Jump to content

Calling route free on-sight?


glassgowkiss

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In the end the person that has fun wins, whether they do A0, french free, a bolt ladder, hang dog, do redpoint, flash, or onsight. As long as they don't brag about it in the media with any deception . Then it is game on.

 

And ground up just muddies the waters so you can't see 2".

Edited by matt_warfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You dumb Canadian, I guess you could read it like that if you really, really wanted to.

 

I don't know if I'd call a Canadian dumb. Did they start the Iraq war on lies? Did they elect Bush TWICE? Don't they have universal health care? ETC

 

:lmao:

You're funny........

I don't think the Polish did those things either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

who gives a fuck? and why does it bother you so much?

Actually it does matter. like Donini said some time ago: "style matters". Climbing is a type of sport, where we don't have a bunch of referees watching what we really do. So honest reporting is a key. It used to be a golden standard, where after a writeup in Mountain Magazine, there used to be a 3 sentence summary. Now it's blogs and reporting garbage, where the reporting party will always claim "we were misunderstood". This leads to bullshit ascents, like "Golden Lunacy" in Greenland by Kaszlikowski and Kubarska in 2007. The description in magazines (Alpinist, AAJ) made it sound like a fucking unreal epic. The team travelled 80 km by sea kayaks with all the gear and then climbed 2000m route (1500 vertical terrain) on one of the largest cliffs on the planet. The route was graded 5.11d, with a lot of climbing in 5.10 range.This was the report they submitted. But there were enough inconsistencies to trigger Polish Climbing Federation investigation. They actually send a team to repeat the route.

First of all, there was no 80 km kayak odyssey. They chartered a boat and used sea kayaks to cross a 2 km bay to the base of the climb. The climb was indeed almost 2 km, but the crux was not 11d, but more like 10b/c, and the whole route had only 5 real pitches of climbing- the rest was low 5th class, which was either soloed or simul-climbed by the repeating party. No so big epic after all.

In the era of instant media, satellite phones, internet and blogs, we have more Maestries and fewer Doninis. I think pointing out liars is all we have left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

who gives a fuck? and why does it bother you so much?

Actually it does matter. like Donini said some time ago: "style matters". Climbing is a type of sport, where we don't have a bunch of referees watching what we really do. So honest reporting is a key. It used to be a golden standard, where after a writeup in Mountain Magazine, there used to be a 3 sentence summary. Now it's blogs and reporting garbage, where the reporting party will always claim "we were misunderstood". This leads to bullshit ascents, like "Golden Lunacy" in Greenland by Kaszlikowski and Kubarska in 2007. The description in magazines (Alpinist, AAJ) made it sound like a fucking unreal epic. The team travelled 80 km by sea kayaks with all the gear and then climbed 2000m route (1500 vertical terrain) on one of the largest cliffs on the planet. The route was graded 5.11d, with a lot of climbing in 5.10 range.This was the report they submitted. But there were enough inconsistencies to trigger Polish Climbing Federation investigation. They actually send a team to repeat the route.

First of all, there was no 80 km kayak odyssey. They chartered a boat and used sea kayaks to cross a 2 km bay to the base of the climb. The climb was indeed almost 2 km, but the crux was not 11d, but more like 10b/c, and the whole route had only 5 real pitches of climbing- the rest was low 5th class, which was either soloed or simul-climbed by the repeating party. No so big epic after all.

In the era of instant media, satellite phones, internet and blogs, we have more Maestries and fewer Doninis. I think pointing out liars is all we have left.

 

Agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the report, and it seemed like their description and the media report matched up pretty well. It's not as if they were even claiming a ground-breaking ascent. I could see being a little disappointed if, for instance, the dawn-wall team reported a red-point but didn't place pro on lead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You people do realize that the weather is still nice outside (at least for a few more days)? Jebus, can't we save these types of pointless, semantical arguments for that wonderful time of year when the weather turns a ghastly shade of grey and we all slowly go insane from vitamin D deficiency, cabin fever and slow drowning by rain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

who gives a fuck? and why does it bother you so much?

Actually it does matter. like Donini said some time ago: "style matters". Climbing is a type of sport, where we don't have a bunch of referees watching what we really do. So honest reporting is a key. It used to be a golden standard, where after a writeup in Mountain Magazine, there used to be a 3 sentence summary. Now it's blogs and reporting garbage, where the reporting party will always claim "we were misunderstood". This leads to bullshit ascents, like "Golden Lunacy" in Greenland by Kaszlikowski and Kubarska in 2007. The description in magazines (Alpinist, AAJ) made it sound like a fucking unreal epic. The team travelled 80 km by sea kayaks with all the gear and then climbed 2000m route (1500 vertical terrain) on one of the largest cliffs on the planet. The route was graded 5.11d, with a lot of climbing in 5.10 range.This was the report they submitted. But there were enough inconsistencies to trigger Polish Climbing Federation investigation. They actually send a team to repeat the route.

First of all, there was no 80 km kayak odyssey. They chartered a boat and used sea kayaks to cross a 2 km bay to the base of the climb. The climb was indeed almost 2 km, but the crux was not 11d, but more like 10b/c, and the whole route had only 5 real pitches of climbing- the rest was low 5th class, which was either soloed or simul-climbed by the repeating party. No so big epic after all.

In the era of instant media, satellite phones, internet and blogs, we have more Maestries and fewer Doninis. I think pointing out liars is all we have left.

 

In the words of Chuck D...Don't believe the hype.

The posers, pretenders and hot air spewers will be found out in the end.

I suppose it comes down to why we climb...to what end? Money, quick fame, as a profession, or simply just for ourselves...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...