|
|
|
|
desertwanderer81
Oct 5, 2007, 5:00 PM
Post #126 of 202
(6330 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2007
Posts: 2272
|
Ahhh, the Gunks! Where I got my start!
Now we need to be serious with ourselves, the Gunks is the industrial strength climbing area of NYC. It's just the nature of the area that there are so many people there on the weekend. It is life.
Now what I don't get, is how people get all high and mighty about these single pitch trad routes? Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the climbing at the Gunks, but it isn't like we're talking about 5-6 pitch trad climbs. Quite honestly, climbing at the Gunks reminds me more of sport climbs with trad gear!
Now there are many many people climbing at the Gunks. Mr. Old-School-Trad-Climber has the same right to the rock as Mr. Newbie-Toproper. You know that classic trad climb? Well there are some awesome moves on that climb for the newbie top roper too!
IMHO, the only people who should have less right to the rock than others, are large groups of people who refuse to share. The ones who setup 5-6 TR's and spend all day in an area with a group of 15 or so and don't offer to pull their rope when someone comes eyeing their route.
As long as folk share and are using the routes they have the TR's set up on, they are welcome to climb.
Oh, and I approve of what Peterskill did with their climbing area. Limitted number of passes. Bolt the top of some of the routes (makes for much faster turn around), and overall good ecological management.
|
|
|
|
|
funnelator
Oct 6, 2007, 1:48 PM
Post #127 of 202
(6259 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 83
|
In reply to: ......I can see little reason or hope, in a crowded environment now populated by many climbers with no sense of, interest in, or respect for tradition, that such principles as "leader priority" would carry any weight whatsoever.
Rich, there are traditions that shouldn't be respected or handed down to new generations. The tradition of segregation based on race for example. In my opinion "leader priority" is a such a tradition.
Imagine Joe Leader coming down the cliff, saying, in a deep booming God like voice, as angels sing and light breaks through the clouds above, "YOU THERE....YOU THERE TOP ROPING......MAKE WAY....I'M A LEADER!!!" Or perhaps leaders shouldn't even have to say anything. Leader priority etiquette could dictate that when leaders arrive, topropers should bow their heads in deference and quietly withdraw to a respectful distance, sort of like black folk making way for white folk, by moving to the back of the bus, before the days of Rosa Parks. Leader priority is nothing more, or less, than a load of elitist shite.
Shite that creates conflict by leaders promoting their own interests at the expense of everyone else. It's reminiscent too of Appie rules in days of yore that dictated who could climb what, and where, and in what style. I say this as someone who is almost always on the sharp end. For me leading is climbing and climbing is leading.
It would, however, be absurd and obnoxious, for me, or any other leader, to walk down the cliff and expect people not climbing in the style we prefer to make way for our exalted leader selves.
The argument that top ropers somehow take more time than leaders doesn't wash either. What difference is there between five pairs of leaders coming through and climbing a route and a party of ten top roping the same route? None. The top ropers will probably take less time however.
There are many gunks traditions worth respecting and passing on. Leader priority isn't one of them. The Preserve policy of first come first served is appropriate.
(This post was edited by funnelator on Oct 6, 2007, 2:10 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
armsrforclimbing
Oct 6, 2007, 2:30 PM
Post #128 of 202
(6236 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2004
Posts: 214
|
Reading this thread has turned me into a shell of my former self. I am but a confused, quivering mass resembling a gunks climber. 126 posts people! I am going to approach speaking to any strangers next time I am out with extreme caution.
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Oct 6, 2007, 2:47 PM
Post #129 of 202
(6228 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
Funnelator, I don't disagree with anything you say. "Leader priority" isn't a Gunks tradition anyway, because it wasn't an issue when traditions were forming. Consequently, it is not susceptible to being passed on. But the concept is based on an understanding of the roots and values of the sport, and it is the absence of this understanding I was referring to.
I'm quite certain that Dick mentioned "leader priority" only as a voluntary example of how respect for the sport might govern conventions of common decency in climbing interactions. To the extent that respect for the sport is governed by an understanding of its traditions, my comment was that it is unlikely that many modern climbers will grasp why leader priority might be an appropriate etiquette. Obviously, it isn't some kind of rule an obnoxious leader could invoke when happening upon a top-roping party already in place, and I can't imagine that anyone really though it might be.
As for the relative amounts of time taken by top-ropers and leaders, you write as if you are taking issue with something I said, but the only comment I made on the subject is in agreement with yours.
|
|
|
|
|
desertwanderer81
Oct 6, 2007, 3:02 PM
Post #130 of 202
(6224 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2007
Posts: 2272
|
actually, I've found that as long as both groups are equally competent, trad leaders will usually take longer once they get on the route.....
Anyhow, people really need to get over themselves. If you like to lead long trad climbs, good for you. If you like some hard sport climbs, good for you. If you like to take the nice safe route and TR, good for you. If you don't even like using a rope! well good for you too! No one sect of climbing is "better" rgardless of "common decency". There is no one who is better than the other.
It's all about what doing what you love competently and safely. It has nothing to do with modern or not. You want old school? Start hammering in pitons into the rock :p
|
|
|
|
|
funnelator
Oct 7, 2007, 5:33 PM
Post #131 of 202
(6168 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 83
|
Rich, many of my comments above were in response to other contributors to this thread. Sorry I didn't make that clear.
In reply to: To the extent that respect for the sport is governed by an understanding of its traditions, my comment was that it is unlikely that many modern climbers will grasp why leader priority might be an appropriate etiquette.
With what understanding and under what circumstances might "leader priority" be an appropriate etiquette?
(This post was edited by funnelator on Oct 8, 2007, 1:37 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Oct 7, 2007, 5:42 PM
Post #132 of 202
(6164 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
funnelator wrote: Rich, many of my comments above were in response to other contributors to this thread. Sorry I didn't make that more clear. In reply to: To the extent that respect for the sport is governed by an understanding of its traditions, my comment was that it is unlikely that many modern climbers will grasp why leader priority might be an appropriate etiquette. With what understanding and under what circumstances might "leader priority" be an appropriate etiquette?
With the basic understanding of "ground up" ethics, perhaps. Although no longer much of a consideration, mountaineering and climbing are firmly rooted in that ethic. Climbing used to be based on the concept of starting at the bottom of something and then attempting to reach the top.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
funnelator
Oct 7, 2007, 6:17 PM
Post #133 of 202
(6150 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 83
|
Ground up climbing is admirable. I don't see how that translates to "leader priority" which implies leaders can rightfuly expect others to make way. Rich commented that he thought this wouldn't happen. But it does. And that leader priority expectation at the Gunks, especially on a crowded weekend, leads to conflict.
It looks like the cliff has dried out. It' time for me to go kick some topropers off Mother's Day and Coex and Graveyard so I can have my ground up, single pitch to the bolt anchors, mountaineering experience, before I walk five minutes back to the car. 
|
|
|
|
|
saxfiend
Oct 7, 2007, 10:16 PM
Post #134 of 202
(6133 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2004
Posts: 1208
|
funnelator wrote: I don't see how that translates to "leader priority"
JL
|
|
|
|
|
armsrforclimbing
Oct 8, 2007, 12:22 AM
Post #135 of 202
(6102 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2004
Posts: 214
|
Nobody gets priority anywhere, even the extreme aid climber with a ladder. I can only presume that somebody who would lug a ladder up there to climb a route is a jerk. So much of a jerk that they would refuse to move. So I would take the only other logical route and go climb one of the hundreds of other climbs in the gunks. This is also the tactic I use when dealing with top ropers. I try to find out where they are going when I see large groups of them, and then avoid that spot.
There are jerks out there at the cliffs, but trying to impose your set of ethics on someone is also a jerk move.
|
|
|
|
|
r_is4runout
Oct 8, 2007, 12:45 AM
Post #136 of 202
(6094 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 5, 2006
Posts: 30
|
Honestly, top-ropers suck and detract from the climbing experience. There is no reason why gunks routes should be top roped. TR'ing isn't climbing period.
|
|
|
|
|
armsrforclimbing
Oct 8, 2007, 1:04 AM
Post #137 of 202
(6079 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2004
Posts: 214
|
I can think of one good reason why Gunks routes should be top roped.
1. Because they can be toproped.
What is the "Climbing Experience" anyway? You sound like a hallmark card. Short posts without any merit detract from my posting experience.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Oct 8, 2007, 1:15 AM
Post #138 of 202
(6070 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
So in the case described above, top-ropers traversing over onto another route and rapping or lowering down as a leader has left the ground, what determines who is first and who gets the route? It sounded like either party could have made a pretty good "first come, first served" argument.
|
|
|
|
|
r_is4runout
Oct 8, 2007, 1:24 AM
Post #139 of 202
(6064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 5, 2006
Posts: 30
|
armsrforclimbing wrote: I can think of one good reason why Gunks routes should be top roped. 1. Because they can be toproped. What is the "Climbing Experience" anyway? You sound like a hallmark card. Short posts without any merit detract from my posting experience.
In reply to: Maybe if you spent a little less time training on your super rad home woody you would know what the climbing experience is. Good luck working your next sick TR project.
|
|
|
|
|
armsrforclimbing
Oct 8, 2007, 2:03 AM
Post #140 of 202
(6045 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2004
Posts: 214
|
I'm a trad climbing humanist. Live and Let Climb!
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Oct 8, 2007, 2:03 AM
Post #141 of 202
(6043 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
funnelator wrote: In reply to: ......I can see little reason or hope, in a crowded environment now populated by many climbers with no sense of, interest in, or respect for tradition, that such principles as "leader priority" would carry any weight whatsoever. Rich, there are traditions that shouldn't be respected or handed down to new generations. The tradition of segregation based on race for example. In my opinion "leader priority" is a such a tradition. Imagine Joe Leader coming down the cliff, saying, in a deep booming God like voice, as angels sing and light breaks through the clouds above, "YOU THERE....YOU THERE TOP ROPING......MAKE WAY....I'M A LEADER!!!" Or perhaps leaders shouldn't even have to say anything. Leader priority etiquette could dictate that when leaders arrive, topropers should bow their heads in deference and quietly withdraw to a respectful distance, sort of like black folk making way for white folk, by moving to the back of the bus, before the days of Rosa Parks. Leader priority is nothing more, or less, than a load of elitist shite. Shite that creates conflict by leaders promoting their own interests at the expense of everyone else. It's reminiscent too of Appie rules in days of yore that dictated who could climb what, and where, and in what style. I say this as someone who is almost always on the sharp end. For me leading is climbing and climbing is leading. It would, however, be absurd and obnoxious, for me, or any other leader, to walk down the cliff and expect people not climbing in the style we prefer to make way for our exalted leader selves. The argument that top ropers somehow take more time than leaders doesn't wash either. What difference is there between five pairs of leaders coming through and climbing a route and a party of ten top roping the same route? None. The top ropers will probably take less time however. There are many gunks traditions worth respecting and passing on. Leader priority isn't one of them. The Preserve policy of first come first served is appropriate.
Are you effing SERIOUS?
|
|
|
|
|
funnelator
Oct 8, 2007, 2:25 AM
Post #142 of 202
(6032 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 83
|
In reply to: Did you just compare the animosity against toproping to racism? Are you effing SERIOUS?
The Gravity's Rainbow Coalition will be sponsoring a march for Topropers Rights starting at Rock and Snow, crossing the Green Bridge on 299 and then out to a rally at the MP Visitors Center. Traddies, Sportos, Boulderers, Soloists, Guided Clients, Guides, Wannabees, and Whiners are all welcome. ACLU (American Climber Liberties Union) lawyers will be available to help anyone who gets arrested.
We Shall Overhang
(This post was edited by funnelator on Oct 8, 2007, 2:55 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Oct 8, 2007, 3:12 AM
Post #143 of 202
(6005 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
I expected an answer like that...
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Oct 8, 2007, 4:56 AM
Post #144 of 202
(5988 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
In reply to: With what understanding and under what circumstances might "leader priority" be an appropriate etiquette?
Well, as for the understanding part, the Gunks have a long tradition of viewing leading as the essence of the climbing experience. For the majority of Gunks history, from Wiessner and Kraus through McCarthy to Barber, Bragg, Stannard, and Wunsch, Romano, Rezucha, Swain, Raffa, Clune, Gruenberg, and Herr, almost every route was established ground up, on the lead. (Apologies to other worthy climber's whose names I've omitted through incompetence, forgetfullness, and now detachment from anything resembling the cutting edge.) An example of how thoroughly ingrained the notion of leading was, Art Gran's orginal guidebook refused to credit the first ascentionists of a route if they toproped it, noting "unfortunately, not put in on the lead." Climbing and leading were virtually synonymous.
That's the understanding of the tradition part. Some folks want to argue about whether leading ought to be the preeminent communal value, but it cannot be argued that it was, until fairly recently.
As for the appropriate etiquette, which I want to emphasize again is not a matter of tradition, even if it is informed by tradition, it must be understood that the concept was invented by Williams for his latest guide to the Trapps, and one cannot do better than to quote him:
Nowdays many climbs are frequently both led and toproped. it happens sometimes that parties using each of these styles arrive on the scene simultaneously. Because this is a trad climbing area, custom dictates that the party that plans to lead has the right to go first. This means that no party that is climbing one route in order to toprope an adjoining route should try to claim that route and stop another party from leading it.
|
|
|
|
|
funnelator
Oct 8, 2007, 12:14 PM
Post #145 of 202
(5959 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 83
|
Thanks Rich for your considered input.
Interestingly, the six people on your list who I either know, or have seen climbing, have been on toprope. Which brings up the point that pretty much every leader out there, including the visionary ones, toprope at times. So it's kind of funny when some on this thread have been chiming in that toproping is not climbing and that topropers are "tossers".
As for two parties, with different styles, arriving simultaneously at a climb, if each deferred to the other, conflict would be less likely.
|
|
|
|
|
gunkiemike
Oct 8, 2007, 1:42 PM
Post #146 of 202
(5935 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2002
Posts: 2266
|
funnelator wrote: There will be a march for Topropers Rights starting at Rock and Snow, crossing the Green Bridge on 299 and then out to a rally at the MP Visitors Center.
You forgot to mention that the march will occupy both lanes of Rt 299.
And move SLOWLY westward.
In reply to: We Shall Overhang
LOL !
|
|
|
|
|
dalguard
Oct 8, 2007, 3:15 PM
Post #147 of 202
(5903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2003
Posts: 239
|
My experience with large, annoying TR groups at the Gunks has been that they're good, experienced climbers. Any of us who climb there regularly can visualize who these people are. They have babies and dogs and one or two guys who lead everything (someone has to lead something to get the rope up on the Mac wall or the Seasons or the Nears). The others can almost always TR 10s cleanly and make their way up 11s. The groups are loud, sprawling, and obnoxious and when you arrive at an area to find them there, you have no choice but to move on, but they're better than we are and we probably know some of them personally so we shut up and move on.
Then some of us come here and post about noobs taking up popular lead climbs because they're too chicken shit to call out the real culprits. Seriously. Groups of noobs TR'ing? Are you talking about Ken's Crack or the Hurdy Gurdy block? Move down a little farther and lead something a little harder. There won't be anyone in your way.
|
|
|
|
|
armsrforclimbing
Oct 8, 2007, 3:49 PM
Post #148 of 202
(5894 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2004
Posts: 214
|
The "We shall overhang" line is classic.
|
|
|
|
|
funnelator
Oct 8, 2007, 4:24 PM
Post #149 of 202
(5871 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 83
|
Dalguard nailed it. And again, rope gun here guilty as charged. However, I wish my friends would leave their dogs and babies at home on weekends at least.
The local group hangs usually happen at just four spots: the Chasm at Lost City, Workout Wall in the Nears, Mac Wall and Seasons in the Trapps. Nonetheless, even at these four spots there are many weekend days when you arrive and there is no one there.
Of course, when a big group is dominating a chunk of the cliff, there may be someone else who has traveled a long way and they have just one opportunity to lead Coex or Transcon or whatever before they have to leave. Communicating that would inspire most of these groups to part like the Red Sea.
Some encounter a festival like environment and turn away because of the noise and chaos. Others crack a couple of jokes and jump right in.
(This post was edited by funnelator on Oct 8, 2007, 4:43 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
desertwanderer81
Oct 8, 2007, 4:38 PM
Post #150 of 202
(5856 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2007
Posts: 2272
|
I've never encountered a group of experienced climbers at the Gunks (or anywhere else) which were not curtious and offered to pull one of their ropes temporarily so you could lead the climb or offer to let you climb on their ropes.
The ones who are NOT curtious however are the guided groups of beginers who are massive and sprawling and when you come up to them, say "oh, we plan on being on this route all day long, sorry!"
The very worst was when I went climbing up at a small craige and there was a group of summer camp kids REPELLING and the person in charge of the group told me that they were going to be there all day. I was not a happy climber!
|
|
|
|
|
|
