Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop
FREIGHT FREE
in Australia

Set of 11 "Wallnuts" (1 to 11) N/B NEW Anodized colours!!! New "lighter" version. Steve's favourite wired Nuts.  $169.00
15% Off

Chockstone Photography Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - Crag & Route Beta

Crag & Route Beta

 Page 3 of 5. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 85
Area Location Sub Location Crag Links
VIC Grampians Halls Gap The Watchtower (General) [ Watchtower Guide | Images ] 

Author
Watchtower new bolted line.
jrc
6/03/2014
11:29:39 PM
>What about cleaning? The majority of cracks in the blue mountains had to be cleaned before they were climbed. Hardly leave no trace vs a bolt on face rock



so you were there ...which ones were cleaned ? which ones didn't need digging out ?

The unclimbed cracks in the wolgan were and are still surprisingly dirt free. Im not sure why all but a few others on the main mtns ridge were that different.

A climb like Eternity P1 has suffered a lot more from erosion of lichenous outer rock than it might have done by being dug out (go look at it), if that actually happened.

Anyway this thread is not about myth from the past it is about so called sport techniques (another name for bolt only protected rockclimbing) taking precedence over rockclimbing (called by the sportsters trad or traditional climbing as if it were some other activity than rockclimbing, by which it has always been known).

By the way i'd suggest you dont try too hard dirt cleaning on Psycho or Carthagenian.
uwhp510
7/03/2014
1:44:29 AM
On 6/03/2014 Big G wrote:
>What about cleaning? The majority of cracks in the blue mountains had
>to be cleaned before they were climbed. Hardly leave no trace vs a bolt
>on face rock

Here here! I for one applaud the morally superior environmental credentials of those white knights of ethical purity (ie the ring bolters) who DO NOT clean their routes prior to climbing, thus confining their lichen murder to the small bit under each bolt (ie ~7mm^2 per hole, assuming they are using the accepted enviro-bolting method of 3mm hole diameter). Luckily for the lichens of this world, ring bolts on a route also ensure that it will receive little if any traffic and will soon fade into obscurity, thus further enhancing the enviro-credentials of ring-bolted routes as compared to the filthy, dirty, evil trad routes put up by those from a less enlightened age.

Big G
7/03/2014
6:25:41 AM
On 7/03/2014 uwhp510 wrote:

>
>Here here! I for one applaud the morally superior environmental credentials
>of those white knights of ethical purity (ie the ring bolters)

Not trying to claim any moral superiority but every time I hear the that trad is more environmentally friendly than sport I get a bit of annoyed. It's a ridiculous argument. In most climbing areas the biggest impact on the environment is from access to the climbing.

If people don't like bolting, fair enough. If people like trad climbing that's awesome for them. Just don't try and tell me one is better than the other, or one is purer or more environmentally sound.

Snacks
7/03/2014
9:10:29 AM
Big G laying the smackdown on chockstone... before breakfast!

Totally agree though...

Environmentally sound climbing starts with an approach of tip toeing (gently) to the top of the cliff then a butt naked chalkless soloing downclimb followed by the ascent...

With the proviso that if you plan on falling that your body serves as food not to cause significant disturbance to the ecological balance of the area. Of course, you'd research this by only using books made from biodegradable paper...

macciza
7/03/2014
10:29:44 AM
On 7/03/2014 Big G wrote:
>Not trying to claim any moral superiority but every time I hear the that
>trad is more environmentally friendly than sport I get a bit of annoyed.
>It's a ridiculous argument. In most climbing areas the biggest impact on
>the environment is from access to the climbing.

Trad is more environmentally friendly - it makes use of existing protection possibilities rather than inserting artificial fixed points, it like comparing placing your own tent pegs or having someone else glue in permanent pegs.
Trad recognises that some things aren't climbable as opposed to sport that simply bolts over anything that doesn't allow pro . ..
And if people simply stopped going to these places the environment would simply regrow, back to a 'natural' state, except for the stainless rings which will be around for probably 1000 years at least . ..

>If people don't like bolting, fair enough. If people like trad climbing
>that's awesome for them. Just don't try and tell me one is better than
>the other, or one is purer or more environmentally sound.

Trad is better then sport ! It is purer because it does not use pre-placed artificial aids in order to climb a particular route . .
Sport climbing is really just the ultimate extension of Aid climbing - The pre-placed rings are both psychological and physical aids to ones climbing, whereas trad climbing you rely on your own judgement and personally placed protection. And I would also add that it is probably more environmentally sound when all things are considered, trad climbers generally have a greater respect for the environment then sport climbers ...
maxdacat
7/03/2014
11:11:07 AM
Of course the best solution is the "bolt within a bolt". Take one average garden variety ring and clamp a short bolt through the eye and seal each end. Repeat for the length of the route. This achieves the twin aims of increasing visual pollution AND making the route unclimbable.

:p
Damo666
7/03/2014
11:16:25 AM
On 7/03/2014 Big G wrote:
>On 7/03/2014 uwhp510 wrote:
>
>
>Not trying to claim any moral superiority but every time I hear the that
>trad is more environmentally friendly than sport I get a bit of annoyed.
>It's a ridiculous argument. In most climbing areas the biggest impact on
>the environment is from access to the climbing.
>

If you honestly think your crack v. bolt comparison is a valid one, I can't think of much more to add. See my comments further above about people not wanting to get involved in pointless online argy-bargy. Cracks are original natural features that are part of the rock, and almost always will grow/fill back anything that might have been cleaned from them. Bolts are unnatural, added, visible and permanent blots on the rock.

If you're more worried about impact from access, then again, highly bolted areas are encouraging relatively larger numbers in smaller areas, e.g.. Shipley whereas nowadays many 'trad' areas are empty on weekends and routes and tracks are getting overgrown. Trad spreads the access-impact, bolts worsen it.


Big G
7/03/2014
12:04:38 PM
On 7/03/2014 Damo666 wrote:

>If you're more worried about impact from access, then again, highly bolted
>areas are encouraging relatively larger numbers in smaller areas, e.g..
>Shipley whereas nowadays many 'trad' areas are empty on weekends and routes
>and tracks are getting overgrown. Trad spreads the access-impact, bolts
>worsen it.
>
Its amazing, nobody goes to Piddington anymore. I would climb Eternity but I can't do the bush bash to get there...

Macciza
7/03/2014
12:45:55 PM
On 7/03/2014 maxdacat wrote:
>Of course the best solution is the "bolt within a bolt". Take one average
>garden variety ring and clamp a short bolt through the eye and seal each
>end. Repeat for the length of the route. This achieves the twin aims of
>increasing visual pollution AND making the route unclimbable.
>
>:p

Of course that is a possibility . . .
Perhaps its best done only to retro-rings added to a known trad-route project that is perfectly climbable with out the rings .... but thats another story altogether . . .

And no-one seems interested in the 'best solution' anyway, other wise we would not have all these f'n rings everywhere . . .
One Day Hero
7/03/2014
2:33:34 PM
On 7/03/2014 Big G wrote:
>If people don't like bolting, fair enough. If people like trad climbing
>that's awesome for them. Just don't try and tell me one is better than
>the other

You can make a pretty good argument as to why trad and mixed routes should be (and are, in practice) better than sport routes at the long established crags. And then, at a larger scale, why the trad and mixed crags (or what used to be trad and mixed before the retrobolting) are better than sport crags.

Duang Daunk
7/03/2014
5:51:29 PM
On 7/03/2014 Big G wrote:
>On 7/03/2014 uwhp510 wrote:
>
>>
>>Here here! I for one applaud the morally superior environmental credentials
>>of those white knights of ethical purity (ie the ring bolters)
>
>Not trying to claim any moral superiority but every time I hear the that
>trad is more environmentally friendly than sport I get a bit of annoyed.
>It's a ridiculous argument. In most climbing areas the biggest impact on
>the environment is from access to the climbing.
>
Ok, access issues are significant.
Why, in your opinion, is this different for sport vs trad?
It seems to me that your post contains a ridiculous premise, but I am open to being convinced otherwise.


>If people don't like bolting, fair enough. If people like trad climbing
>that's awesome for them. Just don't try and tell me one is better than
>the other, or one is purer or more environmentally sound.
>
Who has rammed whatever argument for/against down your throat that makes you so touchy?
You are not a boulderer are you?
Myaybe take a chill pill and lighten up, or are you simply shit stirring the chocky congregation again?

Big G
7/03/2014
6:06:05 PM
On 7/03/2014 Duang Daunk wrote:

> Ok, access issues are significant.
>Why, in your opinion, is this different for sport vs trad?
>It seems to me that your post contains a ridiculous premise, but I am
>open to being convinced otherwise.
>
>
Again, I'm not claiming any method of climbing to be better than another or more environmentally friendly. I would decry the same argument of it was used to defend sport climbing, mixed climbing or trad. My point is the argument doesn't stack up with reality.

>Who has rammed whatever argument for/against down your throat that makes
>you so touchy?
>You are not a boulderer are you?
>Myaybe take a chill pill and lighten up, or are you simply shit stirring
>the chocky congregation again?

Again you are calling me a shit stirrer yet the number of remotely inflammatory posts I have made over the years would be insignificant at best. Are you as sure about your posts?

I Like climbing; sport, trad, bouldering I would probably even like aid climbing (despite what macciza says about sport climbing I haven't counted it as aid) if I had ever tried it.

Duang Daunk
7/03/2014
6:17:28 PM
On 7/03/2014 Big G wrote:
>On 7/03/2014 Duang Daunk wrote:
>
>> Ok, access issues are significant.
>>Why, in your opinion, is this different for sport vs trad?
>>It seems to me that your post contains a ridiculous premise, but I am
>>open to being convinced otherwise.
>>
>>
>Again, I'm not claiming any method of climbing to be better than another
>or more environmentally friendly. I would decry the same argument of it
>was used to defend sport climbing, mixed climbing or trad. My point is
>the argument doesn't stack up with reality.

Shit, you are confusing me at least, if not other readers of your posts.
You made out that trad is environmentally worse and now you are defending it?

I agree that the access issue to base of climbs, no matter the genre, is a major issue.
I disagree that any genre is worse in that respect on a genre basis.
I do think that the numbers involved with any given genre have an imprtant bearing/impact, and can lead to worse environmental outcomes.

>
>>Who has rammed whatever argument for/against down your throat that makes
>>you so touchy?
>>You are not a boulderer are you?
>>Myaybe take a chill pill and lighten up, or are you simply shit stirring
>>the chocky congregation again?
>
>Again you are calling me a shit stirrer yet the number of remotely inflammatory
>posts I have made over the years would be insignificant at best. Are you
>as sure about your posts?

The number of posts has nothing to do with the basis of the post/s.
Inflammatory has little to do with any shit premise that a post is based on.
Do you not see that I am not calling you a troll, ie an inflammatory poster?
I am mearly questioning your (questionable) logic.
>
>I Like climbing; sport, trad, bouldering I would probably even like aid
>climbing (despite what macciza says about sport climbing I haven't counted
>it as aid)of I had ever tried it.
>
Whatever. At least we have the one thing in common being that we like climbing.

Big G
7/03/2014
7:04:14 PM
On 7/03/2014 Duang Daunk wrote
>Shit mate, you are confusing me at least, if not other readers of your
>posts.
>You made out that trad is environmentally worse and now you are defending
>it?
>
No, I never made out it was worse. It WAS suggested that it is definitely better and I just called BS on that argument.

>I agree that the access issue to base of climbs, no matter the genre,
>is a major issue.
>I disagree that any genre is worse in that respect on a genre basis.
>I do think that the numbers involved with any given genre have an imprtant
>bearing/impact, and can lead to worse environmental outcomes.
>
>>
>>>Who has rammed whatever argument for/against down your throat that makes
>>>you so touchy?
>>>You are not a boulderer are you?
>>>Myaybe take a chill pill and lighten up, or are you simply shit stirring
>>>the chocky congregation again?
>>
>>Again you are calling me a shit stirrer yet the number of remotely inflammatory
>>posts I have made over the years would be insignificant at best. Are
>you
>>as sure about your posts?
>
>The number of posts has nothing to do with the basis of the post/s.
>Inflammatory has little to do with any shit premise that a post is based
>on.
>Do you not see that I am not calling you a troll, ie an inflammatoryposter I am mearly questioning your (questionable) logic.

(In an inflammatory manner....)

Interesting take on things, given that your logic is clearly flawed in assuming that I was defending any type of climbing or attacking any type of climbing in particular.

Duang Daunk
7/03/2014
7:43:26 PM
On 7/03/2014 Big G wrote:
>Interesting take on things, given that your logic is clearly flawed in
>assuming that I was defending any type of climbing or attacking any type
>of climbing in particular.
>
I give up.
You are not some kind of reincarnation of davidn's spurious logic posts are you?
Say what you mean, instead of infering some kind of airy fairyness regarding any type of climbing in particular.

>No, I never made out it was worse. It WAS suggested that it is definitely better and I just called BS on that argument.

Ok. I now understand that you must be a bouderer, even if you are not davidn.
All is forgiven. Sorry I creased your mat by infering something other than your simple beliefs.

Big G
7/03/2014
8:05:48 PM
Selective post amnesia. Classic case, incurable unfortunately...

Duang Daunk
7/03/2014
8:09:02 PM
On 7/03/2014 Big G wrote:
>Selective post amnesia. Classic case, incurable unfortunately...

Is good. It will help me forget your posts and get back my climbing life.
Good luck with yours, you will need it.

Duang Daunk
7/03/2014
8:12:34 PM
On 6/03/2014 jrc wrote:
>Anyway this thread is not about myth from the past it is about so called
>sport techniques (another name for bolt only protected rockclimbing) taking
>precedence over rockclimbing (called by the sportsters trad or traditional
>climbing as if it were some other activity than rockclimbing, by which
>it has always been known).
>
Now this is a post I can relate to, one of the few on this thread that tells it like it is, rather than having illogical internet arguments based on rubbish logic of others.
Well said jrc.

Macciza
7/03/2014
8:23:56 PM
On 7/03/2014 Big G wrote:
>Interesting take on things, given that your logic is clearly flawed in
>assuming that I was defending any type of climbing or attacking any type
>of climbing in particular.
>

So it seems that you must rate all the different climbing disciplines equally then?

If so then I would really have to question not only your logic but whether you have even given the topic any critical thought at all . . . It sounds like you actually have no real opinion on this matter whatsoever apart from not agreeing with any side of the argument . . .

Throughout the history of climbing it has generally been recognised by most people that there are substantive differences between the various disciplines, and ethics of them . . . What have we been doing inventing free climbing and then freeing aid from climbs, and bothering with the whole 'gotta climb it without falling' thing . . .? Does climbing a bolted route on trad gear fit in somewhere there?? Or is it really just all the same?

So I gotta wonder what you would think about a rehearsed ascent of a chipped 6m grade 4 sport route with pre-clipped rings every 600 mm compared to say an onsight gear-only ascent of say Serpentine ?? Am I correct in assuming you think they are equal?? Or am I wrong in thinking that one or the other is a 'better' style/ethic/?? of ascent?

Big G
7/03/2014
8:51:09 PM
On 7/03/2014 Macciza wrote
>
>So it seems that you must rate all the different climbing disciplines
>equally then?
>
>If so then I would really have to question not only your logic but whether
>you have even given the topic any critical thought at all . . . It sounds
>like you actually have no real opinion on this matter whatsoever apart
>from not agreeing with any side of the argument . . .
>
>Throughout the history of climbing it has generally been recognised by
>most people that there are substantive differences between the various
>disciplines, and ethics of them . . . What have we been doing inventing
>free climbing and then freeing aid from climbs, and bothering with the
>whole 'gotta climb it without falling' thing . . .? Does climbing a bolted
>route on trad gear fit in somewhere there?? Or is it really just all the
>same?
>
>So I gotta wonder what you would think about a rehearsed ascent of a chipped
>6m grade 4 sport route with pre-clipped rings every 600 mm compared to
>say an onsight gear-only ascent of say Serpentine ?? Am I correct in assuming
>you think they are equal?? Or am I wrong in thinking that one or the other
>is a 'better' style/ethic/?? of ascent?

You see macciza you are falling in to the same trap
as DD; letting yourself extrapolate a statement out into a whole philosophy. Although at least you are doing it with a civilised response.

No I don't think all accents are equal but neither do I think sport climbing is inherently bad. Neil was chastised for bolting choss in the Grampians and I felt compelled to point out a few (possibly perceived) flaws in the argument as to why he shouldn't do it. That's all.

 Page 3 of 5. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 85
There are 85 messages in this topic.

 

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

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 | 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