debate fodder: lots of new climbers

[cracked]

[lummox]

off-white is on form.

 

[cracked]

Hah!

[lummox]

sucka be fast.

[Dru]

historical chipping:

 

on the first ascent of Mt. Meager in 1930's the FA team climbed one pinnacle only to find a nearby pinnacle was higher and harder looking. so they threw stones at the other summit until it fell over therefore making summit they were on the highest

[arlen]

Don Mellor's American Rock has some good word about this topic. His whole point is that local ethics is mostly about climbers talking about the history of how a climbing area (or region) came to be over time.

 

Given that places like Devil's Lake and the Adirondacks are essentially unbolted, maybe it's because they're situated in regions where culturally people just can't shut up about anything--thus ethics generally prevail?

 

In any case, it amazes me. Climbable rock is a precious thing in the 'Daks, but if it doesn't take gear, it's not a line (exceptions noted). Whereas out here there's undeveloped potential all over the place, but most don't mind squeezing a line of bolts between 2 crack routes, and half the climbers that see it think it's wrong.

 

Or maybe it's just that new routes are going up at 38, so if you're not puttin up new routes, you're not a climbing hero after all.

[pope]

Off_White said:

I was .....poking a hole in your fatuous assertion that the noble giants of yesteryear who lived through the clean climbing revolution were ethical purists of the first water who acted against self interest for the sake of the environment.

 

It might be more correct to say that you were poking a hole in an assertion that exists only in your imagination. I never wrote those words, nor did I write anything that remotely resembles them. I simply stated that fewer people considered it acceptable to modify permanently or "enhance" the rock to accomodate the safety concerns of their ascent. That nuts were easier to place and allowed for advances in free climbing is certainly true, but your assertion that this was the PRIMARY reason for their popularity is ridiculous. Firstly, you're pretending to know the motivations of thousands of climbers you never met. Secondly, you can hardly explain the clean aid phenomenon as a pragmatist's solution to climbing. Everybody knows that far greater safety can be found when you're willing to smack a few pins, in the majority of situations. Cutting edge climbers of the 70's and 80's worked to eliminate pins from aid routes, and they did this to INCREASE THE CHALLENGE LEVEL OF WALL CLIMBING as well as to preserve the beauty of the rock (according to almost every account I've read by those who pioneered clean wall climbing).

 

The fact is, places like Vantage were being explored and developed long before sport climbing arrived. The fact is, bolts existed and were available then. The fact is, if somebody had put up a collection of rap-placed bolt trails, he would have been widely (and correctly) considered a coward. You just didn't see that kind of mess then, although the capability certainly existed, and although it certainly would have made climbing easier (which, as you recall, is what you consider to be the primary motivation for all human actions).

 

I think this evidence flies in the face of your notion that most/all climbers were primarily motivated by making climbing easier/safer/simpler when they adopted clean climbing practices.

 

You should really consider what I'm saying about chipping, because it's not just a bunch of handwaving. The notion that it is acceptable to modify the rock to make it safer or more climbable through the use of bolts is precisely the mentality that exists among those who chip holds. And they are ethically equivalent practices.

 

Finally, you're an articulate guy who often demonstrates both vision and wisdom. Next time you're considering flinging a bunch of insults my way, you may wish instead to preserve your reputation and respect. You may wish to maintain a little more dignity while you attempt to make your points.

Edited November 14, 2003 by jkassidy

[mattp]

Good morning, Mr. Kassidy. I suggest you heed some of your own advice: you can be an articulate guy and you actually have some good points. You need not resort to the use of unsupportable blanket statements and insulting rhetoric. Tone it down a bit and engage in a genuine discussion of the real issues and you might be able to salvage a little dignity here.

[RuMR]

jkassidy...you have conveniently ignored my position that chipping will never gain popularity because it makes lines EASIER and the trend is towards more difficult climbing...

 

Again, bolting and chipping are unrelated...

[pope]

arlen said:

In any case, it amazes me. Climbable rock is a precious thing in the 'Daks, but if it doesn't take gear, it's not a line (exceptions noted). Whereas out here there's undeveloped potential all over the place, but most don't mind squeezing a line of bolts between 2 crack routes, and half the climbers that see it think it's wrong.

 

Isn't that interesting?

[RuMR]

mattp said:

Good morning, Mr. Kassidy. I suggest you heed some of your own advice: you can be an articulate guy and you actually have some good points. You need not resort to the use of unsupportable blanket statements and insulting rhetoric. Tone it down a bit and engage in a genuine discussion of the real issues and you might be able to salvage a little dignity here.

 

Matt...i think pope's been pretty level regarding insulting folks...he's reactionary, and isn't starting the fights...

 

Although he's hijacked the thread into an anti bolting argument....which is now drifting into a chipping swamp...

[pope]

RuMR said:

jkassidy...you have conveniently ignored my position that chipping will never gain popularity because it makes lines EASIER and the trend is towards more difficult climbing...

 

Again, bolting and chipping are unrelated...

 

I believe there is a history (as reported by Bachar from one of his visits) in the Verdon of climbers seeking routes at the current limit (5.13 at that time) and actually creating such lines by chipping holds in blank sections to link climbable sections of rock. Im pretty sure that most chipping occurs when a route pioneer wishes to "make the line go". In other cases, sharp jug holds are rounded down so that somebody's girlfriend can get the purple point.

 

In any case, chipping, gluing, enhancing (and of course bolting) do fall into a single category if you're asking the question, "Has the rock been permanently and visibly modified?" And because of this, I really don't care whether the goal is a hard climb or an easy climb, I just think it's immoral.

 

Last time I hiked up to Exit 38, I noticed a sign which PROMOTED the use of glue. This is how far we've come? This is the thing to which some of you want me to open my mind? (The sign also commented on the removal of "begetation" [sic]).

[RuMR]

well...we will have to disagree on this one...MOST (99%) of the elite climbers out there are against lowering the difficulty...i think you've pointed to aberations...have you climbed in europe? Or are you taking this second hand...

 

Last time i saw bachar he was clipping bolts, then soloing, then clipping bolts in--->hold your breath, Owens...long the bastion of trad, er i meant sport, climbing...

[pope]

mattp said:

Good morning, Mr. Kassidy. I suggest you heed some of your own advice: you can be an articulate guy and you actually have some good points. You need not resort to the use of unsupportable blanket statements and insulting rhetoric. Tone it down a bit and engage in a genuine discussion of the real issues and you might be able to salvage a little dignity here.

 

Pope behaved poorly, it is true. But MattP, meet the new me!

[pope]

RuMR said:

well...we will have to disagree on this one...MOST (99%) of the elite climbers out there are against lowering the difficulty...i think you've pointed to aberations...have you climbed in europe? Or are you taking this second hand...

 

Last time i saw bachar he was clipping bolts, then soloing, then clipping bolts in--->hold your breath, Owens...long the bastion of trad, er i meant sport, climbing...

 

Could be that he's lost his way. I haven't climbed in Europe, although I certainly hope to. You don't have to travel that far to find examples of chipping. Right?

[RuMR]

no you don't have to travel that far...and almost everyone i know trashes the fact that they are chipped...again, bolts and chipping are unrelated...

 

Go to Europe and enjoy the "pussified" sport climbing...I'm curious how you'll handle mandatory 40 foot runs on extremely technical/dicey/polished limestone...you'll most likely be fine, given your cool head, but you'll still be "engaged" as the french call it...

 

 

[mattp]

You are right, RuMR, that Cassidy has not relied on much in the way of personally insulting rhetoric in this thread -- and if you look back about eight pages I think you will see where I criticized someone else for attacking him personally. And, Cassidy, if you are truly "the new me" and we might actually have an honest debate here, I'd welcome the day. However, where you say something that sounds pretty close to a blanket statement that modern climbers have no shame or whatever, it is indeed insulting. Similarly, where you cut and paste someone's arguments to twist what they said so you can try to make them look stupid or to rebut something they never said in the first place, and where you insist on your twisted cut and paste in the face of clear responses about how you have misconstrued things, you are annoying to say the least (though you might think that "insulting" is the wrong word).

 

Like I said, I think you have some good points: with the growth in the popularity of sport climbing, we HAVE come to expect climbs to be better protected on average and most climbers probably DO have less interest in learning to risk their necks by running it out. It is also true, I think, that many of the more crowded climbing areas that suffer from erosion and other environmental damage, or conflicts with other user groups, ARE sport climbing areas -- but many are not. I also agree that the development of relatively safe gym and sport climbing has brought many new climbers into the sport so that, just by virtue of our numbers, we are seeing some new problems. And etc.

 

Lets talk about actual issues rather than stick to tired old ideas like the assertion that today's climbers pursue dubious objectives that are clearly much more so than those of our forefathers in the golden ages of the '60's or '70's.

[olyclimber]

Rather than painting it as a black and white, all or nothing argument that seems to be going on here, it seems to me that the "bolt or no bolt" is really a land use issue. For instance, I love mountain biking...and I love some of our national parks, but I can't ride my mountain bike on the trails in our parks. There is, however, plenty of great riding in land that is outside of the parks. I'm fine with this. Same with bolting: If the goal is to keep an beautiful area pristine and wild, I sure as heck don't want to see a bolt ladder going up the side of some rock face... I have no problem with a trad climber climbing it with removalable/not destructive aid. On the other hand, I don't see any problem with bolts in areas that are not designated to remain pristine and are for recreational use. Of course, if you love a non-protected climbing area that is in risk of getting bolted up, you better work on getting it officially designated to save it rather than starting a war with people who want to bolt it.

[RuMR]

olyclimber said:

Rather than painting it as a black and white, all or nothing argument that seems to be going on here, it seems to me that the "bolt or no bolt" is really a land use issue. For instance, I love mountain biking...and I love some of our national parks, but I can't ride my mountain bike on the trails in our parks. There is, however, plenty of great riding in land that is outside of the parks. I'm fine with this. Same with bolting: If the goal is to keep an beautiful area pristine and wild, I sure as heck don't want to see a bolt ladder going up the side of some rock face... I have no problem with a trad climber climbing it with removalable/not destructive aid. On the other hand, I don't see any problem with bolts in areas that are not designated to remain pristine and are for recreational use. Of course, if you love a non-protected climbing area that is in risk of getting bolted up, you better work on getting it officially designated to save it rather than starting a war with people who want to bolt it.

 

Nicely put post...

[Al_Pine]

Sorry for the tangent here, but I think maybe this thread has probably run it's useful lifespan.

 

I think many interesting ideas have been expressed in these 10 or so pages. These have been for the most part catalyzed by JKassidy's dogged persistence, AND his relative politeness. He didn't hijack some worthwhile thread that would have otherwise created good discussion, he created one. All you who have posted on these pages know this is true. You wouldn't have posted if you weren't interested. You would have gotten bored long ago and tuned out if all this thread contained was insults.

 

All the people on this thread who put him down because of their perceptions of who he is rather than reading and responding to his posts, are the losers creating anymosity. But thankfully, those of you who this pertains to have left the thread, probably because you got bored. If you are also a person who bashed Dwayner in the past for ruining discussions you are also a hypocrite.

 

Nice job everybody in this thread who stuck to arguing points instead of personalities! Thanks. It was an enjoyable read.

[Dru]

i am waiting for the strong personalities involved in this thread to visit the rock climbing forum, observe the statements made there about placing bolts on a new climb dick cilley has just established as a top rope, and start trading inventive again

[Off_White]

Yep, I've found it an entertaining thread, but please credit Lummox with the original creation.

[Al_Pine]

Random thoughts after reading all 10 pages at once (sorry I was not here to participate as I went hiking yesterday).

 

 

Painted bolts are more aesthetic visually, but get rusty and create fear in some climbers.

 

I personally know one previously non-anonymous cascadeclimber who had his job threatened because of interactions on CC.com . If you don't think that your status on CC.com can ever interact with your "real" life, then you are being naive, especially if you use your real name. It's not just the boss busting you at work. You must remember until CC.com dies, this is all "on your permanent record".

 

Bolting and chipping are analogous in that both make ascending a piece of rock easier. Some arguments can benefit from this analogy, others are spurious.

[iain]

sixteen candles is a cinematic tour-de-force. the scene when the toga-clad donger is in the tree? simply one of the finest thespian performances in history. the pinnacle of molly ringwald's career.

[Al_Pine]

Off_White said:

Yep, I've found it an entertaining thread, but please credit Lummox with the original creation.

 

Lummox made the first post, but JKassidy gave it the legs to go 10 pages.