Santee Boulders - Legends Wanted
|
Hello all, Santee boulders has long been a convenient and dense bouldering location for everyone in the SD climbing circuit to climb, train and hangout. I have recently been looking into the access and the private ownership of the land and believe it is imperative for the long term conservation of the field to establish an archive of relevant historical images and accounts of climbing at Santee. It is apparent to me (born 1998) that Santee boulders has a long and rich history of climbing, much of which is only discoverable through anecdotal blurbs on internet forums. As someone who went climbing for the first time at Santee and has since formed a strong relationship with the place and the many climbers who call Santee their home field, I'm calling all on all those who have enjoyed similar experiences at Santee to post their images, videos, or stories to this thread. I, along with a few of my Crackroach friends, am launching a project to document and preserve Santee Boulders for generations of climbers to come. All media, info and links are welcome and much appreciated. For the purpose of historical documentation, please provide some context and dates if possible. Also, if you are someone who was a part of the rich climbing scene in the 70's and 80's, and still live in San Diego, I would be stoked to interview you for the project. |
|
Santee doesnt have a guide because its all boulders and there are multiple names for many of the same problems. Ratings there are conservative and that's how it should be. If you want to know how hard a problem is, get on it. For what purpose do you want to document Santee boulders? Be advised that no first ascents are to be had there, and no FA info is on record because there is no way of verifying a first ascent at a place that has been scoured by generations of really good climbers. If you want to document new climbs, forget it, everything has been done. If you want to change ratings, dont. Those ratings have been fine for 50 years and don't need to be changed now. If the ratings seem harsh that's good. An out of town climber once complained that one problem rated V1 should have been rated V4. Maybe where you come from, just remember to bring your A game to san diego next time. Call it a san diego V1. SD climbers tend to be mantle climbers and there are tons of mantles at santee. A good mantle climber may call a shelf V0, and If someone with poor mantle technique thinks its V3 that doesnt mean the rating should be changed. About names, every problem and formation doesnt need a name. If it doesnt have one it means previous generations didnt think it needed one, and thats the way it should stay. A name confers a certain status on a boulder problem. If it was worth naming then it probably has some greater appeal than your average problem. Retro naming problems is not only arrogant, it is unnecessary and waters down the system. Everyone wants a guide to lead them around, why not just discover whats there and enjoy it? Make your own notes or whatever. Why do you consider it imperative that a written history be compiled for santee? At this point there is no authoritative source of information and no way to verify anything. The best you could do would be to collect a bunch of heresay and opinions, and when they conflict what will you do? The goal of most climbing "documentation" or gudes is self aggrandizement. People want their achievements documented and want to put their spin on history by retro naming and rating things or claiming FAs. None of that serves anyone but the author. The fact that santee has been a climbing area for 60 odd years is not in dispute and no documentation is needed to establish it. I started climbing at santee in 1975 and it was already well scoured by many very talented climbers when I got there. You just started climbing there and want to become the documentarian? How do you know whats real and whats bullshit? Who were the real hardmen and who are the blowhards? Who is trying to build a retro reputation? The best climbers dont blow their own horn, or at least thats the way it used to be. How can you possibly determine the relevance and authenticity of things told to you by random people? |
|
|
|
|
|
Uncloaking on MP to say fuck yeah Ron! |
|
The guy who says don’t document the boulders documented the boulders? |
|
|
|
I first started bouldering there in 1971, it was a fantastic area for bouldering. Remember driving right up to the boulders, very mellow area. I moved to Bishop in 2009 and haven't been back. I've had countless fun days there. |
|
Calvin Farris wrote: What makes you think there is any danger to access? When Pardee homes built the new Castlerock neighborhood, the boulder parcels are to be added to Mission Trails Regional Park. As documented in the MTRP master plan. See pages 2-15, 5-61, 6-27 of https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/mtrp_mpu_aug2019_web.pdf I first went there in 1985. Historically the boulder area was used daily for walking and recreation since the neighborhood was built in the mid 60s. (Mast Blvd and West Hills Park did not exist, and there was a well used path from Serres Drive to the boulders.) |
|
not sure wrote: The difference being that Mt Woodson was mostly roped routes at that time, and many new routes were being put up. Guides already existed to woodson but were terribly out of date. My guides were really just an addendum to previous guides. I listed named boulder problems because as i mentioned above, a name is like a quality rating. Those were the only boulder problems that I documented in my original guide. That morphed into a rating and an arrow for some problems in later editions due to popular demand. Woodson is a world class area with lots of out of town visitors and unlimited potential for new routes. Brush is dense on Woodson, and new routes require some trail building, base clearing and access to the top, so first ascents are self evident and easily verified. By contrast, Santee is local and limited and every side of every boulder is accessible. Some top tier climbers haunted the place for decades as well as generations of San Diego's best. Every problem and variation has been climbed. But my point is that since there has been no documentation since people started climbing at Santee in the 60s, there is no way to verify first ascents, route and formation names or who rated what and why. When you solicit info from the public at large you cannot take that info as fact. With no way to verify that info it has to be regarded as opinion or lore, which documents nothing. If you want to pretend that everything you hear is valid then you are purveying misinformation. Someone who recently started climbing at Santee has no way to filter any info they receive. How would conflicts in information be resolved? How do you know who is full of shit and who is the real deal? Nothing of value can be produced by this effort. I strongly suspect that any "documentation" will include new names for formations and problems and the authors opinion on ratings. Putting ones own spin on history has always been a motive for documenting climbing areas, along with claiming credit for climbs where no FA info exists. That is a dismal way to try and make a name. Undeserved recognition is not fame it is a sham. |
|
Ron, i doubt the op has any ambition to claim fa’s, change names or grades. Sounds like he’s genuinely curious on the history of Santee as your generation gave us footsteps to follow. I personally love going to santee, in fact im there pretty much every afternoon. I have always been inspired and curious about the folks who were climbing before me because they paved the way for us new gens to try hard and push ourselves. To me the history of Santee climbing is as important as the history in Joshua Tree or Idyllwild. At Santee, there are classic boulders and there are whatever’s. In Socal, there are dedicated climbers and there are people who claim fa’s on 6ft boulders. This is what we are dealing with in the new gen and I can see how it’s frustrating. Overall, there are a lot of people who care about Socal climbing and it isnt just the past generations. You arent the only climber that has had fun and thrived at the boulder fields around socal. What was your first day at santee like? Mine consisted of me being roasted by Dick Shockley who later turned out to be a great mentor of mine for about a year. |
|
Gotta love the Shockley limericks lol.
|
|
Productive discussion here. I think as climbers, our "spray-dar" detectors are highly tuned to anyone trying to spin history for self-promotional purposes as Ron describes. That sort of thing tends to filter down where it belongs, forgotten in a dank heap of poison oak (metaphorically speaking of course) That said, I'm interpreting the main goal of Calvin's post to get genuine stories out in the open. Just tales of trying hard and getting in adventures. This what sticks in our collective memory. We wanna hear about your experiences, what yer psyched on! Like what Ron and Nolan posted above! I've been reading along some of the SD supertopo threads where all the pics have been purged. What a bummer. Nothing lasts forever I suppose. |
|
I remember a bouldering contest held in the early 1980’s at Santee right around Halloween. There was a written map/guide that had points assigned to various boulder problems according to their difficulty |
|
This post violated Guideline #1 and has been removed.
|
|
Ron Amick wrote: Ron, why are you so angry? You make some good points, but your hostility towards any other viewpoint makes listening to your side very unappealing. Nolan made some good points, but writing them off completely and in such a hostile way is just sort of baffling. Clearly you care a lot about this area, and have tons of personal knowledge/experience with it, and no one is questioning that. |
|
Emilio Sosa wrote: This isn't bad for Ron. I miss Supertopo. |
|
Emilio Sosa wrote: Point well taken Emilio, and thank you for calling me on that. The tenor of my reply comes from my experience, which is that route guides (yes i am a guidebook author and was guilty of it too with my first guides), area documentation etc. is almost always motivated by someone's desire to put their stamp on an area. I've seen it dozens of times. An altruistic, objective guide is almost never written by someone who doesn't have their finger in the pot. If my preemptive castigation was misplaced and this guy is the one in a million who is undertaking the work of documenting an area with zero personal gain, then I do owe him an apology. And I will gladly apologize, in person if needed, once this write up comes out. Until then I remain skeptical, but I have said all I need to on this, and am now just fielding criticism by explaining my thoughts |
|
Greg Davis wrote: Lol, thanks greg |
|
Nolan Cooper Graham wrote: Ah the source of my irritation in my reply to this reply is in the author's attempt to sound like he has some greater knowledge by helpfully informing me that there are dedicated climbers, and others who claim FAs on 6 foot problems". I don't even know what this means but the tone is condescending. Then the overtly condescending pearl of wisdom that "not only past generations care about socal climbing" ya think? gee why didn't I know that? Then he notifies me that "I am not the only person to have enjoyed local boulders". Really? And here I thought it was just me. But what is the point of this statement other than to imply that I am an egomaniac? I am outspoken and blunt but I carefully consider what I write, and I cant be an egomaniac because too many local climbers were and are much better than me. It was disrespectful, and disrespect will get a rise out of me more than almost anything |
|
I want you to know I meant no disrespect toward you Ron. Looking back at my comment, I could have worded what I said better. I apologize. What I was trying to say is that people care about the history, we respect the grades, we love seeing old photos from the past of boulders we cut our teeth on. The people that respect this tradition know this and aren’t gonna change a thing. The the 6ft boulder thing. Yeah, ive just been seeing a lot of nonsense lately with people digging out boulders at santee and posting videos of their glorious fa. But to each their own I guess. Anyone have a copy of “Face Climbing” by John Long? On one of the first couple pages, it has a photo of a climber on bullet hole with bachar spotting him. Would be cool is someone had it and shared it! |