Ethics questions...

[bwrts]

rudy, I have no problem with those fuking mods fukin putting my fukin name, fukin address or even my fukin SS number in my title if they so fukin desire to be such fukin pansy assed beyotches!

what that take like 30 posts for ole polish attitude to resurface like with mr agent orange?

 

no offense taken Off.. the names are in order: my birth name and baptised middle names honoring my two grandfathers and my father... the sur name, well...that is a story for the ages.

 

Matt, pin another medal on your chest as you are the ultimate-god of the cc.com.

[Peter_Puget]

Keepin' it on topic - well sorta.

[JayB]

Here are some Generalities that anyone who learned to climb post 1990 ought to consider. Why did I use 1990? Because by then Gyms were starting, and sport climbing was pretty well established

 

1. In the old days it was about minimal impact to the rock. If a climb seems real bold it was because the FA was trying to preserve the rock for the next generation-not build a fuckin bolt trail so you could fall your way up it.

2. If you still call FA's on real rock "coursesetting" either learn the difference between real rock or go back to the fuckin gym. On real rock you simply climb what is provided. That is unless you are chipping then you may very well be a "coursesetter". It is ill advised to claim you are that type of course setter.

3. Think you are a 5.10 climber? Try tossing the rope away? What grade do you climb at then? Is this not closer to your real climbing ability? This may be the extreme, but the fact is if you climb 5.13 in the gym, but cant climb a 5.10 offwidth you are not a 5.13 climber and not a 5.10 climber either.

4. IT used to be not all about the NUMBERS, but rather the experience. When sport climbing came into being, the big cry was "we need to increase our standards to keep up with the euros!". I wondered whose standards they weere increasing. Not mine. The standard they were increasing was the RATINGS. But what about that 5.10X. The one with little or no bolts. The one where you didnt even try unless you had your absolute shit together at that grade? Who is increasing that standard?

 

I like all kinds of climbing, but dont let your ignorance lead you to believe that some runout route was done because the guy was poor. Dont think that the FA team had an obligation to make it safe for you, that is utter bullshit. I do think when rapping and drilling a route that there is an obligation to make it safe, but ground up is different. Unfortunatley it is a dying breed and thosee of us who did this stuff are disappearing. Now climbers think that they have a right to climb anything and if it is too scary then they think they should add a bolt. Bullshit. Sack up or keep off. Pretty simple huh? Do you want your generation of climbing to take the risk away? Wow, what a proud concept, to stand up and say, "My generation of climberrs took the gym outside and wee retrobolted old routes to make them safer" Proud indeed....

 

Fear is a negative emotion. Fear while climmbing can be verry stressful on some individuals. For the accomplished Gym climber to be afraid of making porrly protected moves on real rock must surely suck, but it sure does seet the nnubers straight too. I guess 5.10 is pretty hard when failing means a broken neck....

 

This post reminded me of many predecessors in which various posters have bemoaned the arrival of the post-90's climbers, which in turn reminded me of a section that I read in the last "Ascent" a few years ago.

 

"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."

 

I think there's little doubt about what they would think of the hard-core 80s trad climber who substituted sticky rubber, nylon ropes, cams, chalk, et al for the courage and skill necessary to tackle the routes free-solo in mountaineering boots.

 

Which reminds me of another quote from an old timer, in this case one of the guys who managed the first winter-ascent of Mt. Ranier in the 1920's. Reflecting on his feat several decades later he wrote, "I read with amazement about the "6th Class Stuff" and other doings of the present generation of climbers. The limits of the possible have been pushed so far beyond where we thought they were during my time that I hardly recognize myself as a climber. However, I have no regrets; the challenges are greater today, but to a great extent, this is owing to the improvements in techniques and equipment. The relation of challenge against capability has probably remained constant and so has, therefore, the moral reward of the climber's experience." These are clearly the sentiments of a man who needn't derrogate the accomplishments of succeeding generations to reinforce the significance, or remind them of the importance of his own. I doubt Albert Ellingwood, were he alive today, would feel it necessary to remind anyone climbing the standard route on Lizard Head with modern gear that what they are doing is less impressive than his ascent with 3 soft pitons, hobnail boots, and hemp-rope, followed by a down-solo descent.

 

In the end I think that the longstanding tradition of bemoaning the inadequacies of those that are following in one's footsteps, in whatever field is under consideration "Sure - you can find the cube root of Pi with a calculator, but let's see you try it with a slide rule!" are seldom justified unless one limits oneself to fixating on the worst and ignoring the best of those who came after oneself.

 

I'm personally not aware of a rash of bold routes retrobolted into submission since the early 90's, and the notion that anyone who tied in before then was steely-eyed, nail-eating motherfucker who would sooner end up dead or disabled than hang on a piece seems just a tad far-fetched as well, unless there's been a fundamental shift in human nature that hasn't been evident elsewhere.

[Off_White]

great post and research Jay.

[matt_m]

way up for Jay and his well stated post. There is hope for the future yet.

[pope]

great post and research Jay.

 

Hardly. Here's a summary of Jay's post in Jay's own words:

 

In the end I think that the longstanding tradition of bemoaning the inadequacies of those that are following in one's footsteps, in whatever field is under consideration "Sure - you can find the cube root of Pi with a calculator, but let's see you try it with a slide rule!" are seldom justified unless one limits oneself to fixating on the worst and ignoring the best of those who came after oneself.

 

Jay is misrepresenting those protesting retrobolting and sport climbing in general. It is not the inadequacies of the current generation that I'm protesting, it's the mess they leave. Jay suggests that everything from sticky rubber to nylon ropes to bolts are merely technological advances which allow for climbing at higher and higher standards, and as each generation arrives with its technological edge over the old guard, yesterday's climbers are eager to dismiss the latest achievements as being made entirely possible by these technologies....I believe that is the essence of Jay's essay.

 

It is true that bolts, pitons, stickky rubber, nylon ropes, cams and light-weight gear have allowed for bigger, harder climbs. But Jay fails to mention that bolts and pitons alter (diminish) the challenge for every subsequent party and leave what many consider to be an ugly mess. That puts bolts and pitons in an entirely different class than nylon ropes. My objection to bolts has nothing to do with how hard the kids are climbing, whether bolts make this possible and how my climbing standards measure up. I've conversed with many climbers who have reservations about modern bolting practices; most really don't care about whether the kids today are climbing 5.8 or 5.14, it's the mess they leave that bothers us.

 

To be fair, many young climbers come straight out of a gym and onto the walls of Exit 38 where one might arrive at the conclusion that the bolts just grow out of the wall. These kids don't know any better, and it's not their fault. "Climbers" my age (and older) introduced sport climbing and rap bolting.

 

Having said all of that, I do think clipping your way up a bolt trail makes climbers lazy, and I don't buy the argument that sport climbing is preparing a generation of more capable climbers. Ever compare 5.10 climbs at Exit 38 with those in Yosemite? You get the picture.

[JosephH]

Jay, the actual heart of the matter isn't the use of ever-evolving technology at all - that has been a status quo forever, generation to generation. All climbs, climbing, and climbers stand on the shoulders of those that came before them whether they care to acknowledge it or not.

 

What has fundamentally changed is twenty years of climbing gyms and the product they produce. In the "olde days" people learned to climb outside on rocks from experienced climbers. Gyms were originally conceived so we could have an acceptable approximate emulation of outdoor climbing indoors in inclement weather; the gyms themselves were enabled by several years of "sport" climbing and the bolting experience and gear it provided. The primary difference with gyms being that they were specifically designed as commercial ventures with marketing and insurance requirements that mandated climbing in them be an entirely risk-free clipping experience. The big generational change of note is that a very high percentage of people now learn to climb in these risk-free, indoor environments.

 

What no one really considered in the beginning is how much of what kind of "product" or climbers these gyms would be cranking out and unleashing on the world twenty years later - and I'm not talking about the top 5%, I'm talking the staggering 95%. One of the real emerging trends that is easy to spot on-line is a growing collective sense of an entitlement or "right" to emulate and reproduce the risk (and gear) free clipping experience they have indoors outside on real rock. Being old enough to have watched this phenom unfold over the years I can tell you it is a profound and ironically perverse reversal of reality.

 

This fundamental change in how people first experience "climbing" is nothing like any generational change that came before and is not without consequences. For every Rodden and Caldwell, there is now a very large, flat pyramid of mostly inexperienced and novice gym/sport climbers beneath them where in the past there was a small steep pyramid of mostly intermediate and experienced trad/sport climbers beneath every Hill and Kauk. The reason for that smaller, steep pyramid was that most folks quit after a couple of goes and didn't keep climbing (and to be completely honest, that has and will always be fine with me). It is this large well of inexperienced gym/sport climbers supported by gyms that increasingly are pressuring for more "safe" climbs and continuously spawn climbers with drills who can't quite grasp the startling difference between the paid "public service" of coursetting in a gym with the obsessively selfish pursuit of a [trad] FA (granted, a sport FA is a fairly gray beast).

 

A second fundamental change is one that doesn't get talked about much and that is the evolution from hearing "falling" echoing off crag walls in the 70's to "take" echoing off them today. While many folks think trad vs. sport climbing is all about bolting I have a quite different perspective - that the real fundamental difference over recent generations (sport and trad) is the change from a ground-up ethic to a dogging/hanging one; and that's what bolts are really all about - not "safety" - but rather the ability to fall or dog your way up a route.

 

This is a real change in mentality and one where I'd have to part with the other person here with thirty one years of experience - in the 70's we climbed roofs and overhangs almost exclusively and we fell in wild abundance, but never did hang. We always went for the onsight, but on the routes we were putting up that was incredibly rare so we fell, came back to the belay, pulled the rope, and went again. Ground up vs. dogging is the second fundamental change in climbing and what is at the real heart of bolting - hell, even modern "trad" climbers dog up routes today. One can certainly argue that dogging is a faster way to get "better", but that hardly seems to be what's happening when I watch folks dogging up sport and trad 5.8's, rather it simply seems to be the accepted style and a large majority of folks expect a bolt to be there every 6 feet to allow them to do it.

 

So Matt, your question has merit - the gyms aren't going anywhere, so what's the right way to deal with the annual army of climbers they produce? One problem I have is population-based and that they simply just crank out such and large annual product and the "tidal flow" of "climbers" climbers flowing through today's "[commercial] system" borders on way too many for my taste; but hey, I'm an old guy that doesn't like crowds. Who knows, maybe climbing will fall out of favor and trendiness like windsurfing did with an attending collapse of folks that identify themselves as "climbers", but gyms now seem as deeply embedded in pop suburban culture as Chucky-Cheese so I doubt it. So I basically just trad climb and avoid crowds whenever possible; I also lurk around RC, supertaco, and rc.com as a lingering and occasional voice from the past; and last I've taken up with some other folks and am helping preserve a sense of tradition and history out at Beacon Rock by helping and informing folks that do make it out to trad climb. I'm personally not convinced that talk of any kind will change the initial "safe" clipping imprint on the vast majority of climbers who start climbing in gyms; but, I do try to welcome and communicate with those that decide to shake off those chains and learn to become trad climbers.

 

P.S. With regard to your suggestion of having folks read inspirational works of great climbers; I typically shy way in the other direction of having folks simply start seconding experience trad leaders and learning to use the gear with an eye towards them building their own confidence and experience and explicitly ignoring what "better" or "great" climbers can do. I think the use of "icons" and "heros" can be counter-productive in the beginning as they sometimes just decide they could never do those things or become those kind of people - that the "image" is just too large and overwhelming at that point. I don't want anyone I'm teaching to become a Lynn Hill or Tommy Caldwell, I want them to become the best climber they can be.

[flashclimber]

I think this post is finally dead!

[DCramer]

Did this thread die?

 

This has been one of the better CC.com threads on this subject and although shy and retiring by nature I feel the need to spray contribute to it.

 

Two things have really changed in climbing: 1) the number of climbers has increased greatly and 2) people have become more honest over the years.

 

The stories presented here describing climbing in the ‘70s seem to be describing another world than the one I experienced. Chipping, pre-inspection, dogging, rap bolting all took place in the ‘70s. It was in no way the golden age of the “Zen Master”. Rather than rely on my admittedly faulty memory I will give some specific and verifiable examples along with a personal recollection or two.

 

 

In ‘77 Tom Higgins wrote an article for Mountain Magazine which was published in the spring of ’78. I have a fondness for this issue because of Higgins’ article – it was the first guide I used in the Meadows. One of the main subjects of the article is ethics. He considers four practices he disliked: a) pre-protecting b) previewing/practicing c) doctoring (primarily chipping) and d) seiging (fixed ropes, dogging and pulling on rope to high point). Here is a direct quote from the article:

 

Before 1971, norms excluded these methods, but after 1971 ethical preferences changed.

 

The articled included a chart of selected Meadows routes with a notation on style. Vern Cleavenger, Dale Bard, Rick Accomazo, Bruce Morris, R Breedove, Jim Bridwell to name some of the big names all preprotected routes. Most rehearsed and seiged certain routes as well. Many routes had bolt ladders place with the intent to free them latter. Both Death Crack and Blues Riff were preprotected. The climbers in this list are all pretty much superstars and have climbed tremendous routes often in a very bold style. My friend Greg and I still talk about when we get good that we want to try some of Accomazo’s So Cal routes. Down in the Valley itself Wheat Thin was preprotected with rap placed bolts and Elephant’s Eliminate had a bong placed on rappel. Geek Towers and Outer Limits were both chipped. I grew up in the Bay Area and Jim Collins was going to school at Stanford. I remember seeing him boulder a bit. His climbing style certainly was not against falling and trying again. Neither was Tony Yaniro’s. Both developed very intense gym routines years before commercial gyms were around. Both were ridiculed by the existing elites when they first burst on the scene. I almost forgot Hudon (former cc.com poster) and Jones. They wrote an entire series of articles on their hangdogging experiences.

 

Due to limitations in equipment hangdogging was often nearly impossible. Jardine with the help of Friends made it an art form. But in the days of hexes you simply couldn’t hang anywhere you wanted. I have chickened out from several wide cracks that I would have aided if I could have. One reason people progressed more slowly thru the grades was that they often had to go for it and if they calculated wrong the consequences could be terrible. I am remembering a harrowing experience on Peter Left (base of El Cap) right now. I am sure cams have changed this route dramatically. Indian Creek was distinctly different without cams. One of my first multi-pitch routes was a 5.6 on the East Wall at Lover’s Leap. I can remember quite clearly watching the only other parties at the cliff that day. One was on The Line (5.9) the other on Eyore’s Ecstasy (5.9+) both took repeated falls and were hang dogging. The 1975 guide to the Leap included a short “sermon” by Royal Robbins. In it he expressed a desire that the Leap remain bolt free. The locals of the time were really into free soloing and supported the “bold way”. Oddly a series of bolts appeared. No one knew who placed them but it was known that the offending party couldn’t free the line. Of course the locals could! Higgins relates a similar story in his Meadows article.

 

The 70’s simply were not as presented earlier in this thread. The real world is complex; more of a rainbow than a single color. Any problems with modern climbing do not need to be addressed by some reference to the past and certainly not to an inaccurate presentation of the past. That said in some way we are all creatures of our youth. Last time I climbed at the Leap I was saddened to see the number of bolt lines that now existed. The same goes for the Cookie cliff in Yosemite.

Edited August 24, 2005 by DCramer

[RuMR]

no thread didn't die...Poop is busy researching to find new clown pics to post...

[DCramer]

One more example: Jim Erickson developed an incredible theory of route tainting in while climbing around Boulder. He completely abandoned this system and became a dogger while trying to free Half Dome.

[RuMR]

Hudon's still climbing...see him every now and then at smiffie...

[DCramer]

OK I am on a roll. Consider the slab with the route Bolt Run at Donner Pass. Closely spaced several routes squeezed in. Seems like a sport route crag to me. Except the routes were made in the ‘70s. Think people only now started flocking to routes with give away ratings? Think of Maxine’s Wall (How many do more than the first pitch?) What about Peruvian Flake?

[gosolo]

While my initial post was a bit strong, I stand by some of the points. I may have been a bit short because this discussion is going on at many different areas. The majority of climbers today are seeking a thrilling yet safe experience. Safety from failure by the addition of new technology (cams) and old technology (bolts). Cams dont hurt anything, bolts are permanent. If a route is too bold for you, perhaps safety from failure can be attained by rising to the challenge? By being good enough to have some degree of certainty that falling is not likely? The fact is for every runout route there are many many safe ones to climb. Are there some routes that should be retrobolted? Probably, but these are so few as to be almost a nonexistant problem.

 

There arer many routes that were put up in questionable style in the 70's but there were many more that were put up in god style. So long as your ascent did not change it for the next guy it does not really matter. The addition of a bolt changes the ascent.

 

Superpin in the needles (Black Hills)is a good example. First climbed without any bolts by Paul Cleveland, his route is still unrepeated (?). the next route was done by Henry Barber at 5.10 and I think he placed one bolt. the route now has two bolts. I am not sure I would have done it with just one bolt, but probably. the fact is I did not have that choice. Someone took that away because they did not have the balls to either climb it as it was, or they did not have the balls to leave it for a time when they could do it. Either decision takes some guts. Adding bolts does not. The point is, by leaving traditional climbs in their curent state you are not changing the experience for futurtre generations.

 

Please do not sanitize climbing more than it already is.

[JosephH]

DCramer,

 

Early 70's were a transition to a clean, ground-up ethics which were pretty firmly rooted when I started climbing in '74. Were there exceptions, you bet and you point some of them out. Were they in any way the norm? Not at all and in any place I climbed during those years. Now maybe you and your friends didn't adopt a clean, groundup ethic, but Colorado, Wyoming, the fledgling Midwest, the Gunks, Connecticut, and Seneca were all in full clean mode by the time I arrived at them in the mid 70's. The Valley is a universe unto itself you can find endless exceptions that occured both by circumstance and personality, but by and large the clean, groundup ethic swept the nation's crags fairly completely - no nailing, no bolts, no pre-placing pro, no previewing, and especially no dogging. It wasn't a gray issue at all except in a few places like Smith where the nature of the rock was an issue and with a few individuals - it was pretty much a clean sweep and universally adopted. Each area had it's pecularities and eccentricities like hooking in CT but the baseline ethic above ruled the day pretty much everywhere and anywhere I went during the '70s.

 

I'd have to say again that earlier comments in the thread about not falling are a complete and utter mystery to me. No one I knew outside of Jim Erickson had any compunction about falling at all, certainly not Jim Collins - if anything we were all taking endless big plunges on stoppers and hexs with hip belays. Again, outside of Erickson I never met or even read about anyone with a "no falling" ethic and on the routes we were putting up or our friends were putting up in Eldo and the Gunks the odds of getting up most of those routes onsight was pretty damn slim. And Erickson was only against falling as an onsight purist - he was only interested in onsights and so a climb was "tainted" once he fell on it so he would move on - that more or less rated a universal "whatever, Jim" at the time.

[gosolo]

DC, I agree that there are many routes from the pre-sport days that were either overbolted for the times, or chipped or otherwise messed up. I think this discussion comes down to what our ideals and values are. Back then, before sport climbing, the ideal seemed to be minimal impact to the rock. What are todays values?

[Off_White]

 

Stone Groove in Yosemite, November 1976. Yo yo ascent, nut placements made easier by pin scars. 3rd leader was the charm. It was hardly unheard of, and not the province of just a few elites.

[JosephH]

Again, I have no doubt you can name a long list of abberations and execptions to the rule - but the prevailing, baseline ethic of the day was clean, ground up, and no dogging. The assertion that it somehow wasn't is a pretty thoroughly revisionist view in my opinion - either that or you hung out with very, very different crews of folks than I did.

[mattp]

Joseph, you make a valid point that there was wide acceptance and general promotion of the clean climbing ethic in the '70's, but I think you are not completely correct if you suggest that clean climbing and ground-up ethics, as portrayed in many of the discussions on this board at least, were unversally practiced with only very rare exceptions.

 

I climbed in the midwest in the '70's and at my home crag we did not much go in for pins or bolts, for sure, but I believe every single climb there was only first led after being fully rehearsed on a toprope. This is not exactly a "ground up" approach.

 

I also climbed a couple of times at the 'Gunks in the '70's. Fixed pins were formally maintained by John Stannard (I may not have the name spelled correctly). Using pitons and nuts, most of the climbs there protect fairly well and they have avoided bolt protection, to be sure. but formally maintained fixed pins are not altogether different from bolts in how they affect the climber's experience though of course they could theoretically be removed with minimal damage to the rock. Also, they do maintain bolted rappel stations right next to or near trees that could take slings. In addition, I have read in more than one history of the place that hang-dogging and rehearsing climbs was accepted there before it became more generally accepted elsewhere with the advent of sport climbing in the 1980's.

 

I agree with your statment that Chouinard/Robinson/Frosts/etc. were very very successful in promoting their clean climbing ethic and very few publicly questionned their ideas -- but I also think DCramer is right on in suggeting that things were not as "pure" as you seem to recall. As you note, every area had its peculiarities and eccentricities and I believe those often included deviations from the generally publicly accepted "norm" and that lots of people were in fact, as DCramer suggests, not willing to be completely honest about what they were doing.

 

Also, I think we should not ignore the fact that, in the case of Chouinard, his campaign had a lot to do with marketting as well as with a sense of environmental ethics. I am sure he was sincere -- after all he started writing about these issues at least ten years earler. However, while I have ultimate respect for Mr. Chouinard, I believe he himself was not an absolute purist: didn't they chip holds up a flake during the first ascent of the North American Wall (maybe I'm mixing up routes here)?

 

Does it matter? Perhaps not. In many respects we are splitting hairs here. However, I just get the sense from your posts that you are suggesting that climbers in the '70's were better more moral people than climbers are now. I'm not entirely sure that is a fair statement.

[gosolo]

I agree with you JH. Furthermore, hanging, yoyoin, any of that is a far cry from retrobolting...

[gosolo]

I dont get that from Joseph. What I get is that all of us are victims of circumstance. We had a acertain environment that we learned in. the environment of most people today starts in a gym with bolts and rotues set for climbing. Getting on real rock in a "traditional" area can be a bit eye opening. This is easily seen by the numberr of gym climbers that climb 5.12 sport and 5.9 trad. Confuses the hell out of me. Climberrs today enjoiy the gyms and are crankin all manner of heinous things. But preserve those scary things as that is a dying art....

[DCramer]

I completely disagree. The idea that a ground up, no hang dog ascent is best is one thing, but to claim that people didn't hang is simply wrong. To claim that they didn’t use pins is also goofy. For example, Robbins put a route up at the Leap, Incubus, he used pins. This in the '70s. In a sense I am not sure what you are saying. That most people climbing stopped bringing a hammer along? That is certainly true. But that is not to say that those putting up new routes abandoned using pins or bolts. Look at the number of ground up routes put up in Yosemite, the Meadows, Suicide and J Tree in the ‘70s using bolts. There were hundreds. To say that all these routes were outside the norm is unsupportable.

 

What you seem to be saying is something like saying that the prevailig ethic of those who climb at Exit 38 is not to bring a hammer. True but since these guys are climbing existing routes - big deal. This would have been true in the 60s quite probably as well if one was climbing a fully bolted route.

 

My comments shouldn't be taken as being for or against retro bolting or any other ethical issue. I am merely trying to make a point about the "good old days."

 

 

Edited August 24, 2005 by DCramer

[lancegranite]

yeah.

[Hanger]

This topic reminds me of something my mentor told me in the late 80’s:

 

“A route rated “X” means that it hasn’t been finished.”

[gosolo]

well, you must be talkin to Joe. IMO people can climb anyway they want, it is not my business until they retro bolt a route. When they change the experience for others then that is crossing the line of good climbing practices... That was the original post.