History of Sport Climbing?

Bob D'Antonio wrote: Joe uses Bush & company rhetoric (WMD'S, Gays etc..) to scare and put fear into the masses...there is no truth to what he claims.

BS Alert!! ...Bob, no exaggeration, demagoguery, class warfare, elder-scaring, race-pandering, or other political BS by Democrats? Just Republicans? Hoo Hee Ha Ha Hee Ha!!!

PRRose wrote: Next you'll be telling us that Obama is really a crypto-fascist. For the record, I'm in favor of elder-scarring. Free Medicare tattoos will be the next entitlement.

The liberal agenda: scare 'em and scar 'em :)

Yeah, I found those Obama quotes, but it seems SO off-route now. Wrong website.

Bob D'Antonio wrote: Joe uses Bush & company rhetoric (WMD'S, Gays etc..) to scare and put fear into the masses...there is no truth to what he claims.

No truth at all! Sure Bob, none at all...

As we've discussed elsewhere. What percentage of todays climbers would still be climbing tomorrow if bolts evaporated overnight? My guess is there would be an overnight collapse in the total number of 'climbers' on the order of 65-85%. That's the proportion of climbers who are only interested in risk-free entertainment and wholly supported by and dependent on bolted routes.

Those sheer numbers are what are driving crowding, impact, and access issues nationwide. As far as Eldo and the Gunks go, NYC and the Denver area are home to enough trad climbers to make a premium venue like Eldo crowded with folks doing just that, trad climbing; at the Gunks on the otherhand, trad and sport climbers are concentrated by slim number of NE local offerings and TRing is the sport climbing there. Both would be bolted to death if sport climbers had their way.

metrozen wrote: I'm pretty sure every single piece of gear sold or advice purchased comes with that very specific three word disclaimer "CLIMBING IS DANGEROUS."

Bad example. Cigarettes come with a similar warning, and people still feel immuned to the inherent danger.

Healyje,

I'm going to start calling you Tyrannosaurus Rex Reed.

Healyje wrote: No truth at all! Sure Bob, none at all... As we've discussed elsewhere. What percentage of todays climbers would still be climbing tomorrow if bolts evaporated overnight? My guess is there would be an overnight collapse in the total number of 'climbers' on the order of 65-85%. That's the proportion of climbers who are only interested in risk-free entertainment and wholly supported by and dependent on bolted routes. Those sheer numbers are what are driving crowding, impact, and access issues nationwide. As far as Eldo and the Gunks go, NYC and the Denver area are home to enough trad climbers to make a premium venue like Eldo crowded with folks doing just that, trad climbing; at the Gunks on the otherhand, trad and sport climbers are concentrated by slim number of NE local offerings and TRing is the sport climbing there. Both would be bolted to death if sport climbers had their way.

in a world without bolts i would hope that some trusty old trad dude wouldn't mind showing a few things to a total noob who doesn't even know how to tie in with a double bowline. otherwise i'm fucked.

p.s. i imagine the world without cars all the time. how sweet would that be?

Ken Cangi wrote: Bad example. Cigarettes come with a similar warning, and people still feel immuned to the inherent danger.

meh. good example.
once you take it upon yourself to do anything YOU are the one responsible for your actions, period. cigarettes, climbing, flammable trousers, whatever.

Jeff S wrote: meh. good example. once you take it upon yourself to do anything YOU are the one responsible for your actions, period. cigarettes, climbing, flammable trousers, whatever.

Meh; bad example. He was trying to make the point that people should be cognizant of climbing's dangers, because labels say so, and your point wasn't lost on me.

Mike Lane wrote:

Healy:
You can't unring a bell.

Sport Climbing is here, it is staying, it is extremely fun and that is why so many do it. Why the f*** do you have such a problem with that!?!

It is not pushing you out of where you like to be. To say it could is pure hyperbole. Look at yourself: you sit and fret about shit that has no application upon you at all, other than whatever convoluted scenarios you create in your mind.

But you know what? I think you are a Liberal Fascist. You believe that you are more enlightened than the rest of us Yahoos, but your gift is one of charity and benevolence as a protector of the "natural way". If you were suddenly king, all bolts everywhere (other than those that suit your needs) would be removed. Because you know better, right? And then only those who understand THE WAY may approach you for the one true way of which climbing is to be approached.

You think you are a defender, but really you sound very much like an elitist instead. I see myself as the opposite of that, a climbing proletariat. Anyone says to me "I'd like to try that" and along they come. I put up bolted routes designed for children and beginning climbers; in an appropriate area where this does not infringe upon other people's experiences. And in the end more will people will connect with nature via my way than yours. In turn, when it is decided to plow over the Roan Plateau so we can heat our homes, at least with my way more people might pause and say "wait....", because they have been outside and not in the mall.

I love ^this^ guy. You rock, Mike.

Ken Cangi wrote: Meh; bad example. He was trying to make the point that people should be cognizant of climbing's dangers, because labels say so, and your point wasn't lost on me.

ok cool. i misunderstood the nuance of the argument, my apologies.

Arguments are mostly nuance misunderstood. Meh, meh, MEH! I was saying (and please don't tell me what I try - there is no try, only do or do not! SO maybe I did not.) that everybody's trad pal Healy seemed to imply that sportos roll risk free. I disagree. That is all. But I get you, Ken.

If my offspring are still having this argument because some twit bolted the uber classic "Bigus Dickus" on Olympos Mons... FOO! Why can't we just give it a rest?

I hope my kids can bag an FA on Mars. Heck, I'll be happy just to be the first person to take a dump there.

And for the record - I unrung a bell once. Once.

Still going at 10, gents? Just back from the R&J meeting posted on the front page. Mark Nelson was the only MPer I met. He says you're a great guy, Ken.

Great post, Mike. Don't know why you took it down, but glad Ken captured it. Liberal fascist? Just curious if that's drawn from the recent NYT best seller.

So Metrozen, just two (promised) quibbles from your earlier post. 1) The evolution of sport climbing was more radical--in the sense of fundamental--than closer bolts for harder climbing. I think the real threshold, and Bob or Ken can correct me, was routes so steep and hard they *couldn't be* established ground up. Rap bolting broke the dam and sport climbing rushed in.

(2) You have to give the traditionalist argument credit for more intelligence and subtlety than shouting "nothing must change ever!" The crux of the argument is that *some* changes matter. Tradsters don't insist on sawed stove legs instead of bongs, or wool instead of polypropylene, because they don't see those innovations importantly altering the essence of climbing. A guy once tried, in an otherwise lovely book called "Learning to Rockclimb" to argue that Friends were an ethical step backward because they lessened the required sensitivity to the rock and practically allowed a sliding top rope. No one took it seriously.

But other changes arguably do change something fundamental about the climbing experience--either internally--how it's experienced and risked, or externally, how it affects the rock or surrounding environment or how it interacts with broader society.

It's inarguable that bolts fall in that category. Healyje doesn't ultimately persuade me the world would be better without them or with far fewer, but his argument has to rise or fall on the impact of bolts. It isn't weakened by any inconsistency just because he doesn't climb in nailed boots with hemp rope.

I took that post down out of fear of getting too involved with this thread. Like everyone else, I have issues too.

One interesting thing about sport climbing is that it mostly lacks a history.....sure there have been groundbreaking ascents but for the most part a majority of participants today do not even care. Climbs are reduced to a grade, length, and bolt count. A lot of climbing guides to sport areas do not even bother listing the first ascensionists names or when the route was established. Instead they are filled with symbols to help you determine if the route suits your preferred style.

So while you sport aficionados viciously defend your past time you might ask "For Who?" The climbing magazines and gear manufacturers? They are really the ones benefiting from the proliferation of our sport. Sure we have greater lobbying power through groups like the Access Fund, but most of their work is offsetting the increased impact climbers are creating. Once you are gone will your efforts even be remembered?

The term sport climbing seriously came into existence during a flurry of cocaine, lycra, bad music and flock of seagulls hairstyles. I believe it was Billy Squire(Stroke Me! Stroke Me!)who coined the original terms "Bolt Climbing" and "Bolt Protected Climbing". Bosch and Metolius changed these terms to disguise the amount of "Sport Cash" they were realizing from drill, bolt and hanger sales. Other similar terms coined during the 80's were "Sport Fucking", "Sports Bra", and "Sport Fishing". Basically, just take something already in existence and preface it with the word "Sport" to make it even more bitchin to the pear shaped masses, like; Sport Physics, Sport Cycling, Sport Skiing, Sport Ballooning, Sport Barbecue or Sport Drinking. Simple explanation if you know your multi-national corporations and Sport History.

Mike, some of us who have been around as long as Bob has don't share his enthusiasm for the way climbing has developed over the past twenty years. First and foremost, the problem for me has always been the easy to predict sheer numbers of 'climbers' coming down the pike, the growth of which has far outpaced the growth of the US population as a whole. The growth has been fueled almost entirely by gyms, bolted routes and the attending commercialism which has grown up around them as 'climbing' has been steadily integrated into suburban pop culture.

With that growth in numbers and cultural integration has come numerous negative side effects in my own opinion which is vocal, but by no means alone. And by no means is this phenom solely about climbing as noted by an ex-Outward Bound Director over on SuperTopo. Bob also knows a lot about mountain biking and from his stance on sport climbing I'd guess he also sees no downside of any kind to it either despite its clear negative impact in many places. It's not so much sport climbing per se, as what it has led climbing to become for the overwhelmingly majority climbers - rather than climbing changing people and attitudes, it's largely been the other way around - people changing the nature of climbing to something rather pedestrian.

And if sport climbing's relentless appetite didn't threaten trad venues I'd be far more tolerant despite what I see as significant dumbing down of the sport so as to make it 'accessible' to the masses. But as I said, unprotected by government or private land owners Eldo and the Gunks would have been bolted to death long ago. In general it's the "it's all good" attitude I find so affronting along with the whosale inability or unwillingness to recognize and acknowledge there might actually be some downsides to sport climbing.

As far as acting republican goes, Bob, I'd say from what I see on Amazon you haven't yet seen a natural resource yet you couldn't exploit, promote, and commercialize - strikes me a lot more like the administration's stance on offshore and ANWAR oil drilling than anything aspect of my risk-based, LNT-oriented liberal fascism.

Sorry, missed this one...

Joey Wolfe wrote:Healyje, I'm probably crazy but didn't you at one time work for a climbing company? I thought i had read that some were in here.

Nope, never worked for a climbing company or been commercially involved in climbing in any capacity.

Healyje wrote:Mike, some of us who have been around as long as Bob has don't share his enthusiasm for the way climbing has developed over the past twenty years. First and foremost, the problem for me has always been the easy to predict sheer numbers of 'climbers' coming down the pike, the growth of which has far outpaced the growth of the US population as a whole. The growth has been fueled almost entirely by gyms, bolted routes and the attending commercialism which has grown up around them as 'climbing' has been steadily integrated into suburban pop culture. With that growth in numbers and cultural integration has come numerous negative side effects in my own opinion which is vocal, but by no means alone. And by no means is this phenom solely about climbing as noted by an ex-Outward Bound Director over on SuperTopo. Bob also knows a lot about mountain biking and from his stance on sport climbing I'd guess he also sees no downside of any kind to it either despite its clear negative impact in many places. It's not so much sport climbing per se, as what it has led climbing to become for the overwhelmingly majority climbers - rather than climbing changing people and attitudes, it's largely been the other way around - people changing the nature of climbing to something rather pedestrian. And if sport climbing's relentless appetite didn't threaten trad venues I'd be far more tolerant despite what I see as significant dumbing down of the sport so as to make it 'accessible' to the masses. But as I said, unprotected by government or private land owners Eldo and the Gunks would have been bolted to death long ago. In general it's the "it's all good" attitude I find so affronting along with the whosale inability or unwillingness to recognize and acknowledge there might actually be some downsides to sport climbing. As far as acting republican goes, Bob, I'd say from what I see on Amazon you haven't yet seen a natural resource yet you couldn't exploit, promote, and commercialize - strikes me a lot more like the administration's stance on offshore and ANWAR oil drilling than anything aspect of my risk-based, LNT-oriented liberal fascism.

So what would you like to see happen with the sport, and how and to what extent do you feel that it should be regulated?

Healyje wrote:unprotected by government or private land owners Eldo and the Gunks would have been bolted to death long ago.

Sorry, I don't believe this for a minute. I don't know about Eldo, but I'm confident that even if the Gunks was totally unregulated, the long-standing local ethic would immediately quash any efforts at grid-bolting. Or how about Red Rock? That hasn't always been government land, and it hasn't been "bolted to death." And consider the entire state of North Carolina, where sport climbing is practically non-existent -- but not due to government/private land owner intervention.

JL

I'm 110% with Bob on this.
Healy, your being an elitist snob... your saying "Do it like I do and everything will be fine."
We are all climbers, no matter what style we chose, and it would be nice if we would ban together and try and keep our rights rather than each form the "Peoples United Front of Judea" and the "Peoples front of a United Judea" and piss down on the other "group".

It would be nice, but it ain't gonna happen.

In any event, I wonder what I am in Healy's view. I have sport climbed all over the world, and I have climbed on traditional gear all over the world, climbed big peaks, climbed ice, etc... for 25+ years. Am I a sport climber or a trad climber? I think I'm just a climber. Do I have to join your group officially, or do you decide for me what I am?
Or is it like being gay... there is no such thing as bi, only "kisses guys" or not?