There's a climb that is pretty classic for its grade, but the FA team bolted it sparsely due to financial demands (they were practically kids at the time, cut them some slack).
Years have gone by, the FA team doesn't climb together anymore for a host of reasons. When they're asked about retrobolting the route to make an X an R, one of them says "absolutely not!!" and the other "absolutely - it scared the sh*t out of me!!"
the point of putting bolts in it is to make it safe to climb, i say bolt it.
there is a ton of stuff in my area that needs some extra bolts on it because the guys who put it up were both morons and madmen.
if someone doesn't like the new bolts, they don't have to clip them.
further...
what happens in 30 years when those bolts are mank? are the fa's gonna cry because someone rebolts the choss?
I have to disagree with you, the guys that put up the routes out at e-rock didn't put the bolts up like that "to make it a safe, family friendly environment for the average person" they bolted ground up on lead because that was the purest style in there opinion and in their experience. The routes weren't put up to be "safe" because the old-school ethics weren't about making the safest routes out there, the old school didn't appeal to alot of the people you find out at Reimer's, they were putting routes up for committed climbers, not your everyday jockey who buys some quickdraws, goes out to Reimer's a few times and then heads out to Enchanted Rock to prove their new manliness. The reason the routes are run out is because they were bolted on lead, hand-drilled, as they levered out on sketchy aid gear on some of those very serious slab routes. When your bolting on lead you don't have the option to stop and put a bolt every 5 feet to pamper to everyone. Gridbolting an area has no style and takes the adventure out of climbing. Your in a traditional, old school area, appreciate the ethics chosen by the first ascent, and don't try to change it. If they had the balls to bolt it on lead, then you can climb it on lead or leave it be, don't dumb it down to a lesser style. As to your comment about saying that if people don't like the bolts they can just not clip them, it still takes the adventure out of the climb, because knowing that you have those extra bolts just incase you chicken out makes it alot less committing than if you only have the few bolts that are there and have no other option than to be ten feet above your last bolt. Except for a few routes out at E-Rock everything else is bolted enough that you know you'll be okay, however its still going to be a big fall, your not going to deck, granted it is slab and you may get pretty scraped up, but your going to be alright, and that's the way it should be, just enough and nothing more. Furthermore, replacing manky bolts is something entirely different than retrobolting an already established route and changing its character. Bottom line, and I don't necessarily make this assumption of you, but E-Rock isn't developed for your new generation of gym climbers, E-Rock is an area that was developed under the same ideals held in other old school areas such as Yosemite, and it is in no way an area that is meant to appeal to today's "average" climber.
Anyways, to add my opinion about it, this is a hard one. Because the FA team didn't bolt it sparsely based on ethics, just on a basis of money, so its kinda hard to make the ethical argument behind it. I originally said leave it be, but I dunno, I find this a hard one, but in the end, if its still climbable, just run out, and if it still sees traffic, then let it be. If there's a possibility for decking for no good reason, than I would definitely say retrobolt it. Despite my previous post, I don't agree with X ratings, I think that in alot of cases that it is just an ego thing, because why put the bolts in, why not just leave it a solo, creating an x rated route in my opinion is purely about trying to compensate for something (although I believe an X rated trad route is legitimate, because that's meeting the rock on its own terms, if you've already decided that you can't do that however and are going to put bolts in, than don't leave useless metal up on the climb, put them up in the right spots). So it there's a potential death fall/deck on it, I think it would be fine to add minimal bolts to change this, however if it is just quite run out, but as said in my previous post, just enough to make sure your alright, I'd say leave it.
the point of putting bolts in it is to make it safe to climb, i say bolt it.
there is a ton of stuff in my area that needs some extra bolts on it because the guys who put it up were both morons and madmen.
if someone doesn't like the new bolts, they don't have to clip them.
further...
what happens in 30 years when those bolts are mank? are the fa's gonna cry because someone rebolts the choss?
I have to disagree with you, the guys that put up the routes out at e-rock didn't put the bolts up like that "to make it a safe, family friendly environment for the average person"... but E-Rock isn't developed for your new generation of gym climbers, E-Rock is an area that was developed under the same ideals held in other old school areas such as Yosemite, and it is in no way an area that is meant to appeal to today's "average" climber.
I definitely respect your opinion; however i disagree completely (which was already obvious)
I also note that you are not ascribing any particular behavior to me, so this is not a rash ego-reaction to your disagreeing perspective.
If the bolts were not put there to make the climb "safe" then why did they put any bolts at all?
E-rock is land that belongs to me as much as it belongs to crump as well as every other american and when someone goes in there to bolt up the pink granite, they have a responsibility to bolt it in a safe manner.
I can understand your sentimentality, but really that is all it is. I'm not talking about bolting cracks, i'm talking about putting a bolt in between a 20 foot runout. That isn't to say that i want e-rock "grid bolted." I don't know why crump only put bolts up sparsely, but i think it was dumb. What is the point of only partially protecting a route? Those crystals break and after 20 years of climbing many of them are simply just polished off after years of use. Any amount of climbing traffic degrades the rock, so what is the reason not to upgrade the protection?
Do you know what the "rule of thumb" was? It was an old school ethic that no one subscribes to anymore.
i don't care if my balls aren't as big as crump's or kauk's or royal's. Do you know how big their balls were? If they were so hardcore why did they use protection at all?
This isn't a penis or scrotal measuring contest, it is a sport and someone who thinks that their "ethic" is better than someone else's is just like all those other egotistical morons fighting wars out there.
I have great respect for someone who takes their time energy and money to establish a new line; however if that person is incompetent or has a disproportional sense of "bravery" why should the rest of the world be forced into the "adventure" of death and injury? Sure you may say "you don't have to climb it," but i say that if you have enough disrespect for the rock to put a bolt in there, then you have no reason to disallow someone else to put in more.
Do you think that any of these fa guys are going to show up and chop some bolts on a 5.9 slab climb?
Granted -- any bolting at e-rock is tightly regulated by those with authority in the park -- and i'm not saying that i am going to go and put a bolt 15' off the ground on christine's variation... i look forward to your further opinions and i hope that the tone of my response is not taken in a disrespectful or caustic light.
Re-bolt: To replace bolts on a route, typically due to age or wear, with new bolts. Retro-bolt: To add bolts to an existing climb.
My conflict lies in the FA team's disagreement over whether their route needs to be retrobolted. Presently, it is an X-route. The first bolt is high above a boulder field, and if you fall before clipping it, or when you're near the second bolt, you will deck and it will hurt (or worse, it won't hurt at all). I backed off of it the first time I tried, even though it was a full number grade below my onsight level. I have lead it since then, several times. My SO, who climbs a full number grade harder than me off-the-sofa, refuses to lead it at all (this is significant to me, 'cause she's a bad-ass).
This route wasn't bolted like this to make some statement, or to represent an ethic: it was bolted with huge runouts because the FA team had only a handful of bolts between them. What made me consider retrobolting it at all was learning of this history and also learning of the FA team disagreement.
I've purposefully kept this anonymous because I don't want the thread to devolve into an arguement about a particular route's qualities. I've always considered retrobolting fair if and only if 1) its a route you established, 2) the FA team gives it their blessing, or 3) something about the route has changed the fundamentally and its no longer the climb the FA team experienced. This route clearly falls under rule #2, but the FA team doesn't agree.
I wouldn't retro it...I would toprope it until I felt comfortable enough w/ the climbing to risk leading it. I would lower my style before I lowered the style of the the climb.
i see no reason not to bolt it, even if the fa doesn't agree.
ethics are just word games that people fight about, some person made it up and no one is right.
Go climb in the gym. Not every route and area needs to be brought down to your level.
As to the OP. If it was put in on rappel or heavily TRed before bolting on lead I'd say add the bolts to make it reasonably safe. If it was put up onsight on lead I'd say make sure what bolts that are there are good and leave the route as it otherwise is.
Stick clip the first bolt, don't fall at the second bolt.. Unless the fa team agrees then leave it be. 8flood. Typical texas ahole. Do it your way and screw em if they don't agree with you...........
I've always considered retrobolting fair if and only if 1) its a route you established, 2) the FA team gives it their blessing, or 3) something about the route has changed the fundamentally and its no longer the climb the FA team experienced. This route clearly falls under rule #2, but the FA team doesn't agree.
It clearly does not fall under rule two, since you don't the the blessing of the first ascent TEAM. IMO, you already have your answer, and it's no.
(This post was edited by j_ung on May 18, 2007, 2:31 PM)
Mtfr34k, I have established more than 30 routes, bolting when reqiured, and sometimes setting bold routes.
I would NOT, under any circumstances retro bolt a route without DISTINCT permission from the first accent party. You run the risk of being ostracised by the climbing community, ruining a bold exciting line and creating a discusting line of chopped bolts.
I understand that the FA party ran the gear thin due to financial considerations, but that just adds to the story and history of the climb. Isn't it great that you know the history and can debate these issues?
Putting up a new route is an art form. In the areas that I have developed, there is a number of safe, well protected routes and just two or three spicy routes where you need to keep your wits about you. The goal was to make an area where everyone has something to get excited about.
It seems that the route sees a lot of traffic, which makes me think that there might be a number of people who enjoy the route as is, in addidtion it seems like it is rather public knowledge that the route is a serious undertaking.
It is respectable that you want to make it safer, and protect it for the masses, but you would be ruining both the history and the excitement of the climb.
Isn't it cool that the climb was put up in bold fashion by a couple young kids who didn't have the funds to placee as many bolts as they wanted, rather than "yeah, some dude retro bolted it back in 2007, so now its a piece of cake".
Before making the final choice, ask yourself these questions.
Is there a variety of routes in the area of similar difficulty? Is the runout realistically dangerous? Or is it 5.8 or 5.9 runout climbing to a bolted 5.10 crux. Is there gear placements that are there, but just difficult or fiddley to use. Does the route see a number of accents in its as is state. (grass growing on it)
Please respect the wishes of the accent party. If they disagree, try to sit them down together and discuss the issues, but also be aware that the climbing community may not be behind you on this.
(This post was edited by summerprophet on May 18, 2007, 3:01 PM)
Do you think that any of these fa guys are going to show up and chop some bolts on a 5.9 slab climb?
Yes, it's happened at Erock already. I think there are some posts at texasclimbers.com or erockonline.com regarding this happening last year. Bolts chopped at Cheap Wine wall maybe?
I wouldn't retro it...I would toprope it until I felt comfortable enough w/ the climbing to risk leading it. I would lower my style before I lowered the style of the the climb.
exactly. it is ONE climb, ONE route, ONE experience. It is what it is. There are routes of every style and every difficulty suiting each person's style and abilities.
Routes aren't supposed to fit the average. If you can't climb it, dont! Go somewhere else.
Just read one thing from a book "climbing isn't risky, climbers are". So instead of retro bolting exposed routes educate climbers to know what they are doing, to know what to expect from a route and choose wiselly based on their capacity. AND to take responsibility for their actions.
Now being a b*tch about it: What are you proposing next? Adding plastic to that 5.17 only Sharma and Marin can send when they are in very good mood? Or maybe bombarding everest, make it shorter for the average climber...
I can understand your sentimentality, but really that is all it is. I'm not talking about bolting cracks, i'm talking about putting a bolt in between a 20 foot runout.
20 foot runout? 20 measilly feet? Get some balls man. What is that like 5 or 6 moves between bolts?
I love how i'm a "typical texas asshole" for expressing my "opinion."
As i have already stated, i do not retrobolt anything.
I love how people can just "own" the rock and because they happen to have been there first it is off limits to everyone else who, by the way, have as much right to enjoy that little section of rock that someone carelessly bolted.
I wasn't "trolling," but i did want an earnest discussion. I would like to see some real opinions other than the typical rc.com
little man syndrome shit slinging ego-fest that has erupted. (as usual)
What about the responsibility to properly bolt a line if you are going to bolt it at all.
Oh btw i have climbed the lines that i am talking about. So do i have enough balls to talk about it now? I'm not talking about bolting climbs that i am unwilling to climb. I'm talking about how shitty the experience was because i was so scared i didn't enjoy the rockclimbing.
there are PLENTY of X rated routes where i am climbing and that really just ruins the wall to me because i don't want to DIE just to pull on some polished little crystals.
I haven't "lowered" anything to my level, so people why don't you explain to me why my opinion is so "noobish" rather than just acting like the typical american asshole and thinking that everything is part of your stuck up empire. (which is cooler than everyone else because you are so "ethical")
oh and what a great insult... "sport climber" you are reading in the sport climbing forum. I figured your trad-ego wouldn't even let you talk about anything with bolts so go bully the crack climbers, no?
***edited to combine a later reply with this one***
i was unaware that people are chopping bolts there and let me state one more time i'm not retrobolting anything,
so can we have a real discussion about why it is wrong to make a climb safer?
seriously.. if you are bolting something sub .10, isn't it possible that someone new to climbing might get on that thing and die?
(This post was edited by 8flood8 on May 18, 2007, 4:03 PM)
After you have burned up all the 'classics' in your area, and all the surrounding areas. Followed by planning and bolting up a couple of other routes yourself. Top it off with ascents of every route within your grade's grasp. All which you could have done, but I would be suprised. Then you can go out and start looking into tapping on someone else's route. There is a ton of stuff out there waiting for you. Go find it and please leave the run-out-old-school-classics alone, for those of us who would like to try it un-tainted. I know safety is a concern here. More so it is a choice. You choose to climb an X rated climb, or not. Plenty of non-X's are out there to satisfy your safety concerns. Trouble is the choppers will soon follow, then will have Bolt Wars!
19 /
16%
i was unaware that people are chopping bolts there and let me state one more time i'm not retrobolting anything, 
1
