largebarge wrote:
Dialogue on a particular subject does occasionally change my ethic concerning it. I always try to be open to other points of view.

Where are you getting this definition of "ethics", Jay?

Climbers often conuse ethics with style. A climber's ethics by definition affect people other than himself. For instance, if you chip a hold, the rock is permanently changed for everyone. Style, on the other hand, is strictly personal. Whether you hangdog a route or climb it in a "better" style doesn't affect anyone else.

Although there may be some "gray" areas (as per acw, above) and others, that is the definition that has been used by climbers for at least the 25 years I have been involved in the sport.

Curt

Yes, the climbing definition of "ethics" is narrower than the philosophical definition.

-Jay

So what definition do you think applies?

Under the standard definition of "ethics", the questions of whether it is wrong or right to bolt cracks, chip holds, glue, use chalk, fall, hangdog, stick clip (and how many bolts), bolt on rap, or pre-hang quickdraws for hard redpoints are all valid issues in "climbing ethics"...

jgill
Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2002 9:17 pm    Post subject:



The reference by Wigglestick gives a fairly decent description of my system. Keep in mind that the ethics of rock climbing were different then. If you fell on a roped climb, you descended and started the pitch over. Hangdogging and top-rope practice of a move were considered unethical.
(snip)

The way "ethics" is used by those who distinguish it from "style" in climbing, bolting, chipping, gluing, and chalk (gray area) would be considered ethical issues because they alter the rock (more or less permanently, except for chalk) and hence affect other people's experience of the rock. Falling, handogging, and stick clipping are strictly stylistic issues. Whether you stick clip or not doesn't affect me in the least.

-Jay

jgill
Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2002 9:17 pm Post subject:

Keep in mind that the ethics of rock climbing were different then. If you fell on a roped climb, you descended and started the pitch over. Hangdogging and top-rope practice of a move were considered unethical.

I see your John Gill and raise you a Royal Robbins. From Basic Rockcraft (1977): "Actions which directly affect others in the climbing community are properly questions of ethics." ... "'Style' is a slippery word, difficult to define. In rockclimbing it refers to the methods and equipment used, and the degree of 'adventure' involved in the ascent."

These definitions show, that according to Robbins, handogging is a question of style, not ethics, because it is a matter of the methods used in the ascent, and is not something that directly affects others.

-Jay

Although the distinction Curt makes between "style" and "ethics" has merit, I think it is also true that the two concepts are not entirely distinct, partially because it isn't always clear what it means for one climber to be "affected" by the actions of another.

Which, I think, is why Robbins didn't just say "affects others," he said "directly affects others." It is difficult to see how a climber's decision to rest on a piece and try the mve again, rather than to lower to the ground and start the climb from scratch, would have any direct affect on anyone other than himself. He'll get the move quicker is all.

If we are speaking in the context of Robbin's time. Then hangdogging did have a significant impact on other people. See the ethics article link that I posted in my previous post.

Fracture got it right technically as well.

Unless your climbing style alters the rock, I do not see how a climbing style can be an ethical issue.

-Jay

Is it not unethical to hangdog. But to use hang dogging where others have not, and then to artfully forget to mention said hang dogging, that could be viewed as unethical.

A Time of Controversy

As the seventies arrived, the era of boundless opportunities drew to a close and a controversy began over climbing styles. Climbers began attacking more fearsome faces and cracks. New climbers on the scene spent long periods in The Meadows, sometimes returning several times to try the same route. Climbers hung ropes for weeks at a time to reserve a prospective route and allow repeated access to high points. A few aid climbs appeared, unheard of since 1958. Also, climbers resorted to preprotection (placing protection on rappel or on aid, then free climbing); previewing (viewing and/or rehearsing moves on rappel or by top rope); and resting on protection or yo-yoing (repeated tries at moves, lowering, and possibly hand-walking the rope to try again). Needless to say, climbers of the sixties were appalled at the new styles. The new stylists argued that many new routes couldn't be done in any other way, or that the final route was more important than the means.

Several routes focused the debate. On Fairview Dome, aid was used on the Plastic Exploding Inevitable to climb the giant roofs above Crescent Ledge. What a disappointment to the climbers of the sixties who unsuccessfully tried the roof, then turned back with the expectations that some day it too would be free climbed. Death Crack was rehearsed several times with a top rope before it was finally led. Hoodwink involved a short aid ladder to protect immediate free climbing. Wailing Wall was preprotected, as was a short section of Shambles. Handbook was yo-yo'd.

Perhaps the lightning rod for the debate was Willie's Hand Jive. Here, nearly the entire route was created by placing bolts on rappel. In 1974, in a fit of righteousness, I chopped the bolts and lectured one of the first ascent team about traditional styles. Later, the bolts were replaced on rappel, this time more numerous than last. Such was the intensity of conflict between new and traditional styles!

Hand Jive taught me more than had my old, strict mentors about adhering to traditional climbing styles. The route broke no frontier of difficulty, while robbing others of the opportunity to try the first ascent in traditional climbing style.

You may want to do the route and judge whether or not it could have been protected in the same way most face climbs of the sixties were done. Ponder the same question on Hoodwink, just above the roof on the last pitch. Finally, the super crack climbers of today may want to try Handbook, Death Crack, Wailing Wall and Blues Riff without rehearsing, preprotecting or yo-yoing. My hunch is that some of today's climbers will find these climbs possible in the traditional style. If so, how will they feel about losing the chance at a first ascent in traditional style?

I am in complete agreement with Curt. I have never known hangdogging to be considered unethical. Distasteful to some, yes. Poor style to some, yes. But unethical; ie, morally wrong? That is an absurdity. Get up the rock any damn way you want. Unless your climbing style alters the rock, I do not see how a climbing style can be an ethical issue.

-Jay