|
moose_droppings
Oct 12, 2005, 12:06 AM
Post #151 of 323
(21868 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
If your climbing for numbers, (5.7 5.9 .512 whatever), your climbing for the wrong reasons IMO
Climb what you can find, and leave it the way you found it.
Evidently, in this instant self gratifacation society, anyone can do anything they want, anywhere, anytime. Next it will be people suing the route builders for not making the route safe enough, incourageing people to climb there route with chips and bolts, but not enough for gramma who got half way up and fell. Boy do I want to be on that jury. Carefull what you wish for people.
|
|
|
|
|
arrow
Oct 12, 2005, 1:07 AM
Post #152 of 323
(21868 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2005
Posts: 69
|
jt512 wrote:
In reply to: Most FAists are 5.12 and up climbers, yet most FAists put up a myriad of moderate routes, which involve precisely the sort of alterations we are discussing. They aren't doing it so that they can climb the routes. They're doing it so that you can.
Most First Ascensionists (myself included) are motivated by the adventure of climbing something new. Some FAers are motivated to put up the hardest routes they can find so they gain hardman status. I can't imagine any FAer putting up a 5.11 and then dumbing it down to 5.9 as a public service. That's the silliest bit of nonsense I've read in a long time. :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 12, 2005, 1:30 AM
Post #153 of 323
(21868 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: jt512 wrote: In reply to: Most FAists are 5.12 and up climbers, yet most FAists put up a myriad of moderate routes, which involve precisely the sort of alterations we are discussing. They aren't doing it so that they can climb the routes. They're doing it so that you can. Most First Ascensionists (myself included) are motivated by the adventure of climbing something new. Some FAers are motivated to put up the hardest routes they can find so they gain hardman status. I can't imagine any FAer putting up a 5.11 and then dumbing it down to 5.9 as a public service. That's the silliest bit of nonsense I've read in a long time. :lol:
Then you're very naive.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Oct 12, 2005, 3:46 AM
Post #154 of 323
(21868 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: This statement is catagorically false yet even today I'm sure that you can find people who assume that this rag-tag group of climbers were regularly climbing all sorts of 5.12+ / 5.13 face climbs in 1974.
I thought the Vulgarians were late 50's into the 60's. Now dude, I've read extensively and I don't think the Vulgarians climbed out the Gunks or established a bunch of 12's. Uninformed noobs do not a synthetic past make.
In reply to: Where ever there is trad climbing there is a comunity of backwards looking climbers that mythologize some sort of "good old days" when climbing was somehow better, or more bold, or more adventerous.
You may have a point to a certain extent. So what? Every society has those who look back and lionize the deeds of the forefathers. In some cases they get paid for it. It isn't a great crime to hold the past in reverence or something casually approaching it, like in climbing. Its good to have those who remember.
But all the trad climbers I know also boulder, sport, have done walls, and ice and shit and some of them even started before this decline you speak of. Honestly, not to score a debating point, these people are not looking backward, they're scanning the horizon for the most part. They have respect for the past and it colors their actions. But they seem to choose the best things to act upon. S'why I like climbing with them so much.
In reply to: But I statred climbing at the end of those "good old days" and while there were a few standout climbers and achievements (there always are, in every age), for the most part the presumed glory of the past is greatly over stated.
So what? It isn't the job of the story teller to present a Xerox copy of some climb or tell every last detail about a generaton of climbers. Oral history is hugely ingrained in us all. There is a deep delight in the well told story. If allegory and lessons can be woven into the deeds of our forefathers, we are the prouder for it.
Don't denigrate our myths my friend, REVEL IN THEM! A generation of climbers is measured by its deeds yes. But it is also revealed in its dreams. Sure, RR, YC and others were human, flawed from the git. However, it cannot be credibly denied, both men played a major role in shaping not only OUR deeds, but our dreams too, a whole generation, maybe more.
That generation is aging now. They now represent the static past as youngsters today seek out new challenges. Twas no different when Robbins was a kid working in a bank. Never mind, there was a big difference. Back then climbing was fringe, instead of merely pretending to be so, as most of it is today.
Fluxux, I sense you have some stories in you too. Come on man, its part of being in the tribe. Ya gots your noobs (who don't know shit about climbing OR its history) and ya gots yer scribes. There are leaders and followers, inventors and fools. Old curmudgeons too. Climbers all. We're entitled to lionize the past. Allow us our fetish, I beg you good sir!
Cheers man
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
oldrnotboldr
Oct 12, 2005, 2:59 PM
Post #155 of 323
(21868 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 23, 2005
Posts: 306
|
1- no
2- no
3- no
|
|
|
|
|
lizard0fthetrail
Oct 12, 2005, 3:12 PM
Post #156 of 323
(21868 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2004
Posts: 133
|
1) no.
2) no.
3) no, under the usual circumstance. I, however, if put in a situation where I owned a parcel of land containing a blank face/cave/boulder, would have very little ethical issue on whether or not to chip it. I almost definitely would, if for no more reason than a cheap/free training ground outside. Furthermore, if I had a large piece of property and could allocate some of the reseources on my property to my advantage, i.e. using stones for walkways/walls/building or wood, without creating anything more than a mild impact, I certainly would, and I suppose many others would too. The environmental impact of chipping a rock is nil.
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Oct 12, 2005, 3:32 PM
Post #157 of 323
(21868 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
In reply to: Remember, we are not discussing cleaning routes, comfortizing holds, or glue reinforcing suspect features. We are simply considering cases where the rock presents free climbing difficulties that the route developer can not overcome.
jt512, it appears you did not see this part of the first post? Nobody is talking about knocking loose rocks off a new route. Far as that goes, the question #2 asked was if you would drill new holds, it wasn't would you chip new holds.
As far as the gluing comment, I've never seen or heard of that done around here. The one notable time it happened at Dishman in washington state, it was roundly condemmed. I could understand gluing an existing marginal hold so that it was strengthened and would not pull off. I have not seen or heard of, or ever done a route drilled to make it easier either.
I think that is wrong on many levels.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 12, 2005, 4:03 PM
Post #158 of 323
(21868 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: Remember, we are not discussing cleaning routes, comfortizing holds, or glue reinforcing suspect features. We are simply considering cases where the rock presents free climbing difficulties that the route developer can not overcome. jt512, it appears you did not see this part of the first post? Nobody is talking about knocking loose rocks off a new route. Far as that goes, the question #2 asked was if you would drill new holds, it wasn't would you chip new holds.
If you want to confine the conversation strictly to the limits of the OP, then we also have to say that nobody was talking about 5.5 and 5.7 routes, except you.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Oct 12, 2005, 4:19 PM
Post #159 of 323
(21868 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
Can you spell a-n-a-l-o-g-y rock defacer? :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Oct 12, 2005, 4:27 PM
Post #160 of 323
(21868 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
So... what I am hearing from JT512 and others is that not only was Yaniro right (again), but that he ushred in an era where most new routes are chipped?
I've opened routes. Outside of choss pile sport climbing cliffs, Jay, I think you are WAY OVERSTATING your case.
I don't really care about chipping at places like Jailhouse. But pretending that is the norm 24/7 across this great land is ludicrous. None of the routes I've established are chipped. None of the routes my friends have established are chipped. None of my closest partners would agree that chipping is acceptable. ALL OF THEM have opened new routes and have been climbing for 20 years plus.
So I have to call BULLSHIT on the 'most routes are chipped and I'm niave to think otherwise.' BULL SHIT.
You guys who promote chipping as if it were the holy grail... you have signed on to Ray Jardine's philisophy that says it would be preferrable to have a 5.10 free route on El Cap even if that means chipping and glue on holds.
I'm not prepared to accept that. I'd say most in Yosemite feel the same way.
Maybe its just you SoCal sport climbers who have sold out to the chipping devil. The way you speak of it, ALL route developers down there chip. I don't believe you for a minute, but I feel sorry for the state of SoCal climbing if chisel weilding 'developers' are roaming the Monument looking to Michaelangelo new climbs. What a revolting thought. If you restate it to say, hey, this mostly goes down on choss pile sport cliffs, I think I would understand. But most new trad routes, ut uh, chipping would be an abberation, not the norm.
You personally are encouraging chipping, with your highly visible stance. You certainly promote it anyway.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Oct 12, 2005, 4:30 PM
Post #161 of 323
(21868 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
Thank Dingus: totally concur.
I was beginning to feel alone in this conversation.
we're having an arguement up here if it is right to put slings with a rap ring around a tree to try and save it, nobody wants bolts on the mid-route end of pitch ledge in case the tree dies and falls.
Starting to feel things are radiacally different in Calif., but I was in Yos this spring and nothing seemed remiss.
Did climb at Schultzes ridge with Dave Hardin, lots of bolts over that way, but no drilled pockets to make the routes go that I could see.
|
|
|
|
|
mbg
Oct 12, 2005, 4:32 PM
Post #162 of 323
(21868 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2003
Posts: 372
|
Well said Dingus, thanks for stepping up.
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Oct 12, 2005, 4:53 PM
Post #163 of 323
(21868 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
In reply to: None of the routes I've established are chipped. None of the routes my friends have established are chipped. None of my closest partners would agree that chipping is acceptable. ALL OF THEM have opened new routes and have been climbing for 20 years plus.
Same here, and I know lots of people around this area developing as well.
I knew a guy who once hammered a small tree trunk (like a large Christmas tree size, 5" across x 4 " high) into a crack once so if you fell your rope wouldn't get chopped by the sharp edge/flake of the rock which would have existed without the tree stump being hammered in there. Course that chosspile was a former rock quarry, there use to be lots of "hold modification" with dynamite that ended like @50 years ago.
But that's about it that I know about, and someday that stump will rot out of there, or you could easilly hammer it back out right now if you wanted to do the route "Au Natural" and face the risk.
|
|
|
|
|
notch
Oct 12, 2005, 4:56 PM
Post #164 of 323
(21868 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 599
|
In reply to: Post your responses to the three questions with either a YES (chipping is acceptable), NO (not acceptable), or NO OPINION (i.e. ambilvilence or don't care). No justifications please... this is a poll, not a discussion. |
|
|
|
|
fluxus
Oct 12, 2005, 5:06 PM
Post #165 of 323
(21868 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
In reply to: I thought the Vulgarians were late 50's into the 60's. Now dude, I've read extensively and I don't think the Vulgarians climbed out the Gunks or established a bunch of 12's. Uninformed noobs do not a synthetic past make.
In this case hundred or maybe thousands of misinformed recreational climbers do make a synthethic past. They are the one's telling the stories and building up a past that didn't really exist, and by the way they also inform public policy in some cases. This was evident during the so called bolt wars that occurred in the late 1980 on the east coast, many out spoken opponents of bolting based their opposition to bolting on thier misunderstanding of the past. We're not just talking about a few stupid noobs we are talking about every post vulgarian generation in the gunks. Not that you care, but you are completely wrong in acting like it doesn't matter because at specific times and places it matters very much.
Although I don't think you intended to make this argument, your last post basically says that history, or any sense of fairness / fullness of historical accounts does not matter; people will do what they want with it and thats fine by you. What ever. Its not fine by me because when it comes to chipping, bolting and so called ethics (sic.) lies about the purity of the past are constantly put forth as excuses to slander, inhibit, punish, vandalize etc the work of people putting up routes in the present.
Celebrating the past is a totally different issue, I can find many things worth celebrating in the history of climbing but it would be great if celebrating the past didn't translate into attempts to inhibit the present, and if our sense of the past allowed us to approach the dogmatism of the past in its proper context or al least with some objectivity.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Oct 12, 2005, 5:34 PM
Post #166 of 323
(21868 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Although I don't think you intended to make this argument, your last post basically says that history, or any sense of fairness / fullness of historical accounts does not matter; people will do what they want with it and thats fine by you.
You're right, I did not make that argument. Shall I start inserting words into your mouth now too???
To paraphrase what I attempted to say, NO historical account is 100% accurate. Its like a map, the only accurate map is a complete recreation of the terrain. We don't have maps like that and our history doesn't work that way either.
In reply to: lies about the purity of the past are constantly put forth as excuses to slander, inhibit, punish, vandalize etc the work of people putting up routes in the present.
Lies about the past cut across the grain from both directions. You launched this discussion by saying that ANYWHERE you have trad climbers you have backward looking people who use lies to promote their antiquated agendas in today's world. You paint people with an airbrush and then pretend that the 'other side' doesn't do the same thing? Whatever is RIGHT.
In reply to: Celebrating the past is a totally different issue, I can find many things worth celebrating in the history of climbing but it would be great if celebrating the past didn't translate into attempts to inhibit the present, and if our sense of the past allowed us to approach the dogmatism of the past in its proper context or al least with some objectivity.
Yup. More people should be like me, then the world would be a better place.
DMT for President!
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Oct 12, 2005, 5:38 PM
Post #167 of 323
(21868 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
BTW, if outright lies were used to convince the Preserve to ban bolts, I say that lie accomplished a good thing. The ends justify the means in this case, just like they do in rap bolting. A preserved Gunks is as internationally important, I believe, as is a preserved Tuolumne Meadows and Dresden. Not everything needs to be bolted by your pure-as-the-wind-driven-snow developers anyway.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
snodawg
Oct 12, 2005, 6:35 PM
Post #168 of 323
(21868 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2005
Posts: 35
|
NO NO AND NO AGAIN
Arnold for president
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Oct 12, 2005, 6:37 PM
Post #169 of 323
(21868 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: NO NO AND NO AGAIN Arnold for president
Arnold can't be president and your sig line doesn't agree with itself, climber is singular and their is plural.
You're welcome!
Got any live sex shows going on up there yet?
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
jbak
Oct 12, 2005, 6:48 PM
Post #170 of 323
(21868 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 63
|
In reply to: I don't really care about chipping at places like Jailhouse. But pretending that is the norm 24/7 across this great land is ludicrous. You guys who promote chipping as if it were the holy grail... If you restate it to say, hey, this mostly goes down on choss pile sport cliffs, I think I would understand. DMT
Personally, I would restate it "hey, this mostly goes down on choss pile sport cliffs". In that case, it's hard to say exactly what chipping means. If you clean off 2 inches of potato chip flakes and a hold starts to appear, did you chip ? What if that hold will need reinforcement to stick around for long ? Are you sculpting ?
I once had some jerk yell at me for chipping while I was prying off a death block. Maybe I should have left it for him to pull down on his belayer. It showed me how clueless newbie climbers can be.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 12, 2005, 6:52 PM
Post #171 of 323
(21868 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Can you spell a-n-a-l-o-g-y rock defacer? :lol:
I can even spell "false analogy."
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Oct 12, 2005, 7:44 PM
Post #172 of 323
(21868 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
In reply to: I can even spell "false analogy." -Jay
Well it won't matter cause I've already decided to vote for Dingus so there :nono: :mrgreen:
|
|
|
|
|
fluxus
Oct 12, 2005, 8:35 PM
Post #173 of 323
(21868 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
Dingus,
You're knack for missing the point is impressive.
On the bigger topic, everyone is diss'n on Jay with his comments about chipping being the norm.
Jay's remark presents a challenge to us: Are their areas that are free of chipping? Have there been times in climbing history when climber's didn't chip or alter the rock / routes in some way? Its a no brainer that there are many places where such actions are considered off-limits and not acceptable in any what but these areas are also not free of these actions.
The Gunks is a good example, in that it was / is one of the last strong holds for a certain way of thinking about climbing but the rusting 1/4 in. bolts on some routes are a Testament to the lack of stability in the governing ideology as are chipped nut placements, and manufactured holds that appear on some routes.
What Jay and I are suggesting is that we should sideline the debated over whether chipping is bad or not and look at the issue from the point of view of what role chipping has played and continues to play in American climbing. I realize that this is scary because it asks one to check their dogma at the door, but it's really the only chance we have of learning anything and to be honest about our history. From this perspective one has to admit that chipping is a nominative practice in areas such as socal and a great deal of the inter-mountain west. Not because evil, bands of crazed FAers are hoping to deface the rock but because cleaning and gluing are necessary for putting up routes in many climbing areas.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Oct 12, 2005, 9:00 PM
Post #174 of 323
(21868 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Dingus, You're knack for missing the point is impressive.
Surpassed only by your knack for failing to make them.
In reply to: On the bigger topic, everyone is diss'n on Jay with his comments about chipping being the norm.
EVERYONE is not dissing jt. What else are you overstating??? Oh, that's right, ALL ROUTES ARE CHIPPED. Or some such shit.
In reply to: Jay's remark presents a challenge to us: Are their areas that are free of chipping? Have there been times in climbing history when climber's didn't chip or alter the rock / routes in some way? Its a no brainer that there are many places where such actions are considered off-limits and not acceptable in any what but these areas are also not free of these actions.
That's a far cry from 'most routes are chipped.' Its a long way from 'all developers' chip too.
In reply to: The Gunks is a good example, in that it was / is one of the last strong holds for a certain way of thinking about climbing but the rusting 1/4 in. bolts on some routes are a Testament to the lack of stability in the governing ideology as are chipped nut placements, and manufactured holds that appear on some routes.
Its governing ideology that chipped those holds, eh? Wow.
In reply to: What Jay and I are suggesting is that we should sideline the debated over whether chipping is bad or not and look at the issue from the point of view of what role chipping has played and continues to play in American climbing.
Actually I'm quite willing to acknowledge that the secret life of chipping has long been with us. So???
In reply to: I realize that this is scary because it asks one to check their dogma at the door,
Damn, you're more condescending tham I AM! BRAVO!
In reply to: From this perspective one has to admit that chipping is a nominative practice in areas such as socal and a great deal of the inter-mountain west. Not because evil, bands of crazed FAers are hoping to deface the rock but because cleaning and gluing are necessary for putting up routes in many climbing areas.
That's a far cry from 'most new routes are chipped.' Its even further from 'most routes are chipped.'
I'm not the one saying chipping is evil. I am calling you pro-chippers onto the carpet for implying the myopic view that because YOU GUYS CHIP so does everyone else.
Everyone does not chip. There are those who disagree with the notion of it whether that disagreement stems from a idealized view of the past, a stern environmental focus or because they merely parrot that which they were taught. Humans run the gamut, imo most people simply follow what they were taught without much consideration for other views cept how to argue against them.
From that view point I'd say your dogma isn't any better than mine or anyone elses. That leaves of with a difference of opinion, something I can certainly live with.
But it does not = 'most routes are chipped.'
Neither of you have any sort of grasp on this elusive 'accurate' history to which you refer that would give you credibility to make the statement.
I'd be far more interested in FACTS fluxus, like WHICH ROUTES HAVE YOU PERSONALLY CHIPPED?
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Oct 13, 2005, 1:51 AM
Post #175 of 323
(21982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: Arnold can't be president and your sig line doesn't agree with itself, climber is singular and their is plural.
Oh come on, Dingus. You're one of the last people on this site that I'd expect to be touting that type of nonsense. ;)
There's even usages in Shakespeare of "they" with a singular antecedent. The form is a widely preferred (and probably also more widely used when it comes to informal, spoken English) alternative to the phrase "he or she" as a neutral gender pronoun.
Ya might give this, and this, and especially this (which says usage dates back to the 1300's, and that it only started to be perceived as "incorrect" grammar in the late 18th century) a read, if you're feeling bored. :P
(Not to distract from this heated debate or anything).
|
|
|
|
|
|
