Mountain Project Logo

How Rap Slings came to the Gunks

Original Post
rgold · · Poughkeepsie, NY · Joined Feb 2008 · Points: 526

I was asked about this recently, and figured my response might be worth sharing.

I’m almost positive there were just about no slings anywhere in the Gunks before 1970, so I guess the transition was a feature of the 70’s. There may have been some widely scattered rappels off of trees with no slings; even today grooved trees testify to that practice, but really there was very little practical reason to rap off climbs because no one left anything at the base anyway.

BITD, even when we returned to the base of a climb rather than walk back, it was usually by virtue of soloing down something easy. Descents from the Mac Wall were done by soloing down Three Pines, for example. Descents from the Baby-Frogshead routes by soloing down Easy Overhang. Silly Chimney got you down from climbs in the vicinity of the Yellow Wall, including things like Double Crack. We also took to roped downclimbing. If you climbed Erect Direction, you downclimbed CCK for example. Perhaps the most amusing version of this was to combine the up and down into a single lead starting and ending at the ground, e.g. up Shitface and down Roseland.

But I sink into nostalgia and digress.

Five things changed the situation.

One was the increasing number of short very hard climbs with really no subsequent hard climbing after the first pitch. Folks started rapping off these rather than plod up the easier ground to the top, and started leaving slings for that purpose, and soon established rap stations evolved.

The primary transitional influence came from the banning of parking on 299. With your car at a convenient distance from the Uberfall, it made perfect sense to gear up at the car, walk to the climb and do it, walk back along the top, return to the car for snacks/lunch whatever, and then head off for another climb. Once cars had to be parked inconveniently far away, it made much more sense to load everything for the day into a pack and carry it to the base of the climb, and then walking back to the Uberfall no longer made any sense.

A third influence was the tremendous increase in top-roping, a practice that used to be viewed as cheating if you were going to lead the climb. For example, Art Gran refused to credit anyone with the first ascent of Pas de Deux, dismissing it with the phrase, “unfortunately, not put in on the lead.” Now of course top-roping is a fully accepted and integrated genre, one that is reinforced by the fact that all your stuff is at the base anyway. So now people want top-roping anchors as much as they want rap anchors.

A fourth influence, I suspect, was that the proliferation of guides working in the Gunks increased the numbers of top rope and rap anchors. Anyone who doubts this need only look at Skytop, which had no fixed anchors and, as far as I can recall, no environmental problems of any kind, and is now festooned with top-rope/rap anchors established purely for the perceived needs of guiding.

The fifth change had to do with how climbing developed outside the Gunks. Bolted belay/rappel stations showed up much earlier in Europe. Yosemite was next, followed probably by Red Rock. Sport climbing was overwhelmingly about single pitch climbing with raps or lower-offs from pitches that often ended in the middle (or well below the middle) of a wall. All of this created both a demand and sense of entitlement, and led to the profusion of rap anchors that are now a feature of Trapps climbing.

Kevin Heckeler · · Las Vegas, NV · Joined Jul 2010 · Points: 1,616
rgold wrote:All of this created both [a] demand and sense of entitlement, and led to the profusion of rap anchors that are now a feature of Trapps climbing.
Wow, you had written a very concise history then completely lost me with the very last line. "Entitlement"? You suggesting we should all be free soloing down 'easier' climbs instead of rappelling? Exactly what do you mean by this?
rgold · · Poughkeepsie, NY · Joined Feb 2008 · Points: 526

I mean that there now are climbers who feel that they are entitled to have what they view as proper rap and even belay anchors installed for them, as they are on sport climbs, European "plaisir" climbs, and many trad or tradish routes in Yosemite and Red Rock. I didn't make the "installed for them" part clear.

I'm certainly not suggesting people free solo down the easier climbs. In general, the average climbers' ability seems to have gone up on the harder grades and down on the easier grades.

Kevin Heckeler · · Las Vegas, NV · Joined Jul 2010 · Points: 1,616
rgold wrote:I'm certainly not suggesting people free solo down the easier climbs. In general, the average climbers' ability seems to have gone up on the harder grades and down on the easier grades.
What struck me is how ridiculously unsafe it would become on Three Pines if you have people down climbing while others are leading up on a busy Saturday afternoon.

You know, things are different now than in the 1970s, right? This sport has multiplied in popularity/users by a full magnitude. What worked then doesn't work now (out of common sense and necessity), hence many of the new anchors. You can pine for how it was or how you think it should be, but it isn't and will never be again.

So I do not agree with you. The anchors in the Gunks are not there out of any sense of entitlement, they're there because they're needed. I'm sure the Preserve agrees 100%.

Welcome to 2015.
Doug Hemken · · Madison, WI · Joined Oct 2004 · Points: 13,668

I think Devil's Tower is also exemplary. Obviously the location of parking has nothing to do with the transition there - the Gunks might be unusual in that respect.

I would describe at least some of the bolted anchors at the Tower as "convenience" anchors: placed on routes not heavily traveled, not used as rappel routes, but out of an expectation that it simply ought to be set up that way.

I think "entitlement" is the right word. For some of today's climbers, the sense that "we ought to be able to climb here" (the right to climb) and that "we ought to have bolted anchors here" are nearly the same thing.

I look at where some of the convenience anchors have been put in at the Red River Gorge (where I grew up, pre-bolts), and I can see that the staunch clean-as-can-be climbing aesthetic appears to be headed for minority status.

I enjoy safety. And I enjoy convenience, sometimes. I find it sad when people thoughtlessly conflate the two. And of course it's just rude when people snark "you know things are different now, right?" The argument that convenient anchors are needed defines the sense of entitlement.

Brian · · North Kingstown, RI · Joined Sep 2001 · Points: 804

I think one important influence you didn't mention is the sheer number of climbers now compared to the "old days." When we use to park on 299 there was enough space for everyone climbing there. We use to walk off and down climb the Uberfall descent on all climbs except the ones way down that had their own escape hatches. With the hundred-fold? increase in climbers things are a going to change.

Bill Kirby · · Keene New York · Joined Jul 2012 · Points: 480
Doug Hemken wrote:I think Devil's Tower is also exemplary. Obviously the location of parking has nothing to do with the transition there - the Gunks might be unusual in that respect. I would describe at least some of the bolted anchors at the Tower as "convenience" anchors: placed on routes not heavily traveled, not used as rappel routes, but out of an expectation that it simply ought to be set up that way. I think "entitlement" is the right word. For some of today's climbers, the sense that "we ought to be able to climb here" (the right to climb) and that "we ought to have bolted anchors here" are nearly the same thing. I look at where some of the convenience anchors have been put in at the Red River Gorge (where I grew up, pre-bolts), and I can see that the staunch clean-as-can-be climbing aesthetic appears to be headed for minority status. I enjoy safety. And I enjoy convenience, sometimes. I find it sad when people thoughtlessly conflate the two. And of course it's just rude when people snark "you know things are different now, right?" The argument that convenient anchors are needed defines the sense of entitlement.

+1 and agree with Rgold. And I suck at rock climbing.,
Thomas Stryker · · Chatham, NH · Joined Aug 2014 · Points: 250

I see the bolted anchors in the Gunks as a prime example of un-intended consequences. Prior to their installation, top-roping took place almost exclusively to the left of the Uberfall. There were exceptions, Ken's Crack being one, but Tr'ing was little seen past that point.

When the bolts and guides came, people began setting up whole areas to work. I've had a guide from the monogrammed polo shirt guiding company traverse behind me on the GTL, and set up a U shaped loop for some virtual first timers, with that rope running right across two parties already at the ledge.

People now seize parts of the cliff for huge posses, then camp all day. That in turn makes it nearly impossible to plan a day on the weekend, which leads to the same practice elsewhere on the crag. We watched a competent leader on Never Never Land, party of three, just starting, so went and did something else, and when we came back 2.5 hrs later, they were still lapping it and J'accuse.

What was great about the way it was before was that people were there to lead stuff, so if a party was in place when you got to the climb, you just counted who was waiting and watched to see if the leader was competent. If so you could get on the route in a predictable, usually short amount of time, regardless whether they went to the top, or OPAR'd.(One pitch and rap).

It's sad really, there is no where I know of that is better suited to beginning leaders than the Gunks.

Doug Hemken · · Madison, WI · Joined Oct 2004 · Points: 13,668
Brian wrote:I think one important influence you didn't mention is the sheer number of climbers now compared to the "old days." .... With the hundred-fold? increase in climbers things are a going to change.
I think the best data suggest about a 400% increase nationally in the proportion of the adult population that climbs since the late 60s early 70s. Then factor in population increase.

Even if the aesthetic and techniques had remained unchanged, we would have had to deal with this growth. But much of the increase is clearly due to changing aesthetics and techniques.
Thomas Stryker · · Chatham, NH · Joined Aug 2014 · Points: 250

That seems way more realistic, four fold.

Mark E Dixon · · Possunt, nec posse videntur · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 974

The Preserve probably knows how many passes were sold back in the 70s vs how many are sold now.

Rui Ferreira · · Boulder, CO · Joined Jul 2003 · Points: 903
rgold wrote: The primary transitional influence came from the banning of parking on 299. With your car at a convenient distance from the Uberfall, it made perfect sense to gear up at the car, walk to the climb and do it, walk back along the top, return to the car for snacks/lunch whatever, and then head off for another climb.
This was not my own experience. I found it to be the opposite as hanging out by the car on 299 was so inconvenient due to the lack of space between cars and between the guard rail and the infamous white line on the street. Our practice was to bring a day pack to the cliff and only return to the car at the end of the day.

I do recall walking off the top of climbs and back down the Uberfall more frequently than rappeling, but it depended on location. In general we walked off most climbs in the Nears, with perhaps the one or two climbs such as Birdland being the exception.
Thomas Stryker · · Chatham, NH · Joined Aug 2014 · Points: 250

At one time even the white line was not an issue....cars routinely spilled over it. I spent a lot of nights camped in my VW bus directly across from the spring.

Rob D · · Queens, NY · Joined May 2011 · Points: 30

I only moved to New York two years ago so I only have a few season at the gunks. I think the biggest use of tat/anchors for top roping seems to be guided parties. I know that this has been discussed ad nauseam on here, but after returning to the south to climb for a few days and being reminded how infrequently I saw guides and guided parties there, I realized how much less I saw toproping even though there were more fixed anchors in place. I think that fixed anchors are being blamed for top roping when really the proliferation of guides might be a more logical place to put blame.

I also have a question for rgold/old gunks climbers: How were high quality climbs like nosedive/retribution/etc dealt with before rapp stations? I don't think I've ever seen anyone, even older climbers, top out on those two specifically.

Thomas Stryker · · Chatham, NH · Joined Aug 2014 · Points: 250

We topped out on those every time. I know I did every time on Ret, only followed Mel Hamel up ND. Why would you not go to the top?

rgold · · Poughkeepsie, NY · Joined Feb 2008 · Points: 526

Ha! I did Retribution in the early 60's (19, not 18) with Yvon Chouinard. For many years, well into the seventies, people topped out and walked off everything from Bunny-Fancy Idiot north by heading down the Uberfall.

Rob Dillon · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Mar 2002 · Points: 760

(full disclosure: not a gunkie)

I'm not sure if the appearance and acceptance of rap anchors (everywhere, not just here) is so much a function of entitlement as from a sense of wanting to climb more, schlep less, and have more fun with a limited amount of time. Rapping off just might be a better way to do things, and it took awhile for people to figure that out.

As for gang-toproping, that's another story.

Thomas Stryker · · Chatham, NH · Joined Aug 2014 · Points: 250

We rappeled at least half the time, especially if it was a route we had done to the top previously, with non crux stuff on P2. I think when the question is posed about how we climbed Ret and ND, the difference is that people took the sportclimbing norm of lowering and TR'ing the second and applied it to the Gunks. I almost always belayed seconds from above, including small or hanging belays for fun.

rgold · · Poughkeepsie, NY · Joined Feb 2008 · Points: 526
Kevin Heckeler wrote: What struck me is how ridiculously unsafe it would become on Three Pines if you have people down climbing while others are leading up on a busy Saturday afternoon.
Yes it does seem so. But there was never a single accident. It may be worse to have people throwing ropes down Three Pines. In any case, I was making a historical observation, not a recommendation.

Kevin Heckeler wrote:You know, things are different now than in the 1970s, right? Blah blah blah...

Of course, I am far more aware of how things have changed than you will ever be. And you yourself said that up until the word "entitlement" appeared to ruffle your feathers, I had given a "very concise history." That's what I tried to do and that's still what is there.

Kevin Heckeler wrote:The anchors in the Gunks are not there out of any sense of entitlement, they're there because they're needed.
I can't say it any better than Doug Hemken did just above: The argument that convenient anchors are needed defines the sense of entitlement.

This is because there isn't a single anchor in the Gunks that is "needed" according to any reasonable climbing definition of the term "need." There are quite a few anchors that are surely desirable, and a whole bunch that are convenient, but needed? The fact of the matter is that, even setting some reasonable standard for convenience, there are still many more anchors than anyone could make a case for in terms of "need."

And these anchors cause problems that have been hashed over repeatedly. Anchors that route descending parties down ascent routes create dangerous situations. Top rope anchors allow for the monopolization of first pitches. And now we are beginning to see environmental effects in terms of tree stress. all this, according to you, is needed.

My "entitlement" phrase---as specifically clarified for your benefit---reads "there now are climbers who feel that they are entitled to have what they view as proper rap and even belay anchors installed for them." Sorry, but this is beyond question. But you have read it as somehow characterizing all climbers and all anchors, which is a preposterous non-sequitor.

Kevin Heckeler wrote: I'm sure the Preserve agrees 100%.
You think the Preserve agrees 100% with the soil compaction and destruction of trees? If there is anything certain in this argument, it is that you don't know what the Preserve believes.

I don't either. I see no reason to believe that the Preserve is so monolithic as to have a "belief." It may, in the course of events, have a policy, but that is very different and would occur as the rational outcome of various possibly contending beliefs.
Thomas Stryker · · Chatham, NH · Joined Aug 2014 · Points: 250

And here rgold touches on one of the shining principles of bolted anchors gone awry. We are always told the bolted anchors save trees,and thus avoid erosion, but in fact the abuse is just directed to the ones at the ground, now mobbed by parties of eight who camp, yardsale and bring two dogs.

rgold · · Poughkeepsie, NY · Joined Feb 2008 · Points: 526
Tom Stryker wrote:And here rgold touches on one of the shining principles of bolted anchors gone awry. We are always told the bolted anchors save trees,and thus avoid erosion, but in fact the abuse is just directed to the ones at the ground, now mobbed by parties of eight who camp, yardsale and bring two dogs.
All the Preserve people I've spoken with are very happy about the reduction in environmental stress to the top of the cliff that is the result of the rappelling norms, so in reality there is a balance going on. I don't think, even if there were some way to make it happen, that there are any in the Preserve who would like to see a return to the days when everyone walked back along the top. One might say that the cliff base has been sacrificed to preserve the cliff top. This is one of those land management decisions in which one has to make choices between options, none of which is by itself appealing.
Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Northeastern States
Post a Reply to "How Rap Slings came to the Gunks"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

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

Get Started.