debate fodder: lots of new climbers

[iain]

iain said:

Chief

 

take that chief! (or "cheif", as some seem to prefer )

chief!

[Al_Pine]

RuMR said:

scott_harpell said:

RuMR said:

scott_harpell said:

RuMR said:

 

Cuz 95% of the folks that climb them want the bolts...

 

 

so?

majority wins, minority LOSES (except w/ that asshole, Bush)

Great aint it?

 

well the majority of people will need via-ferrata to climb 90% of the climbs at index... should we be gathering iron or will you ocncede that this argument is faulty at best?

Nope...won't concede...its a continuum...you said 90%...general population this is true...90% of climbers, not true...

 

If you're going to start getting picky on what comprises the denominator, perhaps you'd better reexamine your 95% statement above.

[RuMR]

ahhh....you got me...but i'd still bet that 95% of the general population wouldn't care...

[pope]

 

"We have a right to the resources just like any other user group..."

 

Well, that depends on the extent to which you impact the cliff. Perhaps I would like to go down to Smith and dynamite that Chain Reaction climb, so that I could use the resulting gravel pile as chicken grit. Wouldn't that make me a user? Wouldn't I have the "same right as everybody else"?

[scott_harpell]

what percentage of bolts are painted? 1%? ... making climbs safer through bolting is like painting over nude art to give them clothing.

[RuMR]

pope said:

 

"We have a right to the resources just like any other user group..."

 

Well, that depends on the extent to which you impact the cliff. Perhaps I would like to go down to Smith and dynamite that Chain Reaction climb, so that I could use the resulting gravel pile as chicken grit. Wouldn't that make me a user? Wouldn't I have the "same right as everybody else"?

Ahhh...truly the master of hyperbole...you'd have to fend off all of the wuss sportclimbers waving their stickclips at you...

[joe_average]

pope said:

 

"We have a right to the resources just like any other user group..."

 

Well, that depends on the extent to which you impact the cliff. Perhaps I would like to go down to Smith and dynamite that Chain Reaction climb, so that I could use the resulting gravel pile as chicken grit. Wouldn't that make me a user? Wouldn't I have the "same right as everybody else"?

Don't be silly. Of course, anything, when taken to extremes, is destructive.

[Al_Pine]

joe_average said:

I'm getting completely confused by this Pope guy. Now it's OK to have a nice bolt if there's death potential on a route without it. Cool. And a bolt is legitimate if and only if it's be put up on lead. But how is the ground-up bolt different from the rap bolt? It's the same goddamn piece of steel! And on most sport routes it would be socially responsible to bolt them, because without bolts they'd have groundfall potential! But that's not OK.

 

You're confused because you're confusing the aesthetic beauty/environmental concerns angle with the ruined climbing potential/climbing concerns angle.

 

There are many arguments for and against rock modification. It is not just "ooh icky trash" versus "but dude I couldn't climb it without these bolts", though those are two of the most obvious issues.

[RuMR]

scott_harpell said:

what percentage of bolts are painted? 1%? ... making climbs safer through bolting is like painting over nude art to give them clothing.

 

I like nude art!! You gotta problem w/ nude art?

[joe_average]

scott_harpell said:

what percentage of bolts are painted? 1%? ... making climbs safer through bolting is like painting over nude art to give them clothing.

 

Squaw, you weren't talking about the visual effects of bolts, you were spraying some touchy-feely bullshit about inspiration. This is irrelevant to your argument.

 

Please continue, I feel the enlightenment seeping in.

[RuMR]

joe_average said:

scott_harpell said:

what percentage of bolts are painted? 1%? ... making climbs safer through bolting is like painting over nude art to give them clothing.

 

Squaw, you weren't talking about the visual effects of bolts, you were spraying some touchy-feely bullshit about inspiration. This is irrelevant to your argument.

 

Please continue, I feel the enlightenment seeping in.

Is it Squaw or Squat or or Scott? Ahh, i'm so confused now???

[scott_harpell]

RuMR said:

scott_harpell said:

what percentage of bolts are painted? 1%? ... making climbs safer through bolting is like painting over nude art to give them clothing.

 

I like nude art!! You gotta problem w/ nude art?

 

quite the contrary... that was my point.

[scott_harpell]

joe_average said:

scott_harpell said:

what percentage of bolts are painted? 1%? ... making climbs safer through bolting is like painting over nude art to give them clothing.

 

Squaw, you weren't talking about the visual effects of bolts, you were spraying some touchy-feely bullshit about inspiration. This is irrelevant to your argument.

 

Please continue, I feel the enlightenment seeping in.

 

i am not just arguing against them by one argument ace. i am using 3 now try to keep up and if you find your ritalin try and add something constructive.

[scott_harpell]

cracked see also this post.

 

Al_Pine said:

joe_average said:

I'm getting completely confused by this Pope guy. Now it's OK to have a nice bolt if there's death potential on a route without it. Cool. And a bolt is legitimate if and only if it's be put up on lead. But how is the ground-up bolt different from the rap bolt? It's the same goddamn piece of steel! And on most sport routes it would be socially responsible to bolt them, because without bolts they'd have groundfall potential! But that's not OK.

 

You're confused because you're confusing the aesthetic beauty/environmental concerns angle with the ruined climbing potential/climbing concerns angle.

 

There are many arguments for and against rock modification. It is not just "ooh icky trash" versus "but dude I couldn't climb it without these bolts", though those are two of the most obvious issues.

[mattp]

pope said:

I think you should add to your considerations:

 

6. Will the decision to not chop this route signal bolt enthusiasts that it is open season on this once traditional crag?

 

7. Will the fear of starting a bolt war ultimately result in sport climbers bolting anything and everything they can find?

 

These already fit within my brilliant organizational scheme, but they are fair questions. I'd say that I have not seen a single route that, had it not been chopped, would have signalled to all the waiting rap-bolters that a traditional crag was "open season," and I don't think that these evil rap bolters plan to or could bolt everything they could find, though I'd agree with you that sometimes us evildoers seem to lack some discretion.....

[joe_average]

scott_harpell said:

cracked see also this post.

 

Al_Pine said:

joe_average said:

I'm getting completely confused by this Pope guy. Now it's OK to have a nice bolt if there's death potential on a route without it. Cool. And a bolt is legitimate if and only if it's be put up on lead. But how is the ground-up bolt different from the rap bolt? It's the same goddamn piece of steel! And on most sport routes it would be socially responsible to bolt them, because without bolts they'd have groundfall potential! But that's not OK.

 

You're confused because you're confusing the aesthetic beauty/environmental concerns angle with the ruined climbing potential/climbing concerns angle.

 

There are many arguments for and against rock modification. It is not just "ooh icky trash" versus "but dude I couldn't climb it without these bolts", though those are two of the most obvious issues.

What's your point? Pope's hipocricy and your stupidity is quite obvious. I'm off to the gym. Have fun spraying, Chief!

[scott_harpell]

if you all wanna keep up with the personal attacks against me... that is fine. cause i can play ball, but i would prefer that we try and discuss and not get derailed by those who just pop in to stir the shit. you know who you are.

[chucK]

joe_average said:

I'm off to the gym. Have fun spraying, Chief!

 

Thank God! I thought he'd never leave.

[scott_harpell]

lets start with a definition of rock climbing. here si the one that i am using.

 

using the natural weakness in the rock to ascend using hands and feet.

 

if we feel that it is necessary to use protection, can we not usethe sme means? ie. using the natural weakness? sure a bolt may be needed to protect occasionally inbetween gear placements, but shouldn't we try to find the most natural line not only in our climbing but also in the protection of those climbs. isn't that part of the game. balancing the two out? that is the beauty of finding a truly great climb which needs minimal alteration and gets you to the top. that is the name ofthe game isn't it?

[slothrop]

scott_harpell said:

lets start with a definition of rock climbing. here si the one that i am using.

 

using the natural weakness in the rock to ascend using hands and feet.

 

if we feel that it is necessary to use protection, can we not usethe sme means? ie. using the natural weakness? sure a bolt may be needed to protect occasionally inbetween gear placements, but shouldn't we try to find the most natural line not only in our climbing but also in the protection of those climbs. isn't that part of the game. balancing the two out? that is the beauty of finding a truly great climb which needs minimal alteration and gets you to the top. that is the name ofthe game isn't it?

 

Sure, that's the name of the game, and it's why chipping is wrong.

 

But how many bolts are too many? Should you only climb routes that you can walk off or downclimb, thus enabling you to leave the rock clean of fixed gear? Are bolted anchors acceptable? Are slings better because they degrade more quickly?

 

You seem to admit that there's some leeway for bolts, but your earlier posts make it seem like a fully bolted route is unacceptable. How many gear placements are enough to make an otherwise bolted route acceptable?

 

[scott_harpell]

slothrop said:

scott_harpell said:

lets start with a definition of rock climbing. here si the one that i am using.

 

using the natural weakness in the rock to ascend using hands and feet.

 

if we feel that it is necessary to use protection, can we not usethe sme means? ie. using the natural weakness? sure a bolt may be needed to protect occasionally inbetween gear placements, but shouldn't we try to find the most natural line not only in our climbing but also in the protection of those climbs. isn't that part of the game. balancing the two out? that is the beauty of finding a truly great climb which needs minimal alteration and gets you to the top. that is the name ofthe game isn't it?

 

Sure, that's the name of the game, and it's why chipping is wrong.

 

But how many bolts are too many? Should you only climb routes that you can walk off or downclimb, thus enabling you to leave the rock clean of fixed gear? Are bolted anchors acceptable? Are slings better because they degrade more quickly?

 

You seem to admit that there's some leeway for bolts, but your earlier posts make it seem like a fully bolted route is unacceptable. How many gear placements are enough to make an otherwise bolted route acceptable?

 

i would probably say that a fully bolted route is overly-contrived. i do believe there is 'some leeway' for bolts, but i do nto necessarily trust the people who are bolting to make the decisions as to how much to bolt. there are many people which bolt in a way i would describe as minimally bolted. MattP, i think, was done tremendous work in the past and i am in no way taking away from his efforts but the precedents many bolters have shown is not one that i wish to continue. my rants are hyperbolic in a sense that i wish to counter the bolt-a-holics that are overbolting. clearly bolts are inevitable. an example is darrington where mixed routes are the norm, but bolts are few and far between and placed as a last resort. i applaud the skill and intelligence used in creating these routes and if i offended any creators i am sorry, but my words were based in hyperbole to counter the riciculous attitued of some that nature is their playground and to those that subscribe to the manifest destiny type attitude that says "if i cant beat it, i will conquer it. for the people bolting responsibly and conscientiously

[mattp]

Scott, I think that in attempting to reduce rock climbing to a simple definition (following the natural weaknesses) and applying simple rules (bolts are only OK to link other protectable features), you miss the mark.

 

(1) Rock climbing is not about taking the easy way or following natural weaknesses. When our forefathers left the gullies behind and started out onto the faces, they abandoned that path in favor of seeking the hard way and embracing greater and great challenges. Though crack climbs and some face routes follow obvious features, there is nothing "natural" or "following the weakensses" about such classic routes as Diretissima or the South Face of Jello Tower or DDD at Castle Rock.

 

(2) Perhaps you think mixed routes are OK but purely bolted routes are not, but here too I think you are missing the point. Go climb Silent Running in Darrington, and you will probably only use gear on the first and last pitches of a seven pitch route. It is actually rather contrived for it NOT to be bolted on those pitches as well.

 

And thanks for the vote of confidence, but given your description of "Scott's Rules" I am a rock butcher to be sure and think just about any route established in Darrington since about 1978 is a bolted abomination: they all weave in and out, deliberately avoiding natural protection (readily available in bushy seams) in favor of bolted face climbing.

 

[lummox]

mattp said:

(1) Rock climbing is not about taking the easy way or following natural weaknesses.

dammit. i knew i was doing something wrong.

[scott_harpell]

but matt, you cannot deny that there is one bolt at darrington in the same distance as there would be 15 bolts as another area. i guess you are misinterpreting my line of thinking. i said that it was a combination of the natural protection and the naturalness of the climbing that gives a climb quality status. it is nto a one or the other scenario. at darrington, if you were to hit those naturally protectable areas, the climbing would be the shits. but in a judgement call, it was worth sacrificing some of the natural protecion for quality of climbing. obviously this was an intentional decision whether it was conscious or not. it is easy to take my words in a black or white context, but i am saying that there is a sort of slider scale where using less natural protection may enhance the climbing considerably. It is possible to use the natural parts as you said, but this would be a different form of contrivance. it is a fine line between one contrivance and another, but it is one that i trust very few people to walk. i hope this clears up my stance.

[mattp]

No, I would not argue with your statement that most so-called "traditional" crags are not bolted as closely as a typical climb at Exit 38 or some other sport-crag -- it is the closeness of the bolts that pretty much "defines" sport climbing; I'm saying only that your "simple" rules break down when you actually apply them to the borderline cases - even some climbs at Darrington - and it is these borderline cases that we are arguing about. Nobody here has much question about the pure crack-climbing classics or the grid-bolted wall at a sport crag where, in some cases, you need a topo to figure out which bolts are intended to be linked with which others. (In actual fact, I think even the grid bolts are acceptable though not commendable at some place like Exit 38 - but that is not what we are talking about here because even most ardent sport climbers will probably admit that the truly grid-bolted walls are overbolted - the only real argument might be whether or not we want some self-appointed rock police to head up there with a crowbar.) But when it comes to the variety of climbs available in our region, I like some sport climbs and not others; I like some crack climbs and not others; I like some crag settings and not others. As you note - in the end, it boils down to taste and judgment, and I think climbers have been accusing each other of lacking taste and judgment since the beginning of time.

 

What is your point if it is not an attempt to draw a simple line - your own line - so that you can say everything over this line sucks?