Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

34?


nmonteith

23-Mar-2004
10:12:07 AM

Ben hasn't logged onto chockstone since April 2003 according to the members stats.

dalai

23-Mar-2004
10:24:08 AM

Not much point him commenting since the lynch mob has already gathered without hearing his side of the story!!
I don't agree with knocking holds off climbs to force sequences, but I won't judge like most posters here until I have heard both sides...


Rupert

23-Mar-2004
12:15:46 PM

Martin I've been watching what is going on here with interest. I don't know this guy and I'm pretty sure very few people commenting here know him either - as such I've been hesitant to add to this. And really, whether the particular actions of an individual mean people can 'judge' that person is probably a broader moral (ethical?) debate than we should tackle here - I think what has happened here is a loud and clear statement of disapproval of somebody's actions. Isn't this a valuable thing to happen? Doesn't this send a strong message to climbers in Australia as to what the 'climbing community' (I dislike that expression) will and will not let slide?

Rhetorical question: Why does anyone care that this occurred, when less than 1% of the people here will ever get close to even touching that grade, let alone the holds on that particular climb?

deadpoint

23-Mar-2004
12:31:49 PM

Someone called Ben Cossey has been commenting in another thread 'The great unfinished problems in Victoria', you might want to have a chat with him there.


timmy

23-Mar-2004
3:41:26 PM

the date for the post in 'The great unfinished problems in Victoria' was in 2003, long time ago...


hex-TROLL

23-Mar-2004
3:52:55 PM

Timmy---'What relativities exist outside this space-time continuum' ,dude ?

Luv,HEX

chris

23-Mar-2004
7:14:55 PM

Does the arapiles guide say..."Punks in the Gym.... 32, chipped and glued".... It's still recognised as a significant climb despite the big lump of glue at the crux!!

Onsight

31-Mar-2004
6:58:14 PM

Sorry for the delay everyone - bit busy right now.

Will – I’m in total agreement with you. Re your last point: I think the only way we can be fair to future ascentionists is to credit them with their ascents at the grade the route eventually settles on (they didn’t chip off the holds so why should they be further disadvantaged than they already are?). Also, to be really fair to them (and if you if are the least bit concerned about taking a stance as to what is ethically acceptable) then Ben’s once legit ascent is now invalid – and so there’s no reason why the next ascentionist shouldn’t be credited with the first ascent of this “new” open project. Good to see so many are in agreement on this.

Neil – yes, that might be interesting… It appears some climbers may have been quoted out of context (at least) and so one might expect that will be corrected… (not Rock’s fault if no-one provides them w the info though).

Jac – good on you for having the guts to speak your mind on something you obviously feel strongly about. It not always easy. (And you seem to understand the issues).

A5 – I reckon many of your comments are “right on the money”. When it comes to the validity issue, then obviously people will differ as to what they see as the best way to way to get the message across… You said: “Don't rely on ignoring it because controversy dies out in time, .. and we should pass on our history / inheritance.” I agree entirely, it’s an important point – and all the more reason we shouldn’t ignore this issue now (lest the details get lost to history). Perhaps the Yvon Chouinard quote (boulder & sport not being valid) was pushing it a bit though, so I’m in agreement with Joe on that point.

Joe – This isn’t, and never was, as discussion of chipping per se, nor anything to do with enhancing or comfortising holds (so I think we can all pretty safely have this debate without worrying about being hypocritical).

The discussion has been specifically about the unnecessary removal of some holds (after the valid ascent). Whatever the reasons (it was deliberate and unnecessary, other than that the reasons are perhaps interesting but essentially irrelevant), the effect has been that numerous (I now know of at least three) other potential ascentionists who were also close to doing this “open” project, have had their preferred sequence taken away from them. And we also know that had this not happened then the route would have been SIGNIFICANTLY easier for them. Of course it doesn’t mean other ethical issues should be ignored, just that they can be the topics of other discussions (as many of them are).

Martin – I understand your caution in commenting but think Rupert makes some very important points.

Chris – not totally sure of your point. If you know that Wolfgang never chipped Punks, nor glued the hold up again years later, then perhaps you’re making the same point as A5’s and I - about how details will likely get lost in time?

In the scheme of things this whole debate would possibly be trivial, except that in this country we have climbers who are trying to be “professional”, or as close to is as possible, and I know it’s not trivial to all of them. I’d like to see them get a fair go… that’s all. Oh, I also do care about climbing ethics, the legacy we leave, and how Australian climbing is perceived elsewhere…

Simon


mousey

31-Mar-2004
7:58:16 PM

i have an incredible amount of respect for you/your opinion Simon, but i have to disagree with you there- I don't in any way condone what Ben did and it was a VERY irresponsible thing for him to do...but the fact is that he DID climb the Mechanical Animals line that was there on all natural holds. The fact that MA isnt the climb today that it SHOULD be doen't invalidate the send, in my very inauthorial opinioin.
of course, the details i have were from a friend of friend of a friend etc so im sure your info is more accurate than mine...if my factual errors are off-key please let me know

Onsight

1-Apr-2004
9:44:26 PM

Mighty Mouse / Josh. Thanks. I’m happy to respect your opinion and disagree with you at the same time too. That makes for interesting debate. It’s a complicated issues and I expect there to be many different opinions on it. I don’t know what you think the facts are, so I can’t comment on that.

The point is it was a legit send, but when the holds were hammered off the route was changed — and so we have to assess this differently now. Whether it was the intention or not, now it’s effectively a route with an “enforced sequence”, or it’s now effectively a “made to fit route”, whatever you want to call it. You say it was “very irresponsible”; but my question is: do you consider it be ethically acceptable, or ethically unacceptable (when claiming an ascent of this type)?

You see, I’ve always seen climbing ethics, and the way our climbing achievements are assessed/credited, as being inexorably linked. For example, you can climb a route on top-rope and for sure you’ve climbed it, but that wouldn’t be a legitimate ascent in this context either (though it’d still be a great achievement of course).

Simon


rodw

1-Apr-2004
10:05:25 PM

I agree with Mighty Mousey (cant believe that in itself, must be having a bad day), Ive thought about it and yep he didnt add any holds so the sequnce done is still there so I guess its 34, so stays 34....but his actions probably mean it will never be the pinnacle climb to do at the grade as the lure of the route has probably now been marred. Few people can climb that grade and i imagine now those few will probably not bother thus resigning what a great achievement it was to "who really cares" achievements.

Its a bit of a cross over with roped climbing competitions as those routes, often force particular sequences, favouring some climbers than others. Those that do well in them are good strong climbers, but not all of Australian best climbers compete as its not for them, so be it, each to there own and I think thats what most will end up thinking of MA. A few will attempt, a few will say why bother and we will all move on.

Climbing ethics are a mixed bag, some say chalk is wrong, some say bolts is wrong and so it goes on....I personally think it was a dumb childish thing to do, but I doubt Ben cares what I think.


mousey

1-Apr-2004
10:34:58 PM

>You say it was “very irresponsible”; but my question is: do you consider it be ethically >acceptable, or ethically unacceptable (when claiming an ascent of this type)?

i would certainly not consider this (enforcing a sequence) to be acceptable on a personal level- but i do not dictate the ethics of the climbing community...
it is undeniable that sending of such routes (ie.manufactured- whether through adding or removing holds) has become a widely accepted practice (i think it is unfortunate, as to me the philosophy of climbing is centered around our link to a piece of wilderness-- bolts are bad enough*, but manu.'d climbs are coming dangerously close to the principles of buildering) and it is through the acceptance or rejection of such issues by the community as a whole that ethics are moulded
Ben's action certainly seem deserving of a consequence such as invalidation of his send, but i don't believe thats up to any individual- the status quo of australian climbing seems to say that since he climbed it in an acceptable redpoint style, he gets the send regardless of what happens to the climb afterwards.

*[saying this doesnt mean i reject the use of bolts- actually i have a placed one or two myself- simply that it detracts from the perfect natural experience. To be completely logically correct, manufacturaing holds is simply the next step up from bolts...first we couldnt protect certain climbs with gear, so a few nasty people started putting in fixed pro- now we cant climb blank faces so we chip them. the big difference is that bolts are placed to enable the safe enjoyment of the rock that is there, chipping is the make the rock suit our more specific style enjoyment.]**

**[dont worry about trying to understand my ideas- if I cant understand me, then you have just about no chance]


IdratherbeclimbingM9

1-Apr-2004
10:43:36 PM

On 1/04/2004 onsight wrote:
>The point is it was a legit send, but when the holds were hammered off
>the route was changed — and so we have to assess this differently now.
why? (see next point)

>my question is: do you consider it be ethically acceptable, or ethically
>unacceptable (when claiming an ascent of this type)?
The ascent was clean. The hammer apparently came out later. It was the hammer action that was ethically unacceptable.
The issue is really of concern only because its a cutting edge climb and whatever hype gets attached because of this. If it was an obscure mid grade thing, there would'nt be half the controversy, though the ethics would be the same.

>if are the least bit concerned about taking a stance as to what is ethically acceptable) then >Ben’s once legit ascent is now invalid – and so there’s no reason why the next ascentionist >shouldn’t be credited with the first ascent of this “new” open project.
Sorry, but I disagree. I reckon the 1st ascent of Mechanical Animal is still valid, and Ben should be credited with it.
He should also be credited with 'sequence enforcing it' after its 1st ascent.

Perhaps the next ascent can be called Mechanically Animaled! ... and have another '1st new sequence ascentionist' !!
Don't laugh too hard, ... seriously, ... We have precedent inasmuch as a climb gets listed as 1st ascent with aid (hammer similarity??), 1st nut ascent (clean aid); 1st free ascent, 1st winter/solo etc.
Its a progression ... and Ben had the vision to start another one.

>You see, I’ve always seen climbing ethics, and the way our climbing achievements
>are assessed/credited, as being inexorably linked. For example, you can
>climb a route on top-rope and for sure you’ve climbed it, but that wouldn’t
>be a legitimate ascent in this context either
True (re the link); but as I see it, most people don't claim top-rope ascents as 1st ascents, (though there are exceptions). This point is a little askew for this situation as (from what has been said) there was no toprope involved.

We might not like whats happened or agree with it, but it has happened, ... and none of us have been nominated as 'ethics police'.
Collectively however, we can influence attitudes and future outcomes by expressing our disapproval -> This collective disapproval = 'climbing ethics, and the way our climbing achievements are assessed/credited', (ie the ephemeral link).

(sucking on it when we want to chew, as Hex said).

BDee

1-Apr-2004
11:05:25 PM

Simon asked is the ascent of MA is ethically acceptable. I think it is not. However what ticks me off is the blatant selfishness of vandalizing a route in order to ensure it will only climb one way; the first ascent sequence. The charm of climbing rock, as opposed to plastic, is that new and better moves and solutions remain to be discovered. To take this experience away from all potential repeat ascenscionists is selfish, petulant and perhaps the ethical low point of Australian sport climbing – so far. If Cossey did this to ensure his place on top of the pile then he should be roundly condemned. He probably won't be because the extreme grade effects only a handful of climbers. If it were a mid twenties route we should all feel cheated. I say ignore the route or treat it as a perpetually open project.


IdratherbeclimbingM9

1-Apr-2004
11:27:43 PM

On 1/04/2004 DBD wrote:
>vandalizing a route in order to ensure it will only climb one way; the first ascent
>sequence. The charm of climbing rock, as opposed to plastic, is that new
>and better moves and solutions remain to be discovered.
You are right. Give it time. If it gets a dozen+ ascents there is a good chance that there will be more than the couple of sequences so far discovered unearthed.
Is it a different sequence if someone uses a different finger on a mono-digit hold? or two fingers on a hold where the 1st ascentionist used three?
Smeared where somebody edged?
What about static vs dynamic moves ??


mousey

2-Apr-2004
7:07:45 AM

seriously guys, its gonna be a hell of a long time before "dozen+" scents happen....


IdratherbeclimbingM9

2-Apr-2004
9:50:04 AM

On 2/04/2004 Mighty Mouse wrote:
>seriously guys, its gonna be a hell of a long time before "dozen+" scents
>happen....

Have been around long enough to remember they said that about previous 'last great problems'. It could be a long time true, but when I started Gd 22 was considered 'hell of a long time before "dozen+" scents happen....'


mousey

2-Apr-2004
11:33:07 AM

A5 you've been around for a while!!!
i think though that 22 was hard back then for different reasons...
the fact that 34 is getting so close to the max. human strength capacity means that it will never become 'normal' to be able to haul up that high a grade (as 22 has become)

2-Apr-2004
12:19:05 PM

Chipping and gluing happened back in the good old days when the leading climbers thought they were approaching the perceived boundaries of what was humanly possible. This was around grade 23 (Mikl's "universal sandbag grade") - consider Tayloring A Trend at Araps. What is humanly possible now? Ewbank postulated that there was no reason why climbs graded 39 would not be achievable (he wrote that back in 1970, probably before the current crop of 'leading' climbers were born). Whenever strength is justified as a limiting factor, the better climbers start stringing together longer and longer sequences of "strength" moves. Does that mean they are stronger? Can recover quicker? Get the sequences wired quicker? Look at what happens with some of the hard boulder problems, they start getting linked together.

Anybody who, today, uses the argument that we are near the limit of human possibilty and uses that argument to justify their actions, or the action of others, is deluding themselves. I started climbing when the hardest grade in Victoria was 19 (yes, it was a long time ago) and have seen that argument trotted out many times and those who used it were wrong everytime.

And I'm a bumbly of the highest order who has only occasionally seen the other side of grade 20 but I've seen a lot of climbers come and go. Some of them have left their chipped legacy behind as a 'reminder' to future generations to think before they act.


IdratherbeclimbingM9

2-Apr-2004
12:34:57 PM

Yay for the greybeards.
Well put BA.

... as 'e says to the young'uns;
"An if you think that was 'ard, you 'ad it good!, ...
Why!, ... when I were a lad we used to nick me mums clothesline to go climbin ... The falls were no worry, it was the hidin' we got, when we got home an' the washin' was left out in the dirt to dry that we feared!"

... from another bumbly who seldom sees the high side of Gd 20.

There are 239 messages in this topic.