pope Posted December 12, 2006 Author Posted December 12, 2006 Not true. Change in equipment and attitudes throughout the history of climbing is well documented. Free climbing old aid lines, hard free soloing, dynamic ropes, sticky rubber, the clean climbing revolution with nuts, Friends and a variety of similar devices for parallel-sided cracks. There's been plenty of change. Even 12-point crampons. You'll notice that everything in my list has one thing in common: they don't impact the experience of subsequent climbing parties by leaving a mess on the rock. Mister E, you're back to your premise: change is good and you have to accept it. I see the same mentality in my profession where countless dollars are thrown at efforts to "reform" education when often the proposed changes aren't proven to be better than the current practices. Change can be good, it can be terrible. When a change is made and the consequences are arguably negative, we should consider another change, perhaps a change back to what we were doing previously.
EWolfe Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Eric, there is NO GOING BACK!! Get used to it. It is the NexGen
texplorer Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 But putting in bolts here is against the law. Unless of course you don't care about the law. Vive trad!
Raindawg Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 quote]I actually agree that advancement would have happened, at a slower pace. But that philosophy disallows change, and resists new ways of thinking. The traditional has always been resistant to change, in more ways than just climbing. That change is by nature "good" must be one of the greatest fallacies of all time. "New ways of thinking" have brought us some good things through time, e.g., "slavery is bad and should be eliminated", "minorities can go to school", "let's create National Parks". It also brought us National Socialism and Cheese-Wiz. Regarding "advancement": I didn't want to bring this up, but people keep mentioning the "big numbers" and "progress". Along with the ethical issues of sport-climbing (drilling holes, etc.), the accompanying stylistic issues of this so-called "advancement" are pathetic; in short, "the rules" allow siege-climbing a route into submission until one's rehearsals bring results, including BIG EXCITING NUMBERS!!! (Read all the breathless NEWS! in the latest climbing rag....So and so just climbed a 5.15h at Spagettio Crags in Oklahoma: a spicy 30 ft. face climb named "World Dominator" sparsely protected by 8 bolts!) Sure, it's possible that you can get stronger doing that, and such can thereafter be applied to one's trad-climbing, but what an illusion that whole scene is when compared with the day when a ground-up ascent with few or no falls demonstrated the ability of one's competency....none of this pink point/red point/brown point crap, taking a month on a 60 ft. climb while you hang off your rapped-placed atrocities. Think about it. It is the growing pains of acceptance that you both resist that is the most disturbing to me. Should we accept something that we feel is bad just because the trend "evolves"/devolves in a certain direction? If you're disturbed by our attitude, we're equally dismayed by yours (but not disturbed - we can sleep at night).
Mr_Phil Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Adding permanent artificial alterations to the landscape AND the degradation of the landscape are BOTH environmental/ethical issues. So you would agree that Lou Whittaker, RMI, and the hut on Mount Rainier needs to be eliminated.
kevbone Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 But putting in bolts here is against the law. Unless of course you don't care about the law. Vive trad! I would rather see 2 new bolts here than this crap.
lancegranite Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 (edited) Yes, I believe that the government should not tell me how to climb, as they should focus on more pressing matters that involve real problems. Some examples: our addiction to petrolium, wholesale rape of the oceans, the national deficit, the middle east, Dick Cheney, Elmo, plummeting edcuational standards, New Orleans, bark beetles, clean water, people going hungry, California, putting America back to work, race issues, PS3, really fat kids, AIDS, unregulated timber and mining interests, foreign trade...ect,ect, ect. What the fuck are we even talking about here? Climbing is stupid and selfish! There are a lot of thoughtful, inteligent people here (myself excluded, just look at my spelling!) Can we just enjoy the natural enviroment for five fucking minutes and focus our boredum-based anger on real grown up stuff? Climbers think that they are so fucking smart... this shit is out of control! We cannot even form a group to voice our interests to the powers that be. I'm out of here... I gotta go put America back to work. Edited December 12, 2006 by lancegranite
Stefan Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 I like to do easy stuff. Bolts sure help me and make my ascents less challenging.
EWolfe Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 That's what Bridwell wanted to do on the East side of El Cap. Woulda been a popular route too, by all reports
Off_White Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Well, I think the arguments have all been presented, and at this point there's really no where to go with this thread except down the tubes, so I'm just going to lock it and let it float gently here in cyberspace for a bit. If anyone feels strongly that I've acted in error, send me a PM, I'm open to persuasion, I just don't want to see this sink into a sprayfest. Thanks for playing.
Recommended Posts