Figger_Eight Posted December 8, 2006 Posted December 8, 2006 There was climbing at Smith long before many of the bolted lines went up. You can get a ton of climbing in without clipping one bolt. It's like celebrating Thanksgiving. Some people see it as the day the New World started and led us to the America we know today. Others see it as the first day the Native American people were pillaged, murdered and assimilated. Both are true - it doesn't mean you aren't gonna eat turkey.
billcoe Posted December 8, 2006 Posted December 8, 2006 There are plenty of lines at Smith that are not sport routes. I don't share Pope's perspective, but I don't doubt his sincerity or character. Pope's suggestion is in the fine tradition of peaceful protest. This is the Climbers Board, not Spray, and as a moderator I'd ask everyone to discuss the ideas rather than trash the personalities involved. Passion is fine, but insult is inappropriate. Took the words right out of my mouth. Thanks for the different persepctive Pope (and raindawg), but if I could figure out which city they are talking about, I'd probably go. Mike Volk is a pretty good guy.
kevbone Posted December 8, 2006 Posted December 8, 2006 This is the Climbers Board, not Spray, and as a moderator I'd ask everyone to discuss the ideas rather than trash the personalities involved. Passion is fine, but insult is inappropriate. I agree with you Off White. But maybe pope should have thought about that before he sprayed his personal commentary all over this site. This thread should have started in spray. Because, even though the original post was written well, it is hugely spray. Can you move it to spray?
ryland_moore Posted December 8, 2006 Posted December 8, 2006 Eugene at the new backcountry gear store.....
sexual_chocolate Posted December 8, 2006 Posted December 8, 2006 This is the Climbers Board, not Spray, and as a moderator I'd ask everyone to discuss the ideas rather than trash the personalities involved. Passion is fine, but insult is inappropriate. I agree with you Off White. But maybe pope should have thought about that before he sprayed his personal commentary all over this site. This thread should have started in spray. Because, even though the original post was written well, it is hugely spray. Can you move it to spray? not hugely spray. just commentary pertinent to a rock climbing forum. if you have anything to say in response, please relegate it to where it belongs: spray.
Off_White Posted December 8, 2006 Posted December 8, 2006 Kev, I think Pope put it here on purpose. Sure, he likes to stir the pot, but I don't think he's spraying here. I'm leaving this here because I want to see the subject treated with some respect. Agree or disagree, the conversation has merit.
tradclimbguy Posted December 8, 2006 Posted December 8, 2006 Personally I don't think climbing would be where it is today without the history and change that happened at a place like Smith. Where exactly is climbing today? Seems a rather strange comment to me.... Maybe you should reread the post and then read the link. If you can't put 2 and 2 together well then I can't help you.
chris Posted December 8, 2006 Posted December 8, 2006 Actually, this isn't spray (or at least it could not be, if everyone can have a civil arguement about this). Its a debate about what constitutes progress and evolution in our sport, and if sport climbing has contributed or diminished the results. I just finished re-reading for the umpteenth time The White Spider, in which Harrer observed that the Swiss failed to make the first, second, or even the 15th ascent of the North Face of the Eiger because they insisted on applying "classic" techniques. He points out, several times, that the Austrian and German practice of climbing shorter rock walls at a hard grade made them more likely to suceed, a practice not accepted by the Swiss for another generation. I lived in Jackson, Wyoming, for a few years, and my skiing markedly improved. One reason it did so was the crowd I was in - a community of extremely talented skiers who lived there, skied there, and benefitted from the lifts, gondola and tram at the ski areas. Skiing inbounds in mileage and variable conditions eventually made us better skiers OB, and the community was large enough to "pull itself up by its own boot-straps", so to speak. I believe that sport climbing has contributed in a like fashion to trad climbing and alpine. Sport climbing has allowed a community to grow, has encouraged standards to rise, and has created more public awareness and acceptance of the entire sport more than trad climbers in the Valley or alpinists in the Cascades. To decry sport climbing is akin to arguing that the 50-meter sprint isn't really a track event, and equally pointless. Sport climbing is a discipline of climbing because of its simple existence. Pope can go ahead and argue that we should boycot sport climbing in all its influence on the sport. I disagree, and believe that his position is a minority.
kevbone Posted December 8, 2006 Posted December 8, 2006 Pope can go ahead and argue I havent seen anything from Pope since the opening statement. I would like too!
beecher Posted December 8, 2006 Posted December 8, 2006 boycotting films that document history you don't agree with is kind of ignorant. how do you really know what it's about or what you may have learned if you don't see it? does the event poster tell you everything you need to know? If you weren't witness to the events, I don't see how avoiding an opportunity to learn something about what happened is going to make your arguments more effective. If you did witness the events, seeing the film would allow you to comment on the accuracy of it's representation.
enelson Posted December 8, 2006 Posted December 8, 2006 if you have a problem with sport climbing, you better invite a newbie along with you to learn the trad ropes, other wise it isn't fair at all to anyone who doesn't want to get killed. not only am i too poor to buy a rack, but i wouldn't be safe even if i had one to only climb the "traditional" way, even though i have seconded and cleaned quite a bit. all i mean to say is, all you talking shit about sport climbing at least better be inviting to others wanting to get into a sport that is extremely difficult to break into. without smith and other bolted routes, i would just be another crabber from alaska posting on this site, except i don't work on a crabbing boat in alaska. just another view on the bolt debate.
ScottP Posted December 8, 2006 Posted December 8, 2006 Boycott BBQ the Pope. This is what happens when you BBQ the Pope: An article in Alpinist that is germaine to this thread...
tivoli_mike Posted December 8, 2006 Posted December 8, 2006 The old skool types definitely knew how to wear their lycra
kevbone Posted December 8, 2006 Posted December 8, 2006 (edited) The old skool types definitely knew how to wear their lycra And now for the biggest spray yet. I played guitar at his wedding! He married my ex-girlfriend. Go toni! Edited December 8, 2006 by kevbone
s_darris Posted December 8, 2006 Posted December 8, 2006 Sport climbing is fine...just keep it at Smith. I like having less people to contend with on the real..errr..trad lines.
Mr_Phil Posted December 9, 2006 Posted December 9, 2006 The history of our slide down the slippery slope to climbing without courage? The abandon of the "leave no trace" ethic in favor of manufactured bolt trails? Beckey was known to sink a bolt or two as well.
mattp Posted December 9, 2006 Posted December 9, 2006 Mr. Beckey has certainly placed some bolts in his career, and he's climbed some rap bolted lines (though I doubt he ever set may sport climbs himself because he's always had bigger fish to fry). But I have never seen a picture of him in lycra and I don't think he's ever been closely associated with modern sport climbing.
Choada_Boy Posted December 9, 2006 Posted December 9, 2006 The obvious conclusion is to not only boycott this attrocity against humanity but to also chop every bolt at Smith.
G-spotter Posted December 9, 2006 Posted December 9, 2006 I think more people should boycott Smith... all the ones in front of me in the lineup for 5 Gallon Buckets, for instance. I wouldn't mind at all if they protested and boycotted the damn place.
lancegranite Posted December 9, 2006 Posted December 9, 2006 Does all this mean that my cams, and crampons are considered cheating? Time to grow a beard, dig out the wool and never fall again...
Raindawg Posted December 9, 2006 Posted December 9, 2006 Funny you say this Pope, because I think I have actually seen you climbing at Smith before......... So what? Loads of routes at Smith. I, myself, climbed there plenty before it became sport-raped. Or are you just one of the typical" talk the talk but don't walk the walk" hippie pretenders? This ain't a hypocricy debate. Pope could have climbed 1,000 sport routes and still maintain his opinion. Let me ask you Pope, since you are so high and mighty about climbing traditions, why not go back to bare feet, climbing with a hemp rope and only using passive protection? Why not just tie knots and place those instead of stoppers? Got any cams? Can't use hose because they are "new" and it "changes" the sport. Allows too many "gumbies" into trad crags.... You clearly don't understand the issues surrounding sport climbing. There are profound stylistic issues, but more importantly, there are environmental issues, such as leaving a permanent trail in your wake. Stoppers, tied knots, modern ropes, and most rock shoes don't leave much impact. Ever places a knifeblade or Lost Arrow, Pope? Can't do that. You are scarring the rock permanently. What about the via feratta you've professed about on cc.com? Ban that too? If that isn't defacing the rock, then I don't know what is. No one is banning anything. There needs to be a change in the awareness of what sport climbing actually is: an endorsement of closely-spaced permanent anchors (as opposed to trad climbing in which one espouses to leave as little trace as possible) along with the illusion of accomplishment provided by rap-bolting and siege-rehersals of difficult climbs. You might be the only one who didn't realize that his via ferrata comments were satire: basically stating that those who endorse sport climbing are often opposed to via ferrata when in fact the latter has very interesting parallels with the former. Your drivel is mindless. Think things through before you start spraying about something you read or someone else's opinion you decided to assume. Otherwise, no one will take you seriously. Practice what you preach and maybe you will get somewhere. You may think that sport climbing is bad, but you do it. Maybe your ethics aren't in line with what you believe? You deal with it. Don't push it on me...... Apparently you don't like the fact that someone has a different opinion than yourself. I know "pope" and he's not a sport-climber, although he's no doubt tried it as we all have. Is he pushing it on you? Mindless? Pope is a very thoughtful fellow and the two of us have discussed this for years. Consider the perspective, disregard it if you wish, accept it all or in pieces, or ignore it...it's your option. No, it was for Pope and his patchouli lover, Raindawg.... Dude....thanks for the insult...you don't know me either, but you just weakened your own credibility with that ridiculous comment.
Raindawg Posted December 9, 2006 Posted December 9, 2006 I agree with you Off White. But maybe pope should have thought about that before he sprayed his personal commentary all over this site. This thread should have started in spray. Because, even though the original post was written well, it is hugely spray. Can you move it to spray? Pope's a VERY thoughtful guy which you would realize if you actually knew the guy. It's only spray because you apparently disagree with his perspective. You want sunshine blown up your kiester about your beloved sport? Keep your head in the sand and pretend there is a consensus that it's all good. Reality: it ain't all good, and the number of dissenters is growing. My opinion: sport-climbing is an environmental and stylistic embarrassment that future generations may very well see as a dark, selfish, ignorant age in the history of climbing.
Raindawg Posted December 9, 2006 Posted December 9, 2006 boycotting films that document history you don't agree with is kind of ignorant. how do you really know what it's about or what you may have learned if you don't see it? does the event poster tell you everything you need to know? If you weren't witness to the events, I don't see how avoiding an opportunity to learn something about what happened is going to make your arguments more effective. If you did witness the events, seeing the film would allow you to comment on the accuracy of it's representation. In my opinion, what happened at Smith Rock, and it's widespread aftermath, is a tragedy. I, for one, was around to see it unfold. If I felt there was something new to be learned about this shameful era, I'd be more compelled to attend, but if it's "funny lycra and mullets" and "bold clip-ups": been there, seen that. Maybe someone who has the time and energy can post a review that we can all consider.
catbirdseat Posted December 9, 2006 Posted December 9, 2006 I think that your environmental argument is a red herring. I think that if bolts could be made invisible, you would still object to them as much as you do now. It's all right to object to bolts using a poor style argument. Everyone is entitled to his opinion.
EWolfe Posted December 9, 2006 Posted December 9, 2006 i was talking to mr e OK, SC. Point taken. I was only trying to say that knee-jerk malignment of a "new" way decreases the effectiveness of ANY given point. Thanks for a good observation. Erik
Recommended Posts