Adding Bolts between runouts

My current question is for Jared the OP, has any of this answered your question?

beensandbagged wrote:My current question is for Jared the OP, has any of this answered your question?

Yeah, and it was nice to hear everyone's view. Wasn't planning on retro-bolting, really, and now I see why it wouldn't be a good thing (for the most part, as it seems that some routes could use a little retro-bolting, according to some of the posters on here). Runouts are something I'm a new to, but hopefully with time, I will become a bit more comfortable. Already getting out of my comfort zone some, and I think being able to overcome that fear and push through will be very rewarding.

Tavis Ricksecker wrote: Sorry Mobes, skipping bolts or gear on a well protected route is a totally different endeavor than climbing a run-out line. There is no commitment involved in skipping bolts. You can repeat your argument as many times as you want, it still won't be true.

that makes no sense presented as a fact when its really an opinion. using your logic, a free solo doesnt count unless its done on a route void of any protection and we all know that is BS

This is a false equivalency. We are talking about run out routes versus well protected routes. The commitment of a run out comes because there is not the option to get protection there. If there was a bolt in the middle of the runout, the line would be less commiting because you have the option to clip it, even if you don't intend to. Even if you don't in fact clip the bolt, you still have that option. That in itself reduces the level of commitment, because if you get there and you are completely gripped and convinced you are going to die, you can still clip the bolt even though you intended to skip it.

Free soloing is a different subject, and it is also commiting because again, you don't have the option to clip into something if you did not even bring a rope. But the OP was not asking about soloing, he was asking about adding fixed protection to a run out route.

Using the Bachar Yerian purely as an example, because it was mentioned further up in the thread: Climbing it in its original state is very different than free soloing it, and also very different than it would be if it were retro-bolted into a sport climb - even if you only clipped the original bolts, because at the horrific runouts you would still have the option to clip. Even if you did not.

By adding bolts you forever alter the climb from its original state. Sure, you could still free solo it, which would be even more commiting. Or you could lead it and only clip the original bolts, but even that would be less commiting than leading it with the runouts as they exist now.

One could argue that no one could have the same experience as the first ascensionist, which would be true. One could even argue that climbing a line after the first ascent could be more commiting because during the FA the bolts could be placed wherever the first ascensionist thought appropriate. Even Bachar realized this, which is part of the reason why he aligned so strongly with the ground up ethic of first ascents - in order to place a bolt, one must have had at least a hook placement good enough to hang on long enough to hand drill the bolt. In between bolts, you are committed to climbing until you reach another hook placement at least. That is why the runouts are there - because in between there is no hook placement that Bachar felt he could hang on in order to place the hook.

It is a compromise - to leave the line in this state, because you will never have the same experience that the first ascensionist did. Now the line is known, now the bolts are there. But leaving it in this state is the closest that we will ever get to the original, and there are many who find it valuable to have such routes as options to climb. Even if you personally have no desire to climb such a route, perhaps you can concede that it has value to others, whatever the reason, and leave it alone for their sake. After all, there are countless well protected 5.11 climbs to choose from, if that is what you desire to climb.

Tavis Ricksecker wrote:This is a false equivalency. We are talking about run out routes versus well protected routes. The commitment of a run out comes because there is not the option to get protection there. If there was a bolt in the middle of the runout, the line would be less commiting because you have the option to clip it, even if you don't intend to. Even if you don't in fact clip the bolt, you still have that option. That in itself reduces the level of commitment, because if you get there and you are completely gripped and convinced you are going to die, you can still clip the bolt even though you intended to skip it. Free soloing is a different subject, and it is also commiting because again, you don't have the option to clip into something if you did not even bring a rope. But the OP was not asking about soloing, he was asking about adding fixed protection to a run out route. Using the Bachar Yerian purely as an example, because it was mentioned further up in the thread: Climbing it in its original state is very different than free soloing it, and also very different than it would be if it were retro-bolted into a sport climb - even if you only clipped the original bolts, because at the horrific runouts you would still have the option to clip. Even if you did not. By adding bolts you forever alter the climb from its original state. Sure, you could still free solo it, which would be even more commiting. Or you could lead it and only clip the original bolts, but even that would be less commiting than leading it with the runouts as they exist now. One could argue that no one could have the same experience as the first ascensionist, which would be true. One could even argue that climbing a line after the first ascent could be more commiting because during the FA the bolts could be placed wherever the first ascensionist thought appropriate. Even Bachar realized this, which is part of the reason why he aligned so strongly with the ground up ethic of first ascents - in order to place a bolt, one must have had at least a hook placement good enough to hang on long enough to hand drill the bolt. In between bolts, you are committed to climbing until you reach another hook placement at least. That is why the runouts are there - because in between there is no hook placement that Bachar felt he could hang on in order to place the hook. It is a compromise - to leave the line in this state, because you will never have the same experience that the first ascensionist did. Now the line is known, now the bolts are there. But leaving it in this state is the closest that we will ever get to the original, and there are many who find it valuable to have such routes as options to climb. Even if you personally have no desire to climb such a route, perhaps you can concede that it has value to others, whatever the reason, and leave it alone for their sake. After all, there are countless well protected 5.11 climbs to choose from, if that is what you desire to climb.

Why not commit from the ground? 3 bolts with runout, carry 3 draws. Someone adds 3 more bolts, runouts suddenly aren't, but you still only bring 3 draws.

Carrying fewer draws than bolts doesn't commit you except at the top when you've placed all your draws, since you can still clip any of the bolts you intended to skip and then lower off if you get sketched. You'd generally have to have something for the anchor that you could clip to a bolt to bail from regardless.

Well stated Travis!

Tavis Ricksecker wrote:This is a false equivalency.....

Well thought out and well stated, Travis.

so I think we can sum up by saying that yes indeedy, in 2014, the slab runouts FA's of yore STILL own the rock.

long live ball cupping of our forfathers and their 5.10/5.11 runouts.

funny how hanging on hooks became 'necessary' for 5.12.

oh, and 5.9, those won't need any pro at all. it is 'only' 5.9. coincidence these guys didn't have many girls around?

but we knaves shall not question the logic, morals and ethics of the lycra clad warriors of old.

Nay! we shall bow to their pucker fest ascents with admiration and exclaim: forsooth, a 5.13 gym climber wouldn't touch that slab, therefore it be-ith holy.

bow down bitches!

aren wrote: Why not commit from the ground? 3 bolts with runout, carry 3 draws. Someone adds 3 more bolts, runouts suddenly aren't, but you still only bring 3 draws.

just think of it in a trad scenario where you only bring the exact piece that fits in the middle of the climb, then Tavis has no argument. I can still make it a mental challenge/risk my life (for no reason besides ego).

opinions and assholes... I'm all for keeping classics in their original condition runout or not. Its those routes you know that never ever get done, the one to no star runout climbs with moss all over them that just sit because some guy wanted to impress his bros BITD that I feel are up for grabs.

really it comes down to doing what feels right since there are no rules set in stone and never will be.

David Sahalie wrote:so I think we can sum up by saying that yes indeedy, in 2014, the slab runouts FA's of yore STILL own the rock. long live ball cupping of our forfathers and their 5.10/5.11 runouts. funny how hanging on hooks became 'necessary' for 5.12. oh, and 5.9, those won't need any pro at all. it is 'only' 5.9. coincidence these guys didn't have many girls around? but we knaves shall not question the logic, morals and ethics of the lycra clad warriors of old. Nay! we shall bow to their pucker fest ascents with admiration and exclaim: forsooth, a 5.13 gym climber wouldn't touch that slab, therefore it be-ith holy. bow down bitches!

too easy David, too easy!

David Sahalie wrote:so I think we can sum up by saying that yes indeedy, in 2014, the slab runouts FA's of yore STILL own the rock. long live ball cupping of our forfathers and their 5.10/5.11 runouts. funny how hanging on hooks became 'necessary' for 5.12. oh, and 5.9, those won't need any pro at all. it is 'only' 5.9. coincidence these guys didn't have many girls around? but we knaves shall not question the logic, morals and ethics of the lycra clad warriors of old. Nay! we shall bow to their pucker fest ascents with admiration and exclaim: forsooth, a 5.13 gym climber wouldn't touch that slab, therefore it be-ith holy. bow down bitches!

Your sarcasm is much better without all the terrible medieval speak Dave. So... no runouts? LOL got it.

I'm great with run-outs between natural pro,

It is the artificial runouts created on slabs and the consequent multi-generational ball-cupping that I take issue with.

the multi-generational ball-cupping is coming to a slow halt if you ask me, it just happens to be alive and well on the interweb

I think Mobes and I would actually agree on most points. The issue I have is the argument that, as Mobes stated, has been made many times in favor of adding bolts. That argument goes like this:

It's ok to add bolts to a runout climb because

A: It will make it safer and enjoyable for those who desire safe climbing,

and

B: Those who wish to run it out can just skip the bolt.

This argument is false because the addition of a bolt changes the entire character of the climb. Why?

Imagine two scenarios. Let's take the Bachar Yerian for example

The first scenario, climbing the climb as it is now. You are thrity feet run out from the last bolt, with still 20 feet left to climb before the next bolt. You are too pumped to downclimb. Now you are totally committed. You have only two choices - continue on to the next bolt, or jump off and take the 60 footer into space.

Now imagine the second scenario, in which the BY has been retro bolted into a sport climb, but you are only clipping the original fixed pieces. In the same place on the climb as the above scenario, you are still 30 feet run out from the last bolt, and you are 20 feet to go until the next bolt that you intend to clip. BUT... that retro bolt is right in front of your face. Now you have many choices. You can choose to continue on, or you can clip the bolt and rest. Or you can clip the bolt and lower off to the belay, etc... The commitment of the original line is gone. You can never experience the original level of commitment once bolts have been added.

Sure you could still free solo the rig, which would be even more commiting than the original. Or you can climb it and only clip the original pro, which as you can see from the above example would still be less commiting than the original as there are now more options. But you can never experience the original level of commitment. It is impossible.

Mobes we are talking about adding bolts. If you add a bolt you add an option. Even if you only brought the piece that fits in the middle of the climb, now if there is a bolt halfway between the ground and that piece you can still clip it. Presumably you have a carabiner, so you can now clip that bolt where before it was not an option. No matter how you look at it, adding bolts reduces the commitment required to do the line. Even if you dont clip them. Even if you never intend to clip them.

So making the argument that adding bolts is ok because you can still do the original line is false at best and disingenuous at worst. The original line is gone once a bolt has been added. It cannot be experienced unless the bolt is removed.

The question of whether or not a particular line should have bolts added to it is a different one and more complicated. I believe, as I think Mobes does as well, that the answer to this is "it depends." It depends on the line, the prevailing ethics of the area, and the wishes of the community. That is quite a grey area.

sorry dude, no grey area among manly men.

A game of absolutes: go big or go home, sack up or put on a skirt

It is tradition to create scare-fests to impress your friends and make women folk swoon.

so say we all, so say we all.

David Sahalie wrote:sorry dude, no grey area among manly men. A game of absolutes: go big or go home, sack up or put on a skirt It is tradition to create scare-fests to impress your friends and make women folk swoon. so say we all, so say we all.

tha's wassup....

If one's sole, or primary, method of self actualization comes from creating unnecessarily dangerous scenarios high up on a rock, then mandating those same conditions for anyone else who wants to appreciate the scenery from that vantage point and moves to get there, that sounds to me like an existentially unfulfilling existence.

Ben Huber wrote:If one's sole, or primary, method of self actualization comes from creating unnecessarily dangerous scenarios high up on a rock, then mandating those same conditions for anyone else who wants to appreciate the scenery from that vantage point and moves to get there, that sounds to me like an existentially unfulfilling existence.

Leading any climb is an unnecessarily dangerous scenario, is it not? If you don't want unnecessary danger why not rig a top rope? Or goad your buddy into leading so you can enjoy the moves and scenery in perfect safety.

David Sahalie wrote:I'm great with run-outs between natural pro, It is the artificial runouts created on slabs and the consequent multi-generational ball-cupping that I take issue with.

I understand, and there is some merit to your point of view. When you say "artificial" though, that's kind of a misnomer. The runouts aren't artificial. If no bolt existed, there would still be a runout, yes? And with the bolt, it's still runout, yes?

Basically what you're saying is that routes like the B/Y shouldn't exist unless people only sling knobs or essentially solo.

Sounds an awful lot like the "my way or the highway" philosophy- you know, the one you decry the traddies for. The problem is that the same philosophy can be turned around- and has been. Oh, that route can be protected with much less fixed pro, and you wouldn't die from a fall, so we're going to yank 2/3 of the fixed shit on this route, because that's how WE think it should be climbed.

Seems kind of strange that you're totally against one bolt to protect an otherwise unprotectable span of 60 or 70 feet, but you're cool with 8 bolts in the same span for a sport route.

This is what makes me lean more toward you just being generally disgusted with the ball-cupping aspect and the sense of entitlement that people (professed trad-only climber types) proclaim because they attempt these sort of routes. That I can understand. It's a strange dynamic between soloists and guys that run out routes. Soloists, for the most part, are usually pretty humble- and they die if they fuck up. Add a rope and some sparse pro, and you'll never hear the end of it.