|
|
|
|
jonf
Jan 15, 2003, 4:55 AM
Post #1 of 67
(5772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2002
Posts: 123
|
After reading various posts in this forum it is clear that chipping, glueing, and manufacturing are highly debated topics.
I happen to be opposed to chipping. Natural lines should be left the way they are. Unfortunately it is obvious that chipping is a reality in modern climbing. Americans and many Europeans have been hacking up routes to suit them to their desires. The fight to stop these actions entirely will just NOT be won. Instead of fighting a battle and getting nowhere I suggest we look for some sort of alternative.
I think the idea of using old quarries as a place for chippers to go and manufacture whatever they want to be a good solution ( i know that the Kingston quarries in NY are like this). Any natural line that was once present in the quarries has been blown to bits, so no natural lines will be damaged by chipping or drilling at these places. It will give some people a place to fulfill their chipping desires, and keep their chisels away from the natural lines of the other frequented crags.
I would love to see a permanent end to chipping, but because it does not look like this will happen the use of quarries could preserve the integrity of our beloved classics and futur projects. I'd love to hear others opinions on this possible solution, and any other solutions you guys might have.
[ This Message was edited by: jonf on 2003-01-15 16:19 ]
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 15, 2003, 5:26 AM
Post #2 of 67
(5772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Tuolume Meadows and Jailhouse Rock peacefully coexist within 50 crow miles of one another. One is a classic high Sierra granite area with a residual set of the most stern ethics this side of Dresden. The other was created using crow bars in a choss pile. The climbers who ply each area, and many who ply both areas, get along and mostly respect the ethics and mores of each. It a model of how things can be.
Respect the local ethic. What is so hard to understand about that? The locals at Jailhouse would react with self righteous anger if you suggested they limit their activity to a quarry. And the Meadows activists would chop the hell out of any clearly indentified chiseled route.
But the Meadows ethics should not be imposed at Jailhouse either. For the same reason: respect. By suggesting the quarry you are demonstrating the same disrespect that you seem to believe the chislers are expressing toward you. Disrespect leads to conflict and conflict leads to regulation.
Preach respect, not segregation. If someone is tempted to chisel in an unwarranted area... if they've had respect drummed into their heads and seen it demonstrated toward them, they are so much more likely to return the favor.
Call a man evil enough times and he will begin to act that way.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
socalbolter
Jan 15, 2003, 5:53 AM
Post #3 of 67
(5772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 27, 2002
Posts: 796
|
BRAVO DINGUS!
without choosing sides personally, you have made a very clear statement of mutual respect.
in any controversy, this is by far the most important and effective approach to communication.
i'm not sure how your post could have been better stated.
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Jan 15, 2003, 2:24 PM
Post #4 of 67
(5772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
not to mention the chippers can cut stone blocks and make statues of themselves. and nobody (at least no climber) will threat to harm them
CLIMB ON
|
|
|
|
|
w6jxm
Jan 15, 2003, 2:43 PM
Post #5 of 67
(5772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 14, 2002
Posts: 792
|
I don't know what you are talking about by saying that this is a highly debated topic. as far as I know there is no one on this site taht thinks chipping is ok. the only discussions come from people who are being stupid and are trying to get a flame sessin going.
Sure in certain areas ethics may have somethng to do with it, but rock climbing is all about pitting yourself against the rock in its natual state, not changing it to suit your level of clmbing. If you don't do it in its natural state its called aid climbing. But don't mutilate the rock just so you can climb it.
|
|
|
|
|
jjg757
Jan 15, 2003, 2:51 PM
Post #6 of 67
(5772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 3, 2002
Posts: 19
|
Chipping is completely wrong. It defies almost every point of leave no trace, and the hold could become even worse than before. And if you suck enough to have to alter a hold to be able to grasp it, Then you don't need to be climbing. Nature was put here by God. Don't alter it. Cause God wouldn't make it if it wasn't perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
bandycoot
Jan 15, 2003, 5:11 PM
Post #7 of 67
(5772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
|
Excellent thread!!!
[ This Message was edited by: bandycoot on 2003-01-15 18:46 ]
|
|
|
|
|
antimatter
Jan 15, 2003, 5:17 PM
Post #8 of 67
(5772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 18, 2002
Posts: 140
|
Quote:
Sure in certain areas ethics may have somethng to do with it, but rock climbing is all about pitting yourself against the rock in its natual state, not changing it to suit your level of clmbing. If you don't do it in its natural state its called aid climbing. But don't mutilate the rock just so you can climb it.
I think I will mutilate the rock just so I can climb it. Absolutely. Have you been to some of our fine 'Chosspiles turned Crags?' There's so much loose, heavy stuff initially that it has to be chipped, crowbarred or whatever to avoid many belayer deaths.
These places are not classic Tuolomne Meadows domes, they are choss piles with hardly a natural line to be found. Once the loose stuff has been knocked off and a sweet (albeit somewhat contrived) line spotted, the result is serious sport climbing FUN!
Anti-modification purists may turn their noses up at these choss piles turned crags but I love 'em. However, I also love places like Tuolomne and would never think of touching a thing there.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 15, 2003, 5:18 PM
Post #9 of 67
(5772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
"I'm curious as to what type of chipping is being discussed. "
Chipping could be (and is) any of the following:
Cold chiseling a hold out of blank stone, as Ray Jardine did on the Nose.
Prying off pieces of rock thereby creating holds beneath them.
Removing "loose" rock with construction tools.
Purposely pin-aiding in such a way as to ultimately create free climbing holds.
Swiping your hand back and forth on a loose sandstone edge about 100 times until the hold is improved.
ALL of these are chipping, by degrees if you will. I guarentee the ethics aren't nearly so cut and dried as some of the more rigid conservative thinkers out there suggest.
Most of the Yosemite Valley 5.10 and under cracks are chipped... the vast majority of the popular ones are.
Monkeyfinger Wall in Zion is a manufactured route, as are many sandstone aid routes subsequently freed. A fine tradition, encouraged by the likes of Ron Olevesky, is to remove pins in such a way as to create finger locks. THAT is purposeful chipping.
It is rather routine in many areas, especially in sport climbing venues, for FA parties to aggressively clean new routes. If that cleaning involves construction tools like crow bars, chipping is being performed.
I don't even want to talk about aid climbers purposely creating aid placements out of blank stone.
I believe that many climbers are, and I don't mean to be antagonistic or provocative in saying this, rather ignorant of what goes on the sharp end of FA's when no one is looking, what has gone on in the past both near and distant and what will continue to go on in the future.
One of the boldest climbers in the history of Yosemite, a man whose ethics have often been praised and even fought over... glued holds to a boulder just outside the park. That example serves very nicely to illustrate the problem...
Chipping HAS always gone on. Many popular "clean and free" climbs are chipped. That is the reality of the situation.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
w6jxm
Jan 15, 2003, 5:22 PM
Post #10 of 67
(5772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 14, 2002
Posts: 792
|
Dude, there is a big difference between chipping and cleaning.clearning is simply removing the loose slag that will pull off as soon as you pull on it. chipping is making new holds were there were none naturally. And NO, making holds so a route can be climbed is not climbing in its true esense. Think of Dreamtime or Realization. What is some joker came along five years ago and thought "hm look to hard, lets put a couple new hold right before the crux". What would we have then? Instead of a problem or route that has been worked on for the last few years and finally sent, we would have just another 5.14a (not that 5.14 is "just another" but you get my point). Like I said in my last post, if you can't climb it clean, then aid it.
Besides that, how many "crowds" do you find at crags that are not climbable because they are too hard and need to be "chipped" so they well be "spaced out". And if the route is partially climbed, then how do you know that it will not be climbed in the next few years, and be a much better climb because nobody came in an jacked it up.
Leave nature the way you found it and nature will leave you the way it found you.
Climb On
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
Jan 15, 2003, 5:28 PM
Post #11 of 67
(5772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
Mhr, with all due respect to your status as a "newby", as self-described in your profile, your "ethic" about chipping what would otherwise seem inaccessible is ill-advised, to put it mildly.
An indoor gym is the place for manufactured routes. There are a number of manufactured routes and areas that have gotten mention in the major climbing mags, but over the past few years it seems that the trend is away from respecting them and, to a large extent, even acknowledging them. Does it still go on? Yeah, but the larger climbing community is trending strongly against them.
Your logic sounds good, but the problems with such behavior, even apparently well-motivated, can lead to serious problems for all climbers. Unless the property you would chipping is privately owned, and the owner has given permission, chipping will ultimately lead to access problems on public land. I'll assume that you and everyone else knows that chipping should never be done on someone else's private property. Personally, I'd say chipping should never be done, PERIOD. But, I'm not going to demand that a private land owner not be allowed to do that to his/her own private property.
As climbers, though, I would encourage that an anti-chipping ethical stance be taken, no matter where the crag is located. "What's the difference between cleaning a route and chipping?" That's a classic example of a philosophical or ethical "slippery slope". If chipping is okay, then so is drilling pockets; so is "comfortizing" holds; so is putting bolts next to trad gear placements.
And, by whose standards of difficulty are asserting that part of a given wall is "unclimbable"? If you're capable of 5.10, but the next guy is capable of .13, are you going to take it upon yourself to bring down the difficulty of the wall so that you (and, presumably, more climbers) can climb on it? How about glueing artificial holds to the wall? Is that okay, too, to provide more routes to climb on an otherwise "unclimbable" wall?
If climbers alter the rock they find on public lands, then other user groups are going to claim the right to modify the lands to make them more ammenable to their "enjoyment". And, don't start talking about bolts as altering the rock; for the most part, I consider a well and reasonably bolted route no more offensive to the land than a path throught the woods. The question is whether or not we want to see a propagation of concrete and asphalt paths through the forests, meadows and talus fields, or will we agree to minimize our impact, and accept what nature gives us as a resource?
As climbers, I hope (and encourage locally) that we accept a role of stewardship over our resources, and learn to walk away when the routes aren't available to us. We either get stronger and better, or accept the particular piece of rock as unclimbable. The rocks weren't "put here" for us to climb. We don't have to change something just because we can.
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
Jan 15, 2003, 5:46 PM
Post #12 of 67
(5772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
Dingus, thanks for the history. I accept your knowledge of these facts, and I agree that it is a part of our distant and recent history, and, in fact, that the things you described go on presently. But, I do think there is a difference between blatant manufacturing, as considered by MHR2000, and much of what you described.
I would hope that the "gray area" manufacturing, with pins and agressive cleaning, etc. would be practices that are slipping into the past. I don't have the breadth of experience that you have, but the impression I've gotten from publications and internet forums is that these things seem less acceptable. Do you have a sense of this as true, or am I seeing things through my own bias? Do you have a sense that more climbers are seeing the examples you mentioned as opportunities to progress beyond them? Yeah, it's always gone on, but I hope it's a practice that dwindles away.
And, I agree with the edict that we respect the local ethical standards for whatever different areas we visit. I think most climbers are smart enough to know the difference between a "choss pile ethic", so to speak, and a more standard ethic for most established and new natural areas. I guess if someone is so desperate for climbing on real rock, chipping up a quarry might be okay if they have permission from the owners. To me, it seems kinda like patronizing a prostitute. But, chipping and manufacturing on public and private land, in general, should be strongly rejected.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 15, 2003, 6:13 PM
Post #13 of 67
(5772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
"But, I do think there is a difference between blatant manufacturing, as considered by MHR2000, and much of what you described."
A difference by degrees, sure. Most U.S. climbers would side with you on that is my guess.
"I would hope that the "gray area" manufacturing, with pins and agressive cleaning, etc. would be practices that are slipping into the past."
While hope springs eternal we have to depart company on this point. Those techniques are alive and well and practiced extensively.
" but the impression I've gotten from publications and internet forums is that these things seem less acceptable."
Seem less acceptable to whom? The people doing it or the people who subsequently climb those routes unawares of what went on, only to go off preaching about the evils of chipping?
"Do you have a sense that more climbers are seeing the examples you mentioned as opportunities to progress beyond them?"
Beyond the labratory of debate such as this, it is my firm conviction that the average Joe Blow and Jane Doe climber doesn't really care about these issues all too much, especially when they are climbing. And keep in mind most of these climbers aren't first ascensionists nor are they likely ever to be one.
"To me, it seems kinda like patronizing a prostitute."
Hehe. Have you ever patronized a prostitute? Ever sport climbed at one of these choss piles?
"But, chipping and manufacturing on public and private land, in general, should be strongly rejected."
Cool. May I also encourage you to strongly advocate the respect for local ethics while you're at it? The two hand in hand offer you the opportunity to encourage what you sincerely believe to be better behavior while simultaneously fostering a climate that will discourage other climbers from perpetrating these sorts of modifications at the areas where they are inappropriate. But it also recognizes that at these so-called "choss pile" areas, you have no right nor should you have the expectation that the anti-chipping ethic holds sway.
What's wrong with that? That is the intent behind my original response in this thread.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
Jan 15, 2003, 6:31 PM
Post #14 of 67
(5772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
Yeah, as I said, I do "respect" the local ethics of wherever I may be climbing, to the extent that I don't impose my own if it's different than what I find there. What I mean, is that I may not always agree with the ethics as practiced in a particular area, but I would not, for example, chop bolts that I thought shouldn't be there, nor would step up on my soapbox to chastise the locals if I disagreed with 'em. I might not stay and climb there, but that would be my choice, and perhaps my loss. The most I would do, if it mattered enough to me, would be to seek out any local climber group or individual to get a sense of why their ethic is what it is, and talk about it. I hate preaching of any kind (hard to believe?), so I'd try to have a real conversation. If I could contribute my viewpoint, I would, if not, so be it. How much I would get worked up and involved would be subjective to a lot of factors; this too is by matters of degree.
You may be right about the concerns (or lack of same) on the part of the average climber; you're in a position to know much better than I. I hope climbers can at least get a sense of the risk to access that some behaviors can pose, when done on publicly managed land. I'd hope that not damaging private property would be obvious enough, but... I would also hope that the discussion and debate would help to avoid falling down the ethical "slippery slope".
Quote:May I also encourage you to strongly advocate the respect for local ethics while you're at it? The two hand in hand offer you the opportunity to encourage what you sincerely believe to be better behavior while simultaneously fostering a climate that will discourage other climbers from perpetrating these sorts of modifications at the areas where they are inappropriate. But it also recognizes that at these so-called "choss pile" areas, you have no right nor should you have the expectation that the anti-chipping ethic holds sway.
I completely agree.
|
|
|
|
|
mreardon
Jan 15, 2003, 6:41 PM
Post #15 of 67
(5772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 1337
|
Chipping has always existed, and will continue unfortunately because even if you don't agree with chipping verbally, every time you chalk up and do a route with chipped holds, you justify what was done.
If you truly do not agree with it, then ignore those routes. Of course this would mean ignoring most of the newly free routes in Yosemite that were aid prior (as well as many routes in Zion, Fisher, Gunks, Rumney and a few others), a ton of stuff in Vegas, most of the southern cal. sport areas (Williamson, Echo, NJC, etc.), plenty of Colorado's lines, and even many classic bouldering areas from Hueco to Bishop where most of the lines are indeed natural, but a couple of them sure have convenient edges where there was a "loose" piece before.
Now I'm assuming for the moment that everyone commenting has climbed at least one route that was chipped on a regular basis. If you truly object, then don't do the route. Otherwise admit that you approve, and re-define what type of chipping that you do not agree with.
Personally I do not approve of using any tools on a route where a line can exist. But I have made the mistake of climbing chipped routes and thereby justifying that it was okay by me. Frustrating but true which is why I personally limit myself in going to those areas and climbing those routes. If you can't pull it off by hand or foot, then you don't need a crowbar. If you can't do the move because it's "blank" then save it for future generations (Charleston followed the "we couldn't do the bottom 30 feet to the great pockets so we chipped" and now it's worthless in terms of allowing future generations to free some truly great natural lines on limestone).
On a more poersonal note, someone started chipping like crazy last year at the local area (Stoney Point) on problems that had always gone in the past, but holds broke. Most of these routes have since gone without the chipped holds, and just the other day I managed to free a couple boulder lines that had never gone before, and 11 years ago I thought would never go. They're not the hardest by any stretch, but the skill set has improved enough that I found a way after all these years.
Anytime you tool the rock, or climb on a route that has been tooled, you approve of the damage done and set a precedent for future generations to not achieve beyond the past, but to limit themselves that nothing harder can be done. And that is garbage.
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 16, 2003, 1:42 AM
Post #16 of 67
(5772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
here we go again...hehehe..
mhr2000---"I'm all for chipping as long as the route has been proven unclimbable and would be wasted otherwise."
15 years ago, john bachar and ron kauk were walking through buttermilk country and came across an exquisite piece of rock. it was unclimbable, by even the best climbers of the day. today, that "unclimbable" project is known as the mandala and is one of the most beautiful; boulder problems in the world to look at...and its still au natural...
5 years ago, v14 hadnt even been completed yet. a small, severely overhanging piece of rock in cresciano, switzerland was looked at repeatedly and deemed "unclimbable" by the strongest in the world. 2 years later, fred nicole sent what is now known as dreamtime.
40 years ago, it was believed impossible by the strongest hardmen in the world to climb anything harder than 5.9. it was firmly believed that freeclimbing beyond this grade was mythical. today, id bet that 50% of the climbing community can climb hard 5.9, with at least 25-30% regularly climbing 5.10+.
herein lies the [problem. something that is "definately unclimbable" today can and will be climbed by future generations. i ask you this "who the %@#$ are you to rob them of that right???" it is neither our right nor our job to make all faces of rock climbable by todays standards. doing so only prevents upward progression in the sport of climbing.
if tori allen is climbing .14a at the ripe old age of 14, what will she be capable of when she 25? i dont know...but we never will unless we preserve the rock in its natural state for the future generation of climbers.
my g/f and i have a 4 year old. i climb around v6/v7 regularly. she doesnt. but she climbs now...what will SHE be capable of climbing when shes 25?? according to you, only .14d...because everything else is unclimbable...
|
|
|
|
|
jonf
Jan 16, 2003, 2:15 AM
Post #17 of 67
(5772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2002
Posts: 123
|
Well put madman.
Just as another example a little while ago on newenglandbouldering.com somebody posted that chipping should be done on the blank unclimbable piece of rock next to The Fly 14d so that there can be even more routes for people to do at Rumney. Little did he know that "unclimbable" piece of rock was Dave Graham's project Superfly which he had been working, and had already done a number of the moves.
|
|
|
|
|
beyond_gravity
Jan 16, 2003, 2:45 AM
Post #18 of 67
(5772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2002
Posts: 5078
|
I think every area should have one section of rock that is totally chipped out so the guides would take all there newbie classes there, as long as it didn't create any acess issues. Newbies don't care about chipped holds, and it would keep them away from disturbing other climbers.
Lets face it. Sure there might be a 14d...but no one is going to spend time working on a route if it's a piece of crap and not interesting at all.
I personally don't have a problem with chippers chipping routes if there isn't a good natural line. There is plenty of rock out there.
I'd never chip, but i'm not gonna kick someone's ass if I saw them chipping somthing that was crap.
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Jan 16, 2003, 2:59 AM
Post #19 of 67
(5772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
There is nothing wrong with taking an otherwise worthless chosspile and turning it into an outdoor gym. Try to remember that there is no such thing as ethics in sport climbing, that is one of its main attractions believe it or not, ethics are for the people in your life, not the rocks in your life, most experienced climbers realize that it is really silly and strange to anthropomorphize mineral deposits...
Also, you boulderers who are trying to lecture on this thread about climbing ethics...don't even try it. We sit around every weekend at the sport crags and clown on the pebble wrestlers with the matresses strapped to their backs, you have zero credibility in the real climbing world, you guys complaining about chipped holds are like miniature golfers complaining about the layout of the greens at Augusta, no one cares what you think...
|
|
|
|
|
jonf
Jan 16, 2003, 3:39 AM
Post #20 of 67
(5772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2002
Posts: 123
|
I think in general climbers are some of the nicest, and most helpful people around. Comments like that last one are what ruin the atmospere in climbing. Why anybody would feel the need to attack boulders like that is beyond me. Does he not realize how many boulders also climb routes including trad. Does he know that Sherman (a legendary boulderer) has done the Eiger. Labeling boulderers into one distinct class is wrong. Boulderers are still rockclimbers, they just choose to climb different rocks. The similarites between bouldering and route climbing outweigh the differences by a massive amount. They have every right to complain about chipping, in someways even more. A number of problems may only consist of 3 or 4 holds. So if 1 hold is chipped on a problem then 1/3 to 1/4 or the route has been changed, but hold being changed on a route would change a much smaller percentage. Im not saying that chipping is more acceptble on routes, just that it is just as big of a problem in bouldering. This similar attitude was used towards sport climbers in the past, but now people seem to view sport routes and bolting as being fully acceptable, do you remember the saying "Sport climbing is neither." Attitudes like these are what ruin climbing for many.
Maybe you are just jealous of the massive strength and ability of many boulderers, maybe you are just saying this to piss people off, maybe its just because you dont understand some of the deeper meanings people have about climbing. Whatever your reason I dont think people want to see such negative posts on this site. I know i dont.
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 16, 2003, 3:42 AM
Post #21 of 67
(5772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
riiiight...
no one here has any respect for the likes of:
dave graham
fred nicole
chris sharma
lisa rands
wills young
and lest we forget, john gill
you asshole. most of the poeple listed above are either pure boulderers or mainly boulderers.
the ones no one respects are assholes like you that think only youre way is the right...
hmm...can anyone say "troll"...STFU kalcario...youre a jackass...
[edited for disclaimer]my cussing is usually auto-censored. sorry for those who are offended by the word asshole...but he really is acting like one...
[ This Message was edited by: boulderingmadman on 2003-01-15 19:45 ]
|
|
|
|
|
garrettk
Jan 16, 2003, 3:52 AM
Post #22 of 67
(5772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 22
|
Intolerance is lame. I have always enjoyed that the climbing community seems to be one of understanding. I am a boulderer because it is the aspect of climbing that I enjoy most. It is where I feel that I'm able to push my limits best. But I also do not go and tell trad climbers or sport climbers that they have no influence in the climbing world. I feel that chipping is an issue to all climbers. Not just those who rope up. Like jonf said holds sometimes can be even more crucial in a boudler problem. We have every right to be as concerned about this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 16, 2003, 4:19 AM
Post #23 of 67
(5772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
what i find amusing is these same people who thought that repairing a flake wasnt comparable to chipping are now saying that pin scars are chipping...hmmm...a double standard to suite every need???
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Jan 16, 2003, 5:45 AM
Post #24 of 67
(5772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
*Labeling boulderers into one distinct class is wrong. Boulderers are still rockclimbers, they just choose to climb different rocks.*
Lame cop out. Should we call backpackers climbers too because they climb to the top of different rocks?
In the Yosemite Decimal System, Class 1 is hiking on a trail, class 2 hiking cross country, class 3 and 4 scrambling, class 5 technical rock climbing. The line between class 3 and 4, and class 5, is the survivability factor of an unroped fall. If you're not gonna die, it is'nt class 5 climbing, it's class 3 or 4 scrambling. This is the way it has always been. So now we're supposed to change the definition of what climbing is because people who don't go more than 20' off the ground want to be called climbers too? I don't think so...
Go to thedeadpoint.com. Their header, or whatever you call it in html-speak, is "Rock Climbing. Bouldering. And Much More." Hmmm...they seem to think the 2 are different enough as to be defined using separate terms...
Is skimboarding surfing? Is ping pong tennis? Is snorkeling scuba diving? Is bungee jumping skydiving? All these sports and many more I'm sure share similar elements, yet their participants are comfortable labeling themselves differently for obvious reasons, not least of which are truthfulness and credibility.
[ This Message was edited by: kalcario on 2003-01-15 21:50 ]
|
|
|
|
|
flamer
Jan 16, 2003, 7:40 AM
Post #25 of 67
(5772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2002
Posts: 2955
|
Mr. Dingus,
In response to your statement about Ron Olevsky(and other zion climbers) Encouraging people to clean pins so as to leave"finger locks" you are mistaken. It is encouraged in Zion to clean pins emphazing the upward blow, thus creating CLEAN AID PLACEMENTS. The reasoning for this is the nature of the sandstone in zion- it is extremly soft! Thus it cannot withstand the repeated use of pins- which can make a placement unusable in as little as 2 piton placements! You are correct in that this can also create finger locks, BUT this was not the intended reason! The idea was to Preserve the rock(as much as possible) and the state(natural) of the routes after repeated ascents- not to chip a piece of rock into free climbing submission!
josh
|
|
|
|
|
crankinv9
Jan 16, 2003, 3:23 PM
Post #26 of 67
(4647 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 713
|
"you have zero
credibility in the real climbing world,"
Maybe according to a self rightous moron, but when I pull a really hard and high problem I feel like a real climber. If I fall off of a 20+ foot boulder I break real bones.
Whatever dude, don't worry so much about labels and try to boulder more and you(kalcoreo) might be able to do that v2 some old man just hiked.
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 16, 2003, 4:08 PM
Post #27 of 67
(4647 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
i just want kalcario to come out here and "work" his 5.10b sport route while i onsight the same one thats been bugging him for months...
lemme guess, kalcario, youre onsight level is right around, what, say, 5.10a(being generous)?? hmm....wouldnt brag about that, dud...
so...when do i have credibility? when i onsight youre porjects, or when i send 'em in my flip flops?? cause maybe then i could be a real climber...hehehe
[ This Message was edited by: boulderingmadman on 2003-01-16 08:10 ]
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 16, 2003, 5:03 PM
Post #28 of 67
(4647 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
"Encouraging people to clean pins so as to leave"finger locks" you are mistaken. It is encouraged in Zion to clean pins emphazing the upward blow, thus creating CLEAN AID PLACEMENTS."
The short answer is BOTH. This has been done and routes subsequently freed since long before you started climbing my friend. Moonlight Buttress would be a prime example. Pinned in a way to create clean chock placements I agree. But always with the eye toward an eventual free ascent. In either case, by the way, it's still purposeful chipping.
Cheers and thanks for the clarification. It's a good point,
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
Jan 16, 2003, 11:58 PM
Post #29 of 67
(4647 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
MHR: sorry if you took my comments so personally. I'm trying to flesh out the full picture, not stretch the topic. My comment about "rocks not being here for us to climb" is a paraphrase of Reinhold Messner's comment some years ago, to a similar sentiment, in the heyday of the early bolt wars (which I don't want to resurrect here). Simply put, my primary concern with chipping is that if it's done on publicly managed land, people -maybe other climbers- are eventually going to make a stink about damaging the environment, etc., and a typical land manager will be happy to add the complaints to his list of why he is prohibiting climbing. Chipping on private land is a private matter. The ethical "slippery slope" problem is something each of us individually can deal with. Whatever standard is extant for a given area should be observed, even if it isn't one that the individual climber necessarily respects. I'll refer you to my earlier post for that message. Yeah, as Dingus says, if it's a choss pile with otherwise no hope, and permission is obtained, go ahead, if that's what the local climbers can accept. Unilateral chipping, however, will serve no one well.
Whoever said boulderers aren't climbers and have no valid opinions about ethics needs to suck more oxygen, and try reading a little more history about people such as John Gill, and maybe, as suggested, pay a little more attention to climbers -yeah, "climbers"- such as Sharma, Rands, Graham, etc. etc. Do their opinions count when they climb, but not when they boulder? Wha....???
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Jan 17, 2003, 1:13 AM
Post #30 of 67
(4647 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
*Maybe according to a self rightous moron, but when I pull a really hard and high problem I feel like a real climber. If I fall off of a 20+ foot boulder I break real bones.*
You're playin yourself. Risking bone fracture does'nt make you a real climber, skateboarders and rollerbladers break arms and legs all the time and you don't hear them carping on about how dangerous it is, and they don't use spotters and crash pads and would get clowned if they did. Do whatever you want I don't care, but if you equate bouldering to real climbing you leave yourself open to ridicule and slander from real climbers. And not just me.
|
|
|
|
|
drector
Jan 17, 2003, 1:37 AM
Post #31 of 67
(4647 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 1037
|
There is no solution to the chipping problem because no one can agree on what is the problem is.
As for local ethics, I will not respect local ethics if they seem to be ethics that promote things to which I believe are wrong. I will not accept racism in a racist community and I will not accept chipping in a chipping community.
With that said, chipping is certainly not at all like racism and only the idea that some ethics should be global is the point. Chipping seems to be accepted on a small scale and I, as a fairly new climber will not condemn it outright without more thought. I will, on the other hand, not chip a damn thing since it seems like there is plenty of climbing available to me now.
Chipping will never hurt the environment as much as the chipping done on Mt. Rushmore so I'm not too worried about that aspect of it. Only the issue of access is critical in my mind. Chipping will make non-climbers think that we are hypocrites and condemn us as being the same as the 4x4 driving, beer drinking, rowdies who tear up the fields and make noise near their local housing tracts.
Dave
PS; Now go ahead and slam me...
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 17, 2003, 6:27 AM
Post #32 of 67
(4647 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
sounds to me like kalcario is sick of boulderers tying-up and sending all his projects...hehehe
hey kalcario--what about it? its been asked twice now...do you have as little respect for: gill, sharma, graham, rands, wills young, greg loh,etcetcetcetc as you do for me?? why not? theyre boulderers too...not real climbers according to you....
ps-mhr2000--yes, i have a chip onmmy shoulder. when people go into one topic and rant about how gluing on a flake isnt chipping, then entirely contradict themselves in another very similar topic...i have a problem with that. i have a problem with anyone that uses rhetoric and circular logic to try(uselessly, i may add) and make me look foolish. i dont play games like that, and i dont like what yours and other peoples responses say about you, both on your ethical standpoint and on your logical standpoint...basically, im of the opinion that some of you have neither...
[ This Message was edited by: boulderingmadman on 2003-01-16 22:29 ]
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 17, 2003, 12:04 PM
Post #33 of 67
(4647 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
"First, I haven't contradicted myself even once.---ive said it before, mhr2000, i am not referring only to you. i was replying to your question, but in a general manner...chill out dude. i dont hate you. and you couldnt knock the chip off my shoulder if i gave you a bullseye and sledgehammer...
now i am referring to you--"You should quit comparing chipping a small unknown local crag to chipping EL CAP. These two things couldn't be further apart"
IMHO--you couldnt be more wrong. size and popularity do not dictate, or at least should not dictate, how much respect you deserve and/or recieve. for example...you are small, unimportant, and unknown. that does NOT mean that youre opinion counts any less or should be respected any less than say jgill's(relax, dude, its a compliment...)
just because a crag is small and unknown doesnt mean its OK to chop it up with chisels and crowbars(relax...its an opinion)
"I'm still trying to figure out why you are so pissed off at people chipping a route you'll most likely never visit, but if you do would probably never realize it was chipped."--
bnecause too many poeple are advocating this sort of behavior, and most of them WILL end up in "my backyard"(bishop) climbing at some point, and i dont want these sort of ethics being brought to "my" areas(chill out, man...im not claiming to OWN them, its just easily descriptive...) TRUST ME ON THIS!!! if i see chipping, gluing, wirebrushing, etcetcetc in the bishop area, i WILL say something, and i will probably NOT be very nice about it...
personally, i dont consider preservation of the future a "trivial" thing, and quite frankly, i consider it a pity that you do...
"So what does your holiness think my responses say about me? I'm glad you are capable of judging a person by something so damn trivial as this."---
youre responses say to me that you are the type of person that finds nothing wrong with cleaning a sloper with a wirebrush. thats bull$#!&...plain and simple. if you cannot stick the hold, train, climb, and get stronger. if youre afraid a flake will break off and crush you, dont climb the rock. if the gear doesnt meet your safety and comfort level, train, climb and get (mentally) stronger...etcetcetc...
mhr2000---let me put it quite simply...the topics that i respond too have been asking for opinions. i am stating my opinions. i am passionate about these subjects because i am passionate about preserving the future of climbing, bother in terms of future generations of climbers, and in future access to climbing areas, both of which can be hurt by the activities discussed here and in the "other topic"...
IF you do not like my opinion, that is TOO BAD!!! i am not here to be your friend, i dont care if you like me, i dont care if you find me amusing, and i couldnt possibly care any less if you agree with me. an opinion was asked for, and i ahev been giving mine...as has everyoine else. you seem to have picked mine out of the lineup as the one you want to debate. good for you. but dont cry about my rhetoric when it shoves your circular logic back at you.
if you really have a problem with me, ignore me. if you really want to debate a passionate topic with me, expect me to be passionate about it. and if you want to use circular logic to try and prove a point that i find ridiculous, expect to get called on it. its quite simple really. get used to it, get over it, or ignore it. i will not dumb down ,my responses or censor my opinions so as to not offend you...i could not possibly care any less about your feelings...
and above all else...quite taking it soooo damn personally. its the friggin internet already....
[ This Message was edited by: boulderingmadman on 2003-01-17 04:08 ]
|
|
|
|
|
crankinv9
Jan 17, 2003, 4:33 PM
Post #34 of 67
(4647 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 713
|
" You're playin yourself. Risking bone fracture does'nt make
you a real climber, skateboarders and rollerbladers break arms
and legs all the time and you don't hear them carping on
about how dangerous it is, and they don't use spotters and
crash pads and would get clowned if they did."
So I guess the pads and helmets are fake? You know what I do when my body needs a break from bouldering?
I go sport climbing!
|
|
|
|
|
jonf
Jan 18, 2003, 3:39 AM
Post #35 of 67
(4647 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2002
Posts: 123
|
Kalcario,
You are a disgrace to "real climbers." Being a real climber has NOTHING to do with taking large risks. Yes risks are a natural part of climbing, but danger is a weak reason to be a climber, and you mentioned that you are a sport climber. WHERE is the danger in sport climbing? Do you not realize that sport climbers were ridiculed for years for taking the danger out of climbing. I climb sport, trad and boulders, and i have been injured much more when bouldering. Also many of these boulderers you are attacking have also done lots of very dangerous routes, inluding many that I guarantee would make your little balls shrivel up. Tim Kemple for example has done first ascents of numerous V10 and V11 problems. Tim has also done the first ascent of trad routes such as Absolute 5.13X and Thicker Than Water. Both of those routes have a high risk of ground falls. Sport routes dont offer a high risk of fatal falls, unless by some incredibley bad luck you fell and pulled out 4 or 5 bolts. Ground falls would only be a problem at the beggining of the route and the fall would probably be around the same height as a fall from a tall boulder problem. Im not trying to say that bouldering is more dangerous than routes, but it certainly isnt "safe".
The comment about the skateboarders didnt work at all. Most falls you take when skating are somewhat small and you can land on your feet without any injury, of course on occasions skaters will take much larger falls. The amount and severity of falls between skating and bouldering are actually very similar. Also not all boulderers use pads, and not all use spotters. Even when using pads or spotters it isnt rare to miss the pad and fall straight to the ground, so you really cant yell at boulderers for protecting themselves with a little piece of foam when other climbers drill metal bolts into the wall to keep themselves safe.
Saying that because boulderers dont climb high off the ground means that they are not climbers is absurd. They make similar moves that are as hard and harder than those in routes, and they climb the same rock (usually just a piece that happend to fall of the cliff). Bouldering may not be liked by a large amount of climbers, but most climbers ive talked to wouldnt say that they are not also rock climbers. Most of these climbers are also from the gunks which is known for its ban of bolts and difficult sparsely protected routes. i would have to say that you and your misdirected friends are alone in your beliefs of bouldering not being seen as an equally credible form of climbing.
Now to back up boulderingmadman's question. I am wondering what your opinions are on "boulderers" like Sharma, Caldwell, Graham, Gill, Sherman, and Kemple. Oh and how bout Lynn Hill, the one time that I climbed with her we were out BOULDERING at the gunks. Do her opinions not have any crediblity? Is she not a "real climber"?
People like you are the ones that ruin the spirit of rock climbing. You are entitled to your opinion, but it doesnt seem like the members of this site want to hear your bitching.
[ This Message was edited by: jonf on 2003-01-17 20:04 ]
|
|
|
|
|
socalbolter
Jan 18, 2003, 4:51 AM
Post #36 of 67
(4647 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 27, 2002
Posts: 796
|
enough is enough.
while i agree that at times his postings can be a bit volatile, if you truly feel that he is "bashing and belittling" is it really necessary to stoop to the same action?
at their base some of his postings ring true, and a few have been very informative. if some of his postings reek of strong convictions and passion - so be it. the world would be a very boring place without passion.
and for those that would try to diminish his climbing abilities - don't bother. while he may not have jumped on the bouldering bandwagon kalcario is a very accomplished sport climber. he's travelled the world in this pursuit and can more than hold his own in most circles.
what started out as an interesting thread has once again gone awry.
|
|
|
|
|
varstar10
Jan 18, 2003, 6:00 AM
Post #37 of 67
(4647 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 2, 2001
Posts: 81
|
I think you all should
CLIMB MORE AND TYPE LESS!!!
Jon
|
|
|
|
|
roninthorne
Jan 18, 2003, 4:09 PM
Post #38 of 67
(4647 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2002
Posts: 659
|
Great thread, dingus, and a topic that we've blown many a fattie over, hashing it out while packing up at the end of a long day of cleaning and bolting and falling off gear placements at new crags all over West Virginia. Every one of us was vehemently opposed to chipping/manufacturing for the express intent of creating holds. And every one of us was honest enough to accept that what we were doing was somewhat the same, different only in our goals; to creat a safe new crag with well-spaced bolts/better gear placements, while preserving the overall character of the area. So far, feedback indicates that we succeeded.
Where does cleaning become chipping? I think it is all intent. If you remove the loose flake with a crowbar or screwdriver, it may be more for the fact that doing so all the way up a 100-foot wall is much easier on the fingers and hands you need to climb with, instead of the intention to creat new holds or because it took that much force to remove the detritus. Limestone and sandstone, here in the southeast, often hide bulletproof faces under a weathered patina of choss and loose flakes. This has always been the reason for my own use of tools in the cleaning process (which, BTW, is usually followed by a ground up bolting session or gear attempt).
Again: if you scrub a sandstone hold with a steel brush to remove lichen or dirt, then you are doing so to expose the hold's quality. If you do so because the hold is too slick or sloped for your comfort, then you are attempting to improve the hold's quality.
As you say, a matter of degrees, but I think the judging process should be conducted in light of intent, as well as degrees.
Once again, a great thread.
|
|
|
|
|
karma274
Jan 20, 2003, 6:10 AM
Post #39 of 67
(4647 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 12, 2002
Posts: 141
|
Kalcario, several weeks ago I went on a climbing trip with several people, one of whom had much experience in trad and sport climbing, but little in the way of bouldering. While he didn't share as much disdain for bouldering as you do, the idea of cranking on some small stones didn't exactly excite him.
The group of us went bouldering, and after crankin for a bit I went wandering around just to look at problems and scope for new lines and stuff. I came back to see the group goofing around on this piece of rock that was no more than 8 feet high. Even to me, a boulderer, it looked kind of pointless to climb. But the trad/sport guy did this arete sloper problem on it that he thought was just phenomenal. I put my shoes on, and gave it a shot. While it was pretty easy, it was indeed really fun, and the holds were really cool. The sport/trad guy decided that he would like to pursue bouldering more in the future, in addition to sport and trad climbing.
My point is this: If it's fun, who cares what it's labeled, or what it looks like to an observer? I've had equally enjoyable days bouldering and sport climbing. Frankly, I don't understand why you think bouldering is so stupid. I hope that some day someone will get you to shoe up, chalk up, and crank on some small stones without a harness, and you discover how much fun bouldering can be. If you limit yourself to sport climbing, you're missing out on some good times.
And if you don't think bouldering is bold, just take a look at Evilution, or the Thimble, or Fear of the Black Hat. You could be seriously injured or die falling off of these problems. In fact, injury is pretty likely. More than can be said for lots of sport climbs.
|
|
|
|
|
karma274
Jan 20, 2003, 6:39 AM
Post #40 of 67
(4647 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 12, 2002
Posts: 141
|
I must agree with Ronin in that there is a notable difference between cleaning and chipping.
The sport crags in MN would not be climbable without excessive cleaning, testing, and removing of loose holds and flakes. And without large amounts of brushing, there would be insane amounts of dirt and rockdust to wade through. We don't have the best limestone here. Without large amounts of preparation, it would be entirely worthless to try and climb. Much of this cleaning would be impossible armed with only a toothbrush.
Even the trad climbers on the north shore of Lake Superior in MN, who are completely opposed to the use of bolts, and chalk, have used crowbars to pry off the many loose death flakes that are created by the vicious freeze-thaw cycle. Wire brushes are also widely employed, as the rock is extremely hard (its very much like granite)and also covered with excessive lichen.
I must ask: Why would you be opposed to the removal of loose holds, as long as said removal is not done with the intent of making the climb easier or harder, only safer, more enjoyable, and cleaner?
|
|
|
|
|
karma274
Jan 21, 2003, 7:00 PM
Post #41 of 67
(4647 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 12, 2002
Posts: 141
|
Anyone? Anyone?
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 21, 2003, 7:06 PM
Post #42 of 67
(4647 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
ill bite...again
it depends, really, on the climb, the location, and the methods used to clean. out in the fjords of greenland, i would say cleaning for safety should be frowned upon, as it is a wilderness, and should be climbed as is, including any dangers due to the condition of the rock.
if its in a place like sport park, where the lives and health of thousands of climbers could be at risk, cleaning for safety should be practiced, though it should be done under the supervision of the land managers...and better yet by the land managers to prevent causing access issues.
there is no cut and dry answer to the questions posed in the original topic, nor to your question. but just the fact that it causes people to re-think their stand on the issue is enough to warrant a response...
|
|
|
|
|
karma274
Jan 22, 2003, 4:18 AM
Post #43 of 67
(4647 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 12, 2002
Posts: 141
|
You flame madman, yet no one else, including yourself, has the balls enough to even tackle the situation I have described.
When the situation isn't black and white, you RC.com'ers fold like a cheap card table and resort to flaming.
So can anyone come up with a solid, logical, flame free reasons as to why the cleaning that I have described is wrong, without making sweeping generalizations?
|
|
|
|
|
jonf
Jan 22, 2003, 11:36 PM
Post #44 of 67
(4647 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2002
Posts: 123
|
I think its because if you need to use a crowbar to remove those flakes maybe they wont break from the stress they will endure from climbing. Thats a touchy situation though because the flake may come off, maybe not for a number of years though. You could always just leave those flakes and make sure that people are cautious when on those routes and belaying, and maybe eventually the hold will break maybe it won't. I can understand people wanting to remove large flakes like these if they pose a serious danger.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 22, 2003, 11:59 PM
Post #45 of 67
(4647 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
“So can anyone come up with a solid, logical, flame free reasons as to why the cleaning that I have described is wrong, without making sweeping generalizations?”
I thought the thread had died! Perhaps I am not the best to answer this as I am not so generous as to appreciate the distinction between this sort of cleaning and outright chipping, but here it goes:
You challenged previously: “I must ask: Why would you be opposed to the removal of loose holds, as long as said removal is not done with the intent of making the climb easier or harder, only safer, more enjoyable, and cleaner?”
Intent? Does it all come down to intent? Now we have to understand the mindset of the chipper? Did she do it out of convenience? Cowardice? Public service? What constitutes “more enjoyable” anyway?
Safer is arguably easier. If a chipper pries 12 blocks out of a choss pile on the way to the creation of a route, and 11 of them are removed for safety reasons, does the intent behind removal of the 12th make a difference? What if the chipper deluded herself into the rationalization that “it was loose anyway.”
I’d suggest that the ‘intent’ argument is not the way to go. I still respectfully suggest that only logical basis for making the determination is local ethic. I know of many cliffs where such aggressive cleaning would simply not be tolerated, for a variety of reasons, safety or no.
Finally, back in the early 80’s, Jr. Bishop and I established about a dozen routes on Sydney Bluff, just across the river from Ashland City near Clarksville Tennessee. This cliff is the epitome of “loose limestone.” In those days there was never any discussion about top down anything, bolts or cleaning. You simply played the cards you were dealt. Most of the routes are death climbs. Since we were the only ones doing them, it didn’t matter to us what others might have thought, or what risk they might incur attempting them. Never entered our minds.
So the justification of “safety” is a straw dog in my opinion. Safety is not a requirement for climbing, though I’ll personally take it when I can get it if you know what I mean. Nowadays, had I to do it over again, I would rap clean and bolt and create some routes others might enjoy following. And yet, oddly or not, I’m quite proud of those crazy climbs we led with hexes and false bravado.
Nope, the safety exclusion to chipping is lost on me. That distinction is just another way of altering the rock. And I say, in certain situations, at certain areas, that’s cool by me.
As far as I know, the routes are still there, most of them awaiting 3rd ascents (we each led and followed every one of them). I did once publish the route info to the long defunct Tennessee Climber’s Coalition newsletter, circa something like 1985 or so…
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 25, 2003, 3:06 AM
Post #46 of 67
(4647 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
mhr2000--for someone who was soooo adamant about me reading into his posts, you have certainly drawn an awful lot of false conclusions.
never have i said cleaning was wrong...as long as it is not done with tools other than your hands. nowhere in the above post do i advocate the use of tools, as you seem to have assumed.
i also stated that if it was a wilderness area, it should be left alone.
i also see a huge differencing between pushing loose an already broken section of rock, and reattaching an already, or about to break, piece of rock.
i also stated that the sitatutions would warrant the approval of the land managers if not the participation before any cleaning is done.
so, please point out for me...exactly where is the contradiction? exactly how idiotic are gonna make yourself look before you back the %@#$ up off me?
[ This Message was edited by: boulderingmadman on 2003-01-24 19:08 ]
|
|
|
|
|
marks
Jan 26, 2003, 10:02 AM
Post #47 of 67
(4647 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2002
Posts: 376
|
no chipping-as simple as that ,if you are not good enough to climb a route tough luck thats your fault,so dont chip the rock.
|
|
|
|
|
karma274
Jan 28, 2003, 5:33 AM
Post #48 of 67
(4647 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 12, 2002
Posts: 141
|
Oh, I've always agreed with the local ethics stance. I just wanted to hear some other opinions on the issue.
Another log for the fire:
If a block gets pried off of the face of a cliff, because it was deemed a safety hazard by the first ascensionist, some would argue that the route has been manufactured, brought down to one's level, chipped, whatever. Many of you seem to hold this belief.
However, if the block came off under a climber's foot, the cliff face is being altered just the same, no?
And yet, it's been argued that, "intent does not matter". Foothold or crowbar, if the block or flake or whatever gets pulled off, the cliff face is still being altered in a way.
What do you guys thing about this? You are either knocking holds off beforehand to make the climb less hazardous, or you are allowing the blocks to be knocked off by the climber that is unlucky enough to use them in the wrong way. (Let's assume the block would definitely come out under body weight, for the sake of arguement. I know there are grey areas.)
Discuss.
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Jan 28, 2003, 5:48 AM
Post #49 of 67
(4647 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
*Frankly, I don't understand why you think bouldering is so stupid. I hope that some day someone will get you to shoe up, chalk up, and crank on some small stones without a harness, and you discover how much fun bouldering can be. If you limit yourself to sport climbing, you're missing out on some good times.*
Uhh...climbing since 70's, bouldered tons all over western U.S., 4 trips to Hueco between 84 and 89, usually in the company of some of the luminaries of our sport, in addition to 3 El Cap routes and thousands of pitches of trad climbing, would never dream of limiting myself to just sport climbing...basically done it all so don't label me either. Just feel sorry for all the kids who are new to the sport and who had the misfortune to buy into the current bouldering fad and who will never become real climbers.
|
|
|
|
|
karma274
Jan 28, 2003, 5:58 AM
Post #50 of 67
(4647 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 12, 2002
Posts: 141
|
You have yet to define the aspect that separates bouldering from "real climbing". Or define "real climbing" for that matter.
Making generalizations and analogies about sports that have nothing to do with climbing is a really poor argument.
The way I, and 99% of other people see it, if you're climbing on rocks outdoors, its "real climbing".
Your failure to address the questions posed to you does little to sway others towards your stance.
|
|
|
|
|
misha
Jan 28, 2003, 6:25 AM
Post #51 of 67
(4938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2002
Posts: 344
|
hey kalcario i hope some ripped muther%@#$ing boulder cuts you asshole. If you had some nuts i would rip them off. I dont give fuk if you've climbed the nose, that means nothing when it comes to bouldering. Bouldering is real climb, the most pure form possible, eliminate all gear and it is just you and the rock. not hooks, hammers, daisy chains or ascenders.
|
|
|
|
|
freehueco
Jan 28, 2003, 6:44 AM
Post #52 of 67
(4938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 18, 2002
Posts: 13
|
Some dimbulb wrote:
Uhh...climbing since 70's, bouldered tons all over western U.S., 4 trips to Hueco between 84 and 89, usually in the company of some of the luminaries of our sport, in addition to 3 El Cap routes and thousands of pitches of trad climbing, would never dream of limiting myself to just sport climbing...basically done it all so don't label me either. Just feel sorry for all the kids who are new to the sport and who had the misfortune to buy into the current bouldering fad and who will never become real climbers.
The fact that you have tried boldering and still don't see it as climbing proves that you are either hopeless( perhaps a few too many stones have knocked your melon?), or just plain dumb.
How can you say that you have climbed at the center of the universe, and not see bouldering as climbing?
I too have tried it all( well, not big wall yet), and I still prefer boldering. If it's not real climbing, why is it such good training for "sport" climbing? It sure feels the same, and offers far more exposure than clipping a friggin' bolt at your waist.
And who says there is no danger in bouldering? I sprained my ankle yesterday in a fall( broken hold( in Yosemite of all places)).
Deal with it. Boldering rocks.
|
|
|
|
|
hongkongstuey
Jan 28, 2003, 9:04 AM
Post #53 of 67
(4938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2002
Posts: 12
|
Just feel sorry for all the kids who are new to the sport and who had the misfortune to buy into the current bouldering fad and who will never become real climbers.
fads come and go - who's to say that these 'kids' won't be hauling their arses up El Cap in a year or two - certainly not you
as for the chipping thread this started out as - its bad, don't do it, if you want a manufactured artificial route, go to the gym!
[ This Message was edited by: hongkongstuey on 2003-01-28 01:04 ]
|
|
|
|
|
spandexomo
Jan 28, 2003, 1:41 PM
Post #54 of 67
(4938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 14, 2002
Posts: 34
|
karaoke is bent cuz he's old and sux now and all the young kids are hiking $#!& he didn't even think was climbable. it sux getting old doesn't it karaoke. no more real interest in sport climbing, the crags are all abused and dirty and drilled out. the sport you were so proud of is being replace by bouldering. you have nothing to talk about or have in common with the younger generation, because you're an old, boring, chipping tool. it must suck to be like an old rusty bolt, way past your prime. you made the wrong decisions, and now your just a total loser trying to stand by your loser convictions on a forum full of gumbies no less. if you actually believed in the validity of your extinct sport you'd be happy the crags were less crowded and the kids were into pulling down and tweaking out on $#!& you can't touch. but no, you're a sore old man that's jealous of the youth and has resorted to belittling the sport you now have no chance of making an impression on unless you go around chipping $#!&. gill did all the v4's a long time ago old man. too bad for you your life is over and you suck.
|
|
|
|
|
mustclimb69
Jan 28, 2003, 2:45 PM
Post #55 of 67
(4938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 5, 2002
Posts: 479
|
chipping is wrong, glueing is wrong. I also think bolting is a sensitive topic but i can justify their purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Jan 28, 2003, 3:09 PM
Post #56 of 67
(4938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
Spandexomo...
I cannot decide what is funnier... your name or what you just wrote.
You rock.
LSHMFH !!!111
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 28, 2003, 4:42 PM
Post #57 of 67
(4938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Quote: And yet, it's been argued that, "intent does not matter". Foothold or crowbar, if the block or flake or whatever gets pulled off, the cliff face is still being altered in a way.
I make the same distinction that many others do... the line is drawn with the use of tools. If you can simply knock the rock off with the palm of your hand or a kick or whatever... and the area ethic (and the potential of bystanders) allows for it, I'm willing to call that "cleaning" in the sense used in this thread.
If that "loose" rock takes a crowbar to pry out, THAT is chipping. I don't care WHY it is chipped, the fact remains it was chipped. I'd like someone to demonstrate the fallacy of that position.
Intent... don't go that route! Consider another quote from Ament's History of Free Climbing in America. The following is an experpt from an interview with Alan Watts, Smith Rock sport climbing pioneer who helped to usher in, even led the parade for a while, of rap bolted sport climbing. The subject is the prep of the route "Chain Reaction"...
Alan Watts: "I drilled a new anchor 30 feet above the roof and for the first time peered over the lip of the roof. There was a pillar of loose rock percariously balanced just above the lip, so I kicked it off - and there was a big, flat jug underneath! Encouraged, I dropped down a little further and pulled off another loose chunk right at the lip. To my amazement, there was was a perfect, incut, four-finger edge!"
The interview goes on to discuss the landmark first ascent of this climb. I am not criticizing Mr. Watts in the least. I have no voice in the matters that went down at Smith in the 80's. But back to that intent thing... did he kick those rocks off to make a potential route safer... or did he kick them off to see what was beneath? I can no more peer into his mind than anyone else. But from his own words it appears he was mightly pleased with what he found, suggesting that the "intent" was not to make the route more pleasurable or enjoyable or safer (filing an edge on a sharp mono-pocket makes a boulder problem more pleasurable and safer and is unarguably chipping, by the way...), but to make it go in the first place.
Pretty interesting stuff.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
karma274
Jan 28, 2003, 8:00 PM
Post #58 of 67
(4938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 12, 2002
Posts: 141
|
When I say safer, I am referring to risk of serious injury or death due to loose blocks, not risking a big flapper or a cut on your finger tip.
Furthermore, smith rocks, I have heard, is notorius for having a layer of chossy stuff covering the solid stone underneath. Watts tried ground up bolting, but he kept pulling stuff off, so decided to rap bolt and clean the climbs. I see no problem with him getting rid of the loose stuff you posted about. Besides, if what you said was meant literally, he "kicked" the stuff off. Thats not cleaning with tools, so in that case you should be ok with it.
I think intent DOES figure into the equation. Of course this is my opinion, but I don't go sport climbing for the risk and thrill, I go to have a good time and climb on the rocks that are in as natural of state as possible, to the degree of not being hazardous or exceptionally dirty. I see where everybody is coming from with the no use of tools stance, I just think that if something is obviously about to come off, and you can't completely get it off with your bare hands or toothbrush, then get rid of it with something else.
Just my opinion. I will try to refrain from pleading my case anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 28, 2003, 8:18 PM
Post #59 of 67
(4938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Quote: Furthermore, smith rocks, I have heard, is notorius for having a layer of chossy stuff covering the solid stone underneath.
Precisely to my point about local ethics. Other areas are notorious for having large expanses of blank stone for that matter!
Quote: Watts tried ground up bolting, but he kept pulling stuff off, so decided to rap bolt and clean the climbs.
Chris Jones introduced the idea of "bouldering" on the lead there, an early name for rap bolted sport climbing and Alan Watts took it from there.
Quote: I see no problem with him getting rid of the loose stuff you posted about. Besides, if what you said was meant literally, he "kicked" the stuff off. Thats not cleaning with tools, so in that case you should be ok with it.
Whether I am OK with it (or not) is not particularly relevant. I am by the way, OK with it. I don't care if he chiseled them off either. But this 'how many chippers can dance on the head of a chisel' semantics dancing drives me nuts. You hear these anti-chippers howl their outrage, and then tap dance away from the line when you ask, but what about "x", where x = a modified route they like or approve of.
For what its worth, I respect an anti-chipping ethic, I really do. I am most interested in preserving the climbing legacy we have been fortunate enough to realize. And not chipping is a great way to behave in the vast majuority of climbing areas with which I am familiar. It's just that often the purity of the theory gets degraded a bit when some of these climbers get on the stone.
Happy to continue to discuss and exchange ideas...
DMT
Quote: duh!
[ This Message was edited by: dingus on 2003-01-28 20:44 ]
|
|
|
|
|
sprocket
Jan 28, 2003, 8:28 PM
Post #60 of 67
(4938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2003
Posts: 77
|
Dose any one know of POCKETS??
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 29, 2003, 4:18 AM
Post #61 of 67
(4938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
dingus--it seems as if were pretty much in agreement. i definately draw the line at using tools, but i am not about to tell someone else what they should do at "their" area.
karma--"I just think that if something is obviously about to come off, and you can't completely get it off with your bare hands or toothbrush, then get rid of it with something else."
i would agree with this depending on the area the climb is in. if it is a place where the route will be well traveled by experienced climbers and gumbies alike, if it was approved by the land managers (i would prefer if they would do it, if it was my crag), i would say go for it. it still better thank gluing and bolting it back on, IMHO.
if it was a lonely alpine ascent that only the best will ever attempt, i say leave it be. let the best take as much of a risk and make as big of a commitment as the first party. in which case, who would know if the FA party pryed loose a few death blocks or not? wouldnt really matter because the next party would find more.
spandexomo--thats the funniest $#!& ive seen on here in awhile...
|
|
|
|
|
karma274
Jan 29, 2003, 6:23 AM
Post #62 of 67
(4938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 12, 2002
Posts: 141
|
I agree madman. If its an alpine ascent then keep it really natural.
My eye doctor, in a small town in MN, was best friends with Alan Watts back in the heyday.
One day he asked me what I like to do for fun, I said climbing. He asked if I had ever heard of Smith rocks, I said yes. They he started telling me about Watts and i was like "damn".
Good story eh?
|
|
|
|
|
v10gripper
Jan 29, 2003, 7:03 AM
Post #63 of 67
(4938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 11, 2003
Posts: 35
|
kalcario, i have a challenge for you come to josh with all your buddies who "sit" on the sport crags and laugh at us pad people i invite you to boulder with me in josh i will put all of your mistinterpitations of bouldering down with one problem, false up 40 will kill yuou if you fall from the top.
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Jan 29, 2003, 2:34 PM
Post #64 of 67
(4938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
*false up 40 will kill yuou if you fall from the top.*
No it won't.
think I've done that one-Cap Rock, laybacking, right? Onsighted the all washed up same day, but that one was easier then (mid 80's) because holds have broken, I believe...
you see I've actually done tons of bouldering but I would never limit myself to just that, nor would any real climber
me arguing with teenagers about bouldering is like an english prof debating Dr Seuss with 6 year olds
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 29, 2003, 4:45 PM
Post #65 of 67
(4938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
let me start by saying that very few (if any) of the boulderers i know around here strictly boulder. nothing pleases me more than roping up and climbing, sometimes. tuolomne is waaaaay too close to limit myself to small stones.
but i have to know, kalcario--when are you gonna answer some of the legitimate questions posed to you earlier? re: sharma, graham, rands, loh, gill, etc...
[ This Message was edited by: boulderingmadman on 2003-01-29 08:46 ]
|
|
|
|
|
zzsean
Jan 29, 2003, 5:14 PM
Post #66 of 67
(4938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2002
Posts: 42
|
kalcario
I have these vague memories of a similar line of argument a few years ago....
"Sure he might climb really well in climb competitions and indoors, but that is just a fad and means nothing when it comes to "real" climbing..." (paraphrased)
Now that goofy kid who used to be amazing at climbing competitions has done just one or two things that are *world freaking* class. You might have heard of him ? I heard he put up a decent route at Ceuse recently ? Oh, I think he likes bouldering a little as well!
Kalcario, pull you head out of your ass, stop having issues with teenagers cranking hard on small rocks and just accept that Boulder is and has always been a legitimate form of climbing.
3 times up El Cap ? I thought you called yourself a climber!
Idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
spandexomo
Jan 29, 2003, 7:49 PM
Post #67 of 67
(4938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 14, 2002
Posts: 34
|
"I have read the letters on ClimbxMedia.
This guy Joe Hedge is an old aquaintance of mine. We used to call him "Homo Joe" back in the day.
He was (and I quote directly) "too good to climb with you, but not good enough to climb with Kauk and Werner".
TOOL!
Now he travels from Redondo Beach to Central KY to climb routes that we put in 10 years ago.
He is too "fragile" to bolder."
AHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA!!!
AH ha!
ha!
HAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAH!!!!!!!!
haha!
hah!
HAHAHAHAHHAH!!!!
homo joe!
|
|
|
|
|
|
