Hanger Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 I remember the start being scary, but much much easier than anything above, so it serves as a good filter. Also known as a "Nerd Gate" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMR Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 And contrary to what Flashclimber says, I think it IS a good idea to try to get some feed-back regarding retro-bolting. I know there are a lot of gumbies chiming in with their anti-bolt rhetoric while arm-chair climbing (you can usually tell who they are by their high-pitched whining and emotive outbursts), but please sort through the arguments and really think about this issue deeply. My suggestion: let's let some routes be as they are, as they were climbed by the first ascensionist, and if we feel uncomfortable on them, let's not instantly and reactively bring them down to our comfort level by adding bolts. Maybe we can really think about the route as it exists in its present form, and how we might be able to climb it while adapting to ITS specifics, instead of trying to adapt it to ours. I think adding a bolt would simply be serving our Instant Gratification culture, where we want our fun and we want it now. here's an emotive outburst from an armchair wanna be a hardman climber fat ass: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glassgowkiss Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 well, leave old routes as they were. replacing bolts or other fixed gear is one thing, adding bolts is another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCramer Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 (edited) The layback section above the bolts is pretty straightforward. Back when there were only stoppers it was difficult to protect the main layback section. The thin crack at top, which is easily avoidable, is a bit trickier. Isn't this route .11 not .12? I am not sure that Croft even placed the bolts. The first one isn't just high off the ground it is simply in a fucked up location. Usually there is an old sling hanging from it. Certainly in the '80s there was a sling of variable worth virtually 100% of the time. If Croft didn't place the bolts and the sling was there when he made the FA does that change things? Just a question for all you deep thinkers. SC - Frog Pond is nothing like SPM. You once claimed (on CC.com) that a retro bolted route at Index was the best "new" route at Index. How should an outside observer take your comments? Edited August 31, 2005 by DCramer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 The route I am thinking of is a right facing seam similar in difficulty to SPM. It's to the left of the top-out of Model Worker complete. There is a reason for the question mark after the name. And, it wasn't a claim, it was a statement of fact: Dwarf Tosser WAS the best new route at Index (no quotes needed). And it wasn't retro-bolted because before bolting, it didn't exist. Don't overlook this fact. Have you climbed it yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCramer Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 (edited) Except for the first 15' it had been climbed. The first 15' was squeezed in between Snow White and All Purpose Duck. SOme of the handholds on Dwarf are in fact footholds of All Purpose Duck. A section that had been {edit to add word free} led free onsight without bolts now has an additional 5 bolts. Edited August 31, 2005 by DCramer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMR Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 i resent dwarf tossing! I'm callin' the ACLU right freaking now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbyperu Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 BP ...no worries, I'm doin the team proud. Job??? What you talkin 'bout Willis? This weekend? nice!!!! i work at a climbing gym, and yes i must work this weekend but to teamwork!!!, me and my barista are puttin some points on the board for the team too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 I had some qualms about it. If I was the one bolting it, would I have done what the FA did? I don't know....I'd have to think about it. My feeling is that I would have added a bolt at the start, perhaps two, and would have replaced the old 1/4" at the crux. From where to where was the route free-climbed before? From below the lower roof to the jump crux? From above the lower roof? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 i resent dwarf tossing! I'm callin' the ACLU right freaking now... Hey Rudy, you're too fat to be tossed, so relax already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMR Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 oh you are a bastard!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimL Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 (edited) SH - My memory is fading at an early age. Yes, it was Piton Tower. Cheers, T Edited August 31, 2005 by TimL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCramer Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 As far as the bolts – big deal. I am not worried about them. In the years after we climbed it I saw no one climb it. Now I have seen a several parties on it and SC calls the "new" route the best new route at Index. I have even seen Timmy O’Neil on it. Call me a wimpy poser but I take more pleasure in seeing people climb the route as it is now even if they think that it is a ‘new” route. I only mentioned it because of the crap I see on CC.com. The posing and posturing and the certainty of the beliefs presented when they are most certainly wrong or at best uncertain is amazing. This is merely a case in point. Here’s another one just yesterday Ben claimed to have climbed all the routes right of the Fault. Turns out he hasn’t. All posts here that assume Croft placed the bolts are another example. Did he? I don’t know. I was told that he didn’t. I could be wrong. Certainly if he climbed the route with preexisting bolts pre-slung with long slings that should make a difference to the analysis. Everybody is out to make the other guy look small. Sad really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 Yea there's posturing here; it happens. We're all human animals, so it's really nothing more than I'd expect. Add a competitive results-based activity like climbing to the mix and yea you get a bunch of gorillas pretending to be more clever than they are. As far as SPM goes, you bring up really valid points, ones I didn't think of; my main point that I would still support is to maintain the original character of the route. Even if the original character was inadvertent! Sound silly? Maybe, but all of this is silly in the end, no? I think silly is good.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephH Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 So does anyone actually know, or can piece together, the history of fixed pro on this route? Does anyone know who put the bolts in? Does anyone know if Peter did it with the bolts in place or with a long sling in place? Any facts would certainly be helpful if not illuminating. Could we coax whomever said they've climbed it 20 times to contribute here...? DCramer, the point isn't about making anyone small, or about people at all - it's about preserving rock and routes in as close to the natural and FA state as possible unless there is some pretty damn compelling reason not to; that it's hard and scary hardly qualifies. Again, with that rationale Smith could use a ton of retrobolting. This isn't anything personal about Erik at all. I suspect he is probably a great guy and is certainly trying to do the right thing. But, it would be better not to start with an end solution in mind and then set out to ask for folks to support it versus trying to gather the history and facts first and then figuring out what might best be done if anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gosolo Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 YEAR 2051, 10,000th edition of CLIMBING Magazine Ropegun Malone set out to climb all of the OLD BOLD Lines of previous generations but was thwarted in his attempt. There had been so many bolts added to bold routes that he could not determine which were placed by the first ascent team. "None of these routes are bold. It seems as though previous generations decided that they needed additional bolts to make them safe. There is virutally no way for this generation of climbers to even compare ourseelves with the climbers of the past because they bolted anything that was scary. I am very dispointed that I cannot experience the route the same way as the first ascent team did. I guess it was the selfishness of previous generations that robbed me from my quest." Would additional bolts to a Peter Croft Line really be doin the community a favor? Done 20 years ago but todays hardmen are forced to add bolts instead of sack up? Yeah, the sport of rockclimbing is progressing, it is progressing into a sanitized sport where the use of 50 year old technology replaces risk...I dont climb 5.12 regularly nor as good as I used to. However, if todays STD is 5.15a then why add bolts to 5.12? Especially when you said you can stick clip it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMR Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 Yea there's posturing here; it happens. We're all human animals... errr...speak for yourself...me personally? I'm more like a human deity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt_Anderson Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 I remember trying it onsight about 5 years ago (I failed). I was quite puckered at the roof and remember thinking that there was some horn that stuck up that I was worried about impacting. Eventually, I bypassed the moves at the roof by aiding a move or two to the right and then traversing back to the bolt. I’m not sure if I actually took the falls before bailing out right. (Maybe SC remembers – I was climbing w/ him – thanks for the belay). If I did, I apparently wasn’t hurt, cause I would remember that. Regardless, I apparently decided I wasn’t willing to continue to take them – that’s why I bailed. My recollection of the bolt above the roof is that once you got through the difficult moves and established with your feet above the roof, you could either clip the bolt or only had a relatively easy move or two b/f clipping. As I recall, the main thing I brought back from the experience was beware repeating the first ascents of a well-known soloist. If Croft led the thing w/ a sling because the bolt was poorly placed, then maybe the bolt is a candidate for being moved, not supplemented. (If so, was the bolt just placed carelessly be a free climber or was it originally an aid bolt? – If it was an aid bolt, then there is some honor in not drilling an extra hole just to make it that much easier to onsight.) If a flake actually did break, then perhaps either supplementation or moving of the bolt is merited (I’d be a bit surprised to hear that was the case – I recall the holds being pretty solid there, but maybe my memory is bad.). I don’t think the climbing after that point is all that bad or poorly protected, moving it may be a compromise that would make sense. Either way, we should err on the side of not drilling extra hole in the rock. While that bolt is not placed optimally for free climbing, it is not horribly unsafe (I haven’t heard of any injuries). Additionally, you can bypass it by the moves out to the right (like I did) or top roping from either climbs. Just because hind sight shows that a bolt wasn’t that well placed doesn’t mean that we should go drilling extra bolts and changing climbs absent clear safety imperatives (whatever that is). . . . Summary: Don’t drill a new hole unless there’s clear evidence of hold breakage or Croft clipped a sling in the first place. If you do drill a new hole, please remove and fill the bolt/hole that is currently there unless the moves to the next pro are unsafe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMR Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 now has that for silly????????????????????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 And DCramer, if you're talking about Ben the Short, he's a hell of a climber. I don't know about any Fault claims he made (don't even know what the Fault is), but even if he did, cut him some slack: none of us are perfect, and I'm sure all of us have made some claims that were a little suspect (I once claimed to have climbed a route at the UW rock that I didn't; oh god I'm so sorry! Now the truth is known, and I feel better!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 Matt, I remember you taking the fall. It wasn't pleasant, it was scary, but you took it and you were ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMR Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 And DCramer, if you're talking about Ben the Short, he's a hell of a climber. I don't know about any Fault claims he made (don't even know what the Fault is), but even if he did, cut him some slack: none of us are perfect, and I'm sure all of us have made some claims that were a little suspect (I once claimed to have climbed a route at the UW rock that I didn't; oh god I'm so sorry! Now the truth is known, and I feel better!). No...he's not talking about BenG...he's talking about fat polish ben... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCramer Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 (edited) And DCramer, if you're talking about Ben the Short, he's a hell of a climber. I don't know about any Fault claims he made (don't even know what the Fault is), but even if he did, cut him some slack: none of us are perfect, and I'm sure all of us have made some claims that were a little suspect (I once claimed to have climbed a route at the UW rock that I didn't; oh god I'm so sorry! Now the truth is known, and I feel better!). Ben on here. Go read the thread. His assertion was specifically to lend weight to his opinion. I would agree that erorrs ocur. I cant even remember if I led something or not years ago. The reason I brought this up was because it is a perfect example of someone trying to give authority to their aurgument with factually incorrect statements. He was making claims of the relative worth of routes. So his assertion that he has climbed all these routes is a big part of his argument. Edited August 31, 2005 by DCramer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 ok gotcha. That sounds just sucky to me. Yes RuMR, smite him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMR Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 oh...it will be fun to smite Mr.Scuzzy/bwrts/polishfatblob... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.