Archangel
|
FYI, I also posted the text below on the actual Archangel page in the hope that it will heighten the chance that Mr. Weidner sees and takes into account all of the support he has before considering what to do about the bolts. |
|
Well said Albers, and thanks for the first hand account. |
|
So, Albers - hypothetical question - and I am sure you will see where I am going with this. |
|
J. Albers wrote: You can weave in all of the big words you want from your copy of Roget's, but it can't change the fact that your machismo laced ball sack statements are embarrassing at best.I hope you are not referring to my machismo laced ball sack statements because they are all the rage. This is the future of climbing. It puts the balls in the sack before it sends the route or it get's the hose! Period. This is the new style. Do you want the hose? If you respond to this comment I will assume you want the hose. Tony B wrote:So, Albers - hypothetical question - and I am sure you will see where I am going with this. IF Mr Byrne had moved the bolts down to the point where he lowered after leading to that point, then would it be a route - just a shorter one?Yes, and we could bolt the extension, while still call him a pussy for head-pointing a route that he bolted like a moron. Finally we could re bolt the tarded route into a good route that the community can use. Is this a serious question? Really? Shall we begin again? |
|
Wow Albers, we've had disagreements, but that was one spot on assessment and post. AND calling out John Long. .. golf clap. |
|
Tony B wrote:So, Albers - hypothetical question - and I am sure you will see where I am going with this. IF Mr Byrne had moved the bolts down to the point where he lowered after leading to that point, then would it be a route - just a shorter one?I do see where you are headed with that Tony. Indeed if he had placed anchor bolts further down then Mr. Byrne's route would at least pass the first test of route, i.e. he at least made it to his anchors!! However, I still don't think it would justify taking out Mr. Weidner's bolts because of the way the route was put up in the first place (TR with pre-placed R/X bolts). That said, it is a moot point in some sense because the reality of the matter is that he didn't get to his anchor and therefore didn't send the route. |
|
J. Albers wrote:...these are not exactly the wanker sportos...Insulting sport climbers detracts from your argument. |
|
Will S wrote:Well said Albers, and thanks for the first hand account.Thanks Will. David Sahalie wrote:... AND calling out John Long. .. golf clap.Was that a golf clap or a funeral clap? reboot wrote: Insulting sport climbers detracts from your argument.The whole sporto wanker rip was supposed to be tongue in cheek. (mostly because I am a wanker and I do love sport climbing!!) |
|
dmb wrote:J Q, by your extreme version of this argument, anyone could go anywhere and bolt anything, chop anything, etc. Nothing should be preserved. While we're at it, let's convert Angkor Wat into a Wal-Mart. See how this extremity can go both ways? I'd love to hear your true opinion, but I suspect you're too scared to step out from your protective veil of irony.That seems to be the current case of (un)ethical chaos. But it is worth discussing: Many people believe in a first ascent ethic which I have supported for years but is not actually supported by logic. Additionally, many of those same people then go on to charge others with unethical behavior and hide behind idiosyncratic and esoteric arguments that are based in dogma and not reason. As I see it, you have the case of Timmy Vs. The Bryne Both have an unpopular and some may say archaic ethic when it comes to climbing. Both demand that you climb the route like they did with no exception, the first ascensionist gets his way, don't ya know. It's good to be born first!! However, this can't go on. We cannot allow people who are born first dictate everyone's behavior. Tradition is not a reasonable argument. Otherwise strap on your balls and sacks and get ready for the future. Monarchy is GREAT!! We cannot continue believing that we are all "climbers" and that simply because you call yourself a climber you have input for climbers of a different caliber. How many people that climb 5.8 trad with lots of effort commented on what 5.12 sport climbers should do? This cannot go on. Your level of expertise actually does influence your understanding of such a multifaceted sport. This is the most major problem in what climbers call "ethics". It took a jay to actually analyze the route because a jay has climbed several of these. I don't even like that ass but his comprehension of the route goes way beyond what a mediocre trad would notice. My personal Ethics as requested: Headpointing is not trad. Trad is not sport. Sport is not Bouldering. Bolts do not burn eyes. It is rad to do it with less more quickly. No ethic is universally accepted and your ethic is no different. If your ego was not involved you wouldn't care what anyone else is doing. Other people do not choose your outlook: you do! Next time you are pissed off at a dog, a bolt, music, an ATC, babies, a helmet, or a group of top roping nards, just remember: That makes you fucking retarded. You chose unproductive and retarded emotions and now you get what you deserve: YOU! |
|
CJC wrote:you seem to be the angry oneYou seem to be the simplistic one. Try to follow along here, it's not that complicated, even for one who has only participated in one discipline. Cheers! |
|
Internet Whack-a-Mole |
|
John Long made that comment before he (or Weidner) knew the style of the FA. They were both wrong, but Weidner was more wrong. I agree with the bolts staying, but that doesn't excuse that the FA should have been consulted. |
|
dmb wrote:John Long made that comment before he (or Weidner) knew the style of the FA. They were both wrong, but Weidner was more wrong. I agree with the bolts staying, but that doesn't excuse that the FA should have been consulted.You're missing the point. There was never an FA of a 'route' or a 'pitch', just freeclimbing to some ambiguous point before lowering-off a mid-pitch piece of gear for lack of oomph. That's what we call an 'attempt'. Don't make excuses for Long. |
|
ABB wrote: You're missing the point. There was never an FA of a 'route' or a 'pitch', just freeclimbing to some ambiguous point before lowering-off a mid-pitch piece of gear for lack of oomph. That's what we call an 'attempt'. Don't make excuses for Long.I agree that this was an unfinished project. 20 + years is too long for a red tag. The bolts should stay. |
|
ABB wrote: You're missing the point. There was never an FA of a 'route' or a 'pitch', just freeclimbing to some ambiguous point before lowering-off a mid-pitch piece of gear for lack of oomph. That's what we call an 'attempt'. Don't make excuses for Long.I agree, but this wasn't known when Long posted. I just think that someone who has contributed so much the sport deserves a little lenience. Check out the thread: mountainproject.com/v/archa… |
|
dmb wrote: I agree, but this wasn't known when Long posted.You seem to be defending what many consider reprehensible comments. A helluva lot wasn't known but that didn't deter. Biz as usual for many; villify now, fact-gathering can wait. A closed mouth catches no flies. |
|
J. Albers wrote: I do see where you are headed with that Tony. Indeed if he had placed anchor bolts further down then Mr. Byrne's route would at least pass the first test of route, i.e. he at least made it to his anchors!! However, I still don't think it would justify taking out Mr. Weidner's bolts because of the way the route was put up in the first place (TR with pre-placed R/X bolts). That said, it is a moot point in some sense because the reality of the matter is that he didn't get to his anchor and therefore didn't send the route.OK- so you got most of where I was headed, that part of YOUR definition of a climb is where you put the anchor, not where you intended to get to. So let me add the part that might not have been as clear. What if it had been a single bolt not a pin? And what about other routes that reach a single bolt anchor that is not at the top of the cliff, if they are rap-bolted and have a runout? To me, the lines being drawn here are somewhat arbitrary. I would have said, in the world of sport climbing, that the ascent goes as far as it was lead free, and beyond that it was not free-climbed. Does moving the anchor down really change that? I guess you can say that it demonstrates the intention of the party climbing it to call it finished... And you seem to have arrived at a place here where something less than a 2 bolt anchor is not valid, and rap bolting/pre-placing pro is not valid, at least not if there is a long space between them. So if it is invalid enough to be re-bolted or have bolts added, is it equally valid to chop/remove such a route? What about just chopping specific bolts where there is protection available? Are we ready for that conclusion? J Q wrote: Yes, and we could bolt the extension, while still call him a pussy for head-pointing a route that he bolted like a moron. Finally we could re bolt the tarded route into a good route that the community can use. Is this a serious question? Really? Shall we begin again?In answer to your 3 questions of me: 1) yes, rhetorical questions have a point. Being rhetorical doesn't make it imaginary. Albers got the point and addressed his view of it. 2) Yes, really. 3) If we get to do it without you being so caustic and patronizing, by all means. Oh, and might I add, if JQ is an internet persona for someone I actually thought I knew, can you please point out who that is to me privately? I promise not to out you, I just want to avoid you. |
|
Tony B wrote: the anchor...What if it had been a single bolt not a pin? And what about other routes that reach a single bolt anchor that is not at the top of the cliffCome on, Tony. A "single bolt anchor" is not an anchor. A single pin left at a high point with no additional gear available, is not an anchor. The guy actually placed an anchor and couldn't climb to it. If he had gone back, put in an actual anchor at his high point, that would be one thing. Poor style, but still, it might be accepted. But that's not what happened. You locals should be laughing this guy out of the room when he takes a stance that he has ANY say in what happens to this route. |
|
reboot wrote: Insulting sport climbers detracts from your argument.Some sort of reading comprehension quiz should be requisite for posting... Thanks for going up there and actually climbing this thing, Albers. That gives your viewpoint way more credibility than the "armchair hardmen"* spewing philosophical nonsense.
|
|
Phil Lauffen wrote: "armchair hardmen"* spewing philosophical nonsense.hey now...i resemble that remark. except the hardman part |