Jap Gardens P1 Short Anchors

[bwrts]

beating the dead fukn horse....

 

rudy, you are such a lippy little tool. who gives a fuk how big the ledge is...you are not getting the point. Historically the ropes were shorter, cams were non-existant or smaller and chalk was still aid. My boss called just a sec ago and says tell that rudy dork to get those numbers crunched so we can finish the foundation design to the bridge across northern portion of Lake Washington.....

[RuMR]

hey ben, you dumb geofuck...go find some liquified sand to take a swim in, tool...

 

hopefully, your fat ass is bouyant enough to stay afloat so i can throw rocks at you...assmunch...

 

Hey, we gotta go get some brewskis to cry into sometime...

[DCramer]

 

Hey, we gotta go get some brewskis to cry into sometime...

 

If it's a fat man gathering I'll invite myself...besides I can hand off the big cams.

[RuMR]

yeah!!! LET'S DO IT!!!

[pope]

So should anchors only be 'allowed' a full rope length up the wall? It seems that this would eliminate ALL of the commonly used anchors at Index.

 

If you don't know the answer to that..... Obviously, a pitch should end at a logical stance near the end of the rope or when the climbing peters out or dramatically changes direction. BTW 60m ropes are a fad that will fade.

 

What definitely should be avoided is the creation of 40-foot pitches when a route logically continues beyond.

[pope]

Totally agree with Minx. If you don't like 'em, don't clip 'em.

 

Fine, until they show up in places where they clearly don't belong.

[pope]

You can't undrill the holes in the rock. Leave it alone. I haven't encouraged the addition of any new hardwear. Just dismissed the implication that removing an existing anchor will somehow improve the asthetic. If you don't like it don't use it.

 

I admit it seems like it wouldn't make sense to put it in there. Too Late. It's already there.

 

Actually I never advocated removing that anchor, although I wouldn't have objected. I recently read that part of it was missing and I thought now is the time to at least discuss whether or not it should have been there in the first place.

[slothrop]

If you don't know the answer to that..... Obviously, a pitch should end at a logical stance near the end of the rope or when the climbing peters out or dramatically changes direction.

 

What about belays at obvious stances at the beginning of significantly harder climbing? Done in the mountains all the time. Or what about at obvious stances one single-rope rappel from the ground? Also routinely done.

 

BTW 60m ropes are a fad that will fade.

 

What, as in 70m ropes will be the new standard? Then 80m? The trend is for longer ropes, not shorter, for crag climbs. The more cragging routes with 30m rappels that get established, the less likely your prediction appears to be.

[Raindawg]

Post deleted by Off_White

[underworld]

Obviously, a pitch should end at a logical stance near the end of the rope or when the climbing peters out or dramatically changes direction. BTW 60m ropes are a fad that will fade.

 

a climb 'petering out' is subjective. one man't peter out...is another man's walk-up.

[bwrts]

yeah!!! LET'S DO IT!!!

NExt week I am in Seattle...I am currently waiting for the rain squall to blow over Donner Pass... BUt in the mean time I am going to hit a bucket of balls at the driving range... yup sucks to be on vacation. poor little geome

[billcoe]

 

You can't undrill the holes in the rock. Leave it alone. I haven't encouraged the addition of any new hardwear. Just dismissed the implication that removing an existing anchor will somehow improve the asthetic. If you don't like it don't use it.

 

I admit it seems like it wouldn't make sense to put it in there. Too Late. It's already there.

 

Bad arguements Minx, as was your last post. Just because somebody plunked in an anchor somewhere, dosen't mean that the next person now must forwver suffer it being there because some dick head wanted to put in in and it's in now so everyone MUST now leave it there.

 

Pffsssst.

 

As far as you being a weak climber and needing a short anchor. Well, that arguement is weak as well, why not just stay in the gym instead of lowering the climbs to your level?

 

Frankly, Dcramer has an arguement for leaving it there that is hard to argue against, ie, 1) it's pretty much always been there and 2) it's a damn good place, being a no hands nice little stance right there.

[soulreaper]

A couple of clarifications: the anchor in question is NOT at a no-hands stance; the old anchor previously referred to likely involved the archaic pin on the ledge about 5 or 6 feet below the "new" anchor. The anchor that has been robbed of a hanger is, quite frankly, in a fairly absurd location (bolted onto a flake, albeit a large one that comprises multiple pitches including Sagittarius P.1, TPMV P.1 and Japanese Gardens P.1).

Also, I don't recall needing a 70m rope to lower off the first pitch. I could be mistaken, but I think a 60m just barely reaches.

The aforementioned bolts to the right of Stern Farmer are hangerless studs on a blank face, the viability of which as a free climb is highly questionable. Indeed, these bolts are offensive as well, but I think the larger issue may be the sheer number of anchors on the cliff as a whole. The real question of what constitutes a well-placed bolt or anchor seems forever lost in the flotsam and jetsam of the ongoing ethics discussion.

Continuing the oceanic metaphor, if that discussion was to be characterized as particularly "tidal", then the input of these forums could be represented by "those pieces of styrofoam that float offensively around in the water and later festoon the beach as refuse".

Oh and Darryl, this certainly wasn't targeted as a reply to your message even though it's indicated as such; I was just skimming through the more substantive answers and happened to stop at yours.

[Gary_Yngve]

Interesting discussion.

 

First some comments on Index:

-If you have a 60m rope and can get off Princely Ambitions or Godzilla without downclimbing, then your rope is longer than my rope.

-I'm really happy that Sagg has anchors below the 11b roof because I'm selfish and I can't climb 11b roofs.

 

Though we're focusing on bolts and anchors, rap slings are about as much as a big deal to me. On the WR of Prusik, there are ratnests on the ridge itself, and there are parallel stations on the north face descent too. Not to mention stuck cams. No one maintains the stations, and there may be the station for the 50m rap and the one for the 60m rap. Over on the Burgner-Stanley there's several chockstones/blocks that are slung.

 

Forbidden east ledges is nice because the stations seem to be maintained. There's neither redundant stations nor ratnests.

 

Now onto the Bugaboos, where chains have largely replaced slings. On the Kain Route, it's pretty clean, keeps the tat down, though depending on skill level, some of the raps can be downclimbed ropeless. The Kraus-McNarthy is a different story though. You need two ropes to descend, but it seems there are rap stations set up for 40m ropes, 50m ropes, and 60m ropes... all interleaved. Seemed a bit excessive.

 

So is the problem really bolts or rap slings, or is it people? Too many people climbing routes that require leaving some amount of fixed gear behind? If so, then we're part of the problem, unless we're only climbing clean and doing walkoffs.

 

I think we all agree that we want to mitigate the problem, but where to draw the line is hard to define. I don't think any of us wants grid-bolted cracks nor all-out bans on climbing (look at the impact of feet scrubbing off lichen over time, such as on Outer Space or WF NEWS). Sticking with tradition is one way to go, though that's not entirely consistent, and times are changing. I like the fact that I can rap down Dreamer instead of "walking off" via 3rd-class bushwhacking, but I'd be furious if Breakfast of Champions got bolted. As long as the climbing community communicates and doesn't polarize, I think we'll be ok.

[bwrts]

The problem is the blinded by the light ambition that provokes people into bolting for the sake of bolting.

 

GY mentions slings being an overabundant eyesore in places like Prusik WR. Well, if everyone only used what was there instead of adding to the nest then, the nest would stay minimal. Moreover, if the worried sling testers, replaced the sling in question by removing crusty snafflegnawd pink flaggin and left a bew bright shinny sling, the abundance could be controlled "better." Yet, people are lazy by nature. So the 'if its not broke why should I fix it' thinking prevails in the mental battle of the adventure climber. Likewise, the ten+ mile approach and deproach sort-of scares the otherwise ambitious adventurer into leaving the nest for the snaffles and Jac and jil to deal with later.

 

I think you mr Yngve, hit the nail on the head with the people problem...but really the problem lies with the people not giving a shit due its not really their rock or land or eyesore. so why should they care but just climb and clip the bolt next to the simple nut placement or take the rapride down. Cuz carrying shoes up the trail on the harness suX.

 

Honestly, I have been guilty of said disputes but, changing the future and the present is a group effort.

[soulreaper]

Godzilla is a 30m rap, while with Princely Ambitions a doubled 60m will barely reach that railroad bolt thing on the left, which is one reason that other sling anchor is there.

You're right, Yngve, that bolts in over-abundance are by no means the only mank sullying the various cliffs at which we climb; ancient tats, wierd fixed cams and nuts, archaic pins--they are human refuse and should be dealt with as such.

In a way, I think the "short" pitches at Index are like the 'interleaved' rappel routes of which you speak, excessive in the sense that they cater only to convenience and in some sense the lowering of standards. So, in the case of Japanese Gardens, the anchors in question are there because people want to climb 5.10a instead of 5.10a C1(-). Convenience, yes? It sounds like they've been there for some 30-odd years in one form or another.

But the problem is, as you say, with people and their opinions: I, for instance, love all aspects of climbing including bolted face climbing. I recognize the need for fixed gear on the routes I love. However, there's always someone else who staunchly opposes any fixed gear, without exception. While their view on ethics might be said to be more pure than mine, since mine makes allowances for wanting to climb at higher gymnastic difficulty, there isn't a third person who is arbiter of such things and thus there won't ever be a "correct" view on this issue.

It's true that reality naturally falls somewhere in between prohibition and excess, depending on one's definition of excess. There are some who think adding a 4th sling to a rappel mankpile is fine, while some would sooner remove the mank and put in new slings and rings. Yet another person would add chains and quicklinks. Someone else would pull the bolts and climb the 50ft. of vegetated 5.4 to a walkoff.

Without all of these methods, we wouldn't have the plethora of climbs that we have today. This iteration of the fixed gear argument stemmed from indignance at the removal of a chain and hanger that many people relied on to truncate Japanese Gardens P.1 into a four star .10a. Even though I still believe that this type of theft without discussion, as it were, is dumb, I still can't say it hurts my feelings. As my first lead of the full pitch involved C1 "french freeing", I can vouch for the quality of the aid climbing if one cannot free the moves. That was about 4 years ago. Since then, I've worked very hard and with an extreme amount of enjoyment to bring myself to a level at which I can contend with, among other things, the difficulty of Index climbing. If every pitch had an easier "version", I doubt as many people would be forced to venture into tougher territory, thereby challenging themselves and, possibly, pulling on a few pieces until they could free the moves.

Now, as for the four (!) anchors on Iron Horse/Sagittarius...well, we could probably fill a book with the spray and opinions towards those!

[bwrts]

well said.

[RuMR]

Godzilla is a 30m rap, while with Princely Ambitions a doubled 60m will barely reach that railroad bolt thing on the left, which is one reason that other sling anchor is there.

You're right, Yngve, that bolts in over-abundance are by no means the only mank sullying the various cliffs at which we climb; ancient tats, wierd fixed cams and nuts, archaic pins--they are human refuse and should be dealt with as such.

In a way, I think the "short" pitches at Index are like the 'interleaved' rappel routes of which you speak, excessive in the sense that they cater only to convenience and in some sense the lowering of standards. So, in the case of Japanese Gardens, the anchors in question are there because people want to climb 5.10a instead of 5.10a C1(-). Convenience, yes? It sounds like they've been there for some 30-odd years in one form or another.

But the problem is, as you say, with people and their opinions: I, for instance, love all aspects of climbing including bolted face climbing. I recognize the need for fixed gear on the routes I love. However, there's always someone else who staunchly opposes any fixed gear, without exception. While their view on ethics might be said to be more pure than mine, since mine makes allowances for wanting to climb at higher gymnastic difficulty, there isn't a third person who is arbiter of such things and thus there won't ever be a "correct" view on this issue.

It's true that reality naturally falls somewhere in between prohibition and excess, depending on one's definition of excess. There are some who think adding a 4th sling to a rappel mankpile is fine, while some would sooner remove the mank and put in new slings and rings. Yet another person would add chains and quicklinks. Someone else would pull the bolts and climb the 50ft. of vegetated 5.4 to a walkoff.

Without all of these methods, we wouldn't have the plethora of climbs that we have today. This iteration of the fixed gear argument stemmed from indignance at the removal of a chain and hanger that many people relied on to truncate Japanese Gardens P.1 into a four star .10a. Even though I still believe that this type of theft without discussion, as it were, is dumb, I still can't say it hurts my feelings. As my first lead of the full pitch involved C1 "french freeing", I can vouch for the quality of the aid climbing if one cannot free the moves. That was about 4 years ago. Since then, I've worked very hard and with an extreme amount of enjoyment to bring myself to a level at which I can contend with, among other things, the difficulty of Index climbing. If every pitch had an easier "version", I doubt as many people would be forced to venture into tougher territory, thereby challenging themselves and, possibly, pulling on a few pieces until they could free the moves.

Now, as for the four (!) anchors on Iron Horse/Sagittarius...well, we could probably fill a book with the spray and opinions towards those!

 

Drew...i know you've busted your fanny to get to the level of climbing (very high, i might mention) that you are at, but many people will simply never get to the level that your climbing at for two reasons: a.) they simply don't have the innate talent/strength and b.) they don't have the time to dedicate towards training and developing the skill. Nonetheless, i would venture to say that some of those people savor climbing every bit as much as you do or even more due to the very limited amount of time they can get to go and do it before life overwhelms them.

 

Is there room for these two types of climbers to coexist at index? Should they be absolutely doomed to climb at total shit piles like exit 38? The counter argument to this is that i don't think anyone wants to see Index develop into the shitfest that is I90 climbing...

 

Someone above (don't want to go reread every post) started spraying about the "numerous" routes under 5.10...index doesn't have a ton of them, so why not allow a shortened version of Jap to exist? Does it really do anything to lower your experience of the full pitch? Honestly?

 

Cleaning up the tat and other shit at the crag would be a better time to spend energy on than worrying about an intermediate anchor on an excellent pitch...

[soulreaper]

Is there room for these two types of climbers to coexist at index?

 

Of course; I'm by no means an elitist in that sense.

 

those people savor climbing every bit as much as you do or even more due to the very limited amount of time they can get to go and do it before life overwhelms them

 

I agree, although I'm pretty psyched; again, not an elitist in this sense either.

 

why not allow a shortened version of Jap to exist?

 

Well, it's not my choice whether it exists or not (I'm not making it my choice), but I question whether it NEEDS to exist, since without it one is forced to adventure a little further...

 

Cleaning up the tat and other shit at the crag would be a better time to spend energy on than worrying about an intermediate anchor on an excellent pitch...

 

I very, very strongly agree. And yes, I have lived with the intermediate anchors since I started climbing there. My concern is more about future Index "ethics". But of course, it's important to take all sides into account whether or not they affect my final opinion...

[lancegranite]

A couple years ago I was doing a new,traditionaly protected route on an undeveloped wall ground up, onsight.

Unprepared, I carred all the gear we had:

three cams, a couple nuts and two pins.

Out of gear at the crux, I placed one of the two pins I had and ran it out to a small but safe no hands stance.

The last piece of pro, a knifeblade, did not fit the perfect fingercrack that rose up from the stance.

What to do?

1. Run it out with no gear to another ledge 20 feet higher.

2. Jump off or downclimb the crux to the pin 15 feet below and lower to the ground.

2. Put in a bolted anchor right there and call it good.

 

These choices were mine to make that day, not my partner's or his friends or cc.com or anybody else.

I made my choice, and it was the best one for the circumstances.

Later, a local hot shot commented that the upper ledge was "the natural stopping point" and "that's the way the route should be done".

He might be right, but that choice was not his to make.

 

People that climb new routes do so by choice, and the decisions that they make shape the routes we climb.

All people who follow are doing just that, following.

Don't agree with the status quo? put up your own routes, nothing is stopping you.

 

Bolts or no bolts, it's your choice to climb the routes they created, and endlessly complaining after the fact just makes you a fucking monday morning quarterback.

[TeleRoss]

Routes evolve over time. They do not remain in the same state in which they were first climbed. Pins get removed and routes are climbed clean, bolts come and go. I would imagine that at some point, if not already, that the pin you placed will be removed and that section protected with nuts or small cams.

Just because something has been there for a year, two three, or fifty doesn't mean that is the way it should be or should remain. It is up to the climbers in the community to make decisions, which necessarily will not appeal to everybody. Some climbs are too difficult for some to climb. There is nothing wrong with that. It is something to aspire to. It is a driving force to push your limits, moving the sport foreward. Dumbing down climbs for the lowest common denominator is moving backwards.

[chucK]

It is up to the climbers in the community to make decisions, which necessarily will not appeal to everybody.

 

Some climbs are too difficult for some to climb. There is nothing wrong with that. It is something to aspire to. It is a driving force to push your limits, moving the sport foreward. Dumbing down climbs for the lowest common denominator is moving backwards.

 

The first quotation speaks of the individual relinquishing control and allowing the greater community to decide.

 

The second quotation presents an opinion held by an individual (and probably quite a few others), but may not reflect the opinion of the overall community.

 

Isn't the "lowest common denominator" pretty much just a derogatory term for a plurality, a stance that a large percentage of those in the community can agree upon?

 

It is contradictory to simultaneously spout that the "community" should decide and in the next breath imply that certain practices are forbidden.

[lancegranite]

A good point, but as clearly illustrated, climbers rarely agree.

We tend to want to rewrite history, and hindsight is 20/20.

It's easy to thumb through the guide and select a climb, it's quite another thing to have the vision and gumption to push the boat out into the unknown.

Will somebody remove the pin?...probably.

Will somebody remove the anchor?... prehaps.

Were they the one who untied the rope from his harness and stand there on a mailbox sized ledge without any protection to pull up the drill?.... no.

 

I recognize that I stand on the shoulders of many, and harder men than I have been putting up harder routes for .

They are an inspiration, but they are not tied into my rope. Each of us climbs for our own reasons, and I'm not about to submit to a ethical commitee when I climb first ascents. We must respect the right of the first ascentionist to climb as they see fit.

Should we chop anchors at Indian Creek because the cracks continue to the top of the cliff?

[TeleRoss]

Didn't say forbidden, but simply, IMHO, moving in the wrong direction. Whether that sentiment prevails within the climbing community as a whole...who knows? Maybe, maybe not, but the practice of making climbs more accessible for more climbers is one that occurs frequently, and is a practice which, again IMHO, should be looked at critically.

[TimL]

Didn't say forbidden, but simply, IMHO, moving in the wrong direction. Whether that sentiment prevails within the climbing community as a whole...who knows? Maybe, maybe not, but the practice of making climbs for more climbers is one that occurs frequently, and is a practice which, again IMHO, should be looked at critically.

 

This is not a question of making JG more accessible. If we are talking access we would remove all fixed anchors and make people climb up and over the LTW and walk off. This is just a question of replacing an established fixed anchor. Nobody would of thought twice about the route neither the anchor if someone hadn't taken it.