Raindawg Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 I've totally witnessed you beacon guys aid renaissance through the boards here and gotta say am pretty disappointed in it. It seems as though you guys wanna dumb aid climbing down and make it an everyman's game. As I read it on here you guys as aid climbers added bolts to a FREE climb? I mean comeon, I hear plenty about free climbers adding bolts to AID routes, but this just sounds bad and down right makes aid climbing look stupid, silly and as archaic as most people think it is now a days. I aided plenty of free climbs in my day, but never once felt the need to spew about it and make videos for all to see, I always thought it was a little embarrassing. I think you guys need to take a look at what went on in the late 90's in Yosemite guys like Warren Hollinger, Grant Gardner, Bryan Law, Eric George & Steve Gergberding had an aid renaissance of their own, but this was a little different. The object was new lines with as low of a hole count as possible. By the sounds of it here you guys placed about 56 bolts and fixed pieces in 500' feet. So if this where a 2500' route on elcap that would equate to about 270 holes on a route, any one in Yosemite would consider this an abortion. Plus if you ever left fixed pins on any real aid route they would be gone in a heartbeat. Now albeit this is not Yosemite were talking about but as a bunch of aspiring big wall climbers you guys gotta see it like this eh? ... What "The Ospray" said was one of the best posts in this whole fiasco but it's been virtually ignored. Truth hurts, eh? P.S. Ospray....bro...drop that stupid "the best climber is the one having the most fun" quote...it's a superficial cliché, it's meaningless and it ain't true. aloha, Raindawg. Quote
kevbone Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 Is the route free-able? Yes....for Tommy Caldwell only. Quote
denalidave Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 I've totally witnessed you beacon guys aid renaissance through the boards here and gotta say am pretty disappointed in it. It seems as though you guys wanna dumb aid climbing down and make it an everyman's game. As I read it on here you guys as aid climbers added bolts to a FREE climb? I mean comeon, I hear plenty about free climbers adding bolts to AID routes, but this just sounds bad and down right makes aid climbing look stupid, silly and as archaic as most people think it is now a days. I aided plenty of free climbs in my day, but never once felt the need to spew about it and make videos for all to see, I always thought it was a little embarrassing. I think you guys need to take a look at what went on in the late 90's in Yosemite guys like Warren Hollinger, Grant Gardner, Bryan Law, Eric George & Steve Gergberding had an aid renaissance of their own, but this was a little different. The object was new lines with as low of a hole count as possible. By the sounds of it here you guys placed about 56 bolts and fixed pieces in 500' feet. So if this where a 2500' route on elcap that would equate to about 270 holes on a route, any one in Yosemite would consider this an abortion. Plus if you ever left fixed pins on any real aid route they would be gone in a heartbeat. Now albeit this is not Yosemite were talking about but as a bunch of aspiring big wall climbers you guys gotta see it like this eh? ... What "The Ospray" said was one of the best posts in this whole fiasco but it's been virtually ignored. Truth hurts, eh? P.S. Ospray....bro...drop that stupid "the best climber is the one having the most fun" quote...it's a superficial cliché, it's meaningless and it ain't true. aloha, Raindawg. Speaking of unsolicited lectures... Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) Joseph, While I can imagine how someone who struggles with control issues might project some larger agenda, I 'dealt efficiently' only with your inappropriate pm. By all means, feel free to imagine some larger conspiracy if that helps keep your ego inflated. Edited February 10, 2011 by tvashtarkatena Quote
eldiente Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) I just saw this thread but don't have the time to read all 20 pages, forgive me if I miss something. Ivan is a good guy and and contributes more to this site than most, note how he has 70+ TRs to his credit while most people on this site never post any useful beta. Clearly Ivan's stoked on climbing and gets out when most of us just stay in and watch TV. However all this hammering and drilling going on up at Beacon is whacy, if I just scanned these posts I'd think we are talking about a home improvement project, drills, ladders, bolts,pins, hammers etc. (Poor Ivan, he builds a new route and now he's getting flamed online, sorry dude) As best I can tell form the post/topo fixed gear was placed to help span blank sections of rock. If there isn't any features for clean aid why not 1.) find a variation around the blank rock 2.) free climb it or 3.) bail, clearly there isn't a line there if you need that many bolts to link up blank sections of rock. I saw some post about free climbing this route, has someone fully explored that option? Is there any possibility of someone free climbing around these bolt ladders? Seems like the first thing one would try to do is to come through on TR and try to free it before establishing an aid ladder. Vasty different styles, but it reminds me of the Pioneer Route at Smith, sure it allows a moderate passage over blank rock, but it is kind lame given that there is clean aid and free routes to the same summit. And on a practical level, Ivan how did you get permission from the Park to place that much hardware? I though there was some sort of permit required to drill there(?) Can someone please educate me? If the park is cool with 50+ bolts going in on one route, is the park going to be OK if I rap bolt some new routes on the South Side? I think I'd get lynched. *laughs* -Nate *update Ignore much of the stuff above, I got the story, thanks Bill. On a side note, whose going to give me a belay so I can free this? Edited February 10, 2011 by eldiente Quote
JosephH Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 The BRSP has been grappling with staffing, succession, budgeting, and major project issues and haven't been able to come back up to speed on the issue but they will be by the next open now that they're all settled in. A bit unfortunate in terms of the lost opportunity all the way around on this route as it would have made an ideal candidate to restart a short community comment session. But it wasn't for lack of Ivan trying even if he never mentioned the scope of what he had in mind. P.S. You guys had this moved to spray to LOWER it's profile?!?! What were you thinking? Have them move it back to CRG if you want to do that. Quote
JosephH Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 Joseph, While I can imagine how someone who struggles with control issues might project some larger agenda, I 'dealt efficiently' only with your inappropriate pm. By all means, feel free to imagine some larger conspiracy if that helps keep your ego inflated. I think in the years I've been posting on cc I've sent out less than a half dozen pm's on forum topics to folks I don't know. In probably only half of those was the subject the same - either make fucking point or STFU - contribute or piss off. It would have been 'inappropriate' had you made a point prior to receiving it, but as it was up til that point you hadn't. No contol issues or conspiracies required, just spit it out if you have something to say next time. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 Your PM history is of zero interest to me, or anyone else, I'd wager. As I said, you've logged your opinion regarding what adds value where in your typically patronizing manner, and you've been appropriately told to fuck off, end of story. Pretty simple, really. You just need to accept 'no' for an answer, however emotionally difficult that may be for you. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 What "The Ospray" said was one of the best posts in this whole fiasco but it's been virtually ignored. Truth hurts, eh? P.S. Ospray....bro...drop that stupid "the best climber is the one having the most fun" quote...it's a superficial cliché, it's meaningless and it ain't true. aloha, Raindawg. You seem to share JosephH's similarly effective power of persuasion. Quote
ivan Posted February 10, 2011 Author Posted February 10, 2011 *update Ignore much of the stuff above, I got the story, thanks Bill. On a side note, whose going to give me a belay so I can free this? would do that gladly - p1's probably the hardest, p2 not so hard just scary to take a fall on the available gear and b/c of the many steps you can deck on - i've freed most of it from there up, except the first part of p5, which also has scary gear (might look like a phat pin on the topo but they're tiiiiiny ) Quote
JosephH Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 *update Ignore much of the stuff above, I got the story, thanks Bill. Oh, do tell - if there is more to 'the story' that makes the topo and fixed pro count somehow not discussion-worthy I'd sure love to hear exactly what that is. Quote
ivan Posted February 10, 2011 Author Posted February 10, 2011 *update Ignore much of the stuff above, I got the story, thanks Bill. Oh, do tell - if there is more to 'the story' that makes the topo and fixed pro count somehow not discussion-worthy I'd sure love to hear exactly what that is. the reality of that side of the rock is that, in the conditions that dominate the closure-season, there are no ground to summit options w/o the use of fixed gear like the topo shows - it simply isn't the south side over there and to apply the same ethics is silly it appears that you'e of the opinion then that climbing simply shouldn't happen ANYWHERE at beacon during the closure? Quote
JosephH Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 the reality of that side of the rock is that, in the conditions that dominate the closure-season, there are no ground to summit options w/o the use of fixed gear like the topo shows - it simply isn't the south side over there and to apply the same ethics is silly It's pretty clear that "ground-to-summit" was the driving vision in this FA and that while from the parking lot or road it appears to be a 'line' due to the visual span of relatively 'clean' rock - the fixed pro count speaks heavily to the contrary. You can argue that a "ground-to-summit" route by any means is valid using the argument that the 'anything should go' on the north side. But when 'anything' goes means a fixed pro count like that it calls into question if the quest for a "ground-to-summit" line didn't end up overriding a lot of other valid concerns around 'is there really a line', drilling precedent, and retro-aid lines in general. it appears that you'e of the opinion then that climbing simply shouldn't happen ANYWHERE at beacon during the closure Dude, that's a pretty low blow by any standard. Give me a break. It's more a matter of what kind of climbing. If you mean I'm not for new routes that are more or less wholly dependent on mass quantities of fixed pro - you're right, I'm not for that kind of climbing anywhere on Beacon. If you're talking judicious use of fixed pro then, especially on the north face, I'm all for it. Quote
ivan Posted February 10, 2011 Author Posted February 10, 2011 it appears that you'e of the opinion then that climbing simply shouldn't happen ANYWHERE at beacon during the closure Dude, that's a pretty low blow by any standard. Give me a break. It's more a matter of what kind of climbing. If you mean I'm not for new routes that are more or less wholly dependent on mass quantities of fixed pro - you're right, I'm not for that kind of climbing anywhere on Beacon. If you're talking judicious use of fixed pro then, especially on the north face, I'm all for it. sounds like double-talk to me - you're for it, but only under conditions that make it impossible, so really you're not for it yes, i was deadset on getting it ground to summit, and w/ as little bolting as required - if you'd at least rap the damn route you'd understand what you're talking about. shit, i might even be willing to go w/ you. watchu doing this weekend? of course you can't go ground to summit in typical winter conditions on the n side without bolts - that's why it hadn't happened until the closures started. Quote
pink Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 *update Ignore much of the stuff above, I got the story, thanks Bill. Oh, do tell - if there is more to 'the story' that makes the topo and fixed pro count somehow not discussion-worthy I'd sure love to hear exactly what that is. yeah, in bill we trust Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 it appears that you'e of the opinion then that climbing simply shouldn't happen ANYWHERE at beacon during the closure Dude, that's a pretty low blow by any standard. Give me a break. It's more a matter of what kind of climbing. If you mean I'm not for new routes that are more or less wholly dependent on mass quantities of fixed pro - you're right, I'm not for that kind of climbing anywhere on Beacon. If you're talking judicious use of fixed pro then, especially on the north face, I'm all for it. sounds like double-talk to me - you're for it, but only under conditions that make it impossible, so really you're not for it yes, i was deadset on getting it ground to summit, and w/ as little bolting as required - if you'd at least rap the damn route you'd understand what you're talking about. shit, i might even be willing to go w/ you. watchu doing this weekend? of course you can't go ground to summit in typical winter conditions on the n side without bolts - that's why it hadn't happened until the closures started. Sounds like 'Route Approval' depends on one guy's quirky personal preferences to me. "Is it a natural line?" Gee, no subjectivity there. The bottom line is that the route was put up responsibly and in good faith with a minimum of fixed pro in an area that sees few climbers. Ivan has added something valuable to Beacon without detracting from its environment or beauty. JosephH has a right to an opinion about it, as we all do, although a more learned opinion gained by familiarity might add some much needed weight...but that's about where this ends. Quote
JosephH Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 it appears that you'e of the opinion then that climbing simply shouldn't happen ANYWHERE at beacon during the closure Dude, that's a pretty low blow by any standard. Give me a break. It's more a matter of what kind of climbing. If you mean I'm not for new routes that are more or less wholly dependent on mass quantities of fixed pro - you're right, I'm not for that kind of climbing anywhere on Beacon. If you're talking judicious use of fixed pro then, especially on the north face, I'm all for it. sounds like double-talk to me - you're for it, but only under conditions that make it impossible, so really you're not for it It's not. It's clear talk saying I'm not for 'routes' that require mass application of fixed gear. I'd say if a contemplated FA requires that kind of outfitting then you really don't have a route, you have an idea that can only exist with a draconian application of fixed pro. yes, i was deadset on getting it ground to summit, and w/ as little bolting as required And that comes through loud and clear as what was driving this deal. Do you think you're the only one who's looked at that stretch of rock and envisioned a line there? I have, sure others have to and I did try to rap it once but in the summer and got beat back by the oak. It's clearly an appealing idea. The difference and catch is in the second phrase of your quote above "w/ as little bolting as required". You clearly had no upper limit of fixed pro that would sway you from your "ground-to-summit" quest/vision, whereas I and likely others do and had. Trust me, I love the vision, but the cost to realize it just doesn't work out for me given the issues it poses and the precedents it sets. if you'd at least rap the damn route you'd understand what you're talking about. Again, there's nothing about the 'line' I need to climb or rap to understand - I get the 'vision thing' relative to "ground-to-summit" - I just don't agree with the at-any-cost way it ended up happening. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on establish routes like that out there - I'm not supportive of that at all. But don't worry, I'll probably head up it at some point to see it in all it's glory. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) I think you definition of 'massive' is pretty far out from the norm, if there even is one given that the lions share of the histrionics surrounding this topic emanate from a relatively tiny group of nervous souls. For these rarefied few, any bolting project, regardless of the care and consideration with which it was undertaken, becomes an insult. Note that the competing and very important issue of route safety, for both leader and belayer, seems to go unmentioned, the idea being that, if one cannot climb it free at 5:12, regardless of pro availability, the occasional bolt is...maybe...OK. But check with me, first. There are a very few bolting projects that serve as grid bolting poster children. The vast majority are done responsibly. The problems is simply not as big as these few air raid sirens would have us believe. Edited February 11, 2011 by tvashtarkatena Quote
JosephH Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 Hmmm, love all the uber-attempts at minimizing a fixed pro count that would raise howls and hackles if this just went up on the Captain. You're really giving O'Reilly and Beck a run for their money with that kind of reality distortion (and as if Beacon needs yet more reality distortion). And the casting of any questioning of the 'route' as the provence of a 'troubled few' is equally lame. Overall it's pretty weak in every respect as an honest response on the issue goes. And "route safety"? Routes aren't 'safe' - climbers competent to and comfortable with the endeavor at hand are 'safe', not routes. If you want 'safe' and risk-free head to the gym or Six Flags, no need to turn Beacon into yet another 'safe' play zone. At that fixed pro count I'd say some R-rated and A3/4 climbing might have been the better call, or abandoning the whole affair as impractical and inappropriate. In this case it's clear Ivan's "ground-to-summit" vision overrode all other concerns. Quote
JosephH Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 Clearly not you having only rarely seen a bolt you didn't like. Quote
Jim Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 Never climbed a Beacon. Would be afraid to given the fervor of falcon and bolt advocates. I might do something bad! Quote
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.