who chopped turbo trad?
|
This post violated Guideline #1 and has been removed. |
|
To clarify, you mean Turbo Trad up at Los Palomas, yes? |
|
I think it's worth chopping just for the name! |
|
TDog wrote: What/When/Where/Who/Why/How Turbo Trad???Turbo Trad |
|
What a second, someone led a climb on trad gear only, WTF!?! |
|
It's too bad that someone has decided to restart the bolt wars at Palomas. If someone had issues with this route than they should have taken it up 15 years ago with Timy when the route was established. For now respecting the FA dictates that this climb should have been left as is. I hope the chopper comes forward instead of hiding in the shadows, as choppers like to do. |
|
DisturbingThePeace wrote:If someone had issues with this route than they should have taken it up 15 years ago with Timy when the route was established. For now respecting the FA dictates that this climb should have been left as is.the route should be left how the FA manufactured it? I mean on a manufactured route what more damage area couple bolts doing? (sarcastic) If someone sent on gear, so be it. I think chopping is lame, but so is manufacturing or "comfortizing". kinda lame all around in my book. on that note i don't climb anywhere close to that hard, but just cause you climb hard doesn't make manufacturing ok. |
|
Devin C. wrote: the route should be left how the FA manufactured it? I mean on a manufactured route what more damage area couple bolts doing? (sarcastic) If someone sent on gear, so be it. I think chopping is lame, but so is manufacturing or "comfortizing". kinda lame all around in my book. on that note i don't climb anywhere close to that hard, but just cause you climb hard doesn't make manufacturing ok.While Mono mentions that this route was "apparently 'comfortized', for your sport-climbing pleasure" I didn't notice this when I was on the route, (but I am pretty bad at noticing chipped / comfortized holds and don't generally go looking for them) Bernard Moret's guide mentions nothing about this route being manufactured, and he calls out several other routes as being manufactured. This route still felt plenty sharp to me. Even if this route has been sent on gear, I still disagree with the chopping. As I mentioned this should have been done 15 years ago when the route was put up. For one many fully bolted routes at Palomas could go pretty safely on gear. Two, anything can go on gear if you run it out enough. So while this is a "bolted crack" I feel that it is best to respect the FA in this case. Side Comment: I don't think that no matter how hard you climb it makes manufacturing a route OK, however many of the routes at Palomas were put up when that was more of an accepted practice in the US. |
|
While there are several routes at Palomas with manufactured holds, as far as I know this is not one of them. It is possible that some of the holds were comfortized but I have not heard anything about that on this route either. |
|
cams and limestone don't mix that well either...eek. |
|
Let me clarify that I do not know for a fact it is comfortized. It appeared to me that a few of the pockets higher up were comfortized--which is totally fine by me. |
|
I can agree with what you are all saying, chopping is lame. If people want to chop then they need to engage in a community dialogue to determine what needs to be changed. I also probably jumped to the manufacturing conclusion when I read comfortized. But I also feel that there is too much emphasis placed on an FA's ownership of a route. they may have envisioned it first, or even equipped the route but I think climbers get way too caught up in the idea that when they modify public land and equip a route the route is now owned by them and everyone who sneezes close to the rock needs to first confer with the FA. |
|
Devin C. wrote:I also don't understand why there must be no bolts on a route if someone wants to lead it on gear, lead it in the style you prefer, if you want to do it on gear don't clip the boltsIt makes a badass photo placing gear next to bolt, or even bolts with pre-hung draws. For example: rockclimbing.com/images/pho… But back to the real issue, chopping is lame! The FAist,established it a certain way, it should be left that way. In order to retro-bolt a trad climb it needs permission from the FAist. So when a climb is retro-bolted why do people feel the need to chop it without permission. I'm sure whoever chopped this route would be made is someone put a bolt in their trad FA... I hope the coward comes forward. |
|
to me that photo says 'yeah, others need this shit, but me? I'll get by without it' Total badass! then when others are telling you about how they climbed the same route you can say cool, now go do it sans bolts, much more difficult. No need to chop the thing so only those with the same badassnitude can do it, just enjoy in your own way. |
|
DisturbingThePeace wrote: For now respecting the FA dictates that this climb should have been left as is.I disagree with this. The idea that one person can claim a piece of stone and forever have jurisdiction over its disposition is insane when taken to the extreme...which many FAs are. I don't believe every generation is required to enforce the decisions of the past. If a "consensus" (whatever that means) arises that bolts should be added or removed, etc., then routes can and should be changed. That is why there is a process for constitutional ammendments. All of us or none of us "own" the rock, we just babysit it until the next generation takes over. |
|
Monomaniac wrote:Let me clarify that I do not know for a fact it is comfortized. It appeared to me that a few of the pockets higher up were comfortized--which is totally fine by me. For those that are wondering, "Comfortized" means that the edges of sharp pockets were smoothed down (probably with a file) so they don't lacerate your fingers when you pull on them. IMO, that's a big difference from manufacturing a new hold.I totally agree with Mono on this. Just go to the Iris and pull on a selection of routes. You will quickly be able to tell which routes had the edges taken off the pockets and which didn't. I don't see anything ethically wrong with this because it does not change the difficulty of the hold, it just means you don't rip your fingers apart. This is VERY different from manufacturing holds.... I think it is unfortunate that this route got chopped. The NM community is not that big, it seems that somebody must know something. |
|
Bummer, I find it hard to believe anyone could muster the sense of outrage to chop this route so long after it was established. |
|
DisturbingThePeace wrote:For now respecting the FA dictates that this climb should have been left as is. Mike Anderson wrote: I disagree with this. The idea that one person can claim a piece of stone and forever have jurisdiction over its disposition is insane when taken to the extreme...which many FAs are. I don't believe every generation is required to enforce the decisions of the past. If a "consensus" (whatever that means) arises that bolts should be added or removed, etc., then routes can and should be changed. That is why there is a process for constitutional ammendments. All of us or none of us "own" the rock, we just babysit it until the next generation takes over.Hey Mike, I agree that in many (maybe most) cases the FA doctrine can be taken to the extreme. A shitty route on a great piece of stone, should be changed with community consensus, perhaps I should have mentioned this. However since climbers rarely agree on anything I think without a baseline of following the FA tradition things would tend towards anarchy with retrobolts being added to existing routes, and routes being chopped all over the place as soon as someone could do it with less bolts. In this particular case I feel that if community consensus was against this route than it should have been chopped when it was put up, not 15 years later. Today I would imagine that most people with experience on the route think that the bolts should stay. This is a separate issue but what really amazes is that some climbers think they can own an entire cliff (see the SFHD thread on Supertopo) or an entire state (Ken Nichols). |
|
This seems very sad to me. |
|
Monomaniac wrote:Let me clarify that I do not know for a fact it is comfortized. It appeared to me that a few of the pockets higher up were comfortized--which is totally fine by me. For those that are wondering, "Comfortized" means that the edges of sharp pockets were smoothed down (probably with a file) so they don't lacerate your fingers when you pull on them. IMO, that's a big difference from manufacturing a new hold.WOW!!!!!! Please remember that a new generation of climbers are reading this stuff. I CAN"T believe that you would condone these actions. I guess I'm going to agree with "MOUNTAIN PROJECT DECLINE". Actually I don't even think, "comfortized" is a word. |
|
England wrote: WOW!!!!!! Please remember that a new generation of climbers are reading this stuff. I CAN"T believe that you would condone these actions. I guess I'm going to agree with "MOUNTAIN PROJECT DECLINE". Actually I don't even think, "comfortized" is a word.It's a rarity that holds are NOT comfortized. It's usually the difference between liking a route and hating it. Chances are, most routes that have had "comfy" holds on them that are "nice on the skin" have been comfortized. I'm actually shocked that you're so shocked. |