2. The beauty of climbing is that you can make whatever you want of it, from toproping to onsight ground up free solos.

I'm quite bummed that I did not come to this discussion sooner. I have glanced over the words "Brotherhood of the Rope" several times on the front page here, and consciously skipped over it, fearing that the thread would contain something like it does.


So here's my criticism:

1. There is nothing in the original written piece that is not tired, rehashed, boring, and out-of-date

2. The beauty of climbing is that you can make whatever you want of it, from toproping to onsight ground up free solos. The only people who try to "play off" factions within the sport are usually those who are not confident of their own abilities. The gumbies will keep arguing stuff like this, while the elites of the sport will often be well-versed in ALL disciplines. Honnold and Segal got their starts in gyms, bouldering, and competition climbing and now they are pushing for personal "purity." Many of Europe's top competition and sport climbers (D.D. Dulac, for example) are alpine rock and ski guides who warm up on BOLD routes that we will never be able to touch.

3. Jeremiah: I think it is interesting, and appropriate, that you have an Ed Abbey quote in your sig. I personally like Abbey a lot as well, and I think that you are channeling (consciously or not) a lot of his attitudes into your essay, though you take yourself way more seriously than he ever did. His ideas about access and the purity of wilderness were and are important, and I tend to agree with them, OUTSIDE OF CLIMBING.

But, looking at your profile of even just Moab-area climbs, you are doing all the standard "tourist" routes (North Chimney, Flakes of Wrath, Kor Ingals, etc.). If you really lament the lack of "purity" and adventure in climbing, there are PLENTY of more adventurous routes (first ascents AND repeats) that you could be doing. Until then, you are no different than a tourist on the Delicate Arch trail rambling on about Desert Solitaire and the marring of Arches, completely unaware of and unwilling to see the very real wildernesses that are still out there.

That is awl.

Also, it's hard for me to find partners where I live who are willing to hike more than five minutes from the car.

Why not comment on it now. I'm curious and if you've got a way for me to do it that's cheap then I'm definately all ears.

Eh, threads will drift.

I look at it a little differently. Certification is not a mark of necessarily a vast amount of experience. The AMGA requirements for certification are actually pretty minimal. People bitch about them but they aren't all that bad. As far as minimums I'd say they're fine. A certification say that a person has a minimum level of qualifications. Someone who exceeds those qualifications may not feel it necessary to seek out certification, their experience and skills speak better than any certification could. I'm not gonna throw out names because I don't want to speak for other people but I know a lot of old guys who will never get certified, they don't see the point. They have climbing resumes big enough to crush the AMGA standards. I don't think it's a good thing when people look for certifications more than quality experience.

I'm not one of those people. I'm riding some coat tails till I can do otherwise. I think if the AMGA really wanted to raise the standard of guiding then they'd make the courses more accessible to people in the industry. I don't exactly bring in the big bucks.

I have glanced over the words "Brotherhood of the Rope" several times on the front page here, and consciously skipped over it, fearing that the thread would contain something like it does.

1. There is nothing in the original written piece that is not tired, rehashed, boring, and out-of-date

Just to comment on this one point: and I'm sure you understand this WAY more than me considering your historian background, but things like ethics and climbing style, in my opionion, should never be out of date. They may be boring and tired, but rehashed and out-of-date shouldn't be a criticism because style and ethics are actually pretty important and need to be continually at the forefront of climbing discussions or else, in time, they will go away. I'm just not sure we want to forget this stuff.

Yeah, the conversation has been had before, but do we really want to stop having the conversation? Do we really want future generations to have to go through the whole thing again all on their own?

Just to comment on this one point: and I'm sure you understand this WAY more than me considering your historian background, but things like ethics and climbing stylein my opionion, should never be out of date.

The problem is that "style" is none of anybody's business, so there is almost no reason to discuss it; and what most writers claim are climbing "ethics", like whether it is "ethical" to put a bolt in a rock, have no ethical ramifications whatsoever. These subjects were never "in-date" to begin with, because they are practically non-subjects, just arbitrary memes that have become endemic in certain climbing circles.

Jay

Continuing the conversation and repeating the same lines over and over are two different things.

Future generations will go through the same thing all over again. It will probably even seem new to them and they probably have to go through it on their own because new generations are only so willing to listen to older generations in general.

Well, I'm sure camhead can correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the whole point of studying history is to ensure that lessons don't have to be learned again.

I know this is a discussion that has seemingly never ended, but really, wouldn't it be nice to find an answer? The only way that will ever happen is to continue have the conversation until "enlightenment," so to speak.

Can I just say one thing...BROTHERHOOD? really? I mean I don't think you meant it, but girls climb too. Its not just a club for boys. Or brothers. Whatever. I'm not deeply offended or a feminist...it just feels like men just assume the women are the belay slaves and that for every 100 belay slaves there is that one wonky woman who leads and has her very own passion for climbing, just like the guys. No. False.

Can I just say one thing...BROTHERHOOD? really? I mean I don't think you meant it, but girls climb too. Its not just a club for boys. Or brothers. Whatever. I'm not deeply offended or a feminist...it just feels like men just assume the women are the belay slaves and that for every 100 belay slaves there is that one wonky woman who leads and has her very own passion for climbing, just like the guys. No. False.

LOL. Wasn't there some "Brotherhood of the Wolf" movie? I dunno. All I know is that there is zero brotherhood for me...me being female and all.

Can I just say one thing...BROTHERHOOD? really? I mean I don't think you meant it, but girls climb too. Its not just a club for boys. Or brothers. Whatever. I'm not deeply offended or a feminist...it just feels like men just assume the women are the belay slaves and that for every 100 belay slaves there is that one wonky woman who leads and has her very own passion for climbing, just like the guys. No. False.
I did not dislike the blog post. It sounds kind've like "Back in the old days when climbing was done RIGHT without these new fangled topo maps and whatnot there was real adventure!" Okay, but as the world, technology, everything evolves, so does the sport. Different isn't bad. New isn't bad. Embrace change. Alrighty then. I didn't not like it though.

Mmmmm. So if I say sisterhood, you are going to assume males might be involved...yes?