Bolt chopping
|
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. |
|
Ah, I see. |
|
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. |
|
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 |
|
what about 5.5x...... should they just stay away, or should i be bolting the shit out of choss ridges in the cascades? |
|
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. |
|
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 trollYes, 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. |
|
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. |
|
Barty, how many trad routes have you established? You have a lot of insight into how much work it is (or isn't, apparently). |
|
Slartibartfast wrote: True...in theory. But, unless you are Adam Ondra(if so, Hi!), not true in practiceSo 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. |
|
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. |
|
I'm not gonna read this whole thread but the answer is this: |
|
Ryan Watts said: |
|
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. |
|
It's a case by case and a person to person thing, Slar. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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). |
|
no that isn't what I want. Just showing the opposite side of the coin... |