiting an old college roommate who has made his home in Divide, Colorado. Each day we drove along the dirt road that wound its way along the bottom of the canyon and he pointed to different domes he had climbed until we found one that looked appealing. The river was full of wild trout and Jane, my wife, would find a nice rock in the middle of the river on which to stand. She would cast her dry flies without worry of snagging a branch and at the same time keep us in view as we climbed. For several days John and I picked the plum lines on the various domes, each climb between 3 and four pitches. Jane fished, pleased with herself that she could net the wild trout without me looking over her shoulder. I was happy to be climbing with an old friend in a quiet canyon on excellent rock. It was never crowded, we saw only the occasional fly fisherman and a few climbing bums living out of the back of their Toyota pick up. The domes were reminiscent of Yosemite granite, however, they were smaller, mostly three or four pitches. There were bolts, but nothing we did was a sport climb. We always needed a rack and even the bolted pitches weren’t bolted into submission by any means. There were lots of ramps, and so a fumbled clip could easily land you on a flat piece of rock 15 or 20 feet below—real ankle breakers. It was enough to make me worry about ruining my vacation and I backed off a few climbs. Each day we’d climb until the afternoon thunderstorms caught us, and then we’d run back to the car sopping wet to find Jane sitting comfortably snacking on lunch with stories of the day’s catch.

The character of the climbs reflected the ethics of their time—when any self-respecting first ascensionist would only drill when absolutely necessary and only on lead. My friend complained about the poor bolting jobs and suggested we go climb somewhere else, where the routes were steeper and a fall would result in air time not sliding down the less than vertical slabs and hitting who knows what.

Bolts leave a scar on the rock, albeit a small and generally unnoticed to all except the people who clip them. When climbers put up new routes that lack natural protection they are faced with a choice of whether or not to bolt. First, the route must be of high quality and worthy of bolting—Dreamer in Darrington comes to mind. Then they must decide whether to climb from the ground up and hope that their fist attempt at finding the best line and bolting will result in something worthy of their effort or they can scout the rock from above, testing the different options, the different possibilities, and only when the best line is found, then they can get out the drill and place the ubiquitous bolt. I believe the latter is the best option, because then each bolt can be placed with serious thought and consideration, not desperation, as I suspect would be the case most of the time when drilling on lead. Some quality lines can be spotted from the road, others must be ferreted out. When it the latter, it is better to top rope a possible route from above before littering the cliff with bolts on an unaesthetic line that future climbers will not want to follow.

Drilling bolts into the rock is not an endeavor to be entered into lightly. It requires careful consideration. When altering the rock is required, such as cleaning or drilling, a first ascent should not be a statement of the climber’s ego, rather it should be creating something that can be shared with the entire climbing community. When a 5.12 climber puts up a 5.8 route and only places protection where he needs it then the climb becomes a trophy for his inflated ego. If you are going to alter the rock it should be in a way that will benefit the majority of the people in our climbing community. I think this means it’s okay to run it out on easy ground relative to the overall grade of a route, but in difficult places if there is no natural protection, the first ascensionist should drill bolts keeping in mind the climber pushing his or her limit.

For example, I think on the crux pitch of a slab climb it is okay to space bolts about fifteen feet apart with bolts at or just below all of the crux moves, and thirty to forty apart on pitches that are significantly easier than the crux. I generally don’t want to see more than ten bolts on a pitch, but I also don’t want to consider a fall greater than thirty feet when I’m pushing my limit. I also don’t mind running out a 5.6 pitch in the middle of a 5.10 climb. When, say, the first bolt of a route is 25+ feet off the ground or there is a runout of forty feet in the middle of a crux pitch all I can think of is the utter arrogance of the first ascensionist. When a route is bolted so only a select few elite climbers will be willing to risk a big fall then the bolts become litter that nobody sees.

If you’re going to drill, drill a great line. Drill something striking formidable, challenging, but also accessible. Drill something that can be repeated so more people will do it and help dilute the concentration of climbers at the more established areas. Don’t drill something so scary that no one in their right mind would lead it. Don’t scar the rock and then say, “Hey look what I did! I’m such a bad ass! It was a great experience for me ‘cause I did it on lead! Go ahead and try it! See if you dare!” Get over yourself I say. Share a little. Take your time and do it right or don’t do it at all.

Some people say they only bolt when leading and leave big runouts when they can because the want to preserve the “adventure” or the “legitimacy” of a climb. I think that’s bull shit. It’s selfish to alter the rock for yourself without keeping in mind the people who will inevitably follow. It's selfish because there will inevitably be more people who will enjoy a well protected climb than a Rated R/X death climb. I hope climbers in the PNW will see the ethics followed in the South Platte as what they are, a piece of history but not a suggested path for today.

[pope]

Matt writes:“Some people say they only bolt when leading and leave big runouts when they can because the want to preserve the “adventure” or the “legitimacy” of a climb. I think that’s bull shit. It’s selfish to alter the rock for yourself without keeping in mind the people who will inevitably follow. It's selfish because there will inevitably be more people who will enjoy a well protected climb than a Rated R/X death climb.”

I generally agree with everything you say, Matt, and I appreciate your well-formulated request that climbers choosing to bolt do so thoughtfully. I also agree that in some situations, bolts should be placed in such a way that access is extended to a wider spectrum of climbers. For example, imagine a long route on pristine granite, following classic weaknesses (ramps, corners, chimneys, cracks), which has 40 feet of blank rock in the middle, and suppose that this blanks traverse can be free climbed with only moderate difficulty, in character with the rest of the route. Now suppose your mythical 5.12 climber decides to run it out through this section. On the one hand, I’m not sure this guy is thinking “Wow, look at me, I’m running it out on 5.8! Can’t wait to spray about this one. What a trophy!” If he chooses to run it out, he’s probably thinking to himself that the route has required very little fixed protection. Why fuck it up with ugly engineering now? On the other hand, he is in a way denying access to “average” climbers by not “adequately” bolting the pitch. Of course, if he leaves the pitch “run-out”, average climbers could be inspired to become better climbers, so that the route is within their abilities. Would that be a crime?

Also, hypothetically consider a short pitch at Vantage, or some other place where routes are easily top-roped. Now our 5.12 climber might be thinking, upon spying a new line, that he should just leave it alone, or he might have the urge to bolt it on the lead, as an example of the way mountaineering really should be done, or perhaps just to test his own lead-climbing abilities (the kind of leading he might very well be required to do on a new route on a big mountain wall). True, he’s going to permanently alter the rock if he drills at all, and so perhaps he should take into consideration the abilities of those to follow. On the other hand, he’s got his own belief system to deal with (that is, his choice to drill might have nothing to do with ego or trophies). Furthermore, in this hypothetical situation, climbers who won’t take the risk to climb it the way he (or she) has equipped it, may always choose to top-rope it. Finally, he’s thinking, if he chooses to establish it as a top-rope problem, given the nature of climbs/climbers at that cliff (like Vantage, for example), then it’s unlikely that climbers are going to respect his choice. Some A-hole is just going to rap bolt it anyway. So, he bolts it on the lead, and the result is only leadable by a select number of climbers who are capable. What’s the problem?