G-spotter Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 chop the tail off the Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 to quote the poet: "oohh! look! a bolting debate!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottP Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 You don't think some American dude chopping huge bucket steps and installing a metal pipe via ferrata to a Colorado mountain is more worthy of your clean-up skills than an Italian route with a couple bolts and an in-situ compressor on a Chilean/Argentinian mountain? "a couple"=400? Retro bolt it with 1/2 X 6 stainless, scrub it real good, pimp the compressor with a rad paint job and turn it into the mother of all sport climbs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 [quote=hawkeye69no. it should only stand until someone climbs it with fair means (whatever that is) by not using the bolts. otherwise, the climbers are more hypocritical than ever. When I put up aid climbs in the Bitterroot it was always with the intention of climbing it free as much as possible. Who was it that said, "If you carry bivy gear you will use it."? If you carry aid gear you will use it. 30 extra pounds of rack is a lot. But to stick to the point, When I did complete an aid route in the Bitterroot I always advertised what it would take to go free. One of those became a Bitterroot classic. Modern Home Environment. The FFA team had the right to chop or add what they wanted and rename the route. They chose to keep the name. Seems like a good system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Trippett Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 I HEART FRED BECKEY! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pope Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 I don't have the time to correct either mistake. Right. I'm sure that, if you had the time, you could just head right up the thing and start a choppin'. Your arm-chair morality lessons are meaningless. I've done my part to help keep local crags free from litter, mostly by limiting my own drilling to its proper applications, but also by removing offensive bolts. I certainly don't have the time to erase every trashy climb in every corner of the universe...where would you begin? But if somebody has the energy to go down and erase that mess they'll get an alpine high-five from me. Most interesting to me is the notion that because the route exists it somehow has historical significance and, even if this were true, that this should preclude removing the bolts. Would anybody really forget the story and details? I doubt it. And why weren't you sportos jumping on the "historically significant" bandwagon when rap bolting was introduced to crags that had a proud history of bold, exploratory ground-up traditions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 To me, the Compressor Route has far greater historical significance than some previously unlcimbed side of Monkey Face or the previously unbolted state of a popular route at Little Si, Pope, but you are right that the practical reality for us here in the Northwest is that local practices have a greater impact on our climbing experience than what somebody did on Cerro Torre in 1959. However, you also reference another significant point: those on all (both?) sides of this argument seem way too often to adopt one-sided applications of what what they define as "core" or "guiding" principals in this or that discussion. Take the first ascent rule. We often see sport climbing critics say the style of the first ascent must be respected and only the first ascensionists have the right add bolts to a climb. However, these sport critics frequently jettison this rule when it comes to routes established in a style they don't appreciate or when it comes to cases where the actual first ascensionist came back and added bolts these sport climbing critics deem unneeded. And I'm sure you have thought about this, but why is it that only the first ascenionist has a right to add bolts to an existing climb, but anybody who wants to chop bolts has the right to decide which ones to chop? Or how do we or who decides which ones to chop? These "principled" arguments against bolts are at least as self-serving (more so?) as the poster who values the historical significance of what you suggest is a bolted atrocity and may have failed to appreciate the historical significance of the fact that routes at many of our traditional crags were previously developed (mostly and sort of) from the ground up. (Previous discussions around here have shown that the actual on-the-rock practices you advocate were less consistently applied than you suggest but the ideals were certainly there.) The Compressor Route? I think the whole thing makes good spectacle - the climb, aftermath, and critique have been entertaining all of us for nerly 50 years. It also makes good fodder for argument, and there is plenty of reason to take issue with this or that statement published here or there. I don't know enough about it to argue whether I think the route should go or stay. I have no idea what percentage of climbers make the ascent by that route, and how it may impact the experience of those who attempt other routes by changing the overall number of climbers on the mountain or the actual or perceived commitment faced by those who attempt the summit. I agree with those who argue that Cerro Torre doesn't "need" those bolts, such a route probably doesn't belong there, and I bet some are arguing the route lures the unqualified or undeserving - but these are highly subjective and maybe self-serving arguments that I don't think constitute the end-all of discussion. My guess is that climbers headed to Patagonia will adapt their plans either way and the mountain itself will remain the majestic icon that it is. To me, the interesting thing is the manner in which we elect to have this argument. Rhetoric vs. reality, practical vs. ideological, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choada_Boy Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Not to mention the tons of kerosene burnt into the upper troposphere so that rich white climbers can travel from across the world and clip or not clip bolts on the side on a mountain while people starve to death the world over for want of food and China gives out 10 million new drivers licenses each year. Makes the bolt or not to bolt debate that much more meaningful, don't you think? Those 400 bolts really stand out as an abomination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 I'd just like to chime in here, not so much because I have something new and insightful to say, but more because I think there's a disproportionate volume from one point of view, and balancing that is good. 1. I think this Argentinean route (as well as the Otto route) is very different than our local exit 38 bolted routes (and, in general, WA routes): Different era, different historical value, different juristiction. To compare the two is... not interesting. 2. I can't comment on the Argentinean route, but I climbed the Otto route, and enjoyed it very much. I enjoyed thinking about Otto and the time in which he did his "dirty deed". It just opens up a whole book about how we used to look at nature, how we dealt with it's difficulties, and how our policies reflected these mindsets. I believe creating the Otto route under current standards would be silly (of course!), but also that removing it now would also be a shame. I'm not a big fan of high impact logging or mining, but I also very much enjoy looking at old logging equipment and visiting old mine sites. Should we "clean" these up too? 3. Finally, bolting talk, like religion talk, is best when kept at a conversational level. Ranting and preaching get real old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dberdinka Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 How hard is the Compressor Route (in it's current state) anyway? Is it like a 15 pitch 5.8 A1? Or a 30 pitch pitch 5.11R A3? Anyone know, it never really seems to get a descriptive rating anywhere. There was great quote on Supertaco that went something like "Americans just showing up in our country thinkin they can do anything they want...". Made me think that this is climbings version of bringing democracy to the Middle East. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Like I said earlier I'm not sure what the right thing to do is, but it does make me think of more local issues. Max said: I'm not a big fan of high impact logging or mining, but I also very much enjoy looking at old logging equipment and visiting old mine sites. Should we "clean" these up too? This reminds me of Boston Basin. One of my first times up to climb Forbidden we stopped to check out the old mine. Back then you could still crawl into the mine and mess around with the old rail cars. Obviously all this stuff was a destruction of the natural environment, but despite that it was still a cool man made structure to check out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 How old does it have to be before it becomes OK? 50 years? 5 years? 5 minutes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 I don't think there is any exact time period. It just has to be long enough that whatever event is well known. In the case of the compressor I'd say it has quite a bit of history. I'd leave the final decision up to the local crowd not an internet vote. If the local Argentina folk want it gone then they can do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMR Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 classic american foreign policy... -don't consult anyone -go in and declare what's "right" -proceed to attempt the "right" thing with insufficient force and tools -start a multinational brawl oh, wait, my bad...you are talking about some stupid bolts from a bygone era... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 How old does it have to be before it becomes OK? 50 years? 5 years? 5 minutes? Not that this has anytning to do with desciding about the Compressor route, but I spent an afternoon on a fire with a "fire archeologist". Her job was to walk around and try to find and document items within the fire perimeter "of cultural and historic value." I think the criteria she was mandated to use was 50 years or older. FYI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 There you go. The Compressor Route is only 48 years old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 I think you are wrong Matt. The "North Ridge" claim where Egger died is 48 years old. The Compressor wasn't used till Maestri's second "ascent" in 1970 and is thus 37 years old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Phil Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Dru, forget it. Matt's a lawyer. Facts aren't relevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pope Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Take the first ascent rule. We often see sport climbing critics say the style of the first ascent must be respected and only the first ascensionists have the right add bolts to a climb. However, these sport critics frequently jettison this rule when it comes to routes established in a style they don't appreciate or when it comes to cases where the actual first ascensionist came back and added bolts these sport climbing critics deem unneeded. And I'm sure you have thought about this, but why is it that only the first ascenionist has a right to add bolts to an existing climb, but anybody who wants to chop bolts has the right to decide which ones to chop? Or how do we or who decides which ones to chop? I suppose you could consider me a sport climbing critic, but don't include me in your generalization/review of sport climbing critics' bolting/chopping rules. I think a first ascensionist should be able to bolt a face climb provided no reasonable natural pro is available making some bolts necessary AND one of the following is true: 1. The new climb climb needs bolts to link natural, protectable features OR 2. The new climb uses only bolts but remains bold and climbs a line that features exceptional climbing (defined by the quality of the moves, the climb's position, length, etc.) These rules apply to a fist ASCENT, which implies....ASCENDING and getting the gear/bolts you need during the ASCENT. In this case, you get a valid climb where the gear was placed to protect an ASCENT. After the pioneering ascent, and once the route is repeated by many parties, I think the route becomes public domain. Nobody, not even the pioneers, should be adding bolts later. Bolts placed according to the ideals specified above won't be chopped by me. Outside of that, bolts have no place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Just for old times, Pope, I'll engage a step further. Your post sounds good, but I have two big problems with it. These are central to your criteria. Let's take #1. You say the new climb climb must "need" bolts to link natural, protectable features. I ask: what is "need?" I can comfortably run out moderate slabs (say up to 5.8) where it sometimes virges on soloing, but other folks who climb 5.11 freak out on this. Another guy is more comfortable with actual holds, and feels I overbolt a bit of steep terrain where a fall, however unlikely they feel it may be, will yield a leg-breaker. What is "need?" And for #2. The new climb uses only bolts but "remains bold" and climbs a line that features "exceptional climbing" ... Just what is this "bold" quality that you speak of, and what exactly is "exceptional climbing?" Having "come of age" at a similar time and aspiring to and actually climbing many of the same climbs, there is a good chance that you and I would largely agree about both these assesments when it comes to any particular climb, but I bet too that our assesments here are not mainstream by today's standards. Does this give you and I the license to go out chopping? Like I said, I bet you and I agree more than we disagree about "kids these days" or whatever it is. We've talked about climbing the Half Dome original route together, and not the Leaning Tower or the latest aid climbing sensation and I don't think either one of us is going to climb the "traderoute" Chronic at Little Si. Our "top ten" list for crag climbs in Washington probably shows some overlap. But I'm saying that I don't think you or I have the right to impose our standards here on other climbers. As long as these wreckless vandals you have so much contempt for do not go out and bolt Outer Space, but develop new climbs instead, I commend you for putting up the good fight and all but I don't think you've necessarily got the moral high ground. And you know what? I actually enjoy sport climbing some times. I'm sorry you can't enjoy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 I think Matt's philosophy allows for the first ascensionist to embrace a greater variety of styles whereas Pope seems to have a narrower definition of what acceptable style is. I think that a lot of it has to do with "protectable features". I think that Mr. Pope would not put up a route unless it had a large number of protectable features, that is cracks, etc. Matt, on the other hand, is a slab climb master and fond of certain places where protectable features can be quite rare, although exceptional climbing can be found. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pope Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Just for old times, Pope, I'll engage a step further. Your post sounds good, but I have two big problems with it. These are central to your criteria. Let's take #1. You say the new climb climb must "need" bolts to link natural, protectable features. I ask: what is "need?" I can comfortably run out moderate slabs (say up to 5.8) where it sometimes virges on soloing, but other folks who climb 5.11 freak out on this. Another guy is more comfortable with actual holds, and feels I overbolt a bit of steep terrain where a fall, however unlikely they feel it may be, will yield a leg-breaker. What is "need?" "Need" for bolts is subjective, but so is need for a rope. If you're in the middle of a pitch, on the lead and the climbing feels serious to you, I think you have a right to place a bolt where no other good gear exists. Sure, Joe 5.12 might come along later and poo poo your decision, maybe skip the bolt, but "need" in this case is not artificial or hypothetical but immediate and real. As opposed to the sport climber hanging on a rope who speculates, "When we come back for the pink point we'll probably need a little something here by my hip and then again up here by my ear." And for #2. The new climb uses only bolts but "remains bold" and climbs a line that features "exceptional climbing" ... Just what is this "bold" quality that you speak of, and what exactly is "exceptional climbing?" Having "come of age" at a similar time and aspiring to and actually climbing many of the same climbs, there is a good chance that you and I would largely agree about both these assesments when it comes to any particular climb, but I bet too that our assesments here are not mainstream by today's standards. Does this give you and I the license to go out chopping? Who has a license to leave a trail of trash? I'm sure we do see eye-to-eye on some of the creations you'll find around, for example, Vantage, where within 5 feet of a crack route somebody will stuff 12 bolts onto a 40 foot face climb that has probably been top-roped about a million times already. We're supposed to simply allow this garbage in the name of respecting everybody's right to make and interpret their own rules? I realize people get pretty upset about chopping, feel as though they're being subjected to a morality to which they don't subscribe. I feel an equal imposition when the natural beauty of a crag area is littered with far too many bolts that I know were placed without any sense of commitment, without any risk. Like I said, I bet you and I agree more than we disagree about "kids these days" or whatever it is. We've talked about climbing the Half Dome original route together, and not the Leaning Tower or the latest aid climbing sensation and I don't think either one of us is going to climb the "traderoute" Chronic at Little Si. Our "top ten" list for crag climbs in Washington probably shows some overlap. But I'm saying that I don't think you or I have the right to impose our standards here on other climbers. As long as these wreckless vandals you have so much contempt for do not go out and bolt Outer Space, but develop new climbs instead, I commend you for putting up the good fight and all but I don't think you've necessarily got the moral high ground. And you know what? I actually enjoy sport climbing some times. I'm sorry you can't enjoy it. There are activities I'm sure I'd enjoy in which I refuse to participate because they don't fit in with my "treading lightly" philosophy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenSeagal Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 Anyone notice this: Find the Irony In particular: More impressive than their summits during their first Patagonian season was the climbers’ humble attitude and their clear enjoyment of being in the mountains and covering terrain. The two took no part in the heated debate this season over the Compressor Route on Cerro Torre and its many bolts, but after their climb they said the bolts degraded the grandeur and demanding nature of the peak. They added that they never would have summited on such a marginal day if not for all the bolts, and that they didn’t take nearly as much pleasure in reaching the top of Cerro Torre as they did on other summits in the area. The same "heated debate" in which the author/correspondant of this very story was, regardless of the particulars, involved in physically assaulting another climber in El Chalten. Is there just a touch of contradiction here? They "took no part" yet in the very next sentence, here's their views being used in a public release that smacks not just a little of bold faced "ethics" and "purity" propaganda. Whether it was the intention of the climbers for their views to be used this way, or to be published at all, or if it's simply the work of the author to use a report on their climb to promote his own views, is not clear. The manipulative attempt at proselytizing is, however, noted. Consider also these comments: By the end of February 2007, if you had asked any of the international “talent” in Argentinean Patagonia what kind of season it was, they would have said “not so good” or “very unstable” or “too windy and cold.” But two young Swiss climbers, Cyrille Berthod (brother of the crack climbing phenom Didier Berthod) and Simon Anthamatten, both 23, came out of the season with eight major summits and two minor peaks. Not only did they dispatch a slew of summits, the two climbed three of them via challenging routes: First off, these guys kicked ass. By any measure, they had an amazing trip. Since nothing really new was accomplished, however- no FA's, new linkups, or speed ascents, the main newsworthiness of this story-if there is any at all- is simply the amount of successful repeat ascents they made in an area where even the most talented climbers consider themselves lucky to get up a single route. Sure, it was their first trip there, but these guys are well known climbers with exceptional skills, it's not like they are newcomers who surprised everyone. Their achievements stand alone as inspiring, if for no other reason than their motivation and timing, two of the most important ingredients in Patagonia...So why do we also need comparisons utilizing the implied lack of successes of others, or the elitist, highly subjective, classification of routes as "challenging", and...something less than "challenging", which apparently describes the Franco Argentine route on Fitzroy, and the Compressor on the Torre. What a mixed message this all sends about humility, and what selective use of it the media makes. It seems like all these discussions about "ethics" and the "purity" of the mountain is a lot of empty talk coming from a media apparatus that simultaneously promotes and celebrates an atmosphere of falling over one's self for recognition and attention for one's achievements. Perhaps if humility, reticence, and quiet determination held higher value, these debates would have more enduring weight. Lacking that, it's just a lot of egotist blather. (media) Swiss Climbers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 In Switzerland, chickens eat cows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 A proud ascent, but as far as I'm concerned any further ethical debate about chopping the compressor route is completely hypocritical if it originates from either of these two climbers. If their ethics were genuine, they should have bailed when they could no longer proceed without Maestri's bolts. Right on the money with that statement....what a bunch of whinny ninnies! 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.