Sport vs Trad

[G-spotter]

Don't bolt the coral

[RuMR]

It ain't "all good" and future generations will notice and decry your ambivalency and wished you had taken up wind-surfing or some other relatively non-intrusive activity rather than leaving your thoughtless and long-lasting metallic scent.

 

The horror.

 

The thought that "future generations" may need to figure out and expend the energy to yank a bolt (should the oxidizing metal last) is beyond the pale.

 

More likely, they'll wish we'd had more impervious hardware while they expend the energy to fix replacements.

 

Nice point... It seems a wee bit ironic that the old skool folk always want to tell us all how much better their generation was and how useless the up and coming kids are, now Dawg is telling us the future generation is going to have this old skool ethic and look down on the sporto generation of climbers. Can't have it both ways Dawg. Either your generation is the last of the greatest dying breed, or not. Make up your mind already.

actually today, most of the up and coming cranksters totally frown on chipping/enhancing...don's partially right...

[Off_White]

Shouldn't the bench mark be the quality of route, such as the necessity of the bolt for pro, rather than how it was put up?

 

[JosephH]

bolts make climbing safe... that way everybody can have a fair shake at it.

 

Pretty well sums up the best argument against bolting.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

bolts make climbing safe... that way everybody can have a fair shake at it.

 

Pretty well sums up the best argument against bolting.

 

unless a guide book rates it a 3-star climb. then it's ok

[kevbone]

bolts make climbing safe... that way everybody can have a fair shake at it.

 

Pretty well sums up the best argument against bolting.

 

I would say that is the best argument FOR bolting.

[pigchampion]

bolts make climbing safe... that way everybody can have a fair shake at it.

 

Pretty well sums up the best argument against bolting.

 

 

so therefore bolts should be unsafe when installed.....

[JosephH]

Better if they just aren't installed at all for the purpose of 'making climbing safe'. 'safe, or entertainment, climbing is what's driven the exceptional demographics now associated with the sport.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Better if they just aren't installed at all for the purpose of 'making climbing safe'. 'safe, or entertainment, climbing is what's driven the exceptional demographics now associated with the sport.

 

except when YOU install a bolt to make a 3-star route SAFE

 

[pigchampion]

Olson Guide Books States: First Edition Blue Lettering

NO Stars: Average Quality Route

 

One Star(*)Good quality Route, recommended

 

Two Stars(**)Excellent Route,good postion,quality climbing, sound rock, highly recommended.

 

Three Stars(***)Highest Quality Route,should not be missed.

 

:the guide mentions nothing that stars implies safety.

 

then section about Beacon reads:

 

"Beacon offers technically difficult climbing on extremely sound rock. Competancy is a must! Climbing here is not for the faint of heart or for novices."

 

 

 

it also covers rock fall dangers...

 

 

Edited August 13, 2009 by pigchampion

[kevbone]

Better if they just aren't installed at all for the purpose of 'making climbing safe'. 'safe, or entertainment, climbing is what's driven the exceptional demographics now associated with the sport.

 

except when YOU install a bolt to make a 3-star route SAFE

 

JH....he has a VERY good point. Your answer would be....huh...uh....nothing because your hypocrisy would be huge.

[JosephH]

Not at all, unless you can't read or, of course, if you were stupid or tasteless enough to consider the route worthy of three stars and failed to mention the 50ft runout as well.

[kevbone]

Not at all, unless you can't read or, of course, if you were stupid or tasteless enough to consider the route worthy of three stars and failed to mention the 50ft runout as well.

 

 

Better if they just aren't installed at all for the purpose of 'making climbing safe'. 'safe, or entertainment, climbing is what's driven the exceptional demographics now associated with the sport.

 

My bad....I thought these were your words.

[dberdinka]

What we're promoting is a restrained, ground-up approach to bolting that would provide rock climbing enjoyment for many generations, instead of the grid-bolted mess that we currently have.

 

I admit to not paying much attention to Pope and R-dawgs posts but this is the first time I've seen either of them clearly articulate their position. Unfortunately I think your position is fundamentally flawed. If you want to argue for "restraint" great no problem. I think you could probably stake out a reasoned position.

 

To argue for restraint and ground-up are contradictory goals particularly in the northwest where the rock is frequently dirty. You are far more likely to get well placed bolts in the right spots using a top-down method.

Going ground up you will quickly

 

-- put bolts in the wrong place (hard to clip, not useful etc)

-- botch placements (poor holes or spinners)

-- put bolts where natural gear exists (hidden behind a lump of moss or in place of a loose flake)

-- put in too many bolts (ground up is scary!)

 

Basically if you accept some level of bolting you should probably argue for an ethic that minimizes the ultimate number of holes drilled and bolts placed. Ground up results in botched jobs that will eventually require more drilling.

 

(Why am I trying to reason in this thread?????)

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

What we're promoting is a restrained, ground-up approach to bolting that would provide rock climbing enjoyment for many generations, instead of the grid-bolted mess that we currently have.

 

I admit to not paying much attention to Pope and R-dawgs posts but this is the first time I've seen either of them clearly articulate their position. Unfortunately I think your position is fundamentally flawed. If you want to argue for "restraint" great no problem. I think you could probably stake out a reasoned position.

 

To argue for restraint and ground-up are contradictory goals particularly in the northwest where the rock is frequently dirty. You are far more likely to get well placed bolts in the right spots using a top-down method.

Going ground up you will quickly

 

-- put bolts in the wrong place (hard to clip, not useful etc)

-- botch placements (poor holes or spinners)

-- put bolts where natural gear exists (hidden behind a lump of moss or in place of a loose flake)

-- put in too many bolts (ground up is scary!)

 

Basically if you accept some level of bolting you should probably argue for an ethic that minimizes the ultimate number of holes drilled and bolts placed. Ground up results in botched jobs that will eventually require more drilling.

 

(Why am I trying to reason in this thread?????)

 

Stop now! You are making too much sense!

 

 

[kevbone]

Ground up results in botched jobs that will eventually require more drilling.

 

 

 

 

Well said....you are my hero.

[pigchampion]

Not at all, unless you can't read or, of course, if you were stupid or tasteless enough to consider the route worthy of three stars and failed to mention the 50ft runout as well.

 

i assume that you equate ***'s to being a classic route and classic being safe. i wonder how many routes in the "fifty classic routes of north america" have some spice to them" that an average 5.9 climber could wander onto and get into trouble. the "steck salathe" is no cake walk and i do believe one of the great soloist fell to his death on it.

[Bug]

Because they are points worth discussing.

Also because the discussion can be conducted with a modicum of reason.

 

Well done.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Bug

[JosephH]

No, I dont. Three mistaken stars sends people to a line that's rated 5.9, which makes it one of the easier climbs at Beacon, which makes it attractive to intermediate leaders. It then fails to mention the 50 foot runout up the slab which in effect suckers some folks into a decking situation - seen a few leaders barely survive long enough to get to a point they could lower off the line. It's a very unusual situation is all - it has nothing to do with classic lines other than a rating that mistakenly leads people to believe it is one.

 

Again, I don't like my climbing safe, I wouldn't do it if it were.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

No, I dont. Three mistaken stars sends people to a line that's rated 5.9, which makes it one of the easier climbs at Beacon, which makes it attractive to intermediate leaders. It then fails to mention the 50 foot runout up the slab which in effect suckers some folks into a decking situation - seen a few leaders barely survive long enough to get to a point they could lower off the line. It's a very unusual situation is all - it has nothing to do with classic lines other than a rating that mistakenly leads people to believe it is one.

 

Yeah, but you said:

 

"Better if they just aren't installed at all for the purpose of 'making climbing safe'. "

 

Totally inconsistent positions you are trying to hold simultaneously.

[pigchampion]

what's is the name of the route that was bolted? too bad that bolt isn't there anymore, sounds like a great climb. why did you let everyone bully you into chopping it????the damage was already done.

[JosephH]

Ground up or on rappel can both end up with too many bolts and bolts in the wrong places when idiots are pulling the trigger.

[pigchampion]

No, I dont. Three mistaken stars sends people to a line that's rated 5.9, which makes it one of the easier climbs at Beacon, which makes it attractive to intermediate leaders. It then fails to mention the 50 foot runout up the slab which in effect suckers some folks into a decking situation - seen a few leaders barely survive long enough to get to a point they could lower off the line. It's a very unusual situation is all - it has nothing to do with classic lines other than a rating that mistakenly leads people to believe it is one.

 

Again, I don't like my climbing safe, I wouldn't do it if it were.

 

Olson Guide Books States: First Edition Blue Lettering

NO Stars: Average Quality Route

 

One Star(*)Good quality Route, recommended

 

Two Stars(**)Excellent Route,good postion,quality climbing, sound rock, highly recommended.

 

Three Stars(***)Highest Quality Route,should not be missed.

 

:the guide mentions nothing that stars implies safety.

 

 

[kevbone]

No, I dont. Three mistaken stars sends people to a line that's rated 5.9, which makes it one of the easier climbs at Beacon, which makes it attractive to intermediate leaders. It then fails to mention the 50 foot runout up the slab which in effect suckers some folks into a decking situation - seen a few leaders barely survive long enough to get to a point they could lower off the line. It's a very unusual situation is all - it has nothing to do with classic lines other than a rating that mistakenly leads people to believe it is one.

 

Again, I don't like my climbing safe, I wouldn't do it if it were.

 

 

JH....none of what you say matters.

 

CLIMB AT YOUR OWN RISK

 

remember this?

[JosephH]

what's is the name of the route that was bolted? too bad that bolt isn't there anymore, sounds like a great climb. why did you let everyone bully you into chopping it????the damage was already done.

 

The route is called '[un]Reasonable Richard', further adding to the innocuous nature of the danger. It isn't a great climb. No one bullied me and I defy anyone to locate where that bolt once was. At this point I'm pretty good at making bolts disappear, epoxying over the hole, and camo'ing the result in shape, color, and texture.