cochise development

Much as I support DDC and his incredible legacy of bold and low-impact routes, quite obviously the young guns here are dying to go out and make their own "mark". Although I have my own reservations about the nature of the mark they plan to make in terms of "development", with regard to the history of Cochise Stronghold, they have that right (and will do so wherever they see fit in the absence of any information to the contrary). Unfortunate as it is, the only way to preserve the DDC legacy may be to make the routes known so that the community can then police offenders that might trample established routes.

The authors of the 1973 guide to Granite Mountain had a similar "publish or perish" thing going on. Ultimately they decided documentation was better than the alternative. They stated as much in the introduction to the guide.

The need for a climber's guide to any new climbing area is always a bit of a debate. The argument used by the guidebook opposition is that the publication of a guide creates an overcrowded area doomed to rapid deterioration. We see a good deal of truth to this theory.
So why did we write a guidebook? Three years ago we would not have been interested. Three years ago every one who climbed at Granite Basin knew everyone else who climbed there. Climbers understood the traditions and customs of the area, they knew which routes had been done and what techniques were used. Recently, however, word has spread and there has been a huge influx of new climbers. Newcomers have not always understood what the area meant to those who had been climbing there for years. Bolts were added, free climbs were attempted using aid, siege tactics were used on one-day climbs, and pitons were used in perfect nut cracks. This destruction does not seem to have been intentional; rather, it is due to the new climbers' lack of information. A Granite Mountain guidebook now seems the lesser of two evils.
We see this guide as more than a collection of routes. We see it as a way of transmitting information about attitudes which have prevailed in this climbing area since its beginning. A sort of "city planning" effort in an attempt to contribute some kind of order to the threat of a "rock climbing sprawl"; hopefully, a deterrent to the Serenity Crack syndrome.

Steiger, John, Climbers Guide to Sabino Canyon and Mountain Lemmon Highway, 1985, P. 8,9

Steiger's Guide

Edit: The publishing quandary has been with us for a long time.

OP:

Jack Ubaek wrote:...or make them safe...

Obviously. That's because climbing is supposed to be just another risk-free, pop suburban entertainment option. You know, like, um, dude, should we go to the mall, play some u-fris or maybe go climbing? God forbid they should ever find themselves 'adventure climbing' by mistake.

But lordy yes, you 'gotta roll with the times' and, if the spacing on the bolts at the new Planet Granite is any indication, it looks like if the kids get used to that spacing they'll shortly be 'double-up' retrobolting every sport climb within driving range in order to make them 'safe'. I mean, what the hell were those original sport climbers thinking with whole routes of six and eight foot runouts...?

Healyje wrote: Obviously. That's because climbing is supposed to be just another risk-free, pop suburban entertainment option. You know, like, um, dude, should we go to the mall, play some u-fris or maybe go climbing? God forbid they should ever find themselves 'adventure climbing' by mistake. But lordy yes, you 'gotta roll with the times' and, if the spacing on the bolts at the new Planet Granite is any indication, it looks like if the kids get used to that spacing they'll shortly be 'double-up' retrobolting every sport climb within driving range in order to make them 'safe'. I mean, what the hell were those original sport climbers thinking with whole routes of six and eight foot runouts...?

gosh Joe, have you been to the mall recently? the one around here is about to go under and become a ghost town, all the damn kids are locked in their rooms playing video games, eating Cheetos and getting fat with every waking breath. You do care about our nations health dont you ?

Miike wrote:You do care about our nations health dont you ?

At the expense of rock? No, let them walk, run, bike or do hot yoga - anything but going on a mindless next, next, next "rad" but [oh so] "safe" gridbolting spree at a place like Cochise. Crikey.

Just spent a couple months there, didn't see much out of place, or many people for that matter. Me thinks troll! So easy to push your buttons! Heading back in 2 weeks, will keep my eye out

Healyje wrote: At the expense of rock? No, let them walk, run, bike or do hot yoga - anything but going on a mindless next, next, next "rad" but [oh so] "safe" gridbolting spree at a place like Cochise. Crikey.

I could easily list close to 100 popular areas that are grid bolted in the US and Cochise wouldnt come close to making that list, just sayin...

The issue here is this: routes that have few or no bolts are at risk of being "upgraded" into sport climbs because the FA has never released information about the routes.

The FA witholds information because he doesn't want anyone to repeat the routes. Therein lies the irony.

Tim Lutz wrote:Lines that were bolted are, in fact, bolted by humans, not nature. So why risk life and limb to confirm someone elses vision of cheesegrater 5.11 slab with 30' runouts?

that's a really good point. these types of routes make me think of old dogs pissing on a rock to mark it as theirs (widely spaced old bolts being the piss in this case).

i get the argument for preserving bold routes on natural gear even though i don't always agree with it, but it's pretty lame that there are so many R-rated bolted routes out there on rock that could make amazing sport climbs which many people would enjoy if they could just get a modern makeover.

Jon Ruland wrote:...that could make amazing sport climbs which many people would enjoy if they could just get a modern makeover.

They're already 'amazing sport climbs' which don't need to dumbed down to the lowest common denominator even, if not especially, when that denominator is getting lower by the year.

Healyje wrote: They're already 'amazing sport climbs' which don't need to dumbed down to the lowest common denominator even, if not especially, when that denominator is getting lower by the year.

even if the majority of America is getting more fat and lazy by the minute at least we can all agree people are climbing harder and harder stuff every minute as well cant we?

lowest common denominator = the most fun

Maybe I missed it but the original poster never actually said they adding any bolts to existing routes. Rather just commented on the character of some of the older ones.

Miike wrote: even if the majority of America is getting more fat and lazy by the minute at least we can all agree people are climbing harder and harder stuff every minute as well cant we?

Not really. If you did a chart of the total demographic of people who donned a harness in each year sorted by grade you'd find the actual percentage of the total who are climbing hard is actually declining year by year as the demographic grows.

Miike wrote:lowest common denominator = the most fun

Again, not at the expense of gridbolted rock, let them do jazzercise instead. The largely successful [commercial] attempts to divorce risk from climbing in order to sell it as just another entertainment option is both sad and pathetic.

In particular it's unfortunate that climbing gyms - which started out as a way to provide an indoor emulation of outdoor climbing - have instead ended up breeding generations of 'climbers' who simply want to turn real rock outdoors into as close an emulation of indoor gym climbing as possible.

But WTF, it's all about the fun...crikey.

That's most of the Stronghold. They can close the gates now. LOL

^+1 MR I'm super stoked ISO never fell into obscurity like so many cochise routes. Thanks for that. -Don

Healyje wrote: Not really. If you did a chart of the total demographic of people who donned a harness in each year sorted by grade you'd find the actual percentage of the total who are climbing hard is actually declining year by year as the demographic grows.

Where is this info coming from? What is climbing hard? 5.10 is hard to a lot of people so is 5.11,5.12.....

I found this right after posting. 4th class is like 5.13 for the peeps.

vb=v10

Jon Ruland wrote: that's a really good point. these types of routes make me think of old dogs pissing on a rock to mark it as theirs (widely spaced old bolts being the piss in this case). i get the argument for preserving bold routes on natural gear even though i don't always agree with it, but it's pretty lame that there are so many R-rated bolted routes out there on rock that could make amazing sport climbs which many people would enjoy if they could just get a modern makeover.

Why do you assume that people aren't enjoying these routes in their current state?

You response indicates that you are unwilling to put the work in required to climb these routes.

Brady..... stoney point!

Well another topic about adding bolts to old climbs.

Ill say this again.... you don't have a right to have climbs dumbed down to your level. (by adding bolts to make em killer "sport climbs")......Rather go and improve your skillz.

Every time I have been to Cochise, I lower the grade and go have a blast. 5.6-5.9 is pretty good, much like TM.

It the climbing and not the grade that matters.