Jump to content

debate fodder: lots of new climbers


lummox

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 733
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think that with all this "take that, chief" we have lost track of any kind of a sensible discussion here. Scott may not feel this way, but the vast majority of climbers these days are willing to accept there being a sport climbing area at Exit 38, even if they think it sucks, and I do not know of a single sport climber who thinks there should not be a bunch of unbolted crack climbs at Index. Whether or not Scott is an idiot, chief, is amusing for a moment perhaps, but the interesting questions come when we look at newly developing areas or at the reality or the potential for sport climbing to intrude on previously traditional areas.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

scott_harpell said:

A bunch of the lines that they've done they DID W/O THE BOLTS first, then went back and protected them for others...Why can't you get that??

 

so why dont they give others the chance to try the climb in its natural state? why cant you get that?

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

 

Why not just go up the route w/ your rack and not clip the bolts if you really wanna be on the edge? rolleyes.gif

 

Oh right, forgot, that offense to your aesthetic feel will be so great that you'll be unable to concentrate on the wicked runouts yellaf.gifrolleyes.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

joe_average said:

scott_harpell said:

Chopping bolts is more of a law thing than placing bolts. Same thing as somebody painting a "Caution children" sign to place in the street and having someone come and take it down because they put a whole in the ground instead of making a stand for it so it doesn't hurt the environment. Bolts are a safety factor in most cases.

 

but climbers go out of there way to go on a climb and should be prepared for he endeavor. 6 year old crossign the street do so out of necessity. weak juxtaposition.

 

bolts are for safety? well if you are concerned about safety, then climbing is not the sport for you. people die all the time doign this sport. this is a sport of calculated risks. if you aren't up for a certain climb then wait until you get stronger/bolder (alaCroft) and climb that shit!

Nice chestbeat for a wanker!

 

PS Rudy, I nearly sprayed coffee out of my nose! yelrotflmao.gif

 

Just make sure you don't spray it on your school work... yellaf.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RuMR said:

scott_harpell said:

A bunch of the lines that they've done they DID W/O THE BOLTS first, then went back and protected them for others...Why can't you get that??

 

so why dont they give others the chance to try the climb in its natural state? why cant you get that?

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

 

 

so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

scott_harpell said:

RuMR said:

scott_harpell said:

A bunch of the lines that they've done they DID W/O THE BOLTS first, then went back and protected them for others...Why can't you get that??

 

so why dont they give others the chance to try the climb in its natural state? why cant you get that?

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

 

 

so?

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

Great aint it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Distel32 said:

Erik: Kehl didn't TR "Evilution" and that is twice as high as "The Fly"

 

Crux of evilution is at 25ft, crux of the fly 3ft.

But if you blow the crux of the Fly you 'fly' past the 3ft landing zone onto a much lower and nastier landing zone, at least from what I've seen in the movies. And didn't some french guy break an ankle despite the pads trying to repeat Evilution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why do we have to climb every climb? it is the reward for getting strong and working hard at climbing and getting a good 'head' for leading spicy routes for the elite to be able to climb these sketchy routes. i dont think every route need to be climbed by 100% of climbers. i think it is great that there are come climbs that 95% of the population wouldn't even try. it mystifies the accomplishments of those who have made the sacrifice, dedication and the effort to climb something soo hard and bold. it is in a word inspiring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RuMR said:

scott_harpell said:

RuMR said:

scott_harpell said:

A bunch of the lines that they've done they DID W/O THE BOLTS first, then went back and protected them for others...Why can't you get that??

 

so why dont they give others the chance to try the climb in its natural state? why cant you get that?

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

 

 

so?

majority wins, minority LOSES wave.gif (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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, my approach is that there are "areas" like English gritstone, and German Elbsandstein and Indian Creek and cracks in any granite areas that are deemed "traditional" and left that way...

 

Other areas are sport intensive...

 

Seems very obvious to me, and i think the only conflict, is like Matt said, what do with new areas!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

erik said:

pope

 

what gives you the authotity to be the savior of clean climbing? for all i know you have done exactly what you claim to be bad....

 

what of your squeeze job on secret dome? or the bolted cracks up by carnival? both of those go against your dumb rant. i am sure i could find more of your trangessions, as once an offender always an offender.....

 

thumbs_down.gif

 

 

The thing on Secret Dome is...I don't know....ten years old or so. I don't really think I ruined the place, given all of the completely bolt-dependent routes already on the dome. My variation used only two bolts, and I put the bolts in on the lead which, in my way of thinking, makes them the only legitimate bolts on the dome. It is ran-out and 5.11, which adds something to the monotone of 5.10 slab climbing one finds there. I'm happy to help you chop it if you're disgusted by it, and I hope you'll help me chop a few bolts while you're at it.

 

I didn't bolt any cracks by Carnival Crack. I put up (with Scotty Hopkins, not Dave Bale) a crack route which uses one bolt for pro, right at the face climbing crux. This move is by far the hardest on the route. Without the bolt, the fall would probably be fatal. If you didn't recognize this, you probably haven't climbed the route.

 

I could have easily climbed through. The 5.9+ grade is something I can handle with or without a bolt, but I thought that it would be responsible to have a solid bolt on that move.

 

Please don't spread the rumor that I put up a sport climb in Leavenworth, or that I bolted next to a crack. It just isn't true. And MattP, when I make a mistake, I'll be the first to admit it; I don't need your help. The climb by Carnival Crack completely complies with what I have so many times outlined to be the reasonable and responsible application of bolts.

 

Those of you who think it is ridiculous to say "every bolt is a crime" are absolutely correct, and I have never said that. I have pointed out that discrete bolting can add to the climbing experience without seriously compromising the aesthetics of a cliff. THE PROBLEM IS, TOO MANY CLIMBERS JUST DON'T HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT DISCRETE BOLTING IS ALL ABOUT.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

scott_harpell said:

RuMR said:

scott_harpell said:

RuMR said:

scott_harpell said:

A bunch of the lines that they've done they DID W/O THE BOLTS first, then went back and protected them for others...Why can't you get that??

 

so why dont they give others the chance to try the climb in its natural state? why cant you get that?

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

 

 

so?

majority wins, minority LOSES wave.gif (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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

scott_harpell said:

why do we have to climb every climb?

 

Cuz it's fun?

 

it is the reward for getting strong and working hard at climbing and getting a good 'head' for leading spicy routes for the elite to be able to climb these sketchy routes. i dont think every route need to be climbed by 100% of climbers.

 

After all, every Dick, Tom, and Scott can climb Realization. rolleyes.gif

 

i think it is great that there are come climbs that 95% of the population wouldn't even try.

See above. Oh, how about the Salathe?

 

it mystifies the accomplishments of those who have made the sacrifice, dedication and the effort to climb something soo hard and bold. it is in a word inspiring.

Don't get touchy-feely on us now. Consider that others are inspired by other accomplishments.

 

Chief, um, Scott, if you were arguing against bolts because they reduce the aesthetic appeal of crags, you'd have a point. But as you're not, you don't.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RuMR said:

scott_harpell said:

RuMR said:

scott_harpell said:

RuMR said:

scott_harpell said:

A bunch of the lines that they've done they DID W/O THE BOLTS first, then went back and protected them for others...Why can't you get that??

 

so why dont they give others the chance to try the climb in its natural state? why cant you get that?

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

 

 

so?

majority wins, minority LOSES wave.gif (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...

 

but we are talking about the general population. we do not own crags just because we are uber-cool climbers. NO! we are users just like anyother user. our climbing gives us no priviledge except the one we make by busting our ass and climbing cool shit. being a climber dont mean shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

scott_harpell said:

RuMR said:

scott_harpell said:

RuMR said:

scott_harpell said:

RuMR said:

scott_harpell said:

A bunch of the lines that they've done they DID W/O THE BOLTS first, then went back and protected them for others...Why can't you get that??

 

so why dont they give others the chance to try the climb in its natural state? why cant you get that?

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

 

 

so?

majority wins, minority LOSES wave.gif (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...

 

but we are talking about the general population. we do not own crags just because we are uber-cool climbers. NO! we are users just like anyother user. our climbing gives us no priviledge except the one we make by busting our ass and climbing cool shit. being a climber dont mean shit.

But we are entitled to our fair share of the resources available...Smith Rocks State Park has a longstanding cooperative relationship w/ climbers...the town of Rifle caters to climbers as does Ouray to ice climbers (closest to sport that ice can get)...NRG is very close w/ climbers...

 

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

 

Paint the bolts and only the climbers will know they are there...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mattp said:

Asside from the question of who is more arrogant, I think bolt chopping should be viewed with the same criteria that I listed above for thinking about installing bolts.

 

1. Safety. Is the chopping of a line going to created a safety hazard for one who may be expecting the bolts to be there?

 

 

2. Aesthetic Concerns. Can you do a clean job of removing the bolts? If you remove them, will somebody else come along and add them back in - creating more of a mess? Or will somebody drape slings on a bush or flake because you removed the chain rappel station?

 

 

3. Adventure/challenge. Is the removal of the bolts going to promote a sense of adventure or increase the challenge asociated with a particular crag? Will removal of the bolts merely deny climbers a route, or will it encourage them to climb with better style or to push past the missing placement anyway?

 

 

4. Associated Environmental Impacts. Aside from the aesthetic concerns noted above, will the removal of the bolts do anything to reduce crowds, erosion, the destruction of nesting habitat, etc.? Will it result in more aggressive crack cleaning?

 

 

5. Public Relations. Is the removal of a bolt or route going to stir up animosity? Is a potential bolt war going to have any possibility of requiring land managers or other officials' involvment?

 

As with the discussion of installing bolts, any discussion of removing them must recognize that there are a lot of tradeoffs here, and a lot of different climbing styles, and I think ChucK's prior point that the people engaged in these activities need to maintain some measure of humility is a good one. If you appoint yourself as the rock police, a BIG dosage of humility should come into play, in my view.

 

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. confused.gif

 

I want to go skiing. Then I only have to argue about gear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...