Archangel

Charles Vernon wrote:Am I the only one who thinks there's a big, maybe fundamental difference between a headpoint on all natural gear, and one that relies on bolts and fixed pins?

Totally shocked that almost nobody has grasped this point. This wasnt a headpoint, much less a trad route. Rather, it was some lame abortion of a sport route with fake runouts. Putting a route together in this fashion is all queso and no habanero. I dont think an fa party of this type of route deserves any sort of ownership of the route's future.

Was out working on new routes today.

Mark Pilate wrote:Rockvoyager - The bowling ball thing may be sophomoric, but its not moronic.

Mark and J Q

Agreed. I apologize to any that were offended.

In this case I don't know the players and I don't know the playground. I stated as much at the end of my post.

From what I can gather it seems the climb wasn't put up in good style. I hate climbs where the FA top ropes it into submission, bolts it as a horror show and then passes it off to unsuspecting leaders. But would I retro-bolt the climb? Nope, not without talking to the FA. I know this seems moronic to some of you but it's the way I live my life. Ultimately it's always about(this is for you Ray) respect.

Some folks don't like the tone of my post. I can understand that, I can even say sorry. But the content, no apologies.

Brad

You are hardcore Voyager of Rocks, keep livin the dream bra. ... and hey dude, don't change a thing.

Brad- had no issue with the tone of your post, but you did raise a point that opens a wide door of opinion and discussion...climbing a retro-bolted route and not getting "credit" for it cuz its not the same...(to paraphrase)

When I did the Exum, I did not solo it in football cleats. Did I actually climb it? I don't think Glenn had spent much time grousing about all the pussies bringing his climb down to their level over the years. Should he have placed a bolt/pin and named it something catchy to gain more definitive "ownership" over it?

An extra bolt can make a move or two seem easier (less risky) but modern shoes can bring a whole classic to its knees. I've never seen anyone up in arms over sticky rubber. Its a slippery logic slope based in ego and relativistic values (for everyone, not just calling you out) was my point.

David Sahalie wrote:You are hardcore Voyager of Rocks, keep livin the dream bra. ... and hey dude, don't change a thing.

Do you even watch Point Break, Brah?

Ray Pinpillage wrote: Do you even watch Point Break, Brah?

I LIVE PB broski, like every day!

"You're a real blue flame special, aren't you, son? Young, dumb and full of cum, I know."

You look like hammered shit!

slim wrote: Totally shocked that almost nobody has grasped this point. This wasnt a headpoint, much less a trad route. Rather, it was some lame abortion of a sport route with fake runouts. Putting a route together in this fashion is all queso and no habanero. I dont think an fa party of this type of route deserves any sort of ownership of the route's future.

So what do we say about rap- bolted routes?
Are we still required to respect those as a FA precedent, or can we chop them on lead?
I'm not advocating either, but I'm asking a question about 'ethics' and determination of a route's style. Surely people understand that it doesn't always matter who started the (bolt) war.

slim wrote: This wasnt a headpoint, much less a trad route. Rather, it was some lame abortion of a sport route with fake runouts. Putting a route together in this fashion is all queso and no habanero. I dont think an fa party of this type of route deserves any sort of ownership of the route's future.

Well said and spot-on.

I wrote my senior thesis in college on the 'Creation and development of style and ethics in New England Climbing'... and am thankful this route is out west.

text book debacle

opengate.org/access-fund-bl…

If there's one thing that shines from this and other debates is that ethics are never black and white.

Scott McMahon wrote:If there's one thing that shines from this and other debates is that ethics are never black and white.

Like most things in our world, a gradient.

Tony B wrote: So what do we say about rap- bolted routes? Are we still required to respect those as a FA precedent, or can we chop them on lead? I'm not advocating either, but I'm asking a question about 'ethics' and determination of a route's style. Surely people understand that it doesn't always matter who started the (bolt) war.

Tony, I think that's beside the point. The point is that if you're putting in a route entirely top-down and installing fixed protection for your own benefit, then you should do so in a way that's reasonable for future leaders at the grade attempting the onsight. "Reasonable for..." still leaves a lot of room for debate and latitude for the FA, but clearly this route falls outside of that.

To your point, rap-bolting sport routes is a widely accepted style of route development in many areas, unlike the tactics used here.

And yes...if you place an anchor at an relatively arbitrary spot on rappel and fail to even reach that anchor on your highly rehearsed pink-point (instead lowering off at another relatively arbitrary spot)--I would have to agree that calls into question whether you FA'd a route at all.

Found: bowling ball on ass-sling and super hero mask at the base of Archangel.

Please send detailed description and I will return for 6 pack.

CaptainMo wrote:text book debacle

Only for hand-wringers and control-freaks. The irony is that this took place on public land and the only opinion that counts is that of the land manager. The rest is just hot air. Personally I think the second a bolt is drilled any claim to ethical superiority is lost. What, your rap drilled hole is better than mine (or anyone else's)?

The passive aggression of the climbing community marches on...bitch and moan, bitch and moan, bitch and moan...do nothing...bitch and moan, bitch and moan, bitch and moan.

I'm off to watch more Point Break...livin' the dream Brah!

Hey CJC, I agree it's a can of worms and one I would normally rather not have anything to do with opening.

The real issue to me, however, is the witch hunt mentality and the vitriol that many have heaped upon Chris--especially from some prominent members of the old guard who I've lost a lot of respect for. The more we learn about the "first ascent" of the route, the more the witch hunt just seems not only entirely unwarranted, but pathetic and ridiculous.

PS--I've stood at the base of the route (such as it is)--hope that's good enough for you.

Charles Vernon wrote: Tony, I think that's beside the point. The point is that if you're putting in a route entirely top-down and installing fixed protection for your own benefit, then you should do so in a way that's reasonable for future leaders at the grade attempting the onsight. "Reasonable for..." still leaves a lot of room for debate and latitude for the FA, but clearly this route falls outside of that. To your point, rap-bolting sport routes is a widely accepted style of route development in many areas, unlike the tactics used here. And yes...if you place an anchor at an relatively arbitrary spot on rappel and fail to even reach that anchor on your highly rehearsed pink-point (instead lowering off at another relatively arbitrary spot)--I would have to agree that calls into question whether you FA'd a route at all.

fully agree. when you decide to put the bit to the wall on rappel you should be ENCOURAGING future climbers to climb the route in the best style that they can, whether that be onsighting it as a sport route, TR'ing it into submission, leading it on gear only, whatever. non-exclusionary. if you didn't have the balls to do it on gear, don't expect others to do so.

Charles Vernon wrote: Tony, I think that's beside the point. =

Its beside your point, but entirely spot-on for mine. Not engaging in the point I present is not the same as disqualifying it.

Tony B wrote: So what do we say about rap- bolted routes? Are we still required to respect those as a FA precedent, or can we chop them on lead? .

I always say that it is better to chop those eye burning bolts as long as it makes you feel more macho. After all, stoking the ego is pretty rad! Plus, we can always re drill that sucker till it looks like Swiss cheese.

Charles Vernon wrote: Tony, I think that's beside the point. The point is that if you're putting in a route entirely top-down and installing fixed protection for your own benefit, then you should do so in a way that's reasonable for future leaders at the grade attempting the on-sight. .

Too logical the church of the righteous.

This only makes sense if you do not place preeminent importance on your ego. If your ego is really important, making a route for the community does not make sense. It would be much better to make a monstrosity of a route that never gets repeated so that you can repeat the mantra: "I'amma I'amma bad ass, I'amma I'amma bad ass!"

Ego's and ethics are a little like assholes and sphincters; they go hand in hand and everyone feels differently about them.

De gustibus non est disputandum.