Home - Destinations - iPhone/Android - Partners - Forum - Photos - Deals - What's New
Login with Facebook
 ADVANCED
Archangel
View Latest Posts in This Forum or All Forums
   Page 8 of 9.  <<First   <Prev   6  7  8  9   Next>   Last>>
Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
 
By David Sahalie
From on the road again
Aug 20, 2013

Wow Albers, we've had disagreements, but that was one spot on assessment and post. AND calling out John Long. .. golf clap.


FLAG
By J. Albers
From Colorado
Aug 20, 2013
Bucky

Tony B wrote:
So, Albers - hypothetical question - and I am sure you will see where I am going with this. IF Mr Byrne had moved the bolts down to the point where he lowered after leading to that point, then would it be a route - just a shorter one?


I do see where you are headed with that Tony. Indeed if he had placed anchor bolts further down then Mr. Byrne's route would at least pass the first test of route, i.e. he at least made it to his anchors!! However, I still don't think it would justify taking out Mr. Weidner's bolts because of the way the route was put up in the first place (TR with pre-placed R/X bolts). That said, it is a moot point in some sense because the reality of the matter is that he didn't get to his anchor and therefore didn't send the route.


FLAG
By reboot
From Westminster, CO
Aug 20, 2013

J. Albers wrote:
...these are not exactly the wanker sportos...

Insulting sport climbers detracts from your argument.


FLAG
By J. Albers
From Colorado
Aug 20, 2013
Bucky

Will S wrote:
Well said Albers, and thanks for the first hand account.

Thanks Will.

David Sahalie wrote:
... AND calling out John Long. .. golf clap.


Was that a golf clap or a funeral clap?

reboot wrote:
Insulting sport climbers detracts from your argument.

The whole sporto wanker rip was supposed to be tongue in cheek. (mostly because I am a wanker and I do love sport climbing!!)


FLAG
By J Q
Aug 20, 2013
Me again!

dmb wrote:
J Q, by your extreme version of this argument, anyone could go anywhere and bolt anything, chop anything, etc. Nothing should be preserved. While we're at it, let's convert Angkor Wat into a Wal-Mart. See how this extremity can go both ways? I'd love to hear your true opinion, but I suspect you're too scared to step out from your protective veil of irony.


That seems to be the current case of (un)ethical chaos.

But it is worth discussing:

Many people believe in a first ascent ethic which I have supported for years but is not actually supported by logic.

Additionally, many of those same people then go on to charge others with unethical behavior and hide behind idiosyncratic and esoteric arguments that are based in dogma and not reason.

As I see it, you have the case of Timmy Vs. The Bryne

Both have an unpopular and some may say archaic ethic when it comes to climbing.

Both demand that you climb the route like they did with no exception, the first ascensionist gets his way, don't ya know. It's good to be born first!!

However, this can't go on.

We cannot allow people who are born first dictate everyone's behavior. Tradition is not a reasonable argument. Otherwise strap on your balls and sacks and get ready for the future.

Monarchy is GREAT!!

We cannot continue believing that we are all "climbers" and that simply because you call yourself a climber you have input for climbers of a different caliber. How many people that climb 5.8 trad with lots of effort commented on what 5.12 sport climbers should do? This cannot go on. Your level of expertise actually does influence your understanding of such a multifaceted sport. This is the most major problem in what climbers call "ethics". It took a jay to actually analyze the route because a jay has climbed several of these. I don't even like that ass but his comprehension of the route goes way beyond what a mediocre trad would notice.



My personal Ethics as requested:

Headpointing is not trad.

Trad is not sport.

Sport is not Bouldering.

Bolts do not burn eyes.

It is rad to do it with less more quickly.

No ethic is universally accepted and your ethic is no different.

If your ego was not involved you wouldn't care what anyone else is doing.

Other people do not choose your outlook: you do!



Next time you are pissed off at a dog, a bolt, music, an ATC, babies, a helmet, or a group of top roping nards, just remember:

That makes you fucking retarded.

You chose unproductive and retarded emotions and now you get what you deserve:

YOU!


FLAG
By CJC
Aug 20, 2013

you seem to be the angry one

a little unglued even


FLAG
By J Q
Aug 20, 2013
Me again!

CJC wrote:
you seem to be the angry one


You seem to be the simplistic one. Try to follow along here, it's not that complicated, even for one who has only participated in one discipline.

Cheers!


FLAG
By Tom-o Sapien
Aug 20, 2013
Conky and I confront Patrick Swayze

Internet Whack-a-Mole



Funeral clap w/ floral arrangements


FLAG
By David Barbour
From Charlotte, NC
Aug 20, 2013

John Long made that comment before he (or Weidner) knew the style of the FA. They were both wrong, but Weidner was more wrong. I agree with the bolts staying, but that doesn't excuse that the FA should have been consulted.


FLAG
By ABB
Aug 20, 2013

dmb wrote:
John Long made that comment before he (or Weidner) knew the style of the FA. They were both wrong, but Weidner was more wrong. I agree with the bolts staying, but that doesn't excuse that the FA should have been consulted.


You're missing the point. There was never an FA of a 'route' or a 'pitch', just freeclimbing to some ambiguous point before lowering-off a mid-pitch piece of gear for lack of oomph. That's what we call an 'attempt'.

Don't make excuses for Long.


FLAG
By Mark E Dixon
From Sprezzatura, Someday
Aug 20, 2013
Sure, I can belay

ABB wrote:
You're missing the point. There was never an FA of a 'route' or a 'pitch', just freeclimbing to some ambiguous point before lowering-off a mid-pitch piece of gear for lack of oomph. That's what we call an 'attempt'. Don't make excuses for Long.


I agree that this was an unfinished project. 20 + years is too long for a red tag.
The bolts should stay.


FLAG
By David Barbour
From Charlotte, NC
Aug 20, 2013

ABB wrote:
You're missing the point. There was never an FA of a 'route' or a 'pitch', just freeclimbing to some ambiguous point before lowering-off a mid-pitch piece of gear for lack of oomph. That's what we call an 'attempt'. Don't make excuses for Long.


I agree, but this wasn't known when Long posted. I just think that someone who has contributed so much the sport deserves a little lenience.

Check out the thread:

www.mountainproject.com/v/archangel/108240564


FLAG
By ABB
Aug 20, 2013

dmb wrote:
I agree, but this wasn't known when Long posted.
You seem to be defending what many consider reprehensible comments. A helluva lot wasn't known but that didn't deter. Biz as usual for many; villify now, fact-gathering can wait.

A closed mouth catches no flies.


FLAG
By Tony B
From Around Boulder, CO
Aug 21, 2013
Got Milk? How about forearm pump? Tony leads "Alan Nelson's Bulging Belly" (5.10, X) on the Lost and Found Flatiron. Belayer is Mark Ruocco. Photo by Bill Wright, 10/06.

J. Albers wrote:
I do see where you are headed with that Tony. Indeed if he had placed anchor bolts further down then Mr. Byrne's route would at least pass the first test of route, i.e. he at least made it to his anchors!! However, I still don't think it would justify taking out Mr. Weidner's bolts because of the way the route was put up in the first place (TR with pre-placed R/X bolts). That said, it is a moot point in some sense because the reality of the matter is that he didn't get to his anchor and therefore didn't send the route.


OK- so you got most of where I was headed, that part of YOUR definition of a climb is where you put the anchor, not where you intended to get to.
So let me add the part that might not have been as clear. What if it had been a single bolt not a pin? And what about other routes that reach a single bolt anchor that is not at the top of the cliff, if they are rap-bolted and have a runout?

To me, the lines being drawn here are somewhat arbitrary. I would have said, in the world of sport climbing, that the ascent goes as far as it was lead free, and beyond that it was not free-climbed. Does moving the anchor down really change that? I guess you can say that it demonstrates the intention of the party climbing it to call it finished...
And you seem to have arrived at a place here where something less than a 2 bolt anchor is not valid, and rap bolting/pre-placing pro is not valid, at least not if there is a long space between them.

So if it is invalid enough to be re-bolted or have bolts added, is it equally valid to chop/remove such a route? What about just chopping specific bolts where there is protection available?
Are we ready for that conclusion?

J Q wrote:
Yes, and we could bolt the extension, while still call him a pussy for head-pointing a route that he bolted like a moron. Finally we could re bolt the tarded route into a good route that the community can use. Is this a serious question? Really? Shall we begin again?

In answer to your 3 questions of me:
1) yes, rhetorical questions have a point. Being rhetorical doesn't make it imaginary. Albers got the point and addressed his view of it.
2) Yes, really.
3) If we get to do it without you being so caustic and patronizing, by all means.

Oh, and might I add, if JQ is an internet persona for someone I actually thought I knew, can you please point out who that is to me privately? I promise not to out you, I just want to avoid you.


FLAG
By Will S
From Joshua Tree
Aug 21, 2013

Tony B wrote:
the anchor...What if it had been a single bolt not a pin? And what about other routes that reach a single bolt anchor that is not at the top of the cliff


Come on, Tony. A "single bolt anchor" is not an anchor. A single pin left at a high point with no additional gear available, is not an anchor. The guy actually placed an anchor and couldn't climb to it.

If he had gone back, put in an actual anchor at his high point, that would be one thing. Poor style, but still, it might be accepted. But that's not what happened. You locals should be laughing this guy out of the room when he takes a stance that he has ANY say in what happens to this route.


FLAG
By Phil Lauffen
From The Bubble
Aug 21, 2013
RMNP skiing. Photo by Nodin de Saillan

reboot wrote:
Insulting sport climbers detracts from your argument.


Some sort of reading comprehension quiz should be requisite for posting...

Thanks for going up there and actually climbing this thing, Albers. That gives your viewpoint way more credibility than the "armchair hardmen"* spewing philosophical nonsense.

  • I suppose I fall into this category, but vehemently oppose any relation to a hardman.


FLAG
By David Barbour
From Charlotte, NC
Aug 21, 2013

Phil Lauffen wrote:
"armchair hardmen"* spewing philosophical nonsense.


hey now...i resemble that remark. except the hardman part


FLAG
By Tony B
From Around Boulder, CO
Aug 21, 2013
Got Milk? How about forearm pump? Tony leads "Alan Nelson's Bulging Belly" (5.10, X) on the Lost and Found Flatiron. Belayer is Mark Ruocco. Photo by Bill Wright, 10/06.

Will S wrote:
Come on, Tony. A "single bolt anchor" is not an anchor. A single pin left at a high point with no additional gear available, is not an anchor. The guy actually placed an anchor and couldn't climb to it. If he had gone back, put in an actual anchor at his high point, that would be one thing. Poor style, but still, it might be accepted. But that's not what happened.

A lot of old routes did not have 2 bolt anchors. So does bolt count at the anchor matter- that was one point.
The other was about what is "finished." Because it seems coming back down and placing an anchor at the high point is somewhat an arbitrary standard, I just wondered if people accepted it more than lowering off from a high point.
I'd say that the part that was lead has been climbed. Why? Well, for starters, because it was. Now, if we define a route as to what kind of anchor might be placed on it... or what amount of gear is acceptable...


FLAG
By J Q
Aug 21, 2013
Me again!

Tony B wrote:
A lot of old routes did not have 2 bolt anchors. So does bolt count at the anchor matter- that was one point...




This is not an actual point but a lame attempt to justify a position that you know is untenable. Do you really believe all of the nonsense you spew or is it just for your own entertainment?


FLAG
By David Sahalie
From on the road again
Aug 21, 2013

Because it seems coming back down and placing an anchor at the high point is somewhat an arbitrary standard,

Anchors get moved all the time. If Thom had moved the anchor to the high point, he would have completed the route.

As it stands, he managed to create a 25 year 12c project.

If the younger generation is expected to respect their elders and their 'ethics' (really it is style, nothing to do with ethics), this is a really sad example.


FLAG
By rging
From Salt Lake City, Ut
Aug 21, 2013
CoR

When Alex Honnold starts free soloing first ascents all over the country then we are all screwed.


FLAG
By Tony B
From Around Boulder, CO
Aug 21, 2013
Got Milk? How about forearm pump? Tony leads "Alan Nelson's Bulging Belly" (5.10, X) on the Lost and Found Flatiron. Belayer is Mark Ruocco. Photo by Bill Wright, 10/06.

J Q wrote:
This is not an actual point but a lame attempt to justify a position that you know is untenable. Do you really believe all of the nonsense you spew or is it just for your own entertainment?

You don't even know my position..
And I didn't figure for a moment that you ever would, nor would want to.
Your entire internet banter routine seems to be hell bent on twisting other peoples positions into the position you'd like them to be so that you can attack them.
Reminds me of a few other trolls that used to hang around here, but at least they were transparent in who they were.


FLAG
By Tony B
From Around Boulder, CO
Aug 21, 2013
Got Milk? How about forearm pump? Tony leads "Alan Nelson's Bulging Belly" (5.10, X) on the Lost and Found Flatiron. Belayer is Mark Ruocco. Photo by Bill Wright, 10/06.

David Sahalie wrote:
Because it seems coming back down and placing an anchor at the high point is somewhat an arbitrary standard, Anchors get moved all the time. If Thom had moved the anchor to the high point, he would have completed the route.

That's kind of my point. And that also seems arbitray too, since that means that the anchors define the climb and not the climbing that was lead.
Seems kind of like we are all playing a silly game, right?
So I guess I'd go with the idea of focusing my efforts to do new routes in areas that are... new.
If I'd been interested in this sort of project (I have not projected a route in the last 20 years, as I am an on-sight climber) I suppose my personal approach would have been to do it somewhere new.

As for an example of a climb like this in some ways- T-wall "The Message" The bolter couldn't finish the route, so he lowered off of his high point, went back up there, added a second bolt and called it a route. And it was. What lies above that was later considered an extension or a second pitch (The Oregon Message), not an FA of the first.


FLAG
By Tony B
From Around Boulder, CO
Aug 21, 2013
Got Milk? How about forearm pump? Tony leads "Alan Nelson's Bulging Belly" (5.10, X) on the Lost and Found Flatiron. Belayer is Mark Ruocco. Photo by Bill Wright, 10/06.

aaron hope wrote:
This is ALL very arbitrary. What really matters is whether or not the climb was created ground up. That's it. If it was - then no one should touch the route because, as Long was getting at, it completely ignores the history and risk the FA took to create the route. If the route wasn't ground up, then there is no risk and there is no history...possibly just a scary, contrived route that no one bothers to repeat. In this case - should future generations be prevented from making a climbable and worthy route at their crag? I don't think so.

Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying here, but if not..
Then can chop any sport climb that was not lead and bolted ground up?
You guys are funny. And, in a word, arbitrary.


FLAG
By J. Albers
From Colorado
Aug 21, 2013
Bucky

Tony B wrote:
And, in a word, arbitrary.


Sure Tony, but virtually any topic that contains grey area will be associated with arbitrary definitions and cutoffs. Considering that the world is almost never black and white, then all decision making processes are going to be arbitrary in some sense, no? At that point you need to come to a consensus on what is a reasonable solution. But wait, isn't the definition of reasonable also arbitrary? Ah yes, we are now chasing our tail.

I like your questions Tony because they are good food for thought, but your questions can only be taken so far before the discussion becomes purely an exercise in philosophical debate. My guess is that if I was talking to you in person though, the smirk on your face would communicate the wryness of your inquiries in a way that is not communicated via a forum post, yes?


FLAG


Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
Page 8 of 9.  <<First   <Prev   6  7  8  9   Next>   Last>>