Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop

Petzl: D11 "Rappel Rack". For use with 1 or 2 ropes. Diameters from 9mm to 13mm. Two red fixed bars make for easy threading. SUPER Special!  $119.00
21% Off

Chockstone Photography Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

 Page 4 of 4. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 78
Author
The Irish Solution to The Ben Lomond Problem
hero
9-Oct-2017
11:40:34 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0F9vCpJFdBo


shortman
9-Oct-2017
12:23:11 PM
I stopped reading this thread ages ago...but apparently Gerry and Damo finally met face to face recently...anyone hear how that went?
Karl Bromelow
10-Oct-2017
4:02:58 AM
I meant this one, should have been more precise, sorry:

>1 modern stainless bolt with fixed hanger on the 4th pitch which replaced
>a rusted carrot

This one felt incongruous to me when I was surprised to see it on my second time up it. Coming from the UK I had learned to accept the quirkiness of carrot bolts on supposedly trad climbs, or in trad areas. The difficulty of placing the hanger on yourself or in my case usually fiddling a wire on because I had no plates seemed to be the way the Australian game was played. It was less than perfect but didn't feel so convenient as to be called "sport climbing". That was not so far down that "slippery slope" that I mused too long on it. However when I first saw the fixed hanger (the only other time I have done it) I was surprised and thought it was a significantly different prospect and seemed very odd on such an iconic line. Of course I clipped it and certainly wasn't outraged. It felt easier though. The nature of the climb had changed a little for me. It's possibly a great example of the "slope" not necessarily having a steep gradient. The bottom of the slippery slope doesn't have to outrage you either. You might, in fact, be in favour of it and consciously contribute, knowing it is somebody else's "slippery slope" but for you not negative. It can be observed without great passion but matter of factly or with passive acceptance. I am just arguing that slippery slopes do exist and are perceived differently depending on your own agenda or lack of one.

Cheers, Karl
johny
10-Oct-2017
5:16:52 AM
Wendy, I think the quality of your debate style is moving from High School to Junior High School. Slippery slopes do exist. This does not mean that every time someone invokes the term it is accurate (duh) such as gay marriage, and the litany of ridiculous analogies you came up with.

People (yes actual people, not hypothetical people in a debate) told Gerry that since there were abseil bolts they could bolt sport climbs. Regardless of what YOU think of this justification it was the reason given by a prolific bolter. It has nothing to do with Gay marriage, drowning or any of your other red herrings.

Your argument that since people had dodgy bolts and tat on Balls Pyramid therefore old climbers were not clean and perfect therefore we can have bolts on Ben Lomond is so far off the mark it is almost painful to need to point this out. The OP is about Fair Head so at least start there for comparisons. It doesnt matter that 40 years ago French climbers bolted the shit out of Ceuse or how many bolts were on Balls. Ben Lomond has been a ground up style nearly bolt free crag from the beginning. That is the tradition of BEN LOMOND.

Seriously Wendy reading your arguments reminds me of discussions with Christians about the existence of God: Many circular ad hoc arguments to prove technical points but avoid the real issues entirely.

After all the distractions in your argument you settle on a supposed rational adults ability to stop going down the slippery slope by limiting bolting to appropriate abseil stations. Yeah I agree. I think a lot of people do. I also think it is POSSIBLE that some people will take abseil bolts too far. Gerry explained how it could happen 4 pages ago. Its entirely possible.

Recently you (being a rational person) bolted a route at araps that was chopped. I guess you claim the chopper was being irrational. Well here go. No bolts means no ambiguity.

I think at this stage it is more in line with tradition and spirit of place to keep Ben Lomond entirely bolt free. I also like the romantic notion of an intentionally bolt free crag.

gnaguts
10-Oct-2017
11:15:04 AM
On 28-Sep-2017 Stugang wrote:
>How about "The Asian solution to Tastrads Irish problem with Ben"
>
a buket ov concreet 4 an ankor?
Ed my fren, heerz Ur chance 2 up Ur stipend, az Ur tha hardest man i kno!
(sorry siimz).
This problM iz beggin 4 a portabL anka @ Ben Lomond!
Ask tazgeez 4 Ur relocatN xpenses 2 help solV is problM.
Wendy
10-Oct-2017
4:43:17 PM
On 9-Oct-2017 Karl Bromelow wrote:


>For me Arapiles' slippery slope hit rock bottom when a bolt was placed
>on Watchtower Crack.

What, in 1967 or whenever it was first done? It's had multiple carrots in it since then.

>
>And for what it's worth, comparing this with the same sex marriage argument
>is simply ridiculous and a little bit provocative, and about that I am
>most definitely right, aren't I?

Actually, it's just classic slippery slope argument with which to compare it. I googled "slippery slope logical fallacy" just then to get an explanation for the logic denialists and it's a common example. I am not alone. Try https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

Wendy
10-Oct-2017
5:00:44 PM
On 10-Oct-2017 johny wrote:
>Wendy, I think the quality of your debate style is moving from High School
>to Junior High School. Slippery slopes do exist. This does not mean that
>every time someone invokes the term it is accurate (duh) such as gay marriage,
>and the litany of ridiculous analogies you came up with.
>
>People (yes actual people, not hypothetical people in a debate) told Gerry
>that since there were abseil bolts they could bolt sport climbs. Regardless
>of what YOU think of this justification it was the reason given by a prolific
>bolter. It has nothing to do with Gay marriage, drowning or any of your
>other red herrings.

Yep, but it is not inevitable that an abseil station will lead to bolts. THe person's justification was also flawed.
>
>Your argument that since people had dodgy bolts and tat on Balls Pyramid
>therefore old climbers were not clean and perfect therefore we can have
>bolts on Ben Lomond is so far off the mark it is almost painful to need
>to point this out.

That's not what I said. I said that Gerry was romanticising traditional climbing. The fact that traditional climbing did leave an impact on the rock doesn't justify more impact on the rock. That would be the same flawed argument as the bolter who said that one bolt exists, therefore more bolts may as well exist.I just don't know the fancy name for that logical fallacy.

The OP is about Fair Head so at least start there for
>comparisons. It doesnt matter that 40 years ago French climbers bolted
>the shit out of Ceuse or how many bolts were on Balls. Ben Lomond has been
>a ground up style nearly bolt free crag from the beginning. That is the
>tradition of BEN LOMOND.

So why doesn't this convenient slippery slope start earlier then? Surely the existance of tat means that fixed anchors exist, therefore chain may as well exist, there for bolts may as well exist ... ad infinitum. Or if we fix a rope at the top, then we may as well put in a permanent anchor with which to fix the rope with, if we have an anchor at the very top, we may as well have one at the top of the routes etc etc. You can construct a slippery slope anywhere. It's just that Gerry likes to stop his slippery slope at a fixed rope from a trad anchor. It's still put a stop to the slippery slope. There is nothing inevitable about the progress downhill and we are constantly negotiating our position on them all the time.
>
>Seriously Wendy reading your arguments reminds me of discussions with
>Christians about the existence of God: Many circular ad hoc arguments to
>prove technical points but avoid the real issues entirely.

What real issues? As far as I see them we have an fear mongering logical fallacy to justify a romantic ideal. Hold your romantic idea. Just don't expect me to give you any credit for illogical arguments supporting it.
>
>After all the distractions in your argument you settle on a supposed rational
>adults ability to stop going down the slippery slope by limiting bolting
>to appropriate abseil stations. Yeah I agree. I think a lot of people do.
>I also think it is POSSIBLE that some people will take abseil bolts too
>far. Gerry explained how it could happen 4 pages ago. Its entirely possible.

Yep, and lots of other things are possible too. How likely a possibility does something have to be?
>
>
>Recently you (being a rational person) bolted a route at araps that was
>chopped. I guess you claim the chopper was being irrational. Well here
>go. No bolts means no ambiguity.

Actually, in that case it meant being rude and arrogant.
>
>I think at this stage it is more in line with tradition and spirit of
>place to keep Ben Lomond entirely bolt free. I also like the romantic notion
>of an intentionally bolt free crag.
>
Karl Bromelow
10-Oct-2017
6:45:24 PM
On 10-Oct-2017 Wendy wrote:
>On 9-Oct-2017 Karl Bromelow wrote:
>
>
>>For me Arapiles' slippery slope hit rock bottom when a bolt was placed
>>on Watchtower Crack.
>
>What, in 1967 or whenever it was first done? It's had multiple carrots
>in it since then.
>
I addressed this above in answer to ajfclark.

There is also non-fallacious usage of slippery slope argument. Question is how do we define good evidence of consequences in bolting. That is where differing perceptions muddy it and why the two sides will never meet and the issue grumbles on.

The good Dr
10-Oct-2017
7:18:59 PM
As I noted earlier, let us just go back to pitons as fixed pro and anchors at the Ben. Currently seems perfectly acceptable.
uwhp510
11-Oct-2017
7:39:36 AM
On 10-Oct-2017 Wendy wrote:
>Yep, but it is not inevitable that an abseil station will lead to bolts.

Correct. Nothing is inevitable, and no-one is arguing in favour of that particular strawman.

The argument is that the presence of bolted rap anchors increases the likelihood (even if only very slightly) that someone will decide that either;

a) more rap anchors are warranted and/or
b) bolts on routes are fine

As Karl points out, there will naturally a spectrum of opinions on whether its reasonable to accept this increased risk of bolt proliferation for the added convenience, but surely everyone can agree that a strict "no bolts at all" policy is more likely to prevent unwanted bolting than a "no bolts... except these couple over here that are needed for convenience" policy.
johny
11-Oct-2017
4:40:30 PM
Wendy for the 4th(?) time you are arguing technical debate points in a hypothetical universe. I wonder if you actually care about the bolts or abseil stations or lack thereof at the Ben. If we were drinking beers it would be a fun conversation maybe. As it stands it is pretty tedious to read your spin cycle arguments justifying your initial untenable position for the sake of not being wrong.

For the Nth time I agree that it is a weak argument that abseil bolts lead to sport climbs. However, this argument IS being used by certain people. You can froth all you want about how stupid these people are but it doesn't change the fact they believe it. Gerry reacted to a real threat from a certain bolter by chopping the abseil bolts.

>>So why doesn't this convenient slippery slope start earlier then?

Well... Because... IT DOESN'T! Some areas are fully bolted, some are not. The slippery slope was stopped in England at no bolts pre 1970s in most areas. Later crags were bolted. Is this so hard for you to understand? In your black and white strawman only debate style I guess it doesn't work. But in the really existing world it is pretty common.

There never was much tat at Ben Lomond. There never were any sport climbs. Sure it COULD have been different. But... it... wasn't! Jesus Holy Christ On A Crutch! This is the tradition of Ben Lomond! As opposed to Smith Rock or Ceuse or any other crag. There is no universal application of Wendy's perfect rational white and black application of bolting ethic. You are just yelling into a self -constructed bermuda triangle of semantic bullshit.

peace out
cj
Kieranl
12-Oct-2017
11:32:24 AM
On 10-Oct-2017 Karl Bromelow wrote:
>On 10-Oct-2017 Wendy wrote:
>>On 9-Oct-2017 Karl Bromelow wrote:
>>
>>
>>>For me Arapiles' slippery slope hit rock bottom when a bolt was placed
>>>on Watchtower Crack.
>>
>>What, in 1967 or whenever it was first done? It's had multiple carrots
>>in it since then.

>>
> I addressed this above in answer to ajfclark.
>
>There is also non-fallacious usage of slippery slope argument. Question
>is how do we define good evidence of consequences in bolting. That is where
>differing perceptions muddy it and why the two sides will never meet and
>the issue grumbles on.


To clarify the circumstances of the placement of the FH. At the time it was placed there were two twisted 5/16 mild steel carrots next to each other. People were actually taking hanging belays off them, god knows what they were thinking. I extracted them both, drilled out one of the holes and placed the SS expansion bolt with FH, I'm a bit surprised that this is now identified as the start of the slippery slope, I thought that had started long before, how otherwise do you explain what I replaced, but so be it. Pull the FH if you wish, it should come out without further rock damage even after 20+ years. But please don't put a carrot back in out of misplaced nostalgia.

And back on topic, a bolt-free Ben? Great concept. Will it work? You never know unless you try.

Edit - had some fat finger problems with the iPad so have now tidied things up
Karl Bromelow
13-Oct-2017
3:56:59 AM
I wouldn't pull it Kieren (someone else might) and as I said I wasn't outraged but hugely surprised. There was an 8 year gap between my only 2 climbs of the route. That 8 years may well have been when many chains and anchors also proliferated around the mount. I am not necessarily arguing against the people who saw fit to install them. I also suggested it was the end of a slippery slope, not the start. It definitely changed the feel of the route for me. My own perspective. But neither am I a fan of carrots. My background was a strict ethic of no bolts on grit or mountain crags (or almost any rock other than blank limestone) in the UK. My point was more about the perception variation in what constitutes a slippery slope and where it bottoms out.

I should add that, since those early days for me, lower grade routes on more featured limestone in Yorkshire have seen enormous amounts of retro bolting and the scene has changed enormously. For better or worse? That depends on your personal view. For the majority, probably much better. For a few, it was most definitely a slippery slope and quite a dramatic one. There was quite a bit of vocal opposition. As far as one can get upset by the fringe goings on in the world of climbing.

I am not involved in the politics of it and won't be marching on parliament.

Cheers, Karl
Wendy
13-Oct-2017
5:19:25 AM
On 11-Oct-2017 johny wrote:

>For the Nth time I agree that it is a weak argument that abseil bolts
>lead to sport climbs. However, this argument IS being used by certain people.
>You can froth all you want about how stupid these people are but it doesn't
>change the fact they believe it. Gerry reacted to a real threat from a
>certain bolter by chopping the abseil bolts.

But why is this a better solution than just explaining to that person that "because A exists, more A may as well exist" is not an argument? And then if they go and bolt routes, go and remove those.
>
>>>So why doesn't this convenient slippery slope start earlier then?
>
>Well... Because... IT DOESN'T! Some areas are fully bolted, some are not.
>The slippery slope was stopped in England at no bolts pre 1970s in most
>areas. Later crags were bolted. Is this so hard for you to understand?
>In your black and white strawman only debate style I guess it doesn't work.
>But in the really existing world it is pretty common.

I do object to this amazing capacity to generalise. Everyone keeps telling me, but it happens, it happens all the time, we have to stop it at the start of the slope, and then give me a few not very good examples. Bolts proliferated after the 70s for a variety of reasnas, not the least being that technology improved so they were easier to place, and people ventured onto faces without trad protection. Despite the proliferation of bolts over the years, most people still accept that we only place them when trad gear is lacking. Hence why we don't have a bolt ladder up D Major, despite the existance of many anchors at Arapiles. And if you are going to argue that the bolts ruin a traditional approach, then a fixed line from the top does just as much and may as well be seen by some equally illogical person as the start of a slope to fixed anchors and bolted routes.
>
>There never was much tat at Ben Lomond. There never were any sport climbs.
>Sure it COULD have been different. But... it... wasn't! Jesus Holy Christ
>On A Crutch! This is the tradition of Ben Lomond! As opposed to Smith Rock
>or Ceuse or any other crag. There is no universal application of Wendy's
>perfect rational white and black application of bolting ethic. You are
>just yelling into a self -constructed bermuda triangle of semantic bullshit.

It's not semantic bullshit! It's about conveying meaning. It would do your argument a massive favour if you just based it on wanting a boltfree Ben Lomond in principle rather than arguments you admit are actually weak. The anchors were in for 8 years or so without any other bolts appearing, suggesting that people were quite happily agreeing with the division between having an anchor and having bolted routes. 1 person mumbles something else, and the knee jerk reaction is to take the anchors out, rather than just talk with people about your ideal of trad protection only at Ben Lomond. Talking. Such a complicated idea. If only we did it more we might have less bolting wars.
>
And Karl, I don't think that bolt on WC is the bottom of the slippery slope. The bottom would be when you only need a rack of 10 quickdraws to do the route :)

gnaguts
13-Oct-2017
6:14:07 AM
On 13-Oct-2017 Wendy wrote:
>And Karl, I don't think that bolt on WC is the bottom of the slippery slope. The bottom would be when you only need a rack of 10 quickdraws to do the route :)

But wot about tha new gen of climbrs comin thatL B known az silvajug climrs?
Wont tha spurt climrs B pissD wen there creatNs R gridboltd 2 a new slippD base?
One Day Hero
15-Oct-2017
6:40:12 PM
On 13-Oct-2017 Wendy wrote:
>But why is this a better solution than just explaining to that person
>that "because A exists, more A may as well exist" is not an argument? And
>then if they go and bolt routes, go and remove those.

Because removing bolts is giant pain in the arse (much more than placing them). Also, even if you do a perfect job, the damage the bolter did to the rock remains. Somehow this seems to get blamed on the de-bolter, I don't really understand the logic so just file under "sport climbers are retards".

>Everyone keeps telling
>me, but it happens, it happens all the time, we have to stop it at the
>start of the slope, and then give me a few not very good examples.

Some examples;

Arapiles-
I reckon the number of bolts has at least doubled since I started going there in the 90s, despite the fact that barely any worthwhile routes have been added in that time. It started with reasonable steps (e.g. the tat pile on top of Tarantula), and quickly slippled down the slope until squeeze jobs, retrobolts, and unnecessary loweroffs are popping up everywhere. Shit, even usually sensible climbers have bolted some total shite squeeze jobs down there. Araps is the textbook case for slippery slope in bolting.

Taipan-
Replacing old bolts which is good and fine, led to..............

Replacing fixed gear with bolts, which is pushing it (e.g. the tat at the top of Sirrocco p1 was kinda dodgy, but a bolted belay/rap at a stonker horizontal which was used as a gear belay for 20 years?!?!), led to..........

Adding a loweroff at the top of a mantle-out route and adding bolts next to bomber gear. f--- off, this is not ok, those bolts are going to get pulled.

Thompson's Point-
Was never a "sport cliff", heavily developed prior to the "sport crag proclamation" at P.C. and Bomaderry. Modern climbers may be interested to know that the whole descent gully, Orca, Gunbarrel Highway, Betty Blue, and a host of others were established as mixed routes and respected as such for years. Then justifications were invented for retroing until eventually "no one brings a rack to nowra anymore" was used to retrobolt the final routes.

Is that enough examples? I can keep going if you like.

>Despite the proliferation of bolts
>over the years, most people still accept that we only place them when trad
>gear is lacking.

Have you been to Point Perp lately? Bolts next to horizontal breaks galore!

>And if you are going to argue
>that the bolts ruin a traditional approach, then a fixed line from the
>top does just as much and may as well be seen by some equally illogical
>person as the start of a slope to fixed anchors and bolted routes.

The fixed line goes away after a while without leaving holes, and without anyone having to chop it.

>The anchors were in for 8 years or so without any other bolts appearing,
>suggesting that people were quite happily agreeing with the division between
>having an anchor and having bolted routes.

See, this is a sensible and reasonable statement. I would like to live in a climbing world where everyone was sensible and reasonable. In that world, the bolted rap route at Ben Lomond could have remained. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world. We live in a world full of trigger-happy o.c.d. kooks, whose hobby is better described as rock bolting than rock climbing. These fuching retards ruin it for everyone, so we have to have a bolt-free Ben, and I have to go out chopping fuching retrobolts when I'd much rather be climbing!
Karl Bromelow
16-Oct-2017
5:03:01 AM
>And Karl, I don't think that bolt on WC is the bottom of the slippery
>slope. The bottom would be when you only need a rack of 10 quickdraws to
>do the route :)

My point exactly Wendy.

You say, "I don't think...." So, who defines where the bottom of a bolting slippery slope lies? Such slopes are perceived differently depending on your own view. Should you, Wendy, define the bottom? Surely 20 quickdraws would be further down a slope than 10. 30 further and so on. And, hypothetically you could claim that placing 10 fixed hangers on Watchtower Crack is ok because no one would be fool enough to place a further 10. "Properly" bolted and turned into a pure sport route it could accomodate 50 bolts. Not the real world I know but you must get my point. The bottom of a slippery slope is ill defined, personal and subjective.

I think you have placed bolts (correct me if I'm wrong) so you are bound to have an entirely different opinion to a rabid anti bolter. Therein lies the rub. It seems to be an issue where a consensus is never quite comfortably reached. The sides are well entrenched. I am not suggesting your bolting activities (I don't follow this forum religiously but think I have read about you bolting routes) are wicked. Please don't read this as such. Just using that as an illustration.

Cheers, Karl
johny
16-Oct-2017
5:06:07 PM
Hey Wendy! Saw you at araps today could have told you this but I guess for posterity... First off I really respect your point of view and I just want to walk back a little bit of the hostile attitude of the last few msgs... wine fueled...

I am actually guilty of what I was accusing you of! As in arguing a point of debate and not seeing the big picture. We pretty much agree that abseil bolts should and probably would not lead to sport climbs. I think this is most people's opinion about Ben Lomon abseil bolts.

Without name calling and outing people who used the abseil bolts=sport climbs logic on this forum, which actually resulted in the person(who is a douche) whining to the moderator and having the posts removed(!) from a previous online form, I will just say that there are people who will immediately establish what I would consider controversial bolted abseil stations and/or sport climbs. This is not a hypothetical. Having it bolt free unfortunately really is the only way to go for now.

No abseil bolts doesn't ruin the area at all! Yeah it sucks sometimes that climbing is an anarchy/consensus/despotism/chaos but most of the time it is the best. Yeah it kind of sucks that a couple people (one?) forced this decision but after all the debate I think it is cool that it is bolt free anyway! Makes me feel good.







 Page 4 of 4. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 78
There are 78 messages in this topic.

 

Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Landscape Photos Australia

Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.



Australian Panoramic | Australian Coast | Australian Mountains | Australian Countryside | Australian Waterfalls | Australian Lakes | Australian Cities | Australian Macro | Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo | Landscape Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Fine Art Photography | Wilderness Photography | Nature Photo | Australian Landscape Photo | Stock Photography Australia | Landscape Photos | Panoramic Photos | Panoramic Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | High Country Mountain Huts | Mothers Day Gifts | Gifts for Mothers Day | Mothers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Mothers Day | Wedding Gift Ideas | Christmas Gift Ideas | Fathers Day Gifts | Gifts for Fathers Day | Fathers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Fathers Day | Landscape Prints | Landscape Poster | Limited Edition Prints | Panoramic Photo | Buy Posters | Poster Prints