Sponsored By
ROCK
HARDWARE
Chockstone Photography
Australian Landscape Prints |
Chockstone Forum - General Discussion
General Climbing Discussion
| Author |
|
|||||
12:29:47 PM |
On 11/05/2016 The good Dr wrote: >On 10/05/2016 Macciza wrote: >>Yawn, more ascents doth butter no parsnips ... >>I'd rather it had less ascents, but by a better class of climber ... >>It's got some bolts that you don't need to clip, it certainly doesn't >>need any more... >> >>And if it's all so easy and 'sport climbing'ish then come on - step up >>or shut up - just don't clip up ... >> > >There is no class in spraying about a new dodgy headpoint. Describing >a climber as being of a better class just because they climb a sketchfest >is quite yawn inducing, particularly considering some of the folks who >could do it are regular a-holes in real life. > >I saw a climber with real class the other day. Still climbs very hard, >has put up some of the most sought after routes in the country over a long >time and is still having fun. Some climbers rapped off the Bluffs at Araps. >he asked them what they had just done. they sheepishly replied 'Blockbuster'. >He enthusiastically congratulated them and excitedly gave them his memories >of when he did the route the first time. That is a better class of climber. dr, it's neither dodgy nor a sketch fest .... The climb is a 2 star classic mixed route, bolts where they couldn't find gear, that is now a pure trad route climbable on modern gear. I think that is the natural progression for such routes, that the artificial aids for protection be eliminated. To go the other way and retro bolt it with dozen rings would truely be yawn-inducing! Perhaps 'grade' would have been a better word, to avoid your confusion. A climber who could climb this route on natural protection is more skilled and competent (a better grade/class) then those who would require that it first be retro bolted so they could fall up it easily. I reckon there's more a-holes in the latter group ... Nice anecdote, pity it really missed the point in question ... |
|||||
12:50:05 PM |
Simey, No worries mate. Basically the bolts that are in it are fine and will probably be left, but it is now a trad route so they should not be retro'ed ... It was once a bit of a mixed test piece on a wall with a number of other trad test pieces ... I'm simply trying to 'modernise' it to current 'traditional' climbing standards. I hope that others may be inspired to try in a similar style given that it has been done by an old man... Perhaps we need a more appropriate name for what can be done with modern gear in a traditional style?? Contemporary climbing? New-trad?? tRad??? |
|||||
5:34:30 PM |
On 11/05/2016 simey wrote: >I actually think that route by route "fixing" does work. If someone oversteps >the mark, then there is the chance to say so and remove the bolts. There are tons of modern retrobolts I would like to remove from Araps. The reasons I haven't done so are that a) I'm not a local here, and b) most of the bolts were installed by people I know and like, and they'd probably take it personally............and c) who has the time to chop at araps when there are so many good routes to climb? >Every >climb at Arapiles has a different set of considerations with regard what >is reasonable/unreasonable with potential bolting. A "whole cliff view" >doesn't allow for the myriad of climbs and climbing styles that take place >at Arapiles. I didn't mean a single ethic for the whole cliff. When looking at a single route with blinkers on, it might seem to be better with retrobolts. But step back and look at the whole wall, and perhaps the no-star route with ugly bolts on a wall full of classics is in fact not the best thing for the crag. >Not every piece >of rock needs to be climbed nor have a line of bolts up it. I like the idea of "red zones". If you've scoped out a section of cliff and feel that any new bolted route would be impinging upon the routes around it, designate a red zone on a photo topo. Any bolts which appear in the red zone are subject to immediate chopping, regardless of whether they are written up as retrobolts, new routes, or variants. |
|||||
8:34:16 PM |
On 11/05/2016 One Day Hero wrote: >I like the idea of "red zones". If you've scoped out a section of cliff and feel that any new bolted route would be impinging upon the routes around it, designate a red zone on a photo topo. Any bolts which appear in the red zone are subject to immediate chopping, regardless of whether they are written up as retrobolts, new routes, or variants. R U aware that the term redzone came from military parlance? It kinda means go-crazy zone in peep-speak, so Ur kinda advocating retroing 2 tha max? What makes U think that any retro's R more protected than others for chopping? What does tha wingy pommy think? Would eduardo condone it? |
|||||
9:36:01 PM |
On 10/05/2016 One Day Hero wrote: >What I would like to see is a discussion between all the ethical >factions in Nati with a view to establishing a long term "whole cliff view" >as to how the place is going to look in the future. nice. I can see how that would be desirable. My fantasy involves Stugang and gnagutS slamming into each other repeatedly at a speed approaching the speed of light inside a magnetic bottle creating a limitless source of energy (I know, Bendigo TAFE students have seen this already) |
|||||
11:06:52 AM |
This seems like a decent place to pose the following... In principle, should the first ascentionist retain the final say over whether a route can be retroed (or retro-chopped for that matter) or not in perpetuity? As people get old(er) they sometimes become more (or less) risk averse/conservative, or even just plain weird in some cases. For example, Dave Mustaine from Megadeth is now a full on, born again, fundamentalist, Republican christian. So maybe, once a route is out there in public for 10 or 20 or more years, falling back on "but the FA said I could" should not the a total get-out clause for retro bolting/chopping. I'm talking completely in the abstract here by the way. This isn't meant to attack any particular person as being old/conservative/weird. |
|||||
11:31:19 AM |
I think its just courtesy to ask but doesn't always come down to the FA's black and white yes/no. ..many factors come into play...areas ethics/style, change/advancement in gear etc...if you ask, get all the facts from everywhere you then just make your decision based on that...just don't expect everyone to agree with you , so if you doing something that you know will cause issues...you better have good pro reasons for doing it and a thick skin to cop any flack that is guaranteed to come your way. I really think in most cases most of the angst is driven by ego on both sides and both sides really just have to step back take a breath and really think is the angst needed or warranted. Sometime it is , sometimes it isn't...most time its just a first world problem bunch of BS |
|||||
11:59:09 AM |
On 12/05/2016 uwhp510 wrote: >This seems like a decent place to pose the following... > >In principle, should the first ascentionist retain the final say over >whether a route can be retroed (or retro-chopped for that matter) or not >in perpetuity? > >As people get old(er) they sometimes become more (or less) risk averse/conservative, >or even just plain weird in some cases. For example, Dave Mustaine from >Megadeth is now a full on, born again, fundamentalist, Republican christian. > So maybe, once a route is out there in public for 10 or 20 or more years, >falling back on "but the FA said I could" should not the a total get-out >clause for retro bolting/chopping. > >I'm talking completely in the abstract here by the way. This isn't meant >to attack any particular person as being old/conservative/weird. ... That's good as I was beginning to feel vulnerable, heh, heh, heh. Anyway my 5c ... damn inflation, it used to be 2, ... is this incremental creep or a retro? It depends as rodw says; >many factors come into play...areas ethics/style, change/advancement in gear etc ... but while still alive, I think the FA should be favoured, especially if they have an issue with their route (read creation) being changed. Our climbing history is worth preserving! You have obviously touched on a very grey area, but imo test-pieces should remain just that, no matter how inconvenient or dangerous they are, especially if they were put up as a test piece in the first place. If the FA later changes their mind, then it is up to them to canvass the contemporary climbing community to gauge prevailing sentiment about their creation and where it stands in the bigger picture of things, just like any would be retroer should. Such consultation should not overly favour other style (to the original ascent ethic) advocates. For example, I put up a bold protectionless M8* aid climb on a scrappy worthless bit of slab at Buffalo, and I wouldn't want to see it become just another 2m spaced spurt bolted route, as there are plenty of other worthless slabs that that genre of consultee can go and develop. I'd like the M8 to be there for those who aspire to such things, not out-voted by a plethora of non-bold advocates. Who knows, it might easily be freed sometime, but the boldness factor about it is what makes it the M8 that it is, and there is precious little out there to fill the niche it occupies. Similarly I'm aware of routes on the iconic Dog Face (and elsewhere) that fit in the same genre, and would reckon their First Ascentionists would feel the same about them. (M8*, beware! ... it might actually be an M9/10!!) ... Let the flaming begin! ;-) Post edit: Totally off topic. I heard on ABC radio recently that it supposedly costs 6 cents to make a 5 cent coin, ... Incremental creep indeed! |
|||||
12:41:22 PM |
Something I really really value about climbing is that for all the noise about FA ethics or consultation, or local ethics etc, ultimately there is no formal framework for decision making nor any powerful body to enforce those decisions. Shit gets done (bolted, chopped, cleaned, climbed, chipped, climbers slandered) by people who decide it's worth the effort to do shit, and they bring their values to the turds of their own making. I think society would be basically fuched if it operated this way, but I'm very glad climbing does. | |||||
6:41:38 PM |
For me one anti retro rule would be a no to anything that can easily and safely be top roped - especially at a crag like araps. If the route is good and in DANGER of being neglected why not promote the validity and fun of a good toprope ascent. If it's all about the moves then why care about whether you lead it. If you want the thrill (?) of clipping things as you climb - rap in and stick 3m draws on everything. If you want the thrill of a non preinspected onsight then get a mate to rap in and stick 3m draws on. If you want the thrill of an onsight where you are the master of your fate - go and lead it. If you want the thrill of certain death get your ex to rap in and place 3m draws on every piece. |
|||||
7:29:05 PM |
On 11/05/2016 Eduardo Slabofvic wrote: >On 10/05/2016 One Day Hero wrote: >>What I would like to see is a discussion between all the ethical >>factions in Nati with a view to establishing a long term "whole cliff >view" >>as to how the place is going to look in the future. > >nice. I can see how that would be desirable. > >My fantasy involves Stugang and gnagutS slamming into each other repeatedly >at a speed approaching the speed of light inside a magnetic bottle creating >a limitless source of energy Eduardo: the Committee has judged your post number 2988 above as an artful balance between high and low brow humour and for this you have been awarded the high honour of Human and your stipend will be increased accordingly. This award comes with a 3 month probation period during which you will receive the full stipend of other Humans but all privileges will be removed at any crass allusion to bums, bottoms, anus's or planets with a rhyming name, chocolate starfish bandits, etc. Congratulations on your promotion but your behaviour will be monitored. Regards Person 7 |
|||||
8:37:17 PM |
On 11/05/2016 Eduardo Slabofvic wrote: >On 10/05/2016 One Day Hero wrote: >>What I would like to see is a discussion between all the ethical >>factions in Nati with a view to establishing a long term "whole cliff >view" >>as to how the place is going to look in the future. > >nice. I can see how that would be desirable. > >My fantasy involves Stugang and gnagutS slamming into each other repeatedly >at a speed approaching the speed of light inside a magnetic bottle creating >a limitless source of energy > >(I know, Bendigo TAFE students have seen this already) Where upon they disappear up each others black hole again |
|||||
8:53:38 AM |
On 11/05/2016 One Day Hero wrote: >On 11/05/2016 simey wrote: >>I actually think that route by route "fixing" does work. If someone oversteps >>the mark, then there is the chance to say so and remove the bolts. > >There are tons of modern retrobolts I would like to remove from Araps. >The reasons I haven't done so are that a) I'm not a local here, and b) >most of the bolts were installed by people I know and like, and they'd >probably take it personally............ What an outrageously sensible consideration .... I know that vigilante chopping has a history in the clmibing world, but it is much better for relationships when you actually talk about stuff and chances are you'll reach a happy resolution. I don't know who replaced the old bolt in Trojan that you don't like but I have heard a few people complain about it and can't think of anyone who has objected to the idea of it not being there so you'd probably find talking about it even got you the result you want. >and c) who has the time to chop at araps when there are so many good routes to climb? > >>Every >>climb at Arapiles has a different set of considerations with regard what >>is reasonable/unreasonable with potential bolting. A "whole cliff view" >>doesn't allow for the myriad of climbs and climbing styles that take >place >>at Arapiles. > >I didn't mean a single ethic for the whole cliff. When looking at a single >route with blinkers on, it might seem to be better with retrobolts. But >step back and look at the whole wall, and perhaps the no-star route with >ugly bolts on a wall full of classics is in fact not the best thing for >the crag. > >>Not every piece >>of rock needs to be climbed nor have a line of bolts up it. > >I like the idea of "red zones". If you've scoped out a section of cliff >and feel that any new bolted route would be impinging upon the routes around >it, designate a red zone on a photo topo. Any bolts which appear in the >red zone are subject to immediate chopping, regardless of whether they >are written up as retrobolts, new routes, or variants. What an unworkable suggestion though! Who is going to designate the red zones? how messy would that make topos? when is any one going to go over every cliff at the mt like that anyway? The whole cliff would just be a red zone in some books. I agree that there are a few bolts and routes squished in recently that don't add to the mt around the place. But that's actually nothing new. Grab Lou's guide and look around a few spots and be amazed at what got squished in. On the other hand, there are expanses of rock that haven't any routes on them that clean up into quite nice routes, and I think there is a lot to be said in adding to the range of moderate routes at the mt, because how crowded does it get on the organ pipes, central gully left, preludes wall, mari buttress, Morhpydd area etc etc? I think that select guides have lead to people thinking that routes outside of it must not be worth climbing and the traffic on certain areas increases. Sure, that's great for me as no one is likely to climb anything I'm going to climb But spreading the load around is actually a good thing, be that cleaning up old routes or developing new ones. I wouldn't go out and retrobolt anything that was standardly done in its current state. Classic bold routes should also stay that way. Obscure routes that never get any attention that were originally done in 80s anything goes style that the FA is happy with changing and might become reasonable ground up ascents if they were cleaned and fixed up are a different story. These are the only things I've ever added bolts to and most of them replaced old fixed gear. Those that want to onsight bold routes can still run out and do Terminal Drive, Lois Lane, Ride Like the Wind, Take 5 and numerous others. Or head point them if you will. And yes, bolts can look rather stark, should be camoflaged and not everyone has been. I have been placing painted hangers, but as they have been getting scratched in the installation, I have taken to painting them afterwards. I didn't get a chance to paint the ones on MB before they were removed, but a little grey paint would make them much less noticeable. And it's not like the area doesn't already have any bolts. |
|||||
3:29:56 PM |
I don't know if I could be arsed refuting all the silly retrobolting-newb arguments you just threw out there. This one is a cracker though.... On 13/05/2016 Wendy wrote: >On the other hand, there are expanses of rock that haven't >any routes on them that clean up into quite nice routes, and I think there >is a lot to be said in adding to the range of moderate routes at the mt, >because how crowded does it get on the organ pipes, central gully left, >preludes wall, mari buttress, Morhpydd area etc etc? Did you just claim that Mt. Arapiles is lacking in well protected easy routes?!?! |
|||||
3:36:06 PM |
On 11/05/2016 gnaguts wrote: >R U aware that the term redzone came from military parlance? I had no idea, actually I picked up the phrase from your mum. Texted her to ask if it was a good night for a visit, the reply was "Nope, bit of a redzone over here. C U next Tuesday?" I didn't really understand what she was getting at, but the word is kinda catchy so I've started using it. |
|||||
4:35:20 PM |
On 13/05/2016 One Day Hero wrote: >On 11/05/2016 gnaguts wrote: >>R U aware that the term redzone came from military parlance? > >I had no idea, actually I picked up the phrase from your mum. Texted her >to ask if it was a good night for a visit, the reply was "Nope, bit of >a redzone over here. C U next Tuesday?" I didn't really understand what >she was getting at, but the word is kinda catchy so I've started using >it. Yep, that sounds like her, a real trooper, and obviously considerate of Ur sensitivities. Watch out or she might be recruiting U 4 some retrochopping. |
|||||
8:22:35 AM |
On 12/05/2016 rodw wrote: >I think its just courtesy to ask but doesn't always come down to the FA's >black and white yes/no. ..many factors come into play...areas ethics/style, >change/advancement in gear etc...if you ask, get all the facts from everywhere >you then just make your decision based on that...just don't expect everyone >to agree with you , so if you doing something that you know will cause >issues...you better have good pro reasons for doing it and a thick skin >to cop any flack that is guaranteed to come your way. > >I really think in most cases most of the angst is driven by ego on both >sides and both sides really just have to step back take a breath and really >think is the angst needed or warranted. Sometime it is , sometimes it isn't...most >time its just a first world problem bunch of BS Way too rational. |
|||||
11:13:08 AM |
Whilst I do support the idea of FA 'copyright' regarding a route perhaps it should not be in perpetuity. Most routes should probably just end up as public domain but many are important and should be viewed as heritage and kept in as much as original shape as possible regardless of FA. Replacing hanger less bolts with rings can really change a routes experience. But, one factor that also kind of overrides this is the concept of Progression in climbing, equipment and standards improve such that routes can be climbed in better style; Aids were eliminated where possible to create free climbs, and removal protection used in preference to fixed pro. Climbing standards and gear had evolved to make 'Clean climbing' possible back in the seventies, and have improved massively again since then. But the ethic seems to have been largely lost with the advent of Pleasure climbing, where 'number of ascents' seems to be more important then style of ascent; where fixed artificial protection is used regardless of the existence of available removable natural pro; where the climb is often brought down to a lowest common denominator of ability and objective safety; where the intrinsic experience of climbing the natural rock is reduced to an outdoor climb gym. Given that mixed routes were(are) really trad routes where the FA placed fixed pro where they couldn't find any; then it naturally follows that should removable gear become available it should supersede the need for the bolt. The bolts on such routes are essentially artificial aids to be eliminated, same as it always was. Particularly in areas generally regarded as bastions of trad-dom like Araps. Personally I think the concept should also extend to many new routes as well where if there is decent gear available near a new placed bolt, the bolt should be'freed' and hence removed ... Trad has really progressed far beyond what most gym-bred pleasure climbers think it to be and deserves a new name - Contemporary Climbing! Is really what it is , or just Clean Climbing, as they called it back in the day.... Though it seems we have not progressed much in almost 50 years .... |
|||||
4:02:05 PM |
On 15/05/2016 Macciza wrote: > The bolts on such routes are essentially artificial aids to be >eliminated, same as it always was. Particularly in areas generally regarded >as bastions of trad-dom like Araps. No disrespect intended here, but the one thing that should be abundantly clear from this tread discussion is that there will never be any form of consensus reached on bolting - particularly on this site. Parks Vic needs to step up to the plate and start dishing out the fines to all those using power drills on land they manage. Make the bolters use a tap and turn bit. This would have the duel effect of putting downward pressure on the number of bolts being placed, and also ensure that a goodly number of those bolts placed will be poorly installed (even more than they are now!), so injecting a bit of spice back into art of climbing. I recommend Parks Vic employ someone with a balanced view on all climbing related matters in the known universe to oversee the program. I vote Drain Drunk/gnagwepS for the position. |
|||||
11:15:38 PM |
On 15/05/2016 Eduardo Slabofvic wrote: >I recommend Parks Vic employ someone with a balanced view on all climbing >related matters in the known universe to oversee the program. I vote Drain >Drunk/gnagwepS for the position. On the contrary i think it should be a drunk with no standards and without the faintest knowledge of ethics but who works for a percentage of fines issued. I can probably propose a candidate if required. |
| There are 140 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