On 7/08/2012 Samuel wrote:
>Fact is. No body climbed it.
This is such a sh!tty rationale. A route doesn’t need to get ascents to have value. There are plenty of seldom repeated lines in the world and the reputation of some these makes climbing interesting. Not saying that the run out nonsense on exhibition wall is in that category, but they are known to people, and more than once I have been at pub listening to people muse about doing them - I reckon that there is a good chance that this trash talk was probably more memorable than any of the moves these routes would offer. If someone did repeat em in the original style I would be impressed – and would value this more than it being made into another mundane line for talentless climbers.
There is already a fun and well protected 24 slab at the crag (iron filings or whatever it is called), wasn’t a spot of chalk on it earlier this year, so it doesn’t seem like the demand is there anyway.
On 8/08/2012 IdratherbeclimbingM9 wrote:
>On 8/08/2012 davidn wrote:
>>Simey - what if you have to rap it to clean it? That said, I pretty
>>agree with your underlying sentiment, though I think even ground up
>>done in a dangerous way is pretty lazy or egotistical.
>I'll bite, why do you think this?
>I don't doubt some of it could be regarded as dangerous in hindsight due
>maybe better locations could be found later, but that is one of the constraints
>of doing things ground up.
>In the twisted game that climbers play, ground up bolting is a more pure
>form of bolting! ;-)
>Heh, heh, heh.
Maybe, but it's bolting at the end of the day. Sure, on the one hand having the same poor bolting positions and lack of bolts will allow someone to 'recreate your experience' (climbers do get a bit overly misty eyed about that), but on the other hand, the whole purpose of bolts is safety.
Why add any at all if you don't want the route to be safe? Or to put it another way, don't start a job you don't want to finish! Sure, send it, but then go back and add the extra bolts or fix the positions or run the risk someone else may. Or don't bolt it at all. Another trad line or highball (or free solo or top-rope boulder problem) won't hurt the world, as I'm sure you'd agree.
I think that probably answers your second question as well. It may be a pain in the arse to fix and smack of 'adventure' to leave behind a bunch of shit quality bolts put in poor positions and too few to boot - no comment on any particular route - but it's really mostly just lazy or egotistical. It's just a view, we all have different ones, and bolting discussions never go anywhere ;)
* (yes, I know safe is a relative term, just to head off the inevitable ;)
I kinda agree with most of the sentiments which Simey and Davidn (what?) are expressing. As a general rule, rap bolting to produce routes which are dangerous and 'best not approached ground up' seems a little silly.
However, the most important issue for me here is preserving diversity in climbing. There's so much rock and so many routes, that everyone's tastes can and should be catered to. But in the Blueys, the monoculture of ringbolted sportroutes finishing at loweroffs is taking over everything.
Simey is complaining that Warwick Baird's Echo Point routes have been set up in a contrived way where most people can't approach them ground up, but so what? There's probably 5000 routes in the Blueys which you can approach ground up, why not leave those 3 or 4 as routes to suss out on abseil?
Really, I think it would help a lot to chop the bolts on a couple of classic sport routes. Maybe then the crowd who only ever clip rings might start to appreciate a negotiated balance. Their current view seems to be that the ringbolted routes are beyond discussion, while haggling continues indefinitely on every trad, carrot, and mixed line.
On 8/08/2012 davidn wrote:
>Maybe, but it's bolting at the end of the day. Sure, on the one hand
>having the same poor bolting positions and lack of bolts will allow someone
>to 'recreate your experience' (climbers do get a bit overly misty eyed
>about that), but on the other hand, the whole purpose of bolts is safety.
Safety on a ground up trad style first ascent is measured by a different yardstick to the safety that the current generation of sport climbers sometimes impose on us with retro's.
>Why add any at all if you don't want the route to be safe? Or to put
>it another way, don't start a job you don't want to finish! Sure, send
>it, but then go back and add the extra bolts or fix the positions or run
>the risk someone else may. Or don't bolt it at all. Another trad line
>or highball (or free solo or top-rope boulder problem) won't hurt the world,
>as I'm sure you'd agree.
I think that you too, are not grasping the fact that for some new-routers (I am thinking trad style mixed ground that 'may require a bolt for progress/safety of first ascent, here), that to retro them by anyone other than the first ascenters is a stepping down from the original commitment.
I agree with simey's post above when he differentiates between the style that an original ascent/bolting is done, and refer you back to what he wrote.
>I think that probably answers your second question as well. It may be
>a pain in the arse and smack of 'adventure' to leave behind a bunch of
>shit quality bolts put in poor positions and too few to boot - no comment
>on any particular route - but it's really mostly just lazy or egotistical.
In my humble* (*I have placed very few bolts in my time), opinion, adventure climbing generally does not set out to create a legacy of 'shit quality' bolting that requires retro-ing, and if it happens that this turns out to be the case, then the first ascentionists are generally happy to go back and do the retro themselves.
Mikl has demonstrated this a number of times...
An interesting variation theme example that springs to my mind is mikl&Gledhill's retro of Noblesse Oblige at Buffalo. The route did not have bolts to start with, but when the possibility arose that another bolter was going to retro it, then they did the job themselves because they wanted to retain as much of the original flavour of that climb within the modern safety concept (read balance), as they could!
~> There are obviously many shades of grey!
> It's just a view, we all have different ones, and bolting discussions
>never go anywhere ;)
>* (yes, I know safe is a relative term, just to head off the inevitable
>Really, I think it would help a lot to chop the bolts on a couple of classic sport routes. >Maybe then the crowd who only ever clip rings might start to appreciate a negotiated balance. >Their current view seems to be that the ringbolted routes are beyond discussion, while haggling continues indefinitely on every trad, carrot, and mixed line.
On 8/08/2012 One Day Hero wrote:
>Really, I think it would help a lot to chop the bolts on a couple of classic
Firstly grats ODH for a post that doesn't attack someone while your making a point.
In regards to chopping bolts on sport routes, can you give examples of what ya mean...most bolts put in tend to be there for a reason to help negate possible injury in a fall...but have you got any specific examples?
I take it we are talking pure sport routes here...not mixed routes?
It may be bolting but at the end of the day it's about climbing! It's about the experience - why do I need to create the experience you desire.
The younger generation of climbers seems to get overly egotistical and demanding that everything be ring-bolted to suit their gym experience
Bolts offer 'protection', not necessarily safety - safety comes down to the climber, the routes they choose to climb, their mental and physical abilities etc.
Safety is a sum total of numerous factors - not just bolts every 1.2m. If you decide to hop on a bold climb unprepared, you are the danger not the climb . .
> Why add any at all if you don't want the route to be safe?
Because maybe I want the route to be bold and dangerous, or bold but safe. Not every climb needs to be your version of safe!
If the original ascentionists survived than 'ipso facto' it is 'safe' - not that that means anything. Many 'safe' climbs have killed people.
Another tradline etc would certainly help the world, but what we are talking about is retro-route destruction.
Your points are lazy and egotistical - You are not prepared to go out and do some ground up route but you want those that do to accommodate your view of 'safety', bolt positions, number etc.
Part of the 'bolting discussion' problem is the number of bottom-feeders with no-idea, spouting crap and trying to enforce there personal view without any real-world experience.
Maybe you should just get out and put up some climbs in the fashion you prefer and see what people think - just don't destroy any old/bold routes when you do . .
On 8/08/2012 One Day Hero wrote:
>Simey is complaining that Warwick Baird's Echo Point routes have been
>set up in a contrived way where most people can't approach them ground
>up, but so what? There's probably 5000 routes in the Blueys which you can
>approach ground up, why not leave those 3 or 4 as routes to suss out on
I know there are no shortage of routes in the Blueys to try, but I suppose Warwick's routes tackle some particularly appealing rock and yet I hardly know anyone who has bothered to do them. The idea of rap-inspecting established routes beforehand sucks in my opinion.
I could have easily put in half the number of bolts or less in the Totem Pole when we established it. I had my pitch totally sussed on abseil and climbing it was a mere formality at the time. But hijacking a route like that to bolster my own ego would have been a huge disservice. It really is just about using a bit of commonsense. When you lead a trad route you don't deliberately avoid placing protection so you can put yourself into a groundfall situation. You place protection as you need it. If you are hanging on an abseil rope with a drill in your hands then you should extend the same logic when preparing a route.
>An interesting variation theme example that springs to my mind is mikl&Gledhill's
>retro of Noblesse Oblige at Buffalo. The route did not have bolts to start
>with, but when the possibility arose that another bolter was going to retro
>it, then they did the job themselves because they wanted to retain as much
>of the original flavour of that climb within the modern safety concept
>(read balance), as they could!
>~> There are obviously many shades of grey!
Hehehe, it could possibly have something to do with whom the other bolter was. Noblesse would be a very different route with 60 bolts instead of the less than 20 (including the double bolt anchors) that there are now.
On 8/08/2012 IdratherbeclimbingM9 wrote:
>I think that you too, are not grasping the fact that for some new-routers
>(I am thinking trad style mixed ground that 'may require a bolt
>for progress/safety of first ascent, here), that to retro them by anyone
>other than the first ascenters is a stepping down from the original commitment.
I get that, but like rodw I was thinking more about pure sport routes that, for example, have the first bolt at 10 metres and no opportunity for gear inbetween. Perhaps the discussion's going a bit far afield of the route itself - not having climbed it I don't know whether it's a real mixed route. If it is, I tend to think of those as trad, with associated mental adjustments for how long the runouts might be and how sparsely protected.
It may amuse you to know that I've had the opportunity recently to place as many bolts as I wished in my own private playground, but decided to place none, and to ask for a strict no-bolts approach. So who knows, some of the comments made here may even have influenced me (probably not the nasty ones though! ;)
Macca: I think you took my comments a bit personally. I don't actually want anything in relation to 99.9% of climbs, if I'm honest, and have taken every climb I meet as I met it and decided accordingly whether to hop on it. I've rap inspected things I've climbed and attempted things at my limit ground up (and on one occasion broken an ankle as a result). And I did and do go out and put up climbs in the style I prefer, which has involved 0 bolts to date. *shrug* I don't think it speaks well for your cause to be calling me or any other climber a 'bottom feeder' (though it's hard to take anything here as more than passing amusement) - ... more flies with honey?
To put my thoughts another, hopefully clearer way - you might put two bolts in a 20 metre mixed line that has some big and dangerous run-outs, because you prefer it that way. But are you making a bold climb, or over-protecting a climb that a better trad climber could do without any bolts? Bolts are a slippery slope. Once you add one, the purity of your argument is immediately lessened.
For the record I'm not for retroing..if it was done ground up style blah blah blah..leave as is, I don't really care.... just find something else to climb...its not the end of the world.....I'm just questioning the removal of bolts on established sport routes and an example from ODH of sport routes that could do with this service.
The argument that you don't HAVE to clip the retro-bolts is a silly one. To put it into perspective...
It's the difference between the first person to walk to the south pole in 1911 before the invention of the aeroplane and walking there now with a helicopter camera crew following, satellite phone in your pocket and the knowledge there is a comfy hut stocked with food when you arrive. Both involve walking to the south pole - but one has vastly less commitment as at any time you can bail to safety and a warm bed. The whole point of committing routes is to be committed! You can't commit to something if there is an escape route at all times.
Just like you can't claim to have soloed a route if you wear a harness and carry protection and biners and do it above a safety net.
On 8/08/2012 simey wrote:
>I know there are no shortage of routes in the Blueys to try, but I suppose
>Warwick's routes tackle some particularly appealing rock and yet I hardly
>know anyone who has bothered to do them. The idea of rap-inspecting established
>routes beforehand sucks in my opinion.
You're falling into the same trap as the ring-clippers. You've taken the thousands of routes which are in a style you're ok with and put 'em 'in the bag'. Then ignoring those, you're having a sook about a couple of routes which are set up for either hard-hitters with huge sacks, or people who like pre-inspected headpointing.
Those Echo Point routes look good, but they aren't the best lines in the Blueys by a long shot. I'm probably in the same demographic as you, if they had a couple more bolts and were 'safe but exciting mixed routes', I'd go and do them. However, that would still exclude most people, so maybe a few more bolts? Or, if you wanted them to see lots of repeats, bang in 15 rings per route.........they'd be getting ascents every w/e. At some point, you have to say "ok, this doesn't suit me, but not everything has to"
>I could have easily put in half the number of bolts or less in the Totem
>Pole when we established it. I had my pitch totally sussed on abseil and
>climbing it was a mere formality at the time. But hijacking a route like
>that to bolster my own ego would have been a huge disservice. It really
>is just about using a bit of commonsense.
There's still a lot of people who are scared to go and try the Tote, because you can't pull on draws to avoid all the hard moves. If you had put in 15 bolts instead of 10, it would get more ascents.
You all forget that hand-drilling bolts back in the dark ages was hard work. Most of the old-school I know now use a power drill, and the distance between bolts is much less. Don't confuse boldness with laziness.
On 8/08/2012 kieranl wrote:
>You could take Jerry Moffatt's approach to repeating Footless Crow in the UK back in the early 80s. It needed cleaning so to preserve the onsight he got a friend to clean it. Granted that some people might have trouble finding a friend, let alone one willing to clean a route for them.
I think Malcolm mentioned that Ferret bolted Bodyheat for him so he could onsight the FA. I might be misremembering though.
On 8/08/2012 rodw wrote:
>Firstly grats ODH for a post that doesn't attack someone while your making
Thanks for noticing........do you realise how difficult that was once davidn joined in?
>In regards to chopping bolts on sport routes, can you give examples of
>what ya mean...most bolts put in tend to be there for a reason to help
>negate possible injury in a fall.
Well, that last bit is up for debate. Most Blueys sport routes would still be pretty bloody safe with some bolts removed. Huge numbers of bolts are there solely for convenience, safety has nothing to do with it.
>I take it we are talking pure sport routes here...not mixed routes?
Bit of both really. For starters, I'd like to revert all the (once) mixed routes at Shipley back to their former (superior) configurations. Flaming Flamingo would be my number one pick, it used to be hilarious pulling that weird little corner sequence, then having to stop in a stressful place to plug in the cam. It really was the most memorable bit of the route, so that's one I think most people will be happy with.
But I'm also thinking of taking popular climbs which have always been sport routes and turning them into either safe mixed routes, or necky bolt routes. I mean, the opposite happens all the time, right? So, if it's ok to turn some mixed or sketchy climbs into sport routes, it must also be ok to sometimes go the other way?
It sounds like you struck good balance on Tote given what's been said - but it is quite different to the crux discussion here of retro bolting old routes.
So perhaps the question for you is how would you feel if someone put extra in-between rings on the Tote - Most probably with out consultation.
Or Imagine that someone went and stuck 5 rings on Turinga or Common Knowledge in order to make it 'safe' and 'climbable', so people could finally climb it.
I try to go ground up as much as possible - sometimes it is bloody hard/terrifying, sometimes I don't know if it is even possible - sometimes I back-off.
Sometimes I decide to rap something to see if it might go on gear or if it needs bolts - sometimes i decide that it does not need bolts but might be a bit dangerous
Generally I try to put in as few bolts as I can whilst maintaining safety appropriate to the grade - 18 territory on a 22 does not necessarily need protection
The most important thing is that you are open, honest and able to account for yourself truthfully - don't rap inspect/pre-place and then say you went ground up.
Sometimes I might inspect/preplace because I don't want to die - I am not crazy. Sometimes it really piss's me off to find I should have just committed.
But there is a huge difference to climbing something for the first time and climbing something that is a known quantity and you know has been climbed.
Take Shai Hulud I knew I could climb it because it was within my onsight ability - to have a done it as a first ascent i would probably want to be climbing way harder
So with existing routes that may have been put up in 'less than ideal' circumstances for whatever reason can still be climbed in a better fashion, - ground up, onsight . .
And there are climbers who appreciate and pursue some of these rather limited types of climbs and seek to climb them in good style, in the knowledge that they can be successful
It would be absolutely amazing for some one to truly onsight Rage this Season or do Age of Reason in original WB style - don't destroy that possibility.
Bottom line is - the bolts on Risque(Risk-Gay) This Season ( the retro bolted pale imitation of Age of Reason) WILL be removed soon.
It would be really good if the person who put them there could own up and explain there actions and then do the removal work themselves.
Dangerous and runout climbs are a very limited resource for those who actually partake of them - we don't destroy safe routes, so leave ours alone.
PS Any one got a contact number on Weigand, would love to hear his take on it all - pretty much sure that WB thinks this retro bolting is all BS
On 8/08/2012 One Day Hero wrote:
>So, if it's ok
>to turn some mixed or sketchy climbs into sport routes, it must also be
>ok to sometimes go the other way?
So two wrongs make a right? your example In flaming Flamingo is also invalid as you are still advocating against retros.....name a sport route that has always been a sport route that you would take some bolts out of.