Mountain Project Logo

Bolt chopping

csproul · · Pittsboro...sort of, NC · Joined Dec 2009 · Points: 330
ZacSt.J wrote: Isn't the truth/idea in that quote still useful no matter the context?
Not necessarily. For example, if you're hand drilling on lead, you are probably a lot more selective about where and how often you stop to drill and I wouldn't begrudge an FA in this case if they placed bolts more sparingly.
Zac St Jules · · New Hampshire · Joined Dec 2013 · Points: 1,188

Ah, I see.

Slartibartfast · · Magrathea · Joined Jun 2013 · Points: 0
David Barbour wrote: Your definition of construction/creation is flawed. Before we developed written language, stories were passed on by word of mouth. Would you say that the original teller of a story created nothing? A route can be considered the same way, even if nothing tangible is added. A first ascensionist weaves a path up the rock, in the same way that a storyteller weaves words into sentences. But back to the original point, why stop at bolts? Turn every rock climb into a via ferrata, if your goal is to make it accessible to greatest amount of people. tree-mendous.net/wp-content…
A story teller creates something from nothing in a way that helps other people, at the very least by entertaining them. If nothing tangible has been added to a route, then the FA has not helped anybody but himself and has not created anything. This isn't a bad thing, but is, at best, a neutral contribution when taken on its own. Cleaning, trail building, and bolting are positive contributions. Why does everyone need to attribute some inherent nobility to climbing? Why do some insist that simply going up a rock for fun is art, creation, or construction? It's fun and I love it, but it is not inherently noble, and only has true value beyond a personal level if we, in some way, contribute to others while doing it.

You say my definition of construction/creation is wrong? Explain, please. My definition is the actual definition. Words don't mean what we want them to mean, nor does describing our hobbies in flowery terms change their nature.

And, yes, I would be sad if every route turned into a via ferrata, but I would never go out and destroy other peoples hard work and expense. I would be sad, but for selfish reasons, because the route is no longer what I personally want it to be. Most importantly, it's an unfair comparison because that will literally NEVER HAPPEN.

Rock climbs are not inherently works of art, but roads that got confused about which dimension to travel in. Sometimes, roads get potholes. Other times, they were poorly made to begin with and must be redesigned; an apparently minimalist, low impact design might cause more erosion in the long-term than a counter-intuitive, heavy-handed approach from the get go. In none of these cases does the original trail builder get the final say if his opinion is not in line with the best possible stewardship of the area.
David B · · Denver, CO · Joined Apr 2011 · Points: 205
Slartibartfast wrote: A story teller creates something from nothing in a way that helps other people, at the very least by entertaining them. If nothing tangible has been added to a route, then the FA has not helped anybody but himself and has not created anything. This isn't a bad thing, but is, at best, a neutral contribution when taken on its own. Cleaning, trail building, and bolting are positive contributions.
Routefinding is a definite contribution. Have you done any adventurous traditional climbing? If they didn't share topos/grades/trip reports, then your point would be correct.

Slartibartfast wrote:And, yes, I would be sad if every route turned into a via ferrata, but I would never go out and destroy other peoples hard work and expense.
oh you're definitely a troll
Tronald Dump · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2013 · Points: 10

what about 5.5x...... should they just stay away, or should i be bolting the shit out of choss ridges in the cascades?

csproul · · Pittsboro...sort of, NC · Joined Dec 2009 · Points: 330

Sure, the FA shows that a route is possible. Until someone actually does a route, nobody really knows if a line will go down and how hard/committing that route is. Let's face it, the average climber (myself to some extent, included) just isn't comfortable with venturing into the unknown. Not only that, but the FA process usually takes a lot of work. Sounds like a valuable contribution to me.

Slartibartfast · · Magrathea · Joined Jun 2013 · Points: 0
David Barbour wrote: Routefinding is a definite contribution. Have you done any adventurous traditional climbing? If they didn't share topos/grades/trip reports, then your point would be correct. oh you're definitely a troll
Yes, routefinding is a contribution, but I don't think it's a big enough one to qualify for ownership rights. It's a partial contribution, a bridge half-built, and I don't think it's unreasonable for those who come after to finish the project in a way that's functional, even if the original builder grumpily decides his rotting pile of lumber is a work of art and is exactly how he, in his infinite wisdom, intended it to be.

There's obviously a reason John Long is a famous author while we are tapping away on the internet: his answer makes so much sense. A route should, logically, be developed in a way that fits it's grade and accesibility.

I'm a troll? Please, explain to me what part of my last post is so ridiculous as to clearly be a joke. You seem to particularly take umbrage with me saying that I wouldn't destroy someone else's property and hard work just because I don't care for its aesthetic qualities, which, more than anything else I have said in this entire thread is the one thing I'm absolutely, 100% certain of.
Slartibartfast · · Magrathea · Joined Jun 2013 · Points: 0
csproul wrote:Sure, the FA shows that a route is possible. Until someone actually does a route, nobody really knows if a line will go down and how hard/committing that route is.
True...in theory. But, unless you are Adam Ondra(if so, Hi!), not true in practice. And, yes, a first ascent may likely be a difficult process and thus be a contribution if much practical(read: not working the moves, but creating the route) work went into it.

But what if, as I argue in my last post, the work is really only half-done, incomplete? What if he trundles most of the loose rock, but still leaves some dangerous blocks in place? Should I leave them, too, out of respect? If I finish his work, I haven't destroyed what he accomplished, but completed it. And if the FA was too rushed, poor, or lazy to adequately protect his new route, I don't think he should have the right be mad at someone who comes along later to finish what he started.
Alexander Blum · · Livermore, CA · Joined Mar 2009 · Points: 143

Barty, how many trad routes have you established? You have a lot of insight into how much work it is (or isn't, apparently).

csproul · · Pittsboro...sort of, NC · Joined Dec 2009 · Points: 330
Slartibartfast wrote: True...in theory. But, unless you are Adam Ondra(if so, Hi!), not true in practice
So it's only true if it's a grade-setting standard? The vast majority of climbers wouldn't ever climb into unknown territory if someone hadn't done the route first. The only reason climbing is anywhere near as popular today is because other people did the FA and drew out a topo so that the rest of us could know what we were getting into. So yes, in practice, even that 5.10 at your local crag took some vision and effort to put up first, not just AO's latest 5.15

I don't necessarily think that entitles the FA to complete ownership of their routes, but I sure do think it worthy of some respect/thanks.
Scott Phil · · NC · Joined May 2010 · Points: 258
Slartibartfast wrote: if the FA was too rushed, poor, or lazy to adequately protect his new route, I don't think he should have the right be mad at someone who comes along later to finish what he started.
That has to be one of the biggest "ifs" I've ever encountered.

Most successful climbers--especially those who are active with First Ascents--are just the opposite.

Scott

Edit to add: Well, very few are really wealthy, but when it comes to establishing routes they tend to be thoughtful and do put a lot of work into it.
Ryan Watts · · Bishop, CA · Joined Apr 2013 · Points: 25

I'm not gonna read this whole thread but the answer is this:

Sack up and run it out.

Or don't and climb something else.

There are plenty of sweet looking climbs I won't do because they are too dangerous, scary, whatever, for ME. Luckily there are also plenty of climbs that are perfectly safe and within my level of risk tolerance / skill. Maybe I'll come back to those run out routes later, maybe not, but I'm not going to change the route forever just because of my personal preference.

William Sonoma · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2012 · Points: 3,550

Ryan Watts said:

Sack up and run it out.

Or don't and climb something else.

There are plenty of sweet looking climbs I won't do because they are too dangerous, scary, whatever, for ME. Luckily there are also plenty of climbs that are perfectly safe and within my level of risk tolerance / skill. Maybe I'll come back to those run out routes later, maybe not, but I'm not going to change the route forever just because of my personal preference.

+1 - that is a balanced (balance = considering me, you, us) statement. Thank you.

Slartibartfast · · Magrathea · Joined Jun 2013 · Points: 0
The Stoned Master wrote:Ryan Watts said: Sack up and run it out. Or don't and climb something else. There are plenty of sweet looking climbs I won't do because they are too dangerous, scary, whatever, for ME. Luckily there are also plenty of climbs that are perfectly safe and within my level of risk tolerance / skill. Maybe I'll come back to those run out routes later, maybe not, but I'm not going to change the route forever just because of my personal preference. +1 - that is a balanced (balance = considering me, you, us) statement. Thank you.
I'm also totally fine with that. I just don't get why people can be filled with disdain for someone who is willing to put time, sweat, and money into improving(yes, safer is better) a route that could logically be considered an unfinished project.
Jon Zucco · · Denver, CO · Joined Aug 2008 · Points: 245

It's a case by case and a person to person thing, Slar.

Look up the thread regarding Archangel and you'll get a lot of differing view points. In this particular case, I think the new bolts were a good addition as they eased up the sketch factor on an otherwise uberclassic line that was originally set using old school headpoint tactics, HOWEVER, the bolter did not contact the FFA before adding them... which is in my opinion, bad form.

es complicated.

Slartibartfast · · Magrathea · Joined Jun 2013 · Points: 0
Scott Phil wrote: That has to be one of the biggest "ifs" I've ever encountered. Most successful climbers--especially those who are active with First Ascents--are just the opposite. Scott Edit to add: Well, very few are really wealthy, but when it comes to establishing routes they tend to be thoughtful and do put a lot of work into it.
I totally agree with every word in your post. So, just as you improved my post by expounding on one very important word, I will repay the favor.
"Most." Most route developers are conscientious and thorough, but that probably leaves hundreds, maybe thousands, of routes that are incomplete or otherwise ruined. This is a waste of a resource that we all value very highly.
csproul · · Pittsboro...sort of, NC · Joined Dec 2009 · Points: 330
Slartibartfast wrote: I'm also totally fine with that. I just don't get why people can be filled with disdain for someone who is willing to put time, sweat, and money into improving(yes, safer is better) a route that could logically be considered an unfinished project.
No, safer does not always equal better. Sometimes it does, sometimes it does not. The mere fact that there is so much debate proves that climbers cannot even agree on this point. If climbing were perfectly safe, a lot of people would be less interested in it.
Jon Zucco · · Denver, CO · Joined Aug 2008 · Points: 245
csproul wrote: If climbing were perfectly safe, a lot of people would be less interested in it.
and many many more would likely become more interested in it.
csproul · · Pittsboro...sort of, NC · Joined Dec 2009 · Points: 330
Jon Zucco wrote: and many many more would likely become more interested in it.
Well, yeah, that's probably true, but is that what you really want? A safe and extremely popular experience? I like safe sport climbing, but if that's all there was, I'm not sure I'd enjoy climbing nearly as much.

Despite the relative safety of some types of climbing, I'm convinced climbing would have little draw if it weren't for people's inherent fear of it. Safe climbing is kind of like an assusmnet park ride. On some level, people still get a rush, some excitement born out of innate fear, even when they know it is relatively safe. So yes, on that level safe climbing would still attract a lot of people. I'll gladly admit that I find some attraction in the fear and the knowledge that climbing is not a completely safe activity, and I enjoy and pursue forms of climbing that are less safe (on the climbing spectrum of safety).
Jon Zucco · · Denver, CO · Joined Aug 2008 · Points: 245

no that isn't what I want. Just showing the opposite side of the coin...

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

General Climbing
Post a Reply to "Bolt chopping"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.