Author Topic: Ironic  (Read 1364 times)

Offline tradmanclimbz

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 4530
  • Nick Goldsmith
Re: Ironic
« Reply #15 on: October 27, 2004, 08:03:24 AM »
Firstly this is just the internet and many of us like to argue ethics on the internet. The fact that the ethics arguments allways get the most posts is proof of this.  secondly Dman slammed me pretty good for speaking out against the bolt chopping on TA so I am enjoying watching him squirm a bit trying to talk himself out of the ethical corner he drilled himself into.  the only reason I won't let go of the bone is that Dman keeps insisting that his retro bolting does not contradict with his support of the bolt chopping.  Like i said before, I am sure that the route in question is a fine route and most likely a much better beginnier lead with the  bolts in place.  This is not about the route, its about seeing if Dman has the class to admit that maby he was too gung ho in his support of the bolt police.    Spurtboy;  suggesting some kind of egodrivin internet smackdown is allways lame ::) The whole point of internet discussion is to make/win your argument with words.

DLottmann

  • Guest
Re: Ironic
« Reply #16 on: October 27, 2004, 01:30:49 PM »
Quote
Dman keeps insisting that his retro bolting does not contradict with his support of the bolt chopping.quote]

it doesn't... but whatever man... you have obviously "won" this argument in your head... happy climbing.

Offline the_other_andy

  • NEClimbs Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 220
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Re: Ironic
« Reply #17 on: October 27, 2004, 05:53:46 PM »
So Dman what your saying is that your bolts will stay so 5.5-5.6 leaders won't be freaked out. How many of those same (non guide) climbers would have liked to see those bolts still on TA.

You can't have it both ways.

Also for Bayard to pull bolts from a rte (for any reason) yet allow them on another is questionable ethics to say the least.

 

Offline tradmanclimbz

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 4530
  • Nick Goldsmith
Re: Ironic
« Reply #18 on: October 27, 2004, 07:50:39 PM »
Bayard  may well have either become a bit  gun shy (chisel shy) after all the fallout from his last chop job or he may have changed or modified his views after that episode. It is possible that he now supports leaveing reasonable bolts in place regardless of their history?  This is perfectly acceptable. There is no need to stick to your guns on an issue if you feel that there is a better solution than your origional stance. (GW could use a bit of this kind of logic) Change is not allways bad. Dman however is incistant that his retro bolts  are better than the retro bolts on TA even though the belay on TA was fixed for about 40 years?

DLottmann

  • Guest
Re: Ironic
« Reply #19 on: October 27, 2004, 10:12:25 PM »
Quote
Dman however is incistant that his retro bolts  are better than the retro bolts on TA even though the belay on TA was fixed for about 40 years?


Yep... for 2 simple facts...

1) These bolts were not placed with the prior knowledge of the route being done already... and more importantly

2) There wasn't natural gear available there.

If you don't fully understand my ethic yet tradmanclimbz I'm not going to try and explain it to you anymore.  If you get confused or still don't understand where I'm coming from, please re-read points 1, and 2, above until they sink in.

DLottmann

  • Guest
Re: Ironic
« Reply #20 on: October 27, 2004, 10:23:07 PM »
Quote
So Dman what your saying is that your bolts will stay so 5.5-5.6 leaders won't be freaked out. How many of those same (non guide) climbers would have liked to see those bolts still on TA.

You can't have it both ways.

Also for Bayard to pull bolts from a rte (for any reason) yet allow them on another is questionable ethics to say the least.

 



Not so 5.5-5.6 leaders won't be freaked out, so the climb isn't an x-rated route that never gets done.  No need for 5.6x in my opinion.  Guide or non-guide isn't an issue.  Having bolts were gear is available, IMHO robs the aspiring leader of a chance to 1) place gear, 2) practice building gear anchors, 2 skills needed for multi-pitch climbing on Cathedral.  This is my ethic, laid down in stone, so I don't need to repeat it ever again.

Natural gear available to reasonably protect a climb = no bolts.

DLottmann

  • Guest
Re: Ironic
« Reply #21 on: October 27, 2004, 10:27:54 PM »
Quote
Also for Bayard to pull bolts from a rte (for any reason) yet allow them on another is questionable ethics to say the least.
 


Not really... these 2 bolts in question were not placed with the knowledge of the route being done, or with adequate nearby natural gear placements availble to make the climb protectable for the 5.5-5.6 leader, as the retro-bolts on TA were.  That, is the difference to me, even if you and tradmanclimbz don't see it...

Offline tradmanclimbz

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 4530
  • Nick Goldsmith
Re: Ironic
« Reply #22 on: October 27, 2004, 10:42:21 PM »
So what about slideing board, beginners rt. Wedge,  standard rt. Thinner,  etc? all these climbs are only R rated but in many cases an actual fall from near the end of the runout would result in BIG do do. might as well call it an x if it results in a 100 footer?  Sorry but your argument is weak if you advocate chopping long established fixed belays on trade routs in the name of raiseing the chalange for new leader but at the same time you feel good about dumbing down a 5.5 lead by adding bolts??

Offline the_other_andy

  • NEClimbs Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 220
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Re: Ironic
« Reply #23 on: October 28, 2004, 12:45:03 AM »
So Dman, the difference between aspiring leaders on 5.6x and aspiring leaders ripping gear cos there not so hip on placing is what?.

oh yea...add bolts. Can't have 5.6x in your opinion.

I also was just making an observation that it was funny Bayard would let you keep the bolts in after his past history. Obviously you would want the bolts to stay after all your hard work and expense.
I am sure its a wonderfull rte and I am also sure George will love to guide clients up it now that its bolted.

Offline rockytop

  • NEClimbs Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 74
Re: Ironic
« Reply #24 on: October 28, 2004, 04:41:48 AM »
As a buddy likes to say, "Remember, guidebooks are always right, holds never break, and protection always holds."

In this situation, it seems Dman did his best to make sure no-one had done the line prior to bolting. For his sake, it would have been nice if the Bayard had let Cote and Co. know it had been done(if possible). Don't know if Dman looked for evidence of an ascent prior to drilling but I imagine he did. I know personally I try to at least leave a KB or something small in place just to let others know someones been that way.
One problem that can exacerbate the situation is that a unsuspecting leader may read a route description that describes good protection when in fact there may not be. i.e. a 5.10 route that is well protected at the crux but fails to mention the 5.8R/X runout following that.
While we're inspecting our egos, keep this in mind. There's a big difference between rapping, cleaning, rehearsing and then leading ground up vs. the ground up ascent with no prior inspection. How bold would some folks have been not knowing any of a route prior to it's ascent?

Offline Jim_Ewing

  • NEClimbs Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 369
Re: Ironic
« Reply #25 on: October 28, 2004, 05:57:15 AM »
I just want to say 3 words: Black Pudding Gully

Offline tradmanclimbz

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 4530
  • Nick Goldsmith
Re: Ironic
« Reply #26 on: October 28, 2004, 06:50:15 AM »
Rocky. the climb in question was cleaned, inspected and drilled on rappell but not sure what that has to do with the current discussion as to weather or not you can justify chopping anchors on TA and retro bolting at the same time.

Offline rockytop

  • NEClimbs Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 74
Re: Ironic
« Reply #27 on: October 29, 2004, 03:48:38 AM »
Sorry Tradman,
I came in somewhere on page 2.
I'm referring to Dman's bolted slab and sticking up for him a bit. Secondly, Jim, that is absolutely what I mean. Just like with BPG. If there's no word or evidence of a prior ascent, how can you ensure that people leave a clean first ascent untouched if they have a different runout tolerance, style, or ethic?

Please, check your egos in the overhead compartment as some may have shifted during flight. grin.

DLottmann

  • Guest
Re: Ironic
« Reply #28 on: October 29, 2004, 05:47:46 PM »
Why do I keep entertaining you Tradmanclimbz?  Perhaps I think eventually we can find a middle ground... although I doubt it and everytime I mention to a friend I have responded to you again they wince, let's try this.

Yesterday I climbed Slabs Direct on Whitehorse for the 1st time.  I followed the 5.7 pitch, which didn't seem to bad to me, even knowing it would be different on the sharp end.  We were headed for Wavelength so on my lead, the 5.4R I trended left.  A 140ft above the only bolt on that pitch I was nervous.  I was very glad to reach the thread anchor on the Standard Arch.  Would I think this climb better with more bolts?  No!  I respect the style of the first ascent.  Will I likely jump back on that pitch anytime soon?  No, but who cares?  It was definitely memorable.  If I had known the 1st route I put up at LL was already done (10 days earlier) I would have NEVER placed those bolts.  If Bayard asked me to chop them I would have in a friendly manner.  It is his route now.

When we first started this long-winded debate your beef was about me rap-bolting and that was it.  The "retro" was more accidental than you could imagine.  Now you say I can't believe in rap-bolting and not having the bolts on TA?  You must be color-blind man, because that is way too black and white.  To me, the availablity of GOOD gear on TA warrents the lack of bolts... to me rap-bolting is acceptable if it is done responsibly (read not intentionally retro w/o permission and in character of the climb).  THAT is the difference between TA and this, even if you choose not to see it.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2004, 05:54:01 PM by DLottmann »

Offline tradmanclimbz

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 4530
  • Nick Goldsmith
Re: Ironic
« Reply #29 on: October 30, 2004, 09:38:22 AM »
Dman. Firstly I am in no way suggesting that you chop your bolts. the bolts are there and chopping them will do nothing other than stroke bayards ego which aparently to his credit he does not need or want. I have no problem with safe routs for beginners. I will admit that I was supprised to learn that you rap bolted the climb. It caught me totaly by suprise especialy in light of your previous stances which staunchly supported a traditionalist ethic. I am a bit puzzeld though as to how you can't see the irony and contradiction in your current  stance. I never worried too much about the traverse bolts on TA. It seemed clear that the gear there is adaquate. I have never done those pitches though. Both times I have been up the route I started with Turners Flake. I did find the chopping of a long established (been there longer than the chopper has been alive)belay/rap station on a trade route to extremly provocative and uncalled for. You whole heartedly supported the chopping. You claim that your bolts are diferent because they are not convience bolts. This is simply not true. Your climb was climbed without bolts. That and the fact that there are R (not X) rated climbs on whitehorse of simelar grade with runouts as long as your whole climb strongly sugest that your bolts are in fact convience bolts. Again that is ok by me.  My initial post was a fun little dig about you joining the ranks of the bolters and possibly haveing a more open mind now. Your answer indicated that you were still too high and mighty to wear a T-shirt from my club, (The evil bolters) that of course was before we found out that the deed was done on rappel which would nix you chances for a shirt anyways. How can you still justify you elitest stance in light of your current actions? I mistakenly thought that you had become more tolerent with age yet you seem to still advocate chopping long established bolts while placeing your own new bolts???  Fourtunatly the initial chopping of TA did not result in a rash of bolt chopping. TA is presumably as crouded as ever and life goes on.