|
hsvclimber
Apr 26, 2006, 8:56 PM
Post #26 of 118
(11242 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2005
Posts: 65
|
So... its OK to stick the first bolt but not the second... what if the original bolter had omitted the first bolt and only put one bolt on the route where the second is located... would we still be having this discussion.
I've seen some routes with the first bolt at 20' and some with the bolt at 8'... what if the original bolter put it at 40 feet up is the "its OK to stick the first" rule still going to apply... if the crux is below or right at the first bolt are you telling me its the same thing to stick it as it is clip it on lead... I've got a 45 foot tall stick click I sometimes use to rig top ropes... I'm going to start bolting all my routes with the first bolt at 40' and sticking it... because thats ok...
|
|
|
|
|
hsvclimber
Apr 26, 2006, 9:00 PM
Post #27 of 118
(11242 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2005
Posts: 65
|
All that to say... props... they climbed a really hard route, in a style THEY were OK with... if you want to climb it in a better style... go ahead...
|
|
|
|
|
ambler
Apr 26, 2006, 9:23 PM
Post #28 of 118
(11242 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 1690
|
In reply to: larry what did FH go at in regards to pro rating PG 13? with pins in the corner and RP's in the "horizontal" and then what was above for the roof? is the bottom trad protectable too or were there pins
But as for Flying Hawaiian, there might have been just one bolt back when I first did it, 1990. That was a quarter-incher right off the ground. Most serious part of the climb was the first 20 feet, because if you fell anywhere above the first move, you would be talus food.
As I remember it, foggily, there was a rusty fixed pin near the roof; getting up to it you had to be a bit cautious. Then another blade or two in the final corner. You could fit in small nuts here and there, or approach the roof from the right along a hand-flake that took Friends.
All in all, it was a reasonably protected route, but not one I'd go up planning to take lots of falls on -- "Wait until you're ready" seemed a better philosophy. Quite out of date now, eh? 8^)
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Apr 26, 2006, 9:31 PM
Post #29 of 118
(11242 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
Alpine do you generally hit the ground top roping? all except one of his falls he hits the ground.. Tommy TR'd __% of The Nose straight on.. belayed from above.. cleaning gear.. almost NO one disputes he redpointed it.. hell he didn't even lead the crux.. Beth led that
I guess trad ethics are a bit more loose than sport's eh?
so because it's short, powerful and fucking hard, people shit on folks for clipping the bolts to prevent broken ankles(or more).
Caught.. same for you.. he's clipping 2 draws so that he stays off the deck. No one "that knows better" disputes it
sure.. kehls is impressive.. but it's dangerous. Sharma sent 14d in 2 real tries... clipping the bolt the first time.. left it clipped for the next time.. big deal still the fastest ascent of 14d ever. To me that is more impressive than toproping a route to death then dragging up 20 crashpads and turning Waimea into Rumney rock gym with spotters all around
http://climbing.com/news/hotflashes/flyboys/ there.. from Climbing.com
says they top roped the crux.. however.. what if the crux is below the first bolt like on some hard routes that are generally stick clipped.. still accepted and not disputed.
Larry.. sounds like less than ideal pro.. but it's a "wait until i'm ready" route for me even bolted .. i'll send mid 12's before i get on that i bet.. it freaks me out a bit
|
|
|
|
|
tonloc
Apr 26, 2006, 9:49 PM
Post #30 of 118
(11242 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 249
|
i agree french people can't climb hard...
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Apr 26, 2006, 9:59 PM
Post #31 of 118
(11242 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: you can preclip all the bolts of your project if you want.. but you have to have your belay leave enough slack for you to hit the ground if you fall like tonys did.. and you have to go up the lead side of the rope.. not the cleaning side.. so have a lovely swing of maiming carnage if you fail
What the fuck? We're talking about sport climbing here: anything goes.
The threat of "maiming carnage" is not a prerequisite to claiming a redpoint.
|
|
|
|
|
feanor007
Apr 26, 2006, 10:09 PM
Post #32 of 118
(11242 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2004
Posts: 377
|
In reply to: he (caldwell) didn't even lead the crux
yah, but he came back and did the whole route free, then he did the nose and salathe free in 24 hours. so he climbed the nose 3 times, or at least 2 1/2 :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
james_climber
Apr 26, 2006, 10:12 PM
Post #33 of 118
(11242 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2004
Posts: 304
|
In reply to: Who cares?? The real question is did they have fun doing it. If he thinks he did it in the best style that he could good for him. Why s--- on someone else's accomplishments? The real question is how did his ascent affect me? None, still try 5.9's :lol: Mitt
I dont fuckin care , i dont like top roping , i dont claim ascents on top rope
BORED video
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Apr 26, 2006, 10:18 PM
Post #34 of 118
(11242 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: I think all this really does is expose yet another flaw in how we judge style.
Yup.
The problem is that many sport climbers think the consequences of a fall are important, but this line of thinking is merely a historical artifact and not sensible in the context of the modern formulation of our sport.
As one poster mentioned---if bolts can go anywhere (and they basically can), stick clipping the first bolt could mean toproping the whole route. A limit based on distance from the ground is similarly incoherent---some routes do not have convenient clipping stances for many meters, and the natural (i.e. easiest) way to protect them involves the use of stick clipping many bolts perhaps acompanied with crash pads and spotters.
Sport climbing is not (or should not be) sport clipping. Protection is not the game. Toproping (whether you toprope one bolt, two bolts, 5 meters worth, 20% of the route or 100% of the route) is a valid tactic to use on your redpoint attempts.
In reply to: The problem is that our simple terminology isn't accurate enough to convey the information about climbs that climbers seem to want.
Information that some climbers seem to want. (I.e., the sport clippers)
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Apr 26, 2006, 10:23 PM
Post #35 of 118
(11242 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: Caught.. same for you.. he's clipping 2 draws so that he stays off the deck. No one "that knows better" disputes it
Agreed. All the ascents of The Fly are widely accepted as valid redpoints by anyone "that knows better".
In reply to: sure.. kehls is impressive.. but it's dangerous. Sharma sent 14d in 2 real tries... clipping the bolt the first time.. left it clipped for the next time.. big deal still the fastest ascent of 14d ever.
But this is probably inaccurate. The route is a V13, and V13 has been flashed. Doing it on a rope doesn't change what it is.
Similarly, doing something without a rope doesn't change what it is. So, if V13 really is 5.14d, this means the fastest ascent(s) of 5.14d have probably been done with crash pads, spotters and no ropes.
In reply to: To me that is more impressive than toproping a route to death then dragging up 20 crashpads and turning Waimea into Rumney rock gym with spotters all around
Personally I don't even think Kehl's ascent is better style than Lamiche's.
And judged from an efficient redpoint tactics perspective, Kehl's strategy was less efficient and therefore worse/stupider.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Apr 26, 2006, 10:44 PM
Post #36 of 118
(11242 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
In reply to: What the f---? We're talking about sport climbing here: anything goes. The threat of "maiming carnage" is not a prerequisite to claiming a redpoint.
the maiming carnage was a mental image i had of someone falling off their roof project while stick clipped up the same percentage that the 2nd bolt of the fly is compared to it's height.. blowing off the first few moves and taking quite a ride along the ground. jay said where's the limit.. the limit is the safety of the climber.. Subtle told me that Boone speed put up a 14c that had the first 3 bolts preclipped including the crux.. don't see anyone freaking out about that one
and fracture i think we're pretty much in the same thinking.. maybe i'm not getting it across that way.. but i agree with almost everything you say
In reply to: some routes do not have convenient clipping stances for many meters
yes.. anything goes. it's not about the pro it's about the climbing.. and in no way did the rope help any of them climb the damn route...it didnt even keep tony from hitting the ground when he fell. only kept him from falling into the hole below the route
In reply to: The route is a V13, and V13 has been flashed. Doing it on a rope doesn't change what it is.
well i should change my post because i looked up Luke parady's send on 8a and he puts it at 8b/8b+ meaning hard v13 almost v14. it wont change your mind about the route vs boulder differences but i cant express why i think flashing a boulder problem is a bit easier than a route so i'll leave it at OK! haha
i still dont think you'll see many, if any, hard climbers trying to flash the fly sans rope.. just don't think it's worth the risk.. it is their job in jeopardy if they eff it up and fall off the boulder and break something
yes... tommy's second send of the Nose would be valid by the folks in this thread's standards.. However the first one was considered a redpoint and alllllllllllll you people defended him being the first male to redpoint the nose.. yet he did not lead the crux.. so by this threads definition DAB INVALID BIIIATCH
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Apr 26, 2006, 10:53 PM
Post #37 of 118
(11242 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: In reply to: What the f---? We're talking about sport climbing here: anything goes. The threat of "maiming carnage" is not a prerequisite to claiming a redpoint. the maiming carnage was a mental image i had of someone falling off their roof project while stick clipped up the same percentage that the 2nd bolt of the fly is compared to it's height.. blowing off the first few moves and taking quite a ride along the ground. jay said where's the limit.. the limit is the safety of the climber.. Subtle told me that Boone speed put up a 14c that had the first 3 bolts preclipped including the crux.. don't see anyone freaking out about that one and fracture i think we're pretty much in the same thinking.. maybe i'm not getting it across that way.. but i agree with almost everything you say
I get ya now---after I read your next couple posts I realized what you probably meant.
By the way, that Boone Speed route where he had 3 bolts pre-clipped on the first ascent was Ice Cream (14c).
|
|
|
|
|
demand_bub
Apr 26, 2006, 11:36 PM
Post #38 of 118
(11242 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2006
Posts: 5
|
I think it's funny that the ethics in sport climbing are so convoluted that this is what you all have to argue about.
How about you all take a sewing needle to those massive egos?
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
Apr 27, 2006, 12:57 AM
Post #39 of 118
(11242 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
In reply to: I think it's funny that the ethics in sport climbing are so convoluted that this is what you all have to argue about. How about you all take a sewing needle to those massive egos?
what is it that makes sport climbing ethics more convoluted than the other disciplines in climbing? if you mean that ethics and style are inherently subjective and people in this thread seem to be debating mundane details then you're correct. but at the same time you'd have to admit that similar seemingly mundane details are important in any of climbing's sub-disciplines.
so, in a way i agree with you, ethics are funny because they depend upon details and decisions that may seem unimportant. in one sense Lamich climbed the fly in another he didn't do it in as pure of a style as Kehl. Does it matter? Yes and no. The same debate is true of using seige tactics versus alpine style ascents, 4 bouldering pads instead of sans pad, leashless tools versus leashed, etc.
but I completely disagree with you if you're accusing of any sportclimber that has an opinion regarding the matter as having a massively huge ego. In terms of ego, you're the one who has entered a conversation with a completely judgemental tone.
|
|
|
|
|
tonloc
Apr 27, 2006, 1:05 AM
Post #40 of 118
(11242 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 249
|
sharma is pretty much the spirirual leader (cheeseball at times) of the climbing world and he was cool with it, so i'm okay with it...remember in that one video i think it was rampage when his shoe broke and he declared that climbing in the future would be more pure and be done barefoot, and then proceeded to send harder shit than i will ever do without shoes on, i think if he says that and he's cool with clipping the second bolt then we all should be...plus he pulls harder than anyone here, possible than anyone ever, except for of course chuck norris
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Apr 27, 2006, 1:20 AM
Post #41 of 118
(11242 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
it's generally not the sport climbers that are arguing stuff.. it's the people that think that all parts of climbing have to play by the same rules. you dont see trad climbers yelling at aid climbers for yarding on gear.. you usually dont see sport climbers telling trad climbers they should bolt everything(maybe joking around but not meaning it).. etc..
seems to be either new or less traveled people or that are so set in their ways that they can't accept other styles and the "rules" they go by
|
|
|
|
|
naw
Apr 27, 2006, 1:44 AM
Post #42 of 118
(11242 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2004
Posts: 192
|
I've been thinking about something for awhile, and this seems like a good discussion to bring it up in. Originally, it seems to me that the point of leading was to get up a climb. It had nothing to do with ego, sport, challenge, etc....it was just a necessity. Somebody had to lead a pitch in order to get up to the top, and somebody else had to follow. I don't really see how that applies anymore in sport climbing. It seems to me that leading now is just an ego game. What's the real need for a sport climber to lead a pitch? If he needs to set the rope on it in order to protect a second or third ascent by someone else climbing after him, then that makes sense, and is needed. But what need is there for anybody that climbs after him to pull the rope and lead it also? If sport climbing is supposed to be about movement under safe conditions, then what's the real difference between clipping bolts and toproping, once you've already got the route setup to be toproped? It serves no purpose other than a further "challenge" for the next climbers to attempt. It seems to me that the only possible reason for somebody to pull the rope and relead the pitch is an ego game. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with it, but I think it's about time that all of these self-important sport "hardmen" who look down on people who "only toprope" realize that they're basically just wannabe traddies who don't want to take real risks. If you like to lead sport then go for it. If you find it more enjoyable and fun to lead, then that's awesome and definitely enjoy it, that's what climbing's about. But don't look down on somebody else for "toproping", because from a big picture standpoint it's exactly the same thing you're doing. Does this make sense to anyone else?
|
|
|
|
|
t-dog
Deleted
Apr 27, 2006, 2:02 AM
Post #43 of 118
(11242 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: But I'm pretty sure that If I pre-clipped every bolt on my project except for the anchor and then called it a redpoint, I'd get called on it. Of course, there's a world different between me and my triffling projects and TL and the Fly. All I'm wondering is where's the line? At what point is it acceptable to TR 2/3 of a route and still call it a redpoint? .13d? .14a? Or does it have more to do with the height of the route? IMO, this takes stick-clipping to an unreasonable level and Kehl's ascent is the only one that counts so far. Certainly, it counts more than all the others. Of course, the real question is does this affect my climbing in any way, shape or form. And the answer is no, it doesn't. :)
Heh, depends how you look at it. Either he stick-clipped all the bolts but the anchor, or he stick-clipped the first 2 bolts. In his case it's the same thing, but probably not for your triffling projects which ahve more than 2 bolts!
But you do bring up an interesting point of "harder" routes and climbers seeming to be allowed to use somewhat lax-er ethics/requirements than weekend warriors on 5.9s.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Apr 27, 2006, 2:41 AM
Post #44 of 118
(11242 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
jeeeeebus.. there's like 10 points in that shpeeel that make absolutely no fucking sense... either a complete dumbass or a brilliant troll i havent decided but i shall rant on anyway
In reply to: It had nothing to do with ego, sport, challenge, etc....it was just a necessity.
b) can be said best by yourself..
In reply to: It seems to me that the only possible reason for somebody to pull the rope and relead the pitch is an ego game.
because.. IT'S HARDER
In reply to: It serves no purpose other than a further "challenge" for the next climbers to attempt.
In reply to: I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with it, but I think it's about time that all of these self-important sport "hardmen" who look down on people who "only toprope" realize that they're basically just wannabe traddies who don't want to take real risks.
c) you sound really bitter about something.. did someone hurt your feelings at some point? What sport climbers are telling people that top roping only is bad?? no one in this thread i can tell you that. wanna be traddies eh? i climb both sport, trad, and boulder .. i do all 3 to be able to climb at different areas. there is little trad at Rumney.. so i clip bolts, there is no sport at the gunks or daks.. so i place gear.. shorter boulders don't need either gear or bolts so i throw a fucking pad down.. IT'S ALL DIFFERENT
btw not everyone climbs trad for the "risk" they climb it because that is the local ethic and there is no other choice.
the people with the ego's are the ones that cannot get their head out of their ass to see that every aspect of climbing can be enjoyed by everyone if they so choose and each has it's own subtlties that make them different and fun. i love seeing how freaking hard i can pull on boulders before either friction, skin or muscle fails.. i stretch that out on sport to add the endurance and longer strings of movements.. on trad i just want to get air under my feet.. i dont care if it's leading 5.2 or following 5.10 i dont care.. i have as much fun cleaning gear as i do placing it.
i may have to add more to this but for now..
:wtf: :wtf:
|
|
|
|
|
styndall
Apr 27, 2006, 3:10 AM
Post #45 of 118
(11242 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 2741
|
In reply to: b) can be said best by yourself.. In reply to: It seems to me that the only possible reason for somebody to pull the rope and relead the pitch is an ego game. because.. IT'S HARDER
Climbing is about climbing something. The protection of the climb is only about what happens when you screw up the climbing part.
You can make a climb harder in a billion ways. You could wear roller skates, for instance, or have a bunch of monkeys hurl feces at you while you climbed. However, that wouldn't make your ascent any more valid.
If a top-rope is easily set, then any other method is just contrived difficulty.
Frippery, in other words.
Don't take this to mean that I never lead anything. On the contrary, leading is often far more practical and on some occasions safer than top-roping. However, I don't deceive myself into thinking that rope management has anything to do with the act of climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
dudemanbu
Apr 27, 2006, 3:42 AM
Post #46 of 118
(11242 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2005
Posts: 941
|
In connecticut, there are literally about 1000 routes that would make great sport leads. However, at the vast majority of the crags, there isn't a single bolt left in the faces. All of the bolts that were placed on the lead during the first ascent have since been chopped.
Why you ask? With all those great face climbs around, someone must want to lead them!
The answer is simple. Yes, people would love to lead them. But, bolts are ugly. If you can toprope a climb, all you're doing by bolting it to make it leadable is adding artifical difficulty.
In the process of doing this, you're scarring the rock permanently. Local ethich here has been "if you can place gear, do it, and lead it. If you can't, toprope it. If you can't do either, don't climb it." Many FA's of the face climbs here were done on tied off hooks. This includes routes that are 5.12 and harder.
If you put a bolt on any of the major crags here in CT, it will typically be chopped within a matter of weeks. This happens even at ragged mountain, where the trees for anchoring topropes are around 50 feet back from the top of the cliff. If you tried to bolt an entire climb, as a first ascent, even if it's some crazy 5.15, the bolts would be chopped. Shortly thereafter, bolts would begin to disappear at other climbing areas adjactnt to CT, in an ill-sighted attempt at retribution.
Toproping is the safest way to climb, because falls are much shorter. You don't have to worry about a bolt breaking, or (most of the time) gear pulling out. You can climb in comfort and safety, and you don't have to muss up the rock while you're doing it.
-ps. These views are not endorsed by myself, and do not represent my actual thoughts or the thoughts of Connecticut Climbers as a group. They represent the thoughts and ethics of Ken Nichols, a guy who doesn't give a fuck what the rest of us think.
|
|
|
|
|
lichenmuncher
Apr 27, 2006, 3:55 AM
Post #47 of 118
(11242 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 54
|
posers :lol: :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
naw
Apr 27, 2006, 4:01 AM
Post #48 of 118
(11242 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2004
Posts: 192
|
Good job at tearing my post apart based on technicalities rather than actual content.
In reply to: a) Needed to get the rope up there?? they didnt NEED to do anything.. folks wanted to climb harder faces so they used ropes and gear. Sport climbing is the same only there are bolts where gear cannot be placed. Some places that are bolted are not accessible from the top.. you need to lead to get up there.. period.
I think you make my point well right here. They "wanted to climb harder faces;" was their goal to make their rope management more challenging or to make the actual physical act of climbing more challenging? The idea of "ethics" as we're discussing it didn't even exist then, because the idea was simply to GET UP something...the goal was the climbing itself, not the way in which the climbing was managed. The protection was an afterthought, as the previous post pointed out; secondary to the actual pursuit of physical challenge from the climbing. Sport climbing is not the same at all, despite what your "opinion" on the subject might be. Maybe "mixed" climbing is similar to what you're describing, but go out to any sport crag and find me a route that has bolts only where traditional protection is non-existent. Sport climbing is simply the logical progression of increasing physical challenge under safer and safer conditions; top-roping is basically the final conclusion of that progression. If you can't see that than you're thinking inside a box. Go ahead and call me a complete dumbass though, it really helps solidify your points.
In reply to: because.. IT'S HARDER
What, specifically, is harder? The rope management? The mental aspect? If you want a greater physical challenge, go get on a harder climb.
In reply to: Plus at some point people are going to need to lead for themselves if that one person is not around or wait for it.. they WANT to learn to lead
This is exactly the point I made in the beginning of my post, thanks for backing it up. The only reason to lead a sport route, besides a desire for a greater "challenge" (aka ego boost), is if the situation necessitates a lead in order to set protection for further ascents by other climbers or the original lead climber. Anything else is just FOR FUN. How hard is that to understand?
The point here is that leading/redpointing/onsighting is nothing but an ego game for people to play with themselves and each other. It's not climbing, it's just people building a score system. If anyone here sounds bitter, it's you, as a matter of fact. Why you felt the need to personally attack me based on a personal thought that I was putting out there to see if anybody else agreed with me is beyond me, but obviously you took a personal offense to the ideas I presented. I still can't figure out why you included the two paragraphs about all the different climbing you do in all the different areas, as if that had anything to do with the discussion.
In reply to: What sport climbers are telling people that top roping only is bad??
Umm, have you read this thread at all? That's the point of this entire discussion. Is a redpoint attempt on a sport route "valid" based on the fact that part of it is being "top-roped." My point is simply that the aspect of physical danger in sport climbing is intentionally minimized to the point that "top-rope" or "lead" is basically a contrivance and shouldn't have any real bearing on whether somebody got a "valid" ascent of a route or not. These discussions are always going to be had because the rules of the game are constantly changing and nobody seems entirely sure on what they are at any given time. All I'm trying to point out is that leading a sport route, simply for the act of leading it, is essentially a ridiculous idea anyway and shouldn't be taken so seriously to begin with. My tone probably did seem a little bitter at the end of the post...just happened to be one of those mornings. Thanks for helping remind me why I usually don't make any attempt to have real discussions on the internet though.
|
|
|
|
|
styndall
Apr 27, 2006, 4:10 AM
Post #49 of 118
(11242 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 2741
|
In reply to: Good post Ken. Too bad the majority of climbers don't respect those kind of ethics or other climbers.
I'm pretty sure that post wasn't from Ken Nichols. He's famous for chopping other people's routes at their home areas in revenge for putting up bolted routes at places he considers 'his.' I'm from Georgia, and I've heard a bunch about the guy.
It's not good ethics; it's insane insistance that everyone be exactly like you.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Apr 27, 2006, 4:28 AM
Post #50 of 118
(11242 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
Dude.. we agree on something.. the CT ethics are screwed up.. Ken's scatterbrained and dilusioned ethics are shoved down everyone's throats because of how he deals with it.. I and i bet you think that if it cannot be protected by gear then a few strategically placed bolts*.. either placed on lead or at least mapped out while climbing the route should be allowed. and you know as well as i do that the chopping creates more damage than any bolt anyone has placed.. when ken dies or finally gets put in a mental ward i predict an amazing amount of awesome bolted routes to go back up and CT will be a much more popular destination than it is now..
*that's the practice at the gunks and im sure many other places that follow trad ethics but need a bolt to be protected. FAist has their choice on that.. if they want it r/x rated well.. thats how it will be.
In reply to: If a top-rope is easily set, then any other method is just contrived difficulty.
well.. anything multi pitch would not work that way... and as you pointed out things that have the top not accessible or able to make a top rope anchor on it. at rumney you can't get to the top of most climbs except from a route and the vast majority of the bolted anchors are on the face below the lip.
leading is more difficult a) mentally due to longer fall potential b) physically due to having to pull the weight of the rope and draws/gear and having to hold onto certain stances longer to place gear or clip a bolt
i don't think it's contrived.. it's a natural act to start at the bottom and climb to the top only having protection when available as opposed to 100% of the time on TR
In reply to: The protection of the climb is only about what happens when you screw up the climbing part.
yea.... but since we're talking sport climbing and alot of people push their limits on bolts because the protection is dependable and the general nature of harder routes tends to be overhanging so the falls are open air and safer. Falling is part of sport climbing if you push yourself for onsites or redpoint things at or near your limit. that's not everyones goal but when it is then falling on the bolts. my motto.. "if you're not flying.. you're not trying"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
