Archangel

Would beating a guy named Gaylord be considered a hate crime?

gay= happy
happylord.. and a last name like primrose!? i mean that sounds like unicorns in a meadow lush daisies..whats better?

g.miller wrote:..whats better?

A sternum punch?

GM - you're quite the etymological wordsmith. Next time, I expect better than the played out 'Internet tough guy'.

Abram - just read your other thread. Thanks. So it's not just me who detests the many manifestations of this mystery man. I reckon I'll take the others' advice and try my best to ignore the inevitability of him.

Sorry to hijack the Archangel thread. I couldn't figure out how to post my own. Comes with the tough guy territory.

Still, the offer stands.

Cor wrote:If you can not, leave it. Just like chipping, etc. Very simple. Keep wild places wild, that is why we have, say national parks, etc. Same goes for climbing. Keep wild climbs wild. I will not bash CW, but whatever, a mistake was made. He said sorry, and would repair it to the original state if the FA wanted. That's that. And no I am not his friend. Now let's go climb, it's summer!

Why are you not living in a cave and hunting animals with your teeth?

Cry's of "Wild" indeed, more like your own little personal fantasy of wild I think.

Perhaps the pitons will bloom this year, I do say.

J Q wrote: Why are you not living in a cave and hunting animals with your teeth? Cry's of "Wild" indeed, more like your own little personal fantasy of wild I think. Perhaps the pitons will bloom this year, I do say.

Wow, false analogy and ad hominem arguments in the same short reply. Well done.

The FA did work rather hard for something and now it's been changed. If he's the FA....

His moment in time hasn't changed but the rock has.

There are so many routes in BC especially sport, that I don't see what this added. I agree with that Long character in that respect, minus all the chest beating and over pontificating.

In the grand scheme of things though, it's BC. There is so little up there to care about. I can't say I care much about this either.

I am kind of embarrassed that I am even wasting time on this crap but I like Chris so here's my 2-cents...

Unlike almost all who have commented on this subject, I have tried Archangel before Chris bolted it, attempting it onsight from the ground. I did not send but my impressions were it would make a fine route with some cleaning, a proper anchor, and perhaps an additional bolt or two. If that story of the first ascensionist is true (top-rope rehearsal, adding bolts on rappel, etc.) then IT IS NOT TRAD CLIMBING! Protecting a pitch with a few pieces of gear placed on lead after extended rehearsal does not constitute traditional climbing, merely what it is, a climb protected by (some) removable gear and much akin to sport-climbing.

Frankly, all of the people, including the FA, who are pontificating about traditional ethics on a route that is NOT A TRAD route have no idea what they are talking about (and yes I know who some of them are).

That being said, I don't think Chris needed to make it a full sport pitch either, but I appreciate all the effort he has made to open new climbs to the public. Chris has made many valuable contributions (e.g. Hearts and Arrows on the Diamond, Centaur in Eldo, it goes on...) to climbing in Colorado and elsewhere and deserves better than this bullshit.

Phew, OK, done reading these posts, had to get that out.

J. Albers wrote: Most of the whining comes from people on SuperTaco.

In other news, water is wet.

What ever JQ...

All I am saying is ethics. I guess cuz I have climbed for 20+ years, that is the
way I learned. (Respect Yo)

If he just contacted the FA, there would be no problem. Maybe the FA would have
even said yeah do it, that is a great line that needs people enjoying it...
That was not the case though. And would you tell the legends like Donini, etc.
the same thing as you told me? As (I have not read the SuperTopo) they are saying the same thing, he made a bad mistake...

head point is still trad too...And it seems that is the way to do that route...(Safely)

Nicelegs: "In the grand scheme of things though, it's BC. There is so little up there to care about."

Some of us really like Boulder Canyon. There is something to care about because we grew up climbing here and it's all we have.

Yeah I guess I missed it, having just returned from Elbsandstein in Germany...
Jet lag sucks! On another note. Could someone go bolt some of those head points in Eldo for us?

This isn't Eldorado. Every other climb on this wall is fully a sport climb not some strange late-80s concoction of ego and secrecy. If nothing else it will stand as an example of how screwed we would all be if we had let the early trads and their confused ethics continue to ruin the sport... like photos of 'whites only' signs on a bathroom hanging in a museum.

JLP wrote:To return the route to this condition is really - really - fucking stupid.

Why not erase the route entirely? Then everyone wins. At this point isn't that what this is all about?

Ben Beckerich wrote: I love to climb... but oh man I can't fucking stand climbers.

The longer this thread goes on the more this bears repeating.

JLP wrote: You've missed the entire discussion. Chris and Thom have talked and [almost] everyone is over it. The problem is the FA has weighed in, IMO, as a self absorbed loon clueless of any "sport" or "trad" ethic from any era of rock climbing - concerned only at this point about his own world of rules he applied to the route, that can only be described as "fucking stupid". The tragedy is that Chris seems like too nice of a guy to ignore him and make the correct call to leave the bolts in. It's a bolted sport route at the moment and reports are that it's a good one. As a "trad" route, who knows. Neither Chris nor Thom can tell us, they both worked the route from the top on preplaced gear. The only person who can make that call, IMO, should also be the one to tell us how many bolts the route should have while leading from the ground up - not some twit sitting 100's of miles away, 25 years later who TRed the shit out of the route, placed aid gear from the top then pink pointed it only 3/4 the way to the anchor, leaving behind a mysterious and fraudulent trail others have been unable to repeat or even understand until now. To return the route to this condition is really - really - fucking stupid.

I think you're completely out of line to call the FA a "self absorbed loon clueless of any "sport" or "trad" ethic from any era of rock climbing." I cannot understand how you read into it as such. My opinion is the guy is a little (maybe a lot) pissed and completely justified that CW didn't even attempt to contact him directly before altering the route. Which one of us would not be pissed if someone modified something we worked so hard on to get the FA and find out later that someone else altered it without making any attempt to contact them first?

There are so many things that are important and worth worrying about in life and this isn't one of them. I can not fathom getting upset about this. Ben is right, climbers are awful.

Ray Pinpillage wrote: climbers are awful.

Dude, people in general can be awful. There's nothin special or different about climbers. There are a lot of great people too.

Ray Pinpillage wrote:There are so many things that are important and worth worrying about in life and this isn't one of them. I can not fathom getting upset about this. Ben is right, climbers are awful.

if no one got "upset" about ethics, climbing areas would quickly turn into shitpiles

i don't think most people commenting are really concerned about this particular climb. it's the growing trend of safety-fying bold climbs that is concerning.

David Barbour wrote: if no one got "upset" about ethics, climbing areas would quickly turn into shitpiles.

I know right? Just look at Rifle and Maple.

JLP wrote:Since most of you have proven incapable of processing what is going on here, let me try to simplify everything into ONE simple issue - the primary one, as I see it. You rap drill an anchor out in the middle of nowhere. Down lower, you manage to free a stretch of rock by whatever means turns your crank. However, you never make your anchor because the stretch above proves to be too hard, and you do not place an anchor at the end of what you completed - you only lower off a piece of gear at your high point (which falls out a few month later). Have you developed a route?

I get it, the style of the FA was poor, artificial runouts were created, etc. However, does this mean the whole thing should be re-done as a full-on sport climb? It's debatable. At the least, he should have contacted the FA for the full story before bolting.