Peter_Puget Posted December 4, 2001 Posted December 4, 2001 For those unaware see my previous comment s under a thread started by Herr Dwayner’s doppelganger “Donna Two Step” Suffice to say that before bolting the arch went from being a solid 5.12 TR to a 5.11 one. After bolting the route became marginal 5.11a. All this was the result of significant damage to the rock by aid climbers.
W Posted December 4, 2001 Posted December 4, 2001 I won't apologize for those who continued to pound pins long after the crack could be done with clean gear, or especially after the bolts were placed.However, what you are saying is that what began as an aid line (read: trad, a crack system) and which frequently got TR'd no doubt by some of the same people who in order to get up there pounded pins in it, before the bolts were placed, was dumbed down because the pin scars got bigger and now it's not as aesthetic. Short of drilling the bolt ladder that exists today, it could never have been climbed in the first place, without pitons! It started as a aid climb- a trad climb- and should have been left that way, regardless of saving the grade. The original style takes precedence. I'm pretty confident that most everyone knows that nailing the Arch is not acceptable anymore, and minus the installation of the current bolt abomination the climb would likely have settled out in the same condition, without the bolts.With that in mind I don't see the point of decrying that the route's free climbing grade has been weakened. Especially, if the piton damage has resulted in a crack, that, as Dwayner points out and which I second, can be protected with clean gear, both by aid climbers and- if skilled enough- free climbers. And the facts are, in addition to piton scars damaging the rock for eternity there now are, additionally, bolts doing the same. My point is that we likely could have the same climb in the same condition, without the bolts, the only difference being that it would be a more ballsy free lead. Was it really worth the extra damage? The Dihedral Route on the Diamond at Index is a fine aid climb- when I climbed it last year we found thin cracks that would not accept cam hooks or brass nuts, and so took tied off arrows and blades, and also required us to place several small copperheads in seams. I'll bet that the route could be climbed free, right now, by someone skilled enough, and it would be a great free climb at a high standard- but as it stands right now, the hammered protection is modern A3 or so, and it would be difficult if not impossible for a free climber to place adequate protection that would prevent a ground fall. Subsequent ascents (I've heard that the route has only 4 or 5 ascents) will doubtless damage the rock and widen the crack enough until it accepts alternative gear. SO- what do we do about that? Should we "save the rock" and prevent the free grade from being downgraded and drill bolts right next to the crack? Horseshit.Not every feature, particularly a crack system, is obligated to be leadable free by anyone with a rack of draws, a drill, and too much time on their hands. In time, the route, as with Dana's Arch, will be beaten out to become a clean aid testpiece and the hammering will stop. I only hope that in the meantime the drilling will not start merely so someone can stoke their ego on their FFA. I'll be more impressed if someone leads it on gear someday. This is the way things have evolved in the valley for decades, and the ethic should (have been) be respected.And for the record- Now that Dana's Arch is bolted- I'd give a big thumbs down if someone ever decided to chop the bolts. That wouldn't change anything except to piss everyone off needlessly. [ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: W ] [ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: W ]
Dwayner Posted December 4, 2001 Posted December 4, 2001 Mr. Puget:You are obscuring the issue which is about the appropriateness of the bolts. The crags are full of routes that have been enabled for free climbing by pin-pounding etc. The point is, that Dana's Arch can go "clean" now (if you're familiar with that concept) and assumably before the bolts as well, and the bolts are in theory unnecessary. In this case, it is a questionable example of substituting one dubious practice (crack destruction via piton) vs. another (bolting)with the latter being presented as a sound solution when it is in fact just another dirty option.By the way, pal, "Donna Top-Step" (not her real name) and I share many opinions because we are old friends. (In fact, I am probably responsible for introducing her to my version of mountaineering ethics). She rarely participates in this forum because of the abusive and undo attention she gets for being a female. So thanks for adding to it with your "doppelganger" comment. Perhaps your Doppelganger is a conspiracy theorist. Have a nice day. I mean that.aloha, DwaynerP.S. And what's with the "Herr Dwayner" business? That can be taken a number of different ways. shalom, Dwayner [ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: Dwayner ] [ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: Dwayner ]
Peter_Puget Posted December 4, 2001 Posted December 4, 2001 Quote W: “what you are saying is that what began as an aid line (read: trad, a crack system) and which frequently got TR'd no doubt by some of the same people who in order to get up there pounded pins in it, before the bolts were placed, was dumbed down because the pin scars got bigger and now it's not as aesthetic” Now how did you get that I said that the route was TR’d frequently? You simply made it up. Your remaining discourse is no more clearly reasoned. For example, you say lets follow the example of Yosemite. OK I say lets use the examples of the first three 5.10s in the Valley! In order to fully understand what I was saying you need to read what I incorporated into my post by reference. Stating the decline in difficulty was done only to indicate the extent of the damage that occurred subsequent to the bolting. Dwayner: Inches of rock have come off that route since it was bolted and several additional bolts have been added as well. Regardless of your thoughts on the bolting I do not see how you can consider the bolting of Dan’s Arch at worst, but a failed experiment with good intentions. Not mentioning the extent that rock that has come off since the initial bolting or the fact that additional bolts have been added indicates either ignorance on your part or certain mean disingenuous spirit that I have often decried as residing on this site. Of course the are less flattering options too! Sweet Dreams Peter
Dwayner Posted December 4, 2001 Posted December 4, 2001 Mr. Puget: For someone who poses as a logician, you sure operate with a lot of assumptions and innuendo. I ain't gonna bother getting into a pissing match with you because it will be boring to both of us if not everybody. I'll just say that whatever the intention (noble, well-thought out or otherwise), and despite the loss of "inches of rock", the result of this "experiment" at Dana's Arch remains dubious and should serve as a lesson for future "conservationists". - Dwayner And have a nice day all this week.
W Posted December 4, 2001 Posted December 4, 2001 PP- I didn't read your reference because I don't have time to sift through every topic on this website looking for it. Sorry. I made it up? Stating that the route went from a "solid 5.12 TR to an 11" before bolting, and a "marginal 11a" after bolting infers that the route got TR'd enough for a consensus grade to be formed and for history buffs like yourself to be able to quote it to uninformed folks like me. I understood perfectly what you were saying. I don't get the idea that you listened to a single thing I tried to convey, however. You seem to suggest that without the bolts, the rock would continue today being bashed apart by people using pitons. Are you sure? Clean climbing is the rage these days. People have the message. There are few walls at Index that anyone would consider nailing on. I'll bet the Arch hasn't taken a piton in the last decade- the guidebook even pleads to not hammer. Once again: I maintain that the Arch sans bolts would have reached the same stasis in which it exists today- beaten out enough to go clean. Yeah, "inches of rock" came off. And, bolting didn't stop that because it was a classic aid climb and continued to be, long before someone decided that it "had to go free". If your reference to Yosemite 5.10's is referring to Wheat Thin- that was a hot topic that never received a consensus blessing from the valley glitterati, and a subject that continues to be debated today. In general, I think you know what I mean in reference to valley ethics. A European free climber once asked Bridwell if the PO Wall would go free- Bridwell sensed the climber's roundabout request to place bolts if necessary and replied "it might go free...but...the protection would be very bad". The European climber understood and respected what he said. I don't know...we can debate this forever, but I think the only justifiable use of bolts on the Arch would have been if the bolter was doing the FA- and even there, with a crack that took pitons, that could be debated.
MysticNacho Posted December 5, 2001 Posted December 5, 2001 Gasp! NOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Another bolting debate! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES! HEAD TO THE HILLS AND SAVE YOUR SELVES, IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS HOLY!!!!!!! AIEEEEE!!! [ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: MysticNacho ]
slaphappy Posted December 5, 2001 Posted December 5, 2001 W- Please help me clarify something. You said "The bolts damage things more in the long run than any pitons." How? A 3/8" inch hole, once drilled, remains 3/8". Yet every time a pin is pounded in the rock changes, not as quickly perhaps, but with repeat ascents it could (and has) change more than a bolt hole. I'm going to use DDD as an example, I have no interest in discussing further whether the climb should have been bolted or chopped, it's just a route that is currently familiar to most, was originally done as an aid line, and now gets climbed free. Let's say I decided to work the route in it's present unbolted state. In the "original aesthetic" of the first ascent I use a pin to protect the groundfall posibility instead of a questionable RP. After I finish I pull the pin(s), just as the first ascentionists had done, for fear it would be stolen before I could return. Lets say there are two or three other local climbers with the same agenda. How long would it take before there is "better" clean protection? and/or better holds? Would this be acceptable? (I have no intentions of doing this!) Once 3/8" holes were drilled the alteration was done, the climb would never change, and in the event of future technological advances the bolts could be removed and the holes filled.
Thrasher Posted December 5, 2001 Posted December 5, 2001 I like bolts. They are sooo cool to clip. I am putting some in soon at Rifle.
ScottP Posted December 5, 2001 Author Posted December 5, 2001 quote: Originally posted by MysticNacho: Gasp! NOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Another bolting debate! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES! HEAD TO THE HILLS AND SAVE YOUR SELVES, IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS HOLY!!!!!!! AIEEEEE!!! [ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: MysticNacho ] Yeah it's kind of funny how a thread starting with a TR of an aid climb ends up being a bickerfest about bolting. The deed is done. Nobody's mind is going to be changed.
pope Posted December 5, 2001 Posted December 5, 2001 Slappy, You're an idiot. You're attitude seems to say, "Gee, damage will be done, so I argue that bolts are less damaging." Many, many aid climbs have seen the transition to "clean aid" climbs when the record of just one clean ascent is made public. Slamming bolts next to a crack that can be aided "cleanly" is merely substitution of one ugly practice for another. That Dana's Arch might not offer adequate clean protection for a free ascent, I'm not trying to dispute, but it definitely goes clean on aid. What we have seen, then, is the desire to free an old aid pitch and the willingness to compromise its aesthetics by bolting it. Truly unfortunate...not just the act, but the attitude behind it as well.
erik Posted December 5, 2001 Posted December 5, 2001 well i am going to go fix the problem and blow up the whole damn crag. you better go out there climb all those routes that you want too cause soon enough they all will be gone. on a side note does anyone need to buy a large quanity of fine cut granite. wholesale prices and serious inquires only please.
ScottP Posted December 5, 2001 Author Posted December 5, 2001 quote: Originally posted by Cpt.Caveman: I just got my new bosch drill. I am gonna put in a full length route up the upper wall. All bolted. Then I will be hailed as cool by all right Already been done many times. I've been up Sisu. Weren't no big thing.As for the others, I can't say.The stainless steel(A0)bolt ladder off of Big Honker sure is an abomination though.
ScottP Posted December 5, 2001 Author Posted December 5, 2001 Peter Puget sez:"For those who don’t know the first 5.10 valley routes had rap placed bolts." Now, my memory isn't what it used to be (which was bad), so I would have to go look it up, but I believe the first Valley 5.10's were crack routes.To which routes are you refering? [ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: ScottP ]
Peter_Puget Posted December 5, 2001 Posted December 5, 2001 You are right they are cracks routes. I'll give you a hint the hard one begins whith an "S". Are you the same guy that once gave a certain person loads of shit for replacing the bad bolts on Town Crier on Rec.Climbing?
W Posted December 5, 2001 Posted December 5, 2001 PP- What exactly is your stance on pitoning? And how would you answer your own analogy at the start of your last post?I would say it has to do with the style of the first ascent. Regardless, either pitons or bolts are going to damage the rock permanently. So, the question then is not whether bolts are bad or good, it is which form of damage is worse? Both methods alter the rock, and both persons have used destructive methods to gain an end. Bolting advocates say it is a one-time hit, then it's over. Someone who would prefer the trad approach would say that pitoning eventually gives way to non-destructive methods, albeit over time. So, which is better? One's answer might be based on whether they look at it as a free climbing project or an aid project. Either way, Peter, would you then suggest that the production of A4 and A5 routes have got to cease? without bolts, many of these will never go without hammered protection, whether fixed or not. The rock will continue to get altered. What do you propose?I am not so against bolting as you might think, but I also feel that as more and more emphasis gets placed on the "climbing" and less on the adventure and the need to be in tune with the environment in which we climb- which were very integral issues when climbing began- we have more mad bolters and more people nailing clean routes. You yourself referred to the Arch as a "failed experiment made with good intentions".So what would a better solution have been? To not climb it at all, perhaps? That's the only way the rock would have been saved, actually.
slaphappy Posted December 5, 2001 Posted December 5, 2001 Pope, yes I may in fact be an idiot but trust me you stand right along side of me. I simply wanted to know how "the bolts damage things more in the long run than any pitons"? Thanks for your explanation of how that works.
Cpt.Caveman Posted December 5, 2001 Posted December 5, 2001 Battle Cage [ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: Cpt.Caveman ]
ScottP Posted December 5, 2001 Author Posted December 5, 2001 quote: Originally posted by Peter Puget: You are right they are cracks routes. I'll give you a hint the hard one begins whith an "S".Are you the same guy that once gave a certain person loads of shit for replacing the bad bolts on Town Crier on Rec.Climbing? I wasn't exactly looking for a game show ...So when you say rap bolted, are you referring to pro, anchors, both? Yeah, that was me. They weren't "bad" bolts. Merely old.It wasn't "loads", just some.So what?
Cpt.Caveman Posted December 5, 2001 Posted December 5, 2001 Peter Pubic versus ScottPeePeeHead What a fight of wit on one side and arrogance on the other. Oops maybe a little of both on each side
ScottP Posted December 5, 2001 Author Posted December 5, 2001 quote: Originally posted by Cpt.Caveman: Peter Pubic versus ScottPeePeeHead What a fight of wit on one side and arrogance on the other. Oops maybe a little of both on each side So, I ask again; are you in your early teens?
ScottP Posted December 5, 2001 Author Posted December 5, 2001 quote: Originally posted by Cpt.Caveman: I'm yo daddy punk The reason I ask is that you seem to have the sense of humor, social skills, and the need for recognition on a par with many of my less mature middle school students.
Recommended Posts