catbirdseat Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 I've seen discussions about holds that have been chipped to make a climb easier. Has anyone ever seen a route that was deliberately made harder by chipping? If there are holds that are loose and likely to pull out and fall on a belayer, I can see the logic in removing them for safety sake, but otherwise no. And I am sure there are lots of people who would say that if it can't be removed by hand it should be removed. I'm sure that the standard must vary from crag to crag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurthicks Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 There have been climbs at Smiff that have been FILLED to make them harder. Somewhere in the Cocaine Gulley, IIRC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt_Anderson Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 wasn't that the whole point of scarface? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted September 7, 2005 Author Share Posted September 7, 2005 wasn't that the whole point of scarface? Please elaborate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt_Anderson Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 My recollection is that Franklin took a crow bar to a large flake because the flake made the climb easier than he wanted. His activities created the scar that is the climb's name sake. Â I'd heard he was set on doing a .14. Ironically, I hear most people who do it consider it .13d, not .14. Â Disclaimer - based on long ago reading of the Smith guidebook, rumor, inuendo, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 I thought scarface was initially rated 14c? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMR Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 it was significantly harder when scott did it then in its present state... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted September 7, 2005 Author Share Posted September 7, 2005 I suppose what would make a more interesting discussion would be the degree to which one should clean a route of possible loose rock. Lots of places this isn't really an issue, but some places it is, for example North Bend and Vantage. When is one going too far? There are routes in Vantage where you'd never see the end of it when cleaning and just have to quit and say "good enough". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt_Anderson Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 How was scarface altered after Franklin climbed it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mec Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 just think, if we were kayakers, we would be arguing about if we should remove the fallen trees from the middle of rivers. How much cleaning is acceptable? This will always be a debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrogdortheBurninator Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 How do you judge how loose is loose enough to clean/leave (CBS says removeable by hand; is that pulling, hanging, prying)? If you are leaving semi-loose blocks, is it ethical/unethical to glue in place? Is the standard different on sport climbs vs adventure climbs? Often cleaning looseish rock will make a climb harder and safer, is that better than easier but more dangerous? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted September 7, 2005 Author Share Posted September 7, 2005 On adventure climbs people are more inclined to leave things as they are found, at least in part because of the constraints of time, but also because there are fewer "bystanders" to be concerned about. Obviously, you have to avoid trundling on your belayer. So it comes down to whether the follower feels like doing a good turn by trundling an occasional loose hold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMR Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 How was scarface altered after Franklin climbed it? Â Several of the pockets have gotten deeper/larger from "overuse"...nothing deliberate...in the early 90's the mono, in particular, was quite shallow and set up to pull straight down on only...now, you can stack in it (guess that would make it a "1 1/2 finger" pocket) as well as pull on it in a gaston fashion...this is very very different from the original climb...its particularly noticeable in older pics... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrogdortheBurninator Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 Rumr, that is crazy that a climb this new and hard could get overused that fast. I've only been to smith once; is this type of extreme wear typical of most tuff routes, only more disguised in jug hauls than a route as precise as this? How often does this get climbed? I guess it is probably sort of exponential in wear though because the easier it gets, the more traffic it gets. Maybe one day when it is 5.7 I will be able to climb it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMR Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 this new? jeezus, it was put up in the late 80's... Â easier routes won't focus on the same itty bitty hold over and over... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrogdortheBurninator Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 I guess I was just thinking something 14c initially, even over 20 years (saw the ref to early 90s in your other post and assumed ~10 yrs) wouldn't see enough traffic to really wear hard. Didn't think about the fact that each hold is that much more critical at those grades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geek_the_Greek Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 ?? Scarface was never .14c. It was .14a at first, with much hoopla about it being the first 5.14 established by an American. Then it was downgraded to .13d... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpinfox Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 How was scarface altered after Franklin climbed it? Â Several of the pockets have gotten deeper/larger from "overuse"...nothing deliberate...in the early 90's the mono, in particular, was quite shallow and set up to pull straight down on only...now, you can stack in it (guess that would make it a "1 1/2 finger" pocket) as well as pull on it in a gaston fashion...this is very very different from the original climb...its particularly noticeable in older pics... Â Sounds fishy to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMR Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 ?? Scarface was never .14c. It was .14a at first, with much hoopla about it being the first 5.14 established by an American. Then it was downgraded to .13d... Â Actually, scott had graded it at french 8c = 14a/b or b depending on the scale you look at... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 So if you add a bolt to a route, does it make it harder? Clipping wastes valuable strength and energy. No, I'm serious... Â I bet some redpoints are made easier by clipping only the crux bolt. Is that done? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 No (to your first question) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrogdortheBurninator Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 So if you add a bolt to a route, does it make it harder? Clipping wastes valuable strength and energy. No, I'm serious... I bet some redpoints are made easier by clipping only the crux bolt. Is that done?  I was thinking a similar thing once. Trad climbing is often more strenuous than sport climbing because of the extra energy required to place gear compared to clipping a bolt. Free soloing on the other hand, arguably the most traditional form of climbing, is by this analogy the least strenuous form of climbing. So... we should all start soloing above our trad limit  It seems people often skip bolts on hard climbs if they are pumped, so your crux only clipping analogy might just be an extreme case of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwrts Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Ask Chris Sharma about clipping the crux bolts on the route called "realization" in France. Apparently, he took repeated "whippers" while trying to redpoint the route prior to his success a few years ago. Â cbs- how would "chipping" make a climb harder? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted September 8, 2005 Author Share Posted September 8, 2005 Perhaps chipping was not the word I was looking for. Is there a word for using a hammer to break off sharp edges that might be used as holds? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EWolfe Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 this new? jeezus, it was put up in the late 80's... easier routes won't focus on the same itty bitty hold over and over...  Plus Smith is welded Tuff - basically compacted ash. Much more suceptible to erosion through use and **ahem** constant brushing. 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.