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.

Before commencing with my useless drivel below, I wanted to make two things clear. First, I don't know Mr. Weidner or any of his friends, so I really don't have a dog in this fight other than the future of the route. And second, what I write below is not meant to offend Mr. Byrne or to take anything away from his initial experiences with this route.

A few weeks ago I went up to climb Archangel to both check out the route and to see if this thing might actually be a reasonable, ground up lead on gear. I brought all of my HB brass and cams down to a black Alien and below is my take on the route.

First of all, this route is awesome and I have to give credit to Mr. Byrne for scoping the line and putting in the initial effort to send it. In particular, the transition from liebacking the edge of the arete to the stance below the roof is classic. That said, I don't believe that this route was ever "sent" (at least not using any traditional metric of what it means to send a route). When I got to the anchor that Mr. Weidner installed, I stepped out right onto the climbing where the route was originally intended to proceed (i.e. to the location that Mr. Byrne placed his anchor). Upon doing so, I feel that it is safe to say that Mr. Weidner's assessment of the grade to Mr. Byrne's original anchor is correct, say something in the 13c/d range. This leads one to the obvious conclusion: Mr. Byrne intended to finish up at his anchor, but couldn't, so he lowered off of a fixed pin just before the crack peters out near the end of the undercling section. So what does that mean? That means that Mr. Byrne spent 2-3 months toprope wiring a route and installing some sparse fixed gear. He then led it to the point that he could climb no further and then lowered off. I can't understand how this in any way constitutes a sent route. Moreover, even if one could argue that lowering off of a fixed pin part of the way up a route counts as FA'ing the route, there is still the issue of how this route was put up.

First of all this route was put up top down. Now this of course is just fine, but it clearly negates any argument that folks like Mr. Long have made regarding respecting "ballsy" ground up ascents. I think that virtually anyone with a shred of grey matter would concede that wiring a route on toprope and then installing fixed gear that is utterly inadequate for a ground up ascent is simply not a style of climbing that is common nor accepted amongst a huge majority of the community. So that leads me to address climbing this thing ground up with gear and/or some of the fixed protection.

Beginning at the ledge after the first 30 feet of climbing, here is what you can place using clean gear. At the first bolt you can slot a couple of small to medium sized brass HB's off to the left. They would lead to a less pleasant fall than the bolt, but you would be okay. At the second bolt - where you really need protection to keep you from breaking your ankles on the ledge - you would have to be a fool to place anything behind that rotten rock (I tried to get a black Alien just to check, but couldn't get it in...the crack is just too small). And this is after Mr. Weidner cleaned out the worst loose rock out of this section. I sort of shudder to think of what was there before because as it is now, I was trying to minimize how hard I pulled on the flake getting past the second bolt. A bolt or two beyond, you can again get a couple pieces of gear (medium sized nut and a red Camalot), though the two pieces of gear are close enough to each other that it would really only eliminate one bolt at best. After that, there is no more gear until after you pull the crux roof, at which point you may be able to get a couple of marginal micro cams in the flared undercling crack.

So what does this all mean? It means that if the bolts on this thing get removed, the route will become a 12c R/X route that nobody ever climbs. The proof that this is the case is the simple fact this route has not seen a single ascent since it was toproped 25 years ago. And what about doing it the style of the first toprope runs? I guess that means that you need to rap in and toprope the route until you are comfortable soloing it. You then clip the runout gear, which is largely irrelevant at this point because you have it so wired you can solo it. The climbing community actually has a word for doing a route in this style. Its called contrived. Contrived as in, you purposely made the route dangerous with fixed protection despite the fact that you could have done so differently. If you are doing it ground up and placing bolts at the stances, then fine, you did what you could. But installing R/X on rappel? Contrived. And no, this doesn't count as a headpoint because bolts were installed. If Mr. Byrne wanted to headpoint it, he would get the two brass nuts at the start, the red Camalot 10 feet higher, and then perhaps a marginal micro cam to lower off of at the end. What that means is that unless you can onsight solo 12c, you are going to either get totally f*cked up or die trying to do this route ground up. Sh*t, given the suspect nature of the potential flared microcam placements at the "end" of the route, you better also be comfortable down-soloing this thing because if those cams pull while lowering, you are definitely gonna be a sack of slush after you hit the ground. Does that sound like anything other than a stupidly protected X-rated route? And this is what Mr. Long and the armchair SuperTaco crowd are mounting a heated defense over?

In conclusion, I think that it is pretty clear that the bolts should stay. Or at a minimum, all of the bolts minus the two gear placements should stay. And I don't think that I am anywhere close to the only one who thinks this. And to all of the folks above who called Mr. Weidner a punter etc., how do you explain the words of support that the local crowd has expressed in Mr. Weidner's defense? Contrary to your chest pounding rants, some of us who are defending the bolts are not the punters that you would make us out to be. How about you look into the background of some of the people you are talking down to before you spout off so strongly. Go take a look at the names here and on the Archangel forum thread (see here: mountainproject.com/v/archa…) that are supporting Mr. Weidner: Ted Lanzano, Tank Evans, Pinklebear, Blake Herrington to name but a few...these are not exactly the wanker sportos that your misplaced rants are intended for now are they?

And finally, to Mr. Long. I can't help but express to you how disappointing it was to read your comments. I have always enjoyed your writing and your books. 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.

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.
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?

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 one

You 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

Funeral clap w/ floral arrangements

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 cliff

Come 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.

• I suppose I fall into this category, but vehemently oppose any relation to a hardman.

Phil Lauffen wrote: "armchair hardmen"* spewing philosophical nonsense.

hey now...i resemble that remark. except the hardman part