Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Topic Date User

THE AUSTRALIAN RE, RETRO-BOLTING OPEN FORUM 15-Apr-2004 At 3:49:37 PM Damietta

Message

Hex's point, quite validly made I think, is that if sport/trad/bouldering are to co-exist in equilibrium, each must have it's own property rights, so to speak, correctly defined. The discussion on grading systems is the natural and logical progression of the retrobolting/bolting trad vs sport debate, in that they are inextriably linked as I set out in the example below. I don't think that the sport vs trad debate is dead, as was mentioned in earlier post - the resolution has not been met because all parties are not shown their due respect in an objective way.

I suggest that a grade 23 E5 would not be retro-bolted, because it's boldness defines it's category, you would be changing an E5 to an E2. However, a grade 23 death route (ie we call it a deathroute instead of an E5) is likely to be retrobolted because there is nothing in name to separate it from any other 23, and it retains it's original grade despite being 'softened'.

I am not sure how to interpret something like Scott Cosgrove and Kurt Smith's attempts to re-equip and free-climb the Muir Wall (an aid climb graded for seriousness, length and difficulty but my best attempt is that it was some sort of blurring cross over between aid climbing and free climbing.

I think James sums it up in that it makes perfect sense to have a grading system that distinguishes sprt routes from trad routes objectively - so that each has it's own objective respect and identity. This in now way detracts from the experience, because that is all in the climbing itself, not being bamboozled by the guidebook and grade description - particularly if, as someone mentioned earlier, that guidebook descriptions are becoming increasingly scant (do guidebook editors think they are redundant? I don't know).