|
dingus
Sep 16, 2004, 8:24 PM
Post #101 of 217
(12352 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Hanging at established belays has always been the exception, probably because when you are belaying, you are no longer climbing at that particular point in time.
True, unless you're Todd Skinner and Paul Piana... (situational ethics, hehe), in that situation you're soundly criticized. Selective Situations.
But the poster said no hanging "ever." I merely took him at his word.
Cheers
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
holmeslovesguinness
Sep 16, 2004, 8:26 PM
Post #102 of 217
(12352 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 10, 2002
Posts: 548
|
Strict definitions in climbing are for people who are either trying to get their name in a magazine or just spend way too much time worrying about such things ;-) When people start talking about 'invalid' ascents because of hangdogging or whatever I kind of have to roll my eyes. As long as you're honest about your style, being safe and having fun I think you're doing it 'right'.
|
|
|
|
|
asandh
Sep 16, 2004, 8:26 PM
Post #103 of 217
(12352 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2002
Posts: 788
|
:)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Sep 16, 2004, 8:33 PM
Post #104 of 217
(12352 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: curt wrote: In reply to: Resting on the rope, or on gear is indeed aid and always has been. Hanging at established belays has always been the exception, probably because when you are belaying, you are no longer climbing at that particular point in time. However, if you are in the process of leading or following a pitch and rest on your gear, you have now used a point of aid to do that pitch. Geez .... you're as dogmatic as I am so I can see right now this is going nowhere :wink: I don't remember having to sign a book of rules 25 years ago. So the pitch is 180 ft long. I choose to climb it in 2 pitches of 90 ft each
You are using aid at this point if, as you say, the established pitch in question is 180 feet long. If, however the climb was established with two 90 foot pitches here instead--you would not be using aid. Don't shoot the messenger, that's just the way it is.
In reply to: or I choose to climb it in 3 pitches of 60 ft each or I choose to climb it in 6 pitches of 30 ft each at which point am I aid climbing ? :D
Or, why not then 180 "pitches" of one foot each, with a hang between each of them? Is that still free climbing?
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
jumpingrock
Sep 16, 2004, 9:06 PM
Post #105 of 217
(12352 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 5692
|
But what happens, if it is not a hanging belay, and no weight is put onto the anchor... is that still aid?
:lol:
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Sep 16, 2004, 9:22 PM
Post #106 of 217
(12352 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
In reply to: But what happens, if it is not a hanging belay, and no weight is put onto the anchor... is that still aid? :lol:
No.
Not hanging at any point on the route is the highest ideal of freeclimbing. (an ideal that some people still practice)
Climb ledge to ledge, regardless of whether that happens to be 200 feet or not.
|
|
|
|
|
asandh
Sep 16, 2004, 11:14 PM
Post #107 of 217
(12352 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2002
Posts: 788
|
:)
|
|
|
|
|
tomtom
Sep 16, 2004, 11:19 PM
Post #108 of 217
(12352 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2004
Posts: 366
|
Zzzzzzzzzzz
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Sep 16, 2004, 11:31 PM
Post #109 of 217
(12352 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: curt wrote: In reply to: Don't shoot the messenger, that's just the way it is. ....That said, I don't recall these rule makers drafting me into their club. Since I consider most "laws" to be merely suggestions for better living anyway .... I think I'll move forward in the climbing world at peace with the thought that the rules and definitions just don't matter much, especially since I never helped draft them .... :wink:
They really don't matter that much and you should indeed climb however you want to, as long as your actions don't affect anyone else. The only relevant point worth mentioning here--is that you really shouldn't hang on gear and then say that you "did" the climb--meaning that you free-climbed it, because that would be untrue and you would be misrepresenting your actual achievement.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Sep 17, 2004, 6:41 AM
Post #110 of 217
(12352 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Dingus,
In reply to: I believe your trad ethics here are totally arbitrary...
First, what I listed aren't "my" trad ethics, nor were they arbitrary in the 70's - these were the predominant ethics of the times in all of the areas I visited around the country and the world at the time.
In reply to: ...watered down from the Higgins essay on the subject...
Which parts are "certainly are watered down from the Higgins essay" as you don't say. Tom talks quite a bit about valley ethics in the 50's-70's and the transitions/pains between them. Roughly the same basic ethics existed in the Valley, but that said, I will say that in almost all ways Yosemite is a world unto itself and sort of the Vatican of the climbing world - many aspects of ethics and style applied or didn't apply there that did in most of the world. They argued relentlessly about things that didn't even apply to midwestern/eastern crags and the scale of the place was/is such that very different and largely unique sorts of discussions have always gone on there.
In reply to: ...watered down from the Jim Erikson ideal (you fall, you pull the rope and go home, you failed and tainted the route and you are done done done).
Jim had a particularly interesting and intensely personal approach to climbing (that served him quite well), and he was, and will always be, the person I consider to have one of the purest ethic - but his was more related to FA's, he was the original master of the on-sights and that was what he was all about. He also had enough unclimbed rock at his disposal to take that stance. I might have that stance today if I lived in Katoomba and could get on an unclimbed route every day for the rest of my life with little effort and a short walk. Most folks considered Jim the extreme zenith of the FA, not of ethics in general, and everyone understood that he dealt with failure a bit differently than the rest of us...
In reply to: And they certainly no more represent the reality of what people currently think of trad than my own, ie they merely represent an opinion fixed in time.
Again, I didn't say my definitions were representative of your or the new millenium (un)reality, they are representative of the majority of the climbing world in the 70's - what you've done to them in the meantime is your business - sometimes it's just a bit confusing to sort them out for an old guy.
In reply to: To suggest these stated principles represent any consensus AT ALL about what constitudes trad ethics is an outright joke.
Well, from my perspective and what I've read in this thread so far, the lack of both understanding and consensus as to what trad ethics are is the joke and a sad one at that...
In reply to: For example: 1. No hanging EVER precludes hanging belays. There are hanging belays in the trad world.
Dingus, Dingus - you're talking belaying here, not climbing! Belaying is belaying and climbing is climbing. There never was or ever will be an issue with hanging belays, used'em then, still use'em - but how you belay, on a rock, on a board, on your harness - doesn't have anything to do with climbing ethics, trad or otherwise...
In reply to: 2. Bolts are common in the world of trad and pretending otherwise is a waste of time.
Again, the area and rock dictated the ethics around the use of bolts, but the predominant and overriding ethic of the times was only use them as a last, very last, resort. Ditto for fixed pins. But some places like the Valley, Looking Glass, Smith, Dresden had a bit of a different take on the issue. Trad climbing ethics as a rule are based on the principal of "leave no trace" unless absolutely necessary.
In the mid-70's my partner and I did an FA on an obscure cliff of a good sized roof with a long overhanging off-width after the roof, my partner led up the off-width and we never really said anything about the route. When a guidebook came out 20 years later for the area a party in the 80's had climbed it and claimed the FA but they pre-placed 6 bolts on the off-width and up-rated it to an 11b from our 10+. They got to have their "FA" experience because we didn't bolt it. They've basically "consumed" that opportunity for future climbers. Again, the [general] trad ethic is don't - unless absolutely necessary.
I've been putting up some new routes now, where I've placed a couple of knifeblades in the past couple of weeks, but only afterwards and in places I've led the FA of the pitch free-climbing on 4-5 Crack'n Ups and three of the smallest Lowe Balls in a row...
In reply to: 3. No top down climbing is much more accurate. We make use of preplaced pro ALL THE TIME in the trad world. See #2.
No, and in fact, there was never was even the idea of "no top down climbing" largely because there was/is no such relavant concept as "top down" in the trad climbing experience. You may pre-place bolts all the time, but you aren't, and never will be, trad climbing when you do - not by any definition I know of. That is precisely how sport climbing was born. And given the rock, it's not really surprising places like Verdon and Smith were hotbeds of this activity. At that point you may think you're doing trad, but you're really doing some sort of hybrid in my opinion, not trad. Again, the [general] trad ethic is no pre-placing gear and no previews - period. Are there the rare exceptions and area deviations due to the rock - sure, but the point is they were/are exceptions to the rule and people looked damn suspiciously at the reasons/climber/rock when they ran across it.
In reply to: 4. This one is probably more universally accepted in the past. I bet a lot of the New Tradsters (who equate trad with gear and stop there) don't practice this ideal.
I don't see anyone but a few old guys doing it...
In reply to: I still say any definition of trad that excludes John Salathe, as this one certainly does, misses the spirit of tradition in the name of narrowly defined ethics. BAH!
Salathe climbed in a netherworld of boldness that later comparables might be Charlie Porter on Mt. Asgard solo in '75, Middendorf/Bongard on The Grand Voyage / Trango in '92, or Ogden/Synnott on Shipton Spire in '97. All grand visions one and all and John was an early visionary that inspired all that followed and still does. Those are great endeavors, some in different times, and all in different environments - they don't necessarily lump well together with the Gunks, the New, or the Red as far as style and ethics.
Again, I presented the prevailing definitions of trad climbing from the 70's. What you or anyone else have done to them in the ensuing years (and for what reasons) is no doubt your own business...
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Sep 17, 2004, 2:49 PM
Post #111 of 217
(12352 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: In reply to: For example: 1. No hanging EVER precludes hanging belays. There are hanging belays in the trad world. Dingus, Dingus - you're talking belaying here, not climbing! Belaying is belaying and climbing is climbing. There never was or ever will be an issue with hanging belays,
You said "ever." Not me my friend. So, when Steve Hong sent Fallen Arches, he used a hanging belay mid pitch, just like he did on Sphinx Crack. Dan Goodman soon led Fallen Arches as a single pitch and was credited with sending it in a better style. Hong felt compelled to go back and lead it as one pitch. There have been several elite climbers criticized for establishing "unnecessary" hanging belays to divide up the difficulties of hard pitches. That is/was considered an ethical transgression. And we both know it too.
In reply to: In reply to: 2. Bolts are common in the world of trad and pretending otherwise is a waste of time. Again, the area and rock dictated the ethics around the use of bolts, but the predominant and overriding ethic of the times was only use them as a last, very last, resort.
Sure, in bar and campfire talk. Fact is, bolts were widely deployed in the 70's and definitely in the 80's. WIDELY deployed.
In reply to: Ditto for fixed pins. But some places like the Valley, Looking Glass, Smith, Dresden had a bit of a different take on the issue.
Nice tap dancing there. I don't think you should introduce Euro-anthing into a trad discussion, it definitely weakens your stance. And when Dave Brower placed a bolt to protect free climbing on Ship Rock in the 1930's the precedent was set. Bolts have been part of trad climbing ever since. Ship Rock is hardly Yosemite. 1930's are definitely traditional.
In reply to: Trad climbing ethics as a rule are based on the principal of "leave no trace" unless absolutely necessary.
In word only. As practiced, most trad is hardly less impacting than sport climbing. Up to and through the 60's the hammer was the predominant tool for climbing protection, here, there, everywhere except Dresden and and one or two other small areas. None that I am aware of in the US. Reconcile that with the leave no trace theory. That 'leave no trace' thing is an artifact of the late 60's / early 70's hippy movement.. Country Joe and the Fish, Man!
In reply to: 3. No top down climbing is much more accurate. We make use of preplaced pro ALL THE TIME in the trad world. See #2.
No, and in fact, there was never was even the idea of "no top down climbing" largely because there was/is no such relavant concept as "top down" in the trad climbing experience.
So when the Bird whacked out chunks of Wheat Thin and rap bolted it you're saying there was no top down climbing? The first rap placed bolt in Yosemite goes clear back to the 50's, Dave Rearick I think. Sport climing didn't exist, so it wasn't that. if I go and free climb the East Buttress and I aid the replaced Harding Bolt ladder, I assure you, I am tradding on preplaced pro.
In reply to: You may pre-place bolts all the time, but you aren't, and never will be, trad climbing when you do - not by any definition I know of.
The point is my friend, there were no other forms of climbing either. Sport climbing didn't exist. Every time I point to a rap placed bolt or something you're going to claim an exemption. That's funny. Like Ron Kauk preprotecting Seperate Reality with hexes placed from above. Kauk at that time was trad trad trad. So for that 30 minutes he wasn't trad anymore, eh? I ain't buying this exemption clause. The simple fact of the matter is trad NEVER lived up to the hype of a few like Higgins who tried very hard to get everyone else to adopt their ethics. Guess what... we didn't.
In reply to: That is precisely how sport climbing was born. And given the rock, it's not really surprising places like Verdon and Smith were hotbeds of this activity. At that point you may think you're doing trad, but you're really doing some sort of hybrid in my opinion, not trad.
Yes, as soon as the activity stays even the slightest from YOUR ideal, it's no longer trad. OK, fine. Don't pretend a consensus that never existed though, and even in your own argument you exempt one of the homes of trad ethics, Yosemite. Isn't it ironic you can't reconcile the history of Yosemite to this trad ideal? I'm troubled that your definition of trad excludes John Salathe, but you one up me by excluding all of Yosemite!! From Trad!!!111 My friend, that does more to support my contention than anything I have said myself.
In reply to: Again, the [general] trad ethic is no pre-placing gear and no previews - period. Are there the rare exceptions and area deviations due to the rock
NO! The exceptions are due to the climbers. Period. The rock doesn't demand a thing, nor does it dictate. Climbers decide how to climb , just like we decide how to trad.
In reply to: I still say any definition of trad that excludes John Salathe, as this one certainly does, misses the spirit of tradition in the name of narrowly defined ethics. BAH!
In reply to: Again, I presented the prevailing definitions of trad climbing from the 70's. What you or anyone else have done to them in the ensuing years (and for what reasons) is no doubt your own business...
You have presented ONE view of trad ethics in the 70's. Case after case of transgressions can be pointed out to you and you will just say 'that wasn't trad.' The so called ethics of trad were never as firmly established as you present.
What did I do with trad ethics? Well, let's see, I have established trad FA's, numeous, some I have reported others I have left in obscurity. I have established sport FA's and reported all of those (what's the point of a sport route no one knows about?). Earlier this year I broke my ankle rather than grab pro on a free lead. So I guess I wear my trad ethics on my sleeve, er, my ankle brace!
Cheers
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Sep 17, 2004, 4:25 PM
Post #112 of 217
(12352 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Dingus,
I don't know how old you are, but it's not too hard to figure out you weren't climbing in the 70's. You mix and match decades of climbing history from different areas and from the pre-iron and iron age with the clean era with the sport era.
Again, the ethics I presented were firmly rooted around the world in the 70's, you jump decades and spout execption after exception all you want - again, execptions took place and style/ethics evolved with area-to-area variations - but always against the same background of agreement on the base ethics. People argued relentlessly at the time over the nuances of the implementation then as now.
Yeah, I've heard the "brief hippie period" comment numerous times and always from folks that weren't there or were slamming bolts in anyway. Convienent for them, entirely untrue however. But even in the 70's you could go to any area and wherever new routes were going in there was always a cadre/gaggle of hot, but second tier (no FA's) climbers with their guidebooks strung on their harness/pack and you could get a cat to scuba dive before you would get that crew to take a turn onto a section of rock without chalk. You could tell then they would have bolted every route/rock in America as soon as looking at it, but then only about 25-30% of folks even then were really good with pro. Again, the predominant ethic at the time among those of us putting up FA's was a clean, leave no trace ethic. The sound of the era of "falling" versus today's "take" says it all...
What any one person did on this route or that doesn't change the prevailing ethic of the time which was widely discussed, acknowledged, and accepted. You are attempting, and putting on, a [time/place] warped and skewed historical analysis to support what in essence is some form of revisionist history I presume to support your personal ethics - you can do it if you want, but you obviously didn't climb the times you are talking about - I did climb around the world in the times I'm talking about and in all the the time since. What I hear from you is a bunch of argument that basically attempts to rationalize some [weak] form of trad/sport hybrid that works for you and others of the day. Rationalize it anyway you want, but it wasn't what most of us called trad in the 70's.
P.S.
Hanging belays: how and where one breaks up pitches on a particular route is not so much an ethical issue as an aesthetic one. How one belays at a given spot is irrelavant. This is an area where ethics/style/aesthetics do meet, however, particularly on something like the Sphinx. Suddenly whipping in a belay because you can't happen to finish the crack and calling it a clean FA is a legitimate topic of conversation and controversy. Most folks thought it broke up the aesthetics of the route - making it a mini-siege.
|
|
|
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Sep 17, 2004, 4:34 PM
Post #113 of 217
(12352 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2003
Posts: 2599
|
Climbing ethics have allways been situational. the harder, scarier and more commiting the climbing becomes the grayer the ethics become. I will stand by my earlier statement that any serious climber who claims to never holler TAKE or never grab a piece of gear is a lying sack of doody :lol: I remember when i started climbing in 83 the guys teaching me would rib you pretty hard for hang dogging but they all did it :twisted:
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Sep 17, 2004, 4:40 PM
Post #114 of 217
(12352 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: Climbing ethics have allways been situational. the harder, scarier and more commiting the climbing becomes the grayer the ethics become. I will stand by my earlier statement that any serious climber who claims to never holler TAKE or never grab a piece of gear is a lying sack of doody :lol: I remember when i started climbing in 83 the guys teaching me would rib you pretty hard for hang dogging but they all did it :twisted:
Haha. I've climbed with plenty of guys who don't hang-dog, ever. They may not always pull the rope down after every fall, but they go back to the ground (or a natural rest point, like a ledge) after every fall.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
mother_sheep
Sep 17, 2004, 4:42 PM
Post #115 of 217
(12352 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 18, 2002
Posts: 3984
|
This has probably already been mentioned but my ADD prevents me from reading every post. Does anyone fifi directly into a piece to rest? I've done this before on a couple of long trad routes. I've also had my partner take and let me hang. But, I like the fifi!
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Sep 17, 2004, 4:48 PM
Post #116 of 217
(12352 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: remember when i started climbing in 83 the guys teaching me would rib you pretty hard for hang dogging but they all did it
Yep, '83 - ethics were going to shit fast and furious by the then...
Chalk - only use it when necessary? It's always necessary! (Or how would we know where to go or how to do the route!)
Bolts - only use them when necessary? It's always necessary! (Or we might get hurt or we wouldn't get to enjoy this climb or that...!)
Hangdog - only when climbing enters .13 -.15 range where human capabilities to do ground up, clean leads is maxed out? It's always necessary! (Because we want to look like the big boys and girls when pulling hard on a 5.9...)
Yep, everyone's doing it - and when the sign says 2 billion bolts served we can't be wrong...
|
|
|
|
|
asandh
Sep 17, 2004, 4:56 PM
Post #117 of 217
(12352 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2002
Posts: 788
|
:)
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Sep 17, 2004, 5:00 PM
Post #118 of 217
(12352 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
Ethics were just fine in 83 around Tahquitz/Suicide and Joshua Tree.
Unnecessary bolts disappeared shortly. Hangdogging was not at all prevalent.
From my view, things started to get progressively worse around 90 to 95 or so. (bolt gun fever)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Sep 17, 2004, 5:10 PM
Post #119 of 217
(12352 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: Show me a climber who "Always" goes back to the bottom after a fall, and you've also shown me a climber who never climbs at his limit ....
John Stannard, for one. Although he was probably the best rock climber in the world in the late 60s and early 70s, its really too bad he never climbed at his limit.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
asandh
Sep 17, 2004, 5:14 PM
Post #120 of 217
(12352 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2002
Posts: 788
|
:)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Sep 17, 2004, 5:19 PM
Post #121 of 217
(12352 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: curt wrote: In reply to: John Stannard, for one. Although he was probably the best rock climber in the world in the late 60s and early 70s, its really too bad he never climbed at his limit. Yes its too bad, he could've been better ....
Well, to Stannard, climbing harder by diluting his ethics would not have been "better" at all.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
timstich
Sep 17, 2004, 5:24 PM
Post #122 of 217
(12352 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2003
Posts: 6267
|
In reply to: curt wrote: In reply to: John Stannard, for one. Although he was probably the best rock climber in the world in the late 60s and early 70s, its really too bad he never climbed at his limit. Yes its too bad, he could've been better ....
No doubt this was John's take home note from his first grade teacher:
"John works hard, but he has trouble paying attention. He has so much potential if he would only apply himself"
|
|
|
|
|
asandh
Sep 17, 2004, 5:37 PM
Post #123 of 217
(12352 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2002
Posts: 788
|
:)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Sep 17, 2004, 5:51 PM
Post #124 of 217
(12352 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: curt wrote: In reply to: Well, to Stannard, climbing harder by diluting his ethics would not have been "better" at all. I love it !! Another answer for everything guy. I'm not alone in the world. Ethics in climbing are a JOKE. What happened to the renegade attitude of those who took up climbing in times past as a mode to escape the confines of an over ruled society, and do their own thing ??
Ethics in climbing is not a joke, just something that has apparantly been relegated to the past.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Sep 17, 2004, 6:36 PM
Post #125 of 217
(12352 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
As far as I am concerned, Trad ethics have survival value. As in climbing within your limits, a sense of self reliance, and using the rope as a backup instead of a primary climbing tool.
|
|
|
|
|
|
