New bolts at Crow Hill

Tom Stryker wrote:It's just R? Not X, and you want to bolt it? And you have TR'd it, and scoped the gear ? I guess I don't get what grounds you feel you have for bolting. "Spaced unrealistically " is a new one for sure..lol...

Tom, how can you reduce this thread to that one point?
-it's a sport line to begin with
-it's a contrived trad line
-it's already a mixed crag. Chop it all or let things stand as they are meant to be
-we need a localized advocacy group to prevent further vandalism (bolting AND chopping)

That's all that needs to be addressed.

Healyje wrote:reasonably protected

3 pages back you were telling me how 'reasonable' is relative.

Eric Engberg wrote:Mark and Ed (and everyone else), I'm not arguing (anymore) on the grounds that Dune in particular and Crow in general have been/should be bolt free. To many counter examples + the fact that the FFA was with bolts. Like any good defense attorney, Al has listed a number of precedents. What I am now arguing is that because Dune has now been done in a better style that should remain in condition to support that. There are many precedents that support that - from chopping Maestris (I can't spell - you know the Mallory of Patagonia?) bolts on Cerro Torre to Trotter's chopping on the Path. It's another traditional rule that once things get done in better style that its bad form to revert to worse - even if the FA was done that way. At least if you want to do it in a lesser style (aid the Nose) do so in a manner (clean) that doesn't impact the ability of others to do it in a better style. AKA - you can preplace (and subsequently) remove) trad gear on Dune that is as good as bolts. You can not do a trad on-sight with the bolts in place. But my most fundamental anti bolt argument is that 5.12 sport routes are a dime a dozen (sorry Ed and Marc) but established trad routes? Not so much. However I'm happy to let Crow remain the wild west.

Every single route on the weml at Farley with the exception of one, has been done on gear. So does you argument apply only to Dune or CH or every place? Who decides Where it applies? It is quite hypocritical to make that statements and then go climb those same routes on bolts.

There are 6 routes in Western Mass that go at 12+ R or harder or bolder that I can think of off the top of my head. Add in 12- and that list grows a lot. Yeah lets chop all the routes done on gear so people can start breaking off holds when they are too stupid about where they place gear....

Bill Kirby wrote: I got a question that I don't mind asking since this threads gone bye bye. All the shit going on in ones head aside, wouldn't a route that's not bolted be physically easier than a route that is? My thinking is the person climbing the bolted route has to stop grab a draw off their harness, clip the bolt then clip the rope. The bolt free route takes less energy and you don't get as pumped cause there's no pro. So wouldn't a 5.11 that's bolted every 12 feet be harder to get clean than a 5.11 that has gear every 30 feet? How many of us have ran it out to the top of a pitch rather than stop to place gear and hang?. I don't have a strong opinion on Dune, ethics, bolts or pitons. Just wondering what you guys think.

Generally, yes it would be physically easier (Although I don't think clipping quickdraws takes much energy). I've spent an enormous amount of energy arranging gear on some 'hard for me' onsight attempts. Theoretically routes are easiest if free soloed. Obviously, physically being able to do the moves isn't the whole picture.

zswan wrote: 3 pages back you were telling me how 'reasonable' is relative.

It is, but call it non-R/X protectable if that makes it any clearer.

eric parham wrote: Every single route on the weml at Farley with the exception of one, has been done on gear. So does you argument apply only to Dune or CH or every place? Who decides Where it applies? It is quite hypocritical to make that statements and then go climb those same routes on bolts. There are 6 routes in Western Mass that go at 12+ R or harder or bolder that I can think of off the top of my head. Add in 12- and that list grows a lot. Yeah lets chop all the routes done on gear so people can start breaking off holds when they are too stupid about where they place gear....

Farley jumped the shark to Rumney Jr. Years ago (Despite what Soon thinks). Lost cause. It is pretty weak sauce about having bolts added to Eye-Opener though.

Jonathan I will have to make this my last post, MP has me in time out.

To me there is no such thing as a contrived trad line, or for that matter a "sport line". As I understand it, Dune was aided originally, then bolted and climbed free by Mr. Mallery, who as far as I know, did not exactly make it a " sport route ". People opposed to bolting chopped that version, and other, inspired, skilled climbers came forth and showed it could be done without any bolts. Since then a few other people led it without bolts, and it appears you have done everything in your power to cut it down to size, have not been able to do it and now advocate for it to be bolted so you can claim an ascent.

It's actually very simple, it's been led without bolts, leave it alone, no one is being denied anything this way.

That is my opinion. It's only a dilemma because you see it that way.

I'm in time out for 24....

Jon Clark wrote: Generally, yes it would be physically easier (Although I don't think clipping quickdraws takes much energy). I've spent an enormous amount of energy arranging gear on some 'hard for me' onsight attempts. Theoretically routes are easiest if free soloed. Obviously, physically being able to do the moves isn't the whole picture.

I think that placing gear or a draw takes more balance then moving along too. So how is placing bolts dumbing down or bringing the route down to whoever's level?

Edit: I'm asking the question. Thank you for the answer Jon.

Tom Stryker wrote:People opposed to bolting chopped that version, and other, inspired, skilled climbers came forth and showed it could be done without any bolts.

I'm about as rabidly anti-bolt as they come, but I don't consider headpointing particularly 'inspiring'; it mostly just shows that with enough rote reps you can get up most anything with enough confidence to sustain a near free-solo-like ascent. Unless we're going to adopt and embrace headpointing, then I'd say those ascents are edge cases and the bolts are valid.

Because the bolts take the risk out if spaced reasonably. physically you might have to struggle and failure sucks mentally but nothing a few beers won't fix. The mental aspect puts way more on you when you're unsure of the gear way harder to pull through even if the moves aren't that hard. Takes failure to a new level when you might get mangled.

Having been a crow hill local for years i don't think these bolts should stay. There is a place for mentally hard routes in the world with real risk. If you want to clip bolts go to Farley or Rumney. Especially if no one has talk to the FA and if since the bolts got chopped so long ago and he didn't seem to care enough to try and put them back in. The old bolt holes weren't a sport climb anyway if you have ever rapped down that wall.

Eric Engberg wrote: Farley jumped the shark to Rumney Jr. Years ago (Despite what Soon thinks). Lost cause. It is pretty weak sauce about having bolts added to Eye-Opener though.

Why did you not answer the question? If it's so weak sauce as you put it why climb there?

I am a weak sauce sporto now as EE has accurately pointed out. But move beyond Wall of Early Morning Light (WEML), and you will still find plenty of trad or mixed routes, incl a 12+ or so offwidth. Not too shabby. Eye Opener was adequately bolted when I did it last (almost 2 years ago). Not sure why a bolt or 2 was added.
Bill, lead climbing is at least equal parts mental toughness and physical ability. There are not a lot of climbers willing to make .12/.12+ moves when reliable pro is way below where they are. One's nature is to want pro close by when the climb gets hard or insecure. Placing pro may sap strength but it calms one's nerves enough to keep going.

S. Neoh wrote:I Not sure why a bolt or 2 was added.

Only one bolt was added, to reduce the distance between the first 2 bolts. For a 5.8/5.9 climber there was a real risk of decking if they fell getting to the second clip. (This is secondhand, I had no part in the actual decisions.)

A huge part of why I call our climbing rules stupid is because so many people bend them to their own ideals and then declare them written in stone.
0ne of the most basic of our stupid climbing Rulze is that free trumps aid any day of the week. Additionally 1/2 pitch aid climbs don't even count. That is a practice aid climb folks not a real aid climb. The only way an aid climb is legit in this day and age is if it's BIG. that brings us back to annother of the most basic climbing rules.
The FA or FFA party sets the standard of how much or how little fixed gear is on the route. Unless of course some one else who has not done the route and often is not even capable of doing the route gets their pantys in a bunch. And that folks is part of what makes our rules stupid.

zswan wrote: Only one bolt was added, to reduce the distance between the first 2 bolts. For a 5.8/5.9 climber there was a real risk of decking if they fell getting to the second clip. (This is secondhand, I had no part in the actual decisions.)

OK, got it. Thanks!

Here is a stupid climbing rule that I firmly believe in.

No one should ever be allowed to chop any fixed gear unless they have on sighted the climb in question without said fixed gear. The exception would be if the fixed gear was a squeeze job that affected the way an existing climb is climbed.

Nick Goldsmith wrote:Here is a stupid climbing rule that I firmly believe in. No one should ever be allowed to chop any fixed gear unless they have on sighted the climb in question without said fixed gear. The exception would be if the fixed gear was a squeeze job that affected the way an existing climb is climbed.

I love these 'if a bolt goes in for any reason it's suddenly legit and stays' rulzes.

The reality is they can come out as easily as they go in.

Tom Stryker wrote:So in your mind JQ we should all just bolt up everything we can't measure up too? And you are aware that logic doesn't really play a role in the sport right?

Reductionist bullshit. Contrived formulas to measure your manhood. Nothing new about your hyperbole.

I am aware that logic does not play a role in your version of the sport and that you are an ideological Zealot.

Because all I need is one more bolt on Zulu, I swear one more bolt and I could totally send it.

Nick Goldsmith wrote:Here is a stupid climbing rule that I firmly believe in. No one should ever be allowed to chop any fixed gear unless they have on sighted the climb in question without said fixed gear. The exception would be if the fixed gear was a squeeze job that affected the way an existing climb is climbed.

Seriously, Nick, we want this rule to hang around and be adopted? This would mean a lot of bolts on sport routes .12 and below be 'eligible for chopping'. Heck, I can even think of a number of bolts on certain easier climbs that I can chop because I had to skip them having not brought enough draws due to my own negligence.

see Healy thats why the rulze are stupid. one person can do an FA with bolts and annother can chop them without ever even haveing done the climb. that is complete weak sauce INMOP. If on the otherhand someone puts up a climb with bolts that is a squeeze job to the point that it alters the way a climb that you have climbed climbs then INMOP you do have the right to remove the bolts that change the way the existing climb climbs without haveing to climb the squeeze job first.