Dirtbag discussion

Hey, just posting this for fun but I’d like to hear some opinions on what clarifies a dirtbag? I have friends that live in sprinters working full time, have no trouble with money, have a house to go back too, ect. But I also have friends that live at climbing areas work seasonally to afford not working most the year. Just curious on where people draw the line. Are you a dirtbag or you just live in a car/van? Does financial stance play a part to “earn” the title?
Does living in a van make you not a dirtbag?

Me personally I think it has a little bit more with how you approach the lifestyle, are you dedicating yourself to your passion or just taking 3 months off life. Financial troubles I think come with living on the road long term and long amounts of time off work but not sure what to say about the people that live in really nice sprinters and or make 80k in a lesser vehicle. That’s where you guys come in!

Who cares.

If you have a safety net, you are no dirtbag.  Van, no van, living in a box, who cares.  If it all goes South on you, and you can crawl back to your daddies McMansion, you ain't a dirtbag, yer just a poseur.

But if we must, I’ll draw the line at threatening to use star link to call the San Juan County Sheriff to report a party because you have to work in the morning = not a dirtbag.

Dirtbag is a socio-economic status for a dirty, unkept person.

So, Sprinter must be missing a tire, be unregistered and parked down by the river, to be dirtbag abode.

Dirtbags can be wealthy too.  

Depends on how many shrimp you stuff into your pockets at an all you can eat in Vegas. And who paid for the buffet. And the TP. Did you steal the TP from a gas station or from the hotel room? Crashing in your van tonight , or someone else’s?

Dirtbags are scum-sucking leeches, but I digress. :)  (and the "leeches" part is not necessarily true)

No one should be proud of being a dirtbag. It is not a compliment. It is not romantic. It is not something to be envied.

Frank. you are confusing dirtbag with Wook. In the climbing sense Dirtbag is someone who lives frugally  in order to climb full time. Wooks on the other hand are in it just for the party and because they are too lazy to work.  I think Russ is off base as well. The original golden era dirt bag climbers were mostly intellectuals which meant they came from educated families and they had that safety net but they were extremely frugal in order to climb full time. though many of them probably got cut off from their allowances when they dropped out of college to climb... Wooks are generally leeches... . Doood can I get a hit off that, thanks man , any chance you can spare me a little bud for later dude...  can i crash on you couch man it really gnarly out here  tonight...   

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

Frank. you are confusing dirtbag with Wook. In the climbing sense Dirtbag is someone who lives frugally  in order to climb full time. Wooks on the other hand are in it just for the party and because they are too lazy to work.  I think Russ is off base as well. The original golden era dirt bag climbers were mostly intellectuals which meant they came from educated families and they had that safety net but they were extremely frugal in order to climb full time. though many of them probably got cut off from their allowances when they dropped out of college to climb... Wooks are generally leeches... . Doood can I get a hit off that, thanks man , any chance you can spare me a little bud for later dude...  can i crash on you couch man it really gnarly out here  tonight...   

I like your description. I don't think you can be a dirtbag if you have funds and choose to be stingy. Then, you are just a miserly person that needs a shower.

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

The original golden era dirt bag climbers were mostly intellectuals which meant they came from educated families and they had that safety net but they were extremely frugal in order to climb full time. 

I consider those more "climbing bum" than "dirtbag".  Much like ski bums... they had $$$ behind them, and maybe smarts too, but they were not dirtbags.  There was lot of that ilk floating around in the 70's climbing circles.  They were climbing bums.  Then there was those other guys... they were dirtbags, and it was was easy to tell who was who.

It's just one of those things where you know one when you see one (or smell one)   

Read Glen Denneys valley walls and Steve Ropers book and you will see that those guys absolutely lived the dirtbag life to the fullest  in order to climb full time even though most of them came from family situations that would be considered a safety net. there's a job in the family business waiting for you and you are supposed to be enrolled in a good college but instead you are climbing full time. Wooks on the other hand party too much to climb hard and are total mooches/ leeches.  Russ. they defiantly have smarts.  look how many of them ended up successful in later life.  Chounard is a perfect example. 

Y'all are wrong. A dirtbag is something you build flood barriers out of. 

A dirtbag is an extremely useful part of a vacuum

Thought I'd post this to add to the discussion.

From "Pilgrims of the Vertical: Yosemite Rock Climbers and Nature at Risk"  By Joseph E Taylor 

Mark Vigil wrote:

A dirtbag is an extremely useful part of a vacuum

They suck too?   

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

 The original golden era dirt bag climbers were mostly intellectuals which meant they came from educated families and they had that safety net but they were extremely frugal in order to climb full time. though many of them probably got cut off from their allowances when they dropped out of college to climb... 

Chouinard's father left the family and his mother had janitorial jobs to support the family. He did not come from money. Robbins also came from very marginal financial circumstances. Yvon attended a community college for a year or less and Royal was an autodidact. Pratt may have had an engineering degree - I don't recall. 

In the Tetons during the late 1950s I met a number of young men fitting your description when I looked around for a companion for some new climbs in Garnet Canyon. 

John. Didn't Robbins family own a dept store that he worked in when not climbing? 

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

John. Didn't Robbins family own a dept store that he worked in when not climbing? 

Nick, Google books has part of "Royal Robbins: The American Climber, by David Smart" online, with a good description of Royal Robbins' hard scrabble childhood:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Royal_Robbins/VMq8EAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Royal+Robbins:+The+American+Climber&printsec=frontcover

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

John. Didn't Robbins family own a dept store that he worked in when not climbing? 

Royal worked in his father-in-law's paint store early on. He began some sort of climbing shop in the basement. All of this is probably in Smart's book. 

I read the Google offering of a part of Smart's bio and was intrigued by some parallels in Royal's and my life. We came from entirely different family backgrounds, but we both had "criminal careers" when kids. I ended mine at the age of 14 by stealing a Mafioso's gun. I was never caught, however. We were both non-aggressive when children. We both became existentialists. And so on. Knowing Royal, even slightly, was a huge privilege.