Adding Bolts between runouts

"In the sixties in SLC we had already drunk the Kool-Aid. . .My cousin George climbed the Dorsal Fin with long run outs between chickenheads to drill from. It's still rated 10d. It was my first climb of that sort, when George took me to repeat it in 1967. I just thought it must be normal. I also really enjoyed the need for concentration and steady nerves. . . . Probably the hardest slab climb in the country in those days was my brother, Greg's route, Infinite, in the City of Rocks. Infinite had lots of 5.10 spice climbing, and a 5.11c crux fully 30 feet above the last 1/4" bolt. Kim Miller made the second ascent in the mid 'seventies and I repeated it afterwards. These may have been the only ascents of the route, as someone bolted the hell out of it top down sometime later, changing the line and completely destroying an important piece of American climbing history. "

mountainproject.com/v/infinite/107383549

Wilson On The Drums wrote:http://www.climbing.com/climber/to-bolt-or-not-to-bolt/ A good article on the FA making the decision to bolt or not to.

So he rap inspected the route, ticked holds and gear placements, mapped out his sequence, then blew his pre-mapped-and-ticked sequence and decided to add a bolt to protect it (presumably on rappel)?

Putting the rad in trad for sure.

Ryan Watts wrote: So he rap inspected the route, ticked holds and gear placements, mapped out his sequence, then blew his pre-mapped-and-ticked sequence and decided to add a bolt to protect it (presumably on rappel)? Putting the rad in trad for sure.

No doubt!

Seriously, as I already said upthread - you must read this entire SuperTaco thread first, realize that this has been discussed ad infinitum and that nothing new has been added to the conversation
supertopo.com/climbers-foru…

uh yeah, except that we had loose consensus on page 8 and the ST thread went on with 2100 odd posts and ended with a photo of some rusty cold shuts.

If you actually sift through all the ball-cupping, chest-puffing and general bullshit (to which I surely contributed), there is actually some worthwhile info and points of view in here. In this thread, it is apparent why there is such division. It is also apparent that it's unnecessary, caused mostly by ego, and that there is a pretty solid middle ground.

don'tchuffonme wrote:If you actually sift through all the ball-cupping, chest-puffing and general bullshit (to which I surely contributed), there is actually some worthwhile info and points of view in here. In this thread, it is apparent why there is such division. It is also apparent that it's unnecessary, caused mostly by ego, and that there is a pretty solid middle ground.

+1

don'tchuffonme wrote:If you actually sift through all the ball-cupping, chest-puffing and general bullshit (to which I surely contributed), there is actually some worthwhile info and points of view in here. In this thread, it is apparent why there is such division. It is also apparent that it's unnecessary, caused mostly by ego, and that there is a pretty solid middle ground.

Agreed. In particular, I think that these two posts are worth highlighting because they are quite pragmatic and well-thought out. (You see this Dave, we can agree on some things, eh?) If we had more of the posts below and less of the iceman777 'mullah' types, then perhaps we could get to an agreeable middle ground.

David Sahalie wrote:chuff, I'm impressed by the introspectiveness of your response. The BY is the last line I would want to see bolts added to because it has seen subsequent ascents. So, it has stood the test of time as being something worth taking a risk on for people that aspire to that sort of experience. I take issue with the routes with no second ascent, that have a bolt or two, and the FA has proclaimed that is only place they could find stances to drill. Often these developers also put up 10s and 9s, but couldn't find stances for non-death bolts spacing, even though it is less steep with bigger holds? oh, but 12s? we'll needs hooks for those. So yeah, my central issue is with the ego of the FAs of that generation. What they did was ballsy, for sure. But because of the medium of the slab world, it is the ego of the climber that determines the level of pro, not the rock. I guess you are correct: putting the ego of the FA on a pedestal instead of creating a route with a reasonable margin of survival is my issue with hero worship. That was a choice they made and now and forever that rock is locked into that mentality. I don't think everything should be a sport climb, but I also don't think singular, ego-driven ascents that haven't seen a second ascent in 30 years are valid today either.... and putting this type of ascent on a holy 'trad' pedestal needs to be rethought.

Tavis Ricksecker wrote:David I applaud you for the thoughtful post. I hope we can all agree that there is a time and place for run out slab climbs, especially established routes such as BY and other Tuolumne classics, Stone Mountain, etc... Just as there is a time and place for run out gear leads such as Air Sweden at the creek or Gaia in the UK. As well there is a time and place for highball boulder problems that push the limits of sanity, of which there are many here in Bishop. But at the same time I definitely agree with you that certain routes are pretty bogus, such as Bachar's solos in Tuolumne that are absolutely unprotectable yet he expected everyone to leave them as solos forever since that was the style of the first ascent. Not a reasonable expectation IMO. Same with rappel bolted death routes, or chosspiles that have faded into complete obscurity and/or never seen a second ascent due to the fact that no one wants to climb them in their current state. I even have issue with old manky fixed pins which were bomber when placed by the FA but are worthless now. Why not replace those with a nice new bolt just like you might due with an old 1/4" buttonhead? Still time this brings up the question of where exactly do you draw the line? I think we all agree that you don't retro bolt BY or other classic runout slabs, you dont add bolts to established traditional climbs even if run out, and you don't bolt established highball boulders into mini sport routes. So how do you decide what it's ok to add fixed protection to? This is why i think the prevailing ethics and history of an area as well as community consensus both need to be taken into consideration, and to err on the side of not adding bolts if there is any question at all of whether its ok or not. As Locker said way way up thread, at certain specific times it might be ok, but usually no.

Tavis Ricksecker wrote:At first I was like: a JQ post that isn't a troll? Then I was like: oh

To be honest, you should know better. Member since 2006? Shit, we have hung out in Bishop since then, and we never clipped a bolt either

Locker wrote:"Climbers Forums" are always top notch entertainment. This line is a fucking crack up... "Glad I wasn't your dad cuz the moment you were born I would have drown you in the toilet and told your mom to sell the milk." It's the "and told your Mom to sell the milk" that seals the deal... LMAO!

Glue????

Can I have some?

Sounds like fun.

Maybe I would understand better.

J Q wrote: Shit, we have hung out in Bishop since then, and we never clipped a bolt either

I believe you, though I have no idea who you are. I never bring the draws anymore, or the rope for that matter.

David Sahalie wrote:hey Brit, got any tips on how sporto, grade-chasin posers can be as awesome as you are? I'm in for a crusty old man sac competition. I first put on rock shoes 30 years ago. Your move.

I think he is "spot on" for the first 3/4 of his post, the ending about no real climbers got a bit sour you could say.

The times have changed. Thanks to sport routes & perma-draws 5.8 climbers can now be 5.12+ climbers(at least in pictures they can be!)

now who wants to compare 8aNu profiles?

David Sahalie wrote:hey Brit, got any tips on how sporto, grade-chasin posers can be as awesome as you are? I'm in for a crusty old man sac competition. I first put on rock shoes 30 years ago. Your move.

Paul Ross probably had climbed 30 years already before you were born. Even if you don't agree with somebody, have a little respect for your elder, man. I can guarantee to you that Paul has contributed far more to climbing than you ever have. You might want to do a little reading up before you make such a fool of your self with more tiresome insults that manage to degrade just about every thread on here.

David-

you do realize USBRIT did the "fissure brown" in 1959, in boots, with a pack, and worthless pro right?

he first put his shoes on 60(plus) years ago.

This post violated Rule #1. It has been removed by Mountain Project.

M Sprague wrote: Paul Ross probably had climbed 30 years already before you were born. Even if you don't agree with somebody, have a little respect for your elder, man. I can guarantee to you that Paul has contributed far more to climbing than you ever have. You might want to do a little reading up before you make such a fool of your self with more tiresome insults that manage to degrade just about every thread on here.

Fair enough. I should have thoroughly researched USBRIT's anonymous name to discover one Famous Paul Ross. Apologies to Mr. Ross.

Your response to my response however.. at least I know who is taking the time to erase my Ben and Jerry's ice cream photo. Proud work, sir.

Keep up the good fight of keeping MP free of free thought, humor and dissension from the status quo.

I know my place now: bow to our forefather's and their proud ascents full of sac and bravado. To speak of adding protection to routes with no second ascent in 30 years tis heresy.

This generation with it's double digit ascents by teenagers will never live to the glory of the sport's golden years. The museum pieces they left in their wake shall be enshrined in historical TRADition and worshiped as feats of Hemmingway-esc testosterone laden voyages the likes of which are never to be seen again.

(stalks off in a huff)

David Sahalie wrote:This generation with it's double digit ascents by teenagers will never live to the glory of the sport's golden years. The museum pieces they left in their wake shall be enshrined in historical TRADition and worshiped as feats of Hemmingway-esc testosterone laden voyages the likes of never to be seen again.

Agreed. In particular, I think that this post is worth highlighting because it is quite pragmatic and well-thought out. (You see this Dave, we can agree on some things, eh?)

What is climbing to become when we remove all the uncertainty and adventure? A purely physical pursuit? That's not why I started climbing... The way climbing is progressing is a natural path created by the current generation. That doesn't mean that we can't or should not reflect on, and respect the long history of climbing and climbers. Comparing Ashima's recent 5.14 or V13 ascents to say a Robbins 5.9 FA are on polar ends of the adventure aspect.

Most of my posts on this thread have been pointing out the irony and lack of logic found the "fundamentalist" argument. (btw, I see this on both sides.) However, I am seriously surprised when I hear post that decry the lack of adventure and risk found in the exploits of the current generation of climbers.

Just take a look at all the cutting edge climbs that are taking place in the alpine, the limits that are being pushed in trad climbing (much of it over manky pro) and the cool stuff going on with high-ball bouldering. Seem like todays young guns are getting their fair share of adventure.

There are a lot of "climbers" out there today that are following a different path, that don't want risk and just like movement and pushing physical limits. That's cool. They are playing by a different set of "rules," and that is cool too.

The thing is we all play our games on the same rock and we all have VERY different values. To get along, we need a little mutual respect. Give some, get some. Give no respect, don't be surprised when your concerns fall on deaf ears.

Sorry for the Ellenor-like epigrams. Blame left handed typing.

Disappointed to see Paul Ross resort to name calling.

Adventure climbers (originally just called climbers) were considered crazy fools BITD. I don't see why they (we?) should expect anything different now.

There will be room in America for adventure climbs for a long time, but to preserve easily accessible adventure climbs will require enlisting land managers (e.g. Eldo, Gunks) or convincing "difficulty oriented climbers" to leave some routes unbolted.

The "FA principle" allows a mechanism to share a limited resource, but there's no underlying moral or ethical justification beyond it's pragmatic usefulness.

The demographics suggest that difficulty climbers will outnumber adventure climbers as time passes. Insulting, threatening and belittling such climbers is not likely to increase their eagerness to retain bold routes.

Adventure climbing is cool, inspiring, and worthwhile. Seems to me that sharing that message will be a lot more effective in persuading our natural allies (i.e. difficulty climbers) to preserve opportunities for everyone on the cliffs.

Also, if you want to increase participation in adventure climbing, then develop a better "risk" scale. Chasing numbers doesn't work when it's just G/PG/R/X. Look at bouldering and the V scale.