NEClimbs.com forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Reading the forum on your cell phone? There's an easier way. We've enabled a Tapatalk app that makes browsing the forum a whole lot easier. Check it out in the iPhone or Android store if you don't own it already.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Was it really necessary??  (Read 614 times)

BPG

  • Guest
Re: Was it really necessary??
« Reply #15 on: February 04, 2003, 06:33:16 AM »

I know the climb has some history but jeez, it's like 20 feet tall and then a little bulge and then your done! I doubt very much the bolts will make this such a trade route that it won't ever touch down again. Let's all be patient, wait, and see what impact it has. Whether there are bolts in it or not people will climb it as mixed if they want to. I doubt policing "classic" climbs and saying you can't climb them until they touch down would work anyways. Climbing is about freedom and we all know how climbers react when others try to impose their will or set of values on other climbers. Let's not get all Ken Nichols, here!
Logged

rockytop

  • NEClimbs Junior Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 74
Re: Was it really necessary??
« Reply #16 on: February 04, 2003, 06:43:35 AM »

I think the bolts are fine. It wasn't as if everyone was running up to do the route as it was. I have a much bigger problem with the line of bolts put in between Promenade and Reign of Terror...or if someone bolted the Chop Shop variation to China Shop.
On the flip side, I have mentioned putting a bolt under the roof on Promenade where a poor piton  is banged in. Also, under the roof of Mindbender.  Now, I've done both lines more than once as they are, but it would be just as fun if there was a bolt there and perhaps more people would have the exhilaration of going out the roofs. I'm sure Will wasn't thinking about his own personal fame but rather how much darn fun it would be for us all.
Logged

dogboy

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 555
  • What?
Re: Was it really necessary??
« Reply #17 on: February 04, 2003, 07:16:39 AM »

Just found out the bolts have already been chopped (yesterday).  Nice job...glad the trad police are on the job!  Now we can all go back to pounding pins into the rock until the only thing that will fit is a giant bong!   >:(
Logged
Everybody wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die.

rockytop

  • NEClimbs Junior Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 74
Re: Was it really necessary??
« Reply #18 on: February 04, 2003, 07:39:25 AM »

Perhaps someone should put a line of bolts off to the side where no-one has climbed yet and reach the ice from there. That would be a "new" route, wouldn't it? Since the regular line is direct. ::)    Those that want to climb direct wouldn't be able to clip the bolts from the central line and those who want 'em will climb the side, making sure to cross the hanger and finish on the opposite side for a basically new line.  ;)
Logged

rpdoucette

  • NEClimbs Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 150
Re: Was it really necessary??
« Reply #19 on: February 04, 2003, 08:12:33 AM »

I dont care to get all caught up in the tired "to bolt or not to bolt" debate.  Lots of opinions, and many viewpoints are valid on this issue.  The one sure FACT is, a big chunk of the route was knocked down because somebody got impatient and wanted to do it before it touched down.  Now it may not come in this year.  It is prudent to wait, when attempting a route that rarely touches down.  This is a clearer issue, and one that more of us could agree on.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2003, 08:13:32 AM by rpdoucette »
Logged

dogboy

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 555
  • What?
Re: Was it really necessary??
« Reply #20 on: February 04, 2003, 08:28:11 AM »

That I will agree with...of course, on Marc Chauvin's website he implies that the bolts were chopped because the route had already been done this year without them...so the purists got impatient before the bolters did!
Logged
Everybody wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die.

Can't We Just Get Along?

  • Guest
Re: Was it really necessary??
« Reply #21 on: February 04, 2003, 08:55:43 AM »

Rightousnesss!!!!!!
Logged

Admin Al

  • NEClimbs Administrator
  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7094
  • Climb 'till your forearms turn to jelly!
    • NEClimbs
Re: Was it really necessary??
« Reply #22 on: February 04, 2003, 09:00:02 AM »

jeez louise...

guess I opened up a can-o-worms, aye Will? wish I hadn't mentioned it before I did it myself.

fiw the climb comes in maybe once every 3 years. it most likely wasn't going to make it this year. I don't think that anyone was going to play on the rock up there if the climb looked like it was going to happen. too bad that folks decided to bring back the "inquisition days."

<sigh>

al
Logged
Al Hospers
____________________________________
my music
 https://www.facebook.com/BlackMountainRamblers

web hosting, design and software programming:
 http://www.cambersoft.com

Will Mayo

  • Guest
Re: Was it really necessary??
« Reply #23 on: February 04, 2003, 09:22:07 AM »

I spoke with Mark Chauvin and he said someone named Josh (he didn't know his last name but said he was a roommate of a friend of his) climbed BPG about a month ago without the bolts, obviously.  This makes matters worse, of course.  The lesson I've learned from this is that I shall never take my drill anywhere near an existing route.

I have been inspired by the routes in the Canadian Rockies which have bolted "unformed versions" - just as a means of explaining what prompted me to put those bolts on BPG.  A friend sent me a picture of it two weeks ago saying, "This thing needs an unformed version."  I went over the next day and bolted it and climbed it.  This was quite clearly a mistake and one that I won't repeat.

Sorry and thanks,
Will
Logged

Happy Clipper

  • Guest
Re: Was it really necessary??
« Reply #24 on: February 04, 2003, 09:24:09 AM »

I read this morning on Chauvins that the bolts were removed. Mute point now I guess... Or we could start a bolt war again a la The Arete?? Who wants to start?
Logged

cguertin

  • NEClimbs Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Re: Was it really necessary??
« Reply #25 on: February 04, 2003, 10:29:02 AM »

I don't know the route, but from the pic it looks like whoever put the bolts in is just a pansy-ass.  Even with two body lengths to the top ice. Personally, I would not have climbed it till it came in all the way so as to not ruin it for others, but if I did want to try it "mixed" the bolts(I really can't believe there were two put in) were unnecessary.
Logged

Admin Al

  • NEClimbs Administrator
  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7094
  • Climb 'till your forearms turn to jelly!
    • NEClimbs
Re: Was it really necessary??
« Reply #26 on: February 04, 2003, 10:31:55 AM »

I think it's telling that the person or persons who chopped the bolts haven't stood up yet! if you're gonna take the role of "ethics police," you sure should have the gumption of standing up & saying

 YES, I Am the MAN!

it just seems a bit surrepititous (sp).
al
Logged
Al Hospers
____________________________________
my music
 https://www.facebook.com/BlackMountainRamblers

web hosting, design and software programming:
 http://www.cambersoft.com

rockytop

  • NEClimbs Junior Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 74
Re: Was it really necessary??
« Reply #27 on: February 04, 2003, 11:34:40 AM »

I have to hand it to Will for standing up and saying he's wrong. Those doing the chopping might have made an effort to contact him beforehand once the bolt was there. This may be similar to a thin line (The White Strip,WI5,M6) at Willoughby that got bolted shortly after Jim Shimberg climbed the new route. Jim has my utmost respect since he talked to the folks who inadvertently added 3 bolts to the route thinking it was unclimbed, and then after chatting with those who bolted the line, they decided to leave it as it was.
As far as calling Will a pansy-ass, That's laughable, Guertin.  
Logged

Jim Ewing

  • Guest
Re: Was it really necessary??
« Reply #28 on: February 04, 2003, 12:09:08 PM »

On the issue of waiting for a route to come "in", I don't agree at all with the philosophy that we all should wait until a route touches down.  The definition of "in" is different for everyone.  Climbing routes in thinner and leaner conditions is the natural result of advancing standards (not to mention global warming).  Waiting serves no one accept those that are unwilling to test their personal limits and those with narrow views.  When was the last time the column on Remission truly came  in ?  Yet it gets climbed on a regular basis, the same with Repentance.

On the issue of the bolts on BPG, OK, so maybe they weren't necessary, maybe.  Are the bolts that were added to Thin Air necessary?  How about Missing Link (I could be wrong about this one but I seem to remember seeing one there in recent years), a route that once struck fear in many?  Why have so many routes around the valley had bolts added for protection or belay anchors?  Recompense has nice, big, new bolts at the "bench" belay.  Why?  One could argue that "natural" belays could be set above or below the "bench".  The same goes for the "3 bolt ledge" (now 2 bolts I think) on Thin Air.  So why would the two bolts on BPG be so offensive?  Why haven't the bolt chopping comities removed any of these other bolts?  If removing the bolts on BPG was a matter of principle then I think it is a principle of convenience.  A person I met at Texaco on Sunday stated that placing the bolts and allowing them to remain is a slippery slope, perhaps.  The fact that the bolts on BPG were removed while others around the valley remain is definitely a slippery slope and is a testament to the culprit,s own lack of conviction.  They had it in them to chop bolts that will likely not upset many, but apparently don't have what it takes to truly stand up for their stated principles.

If you pick and choose where you apply your principles you really have none at all.  

This may sound like I am advocating an all out chopping spree.  Nothing could be further from my point.  What I am advocating is that people thoroughly consider the ramifications of their actions before they commit them, be it removing bolts or placing bolts.

On the issue of the bolter being a  pansy-ass let me just say I have never climbed with anyone more bold, more committed, and with more integrity than Will Mayo.  The man has my utmost respect and admiration.  

One last thing, in case anyone is truly interested in climbing BPG in the  original style be sure to bring etriers.

Cheers,
Jim
Logged

dogboy

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 555
  • What?
Re: Was it really necessary??
« Reply #29 on: February 04, 2003, 12:30:27 PM »

To add fuel to the fire: do we really believe that, had current technology been available in the 1970's, guys like Paul Boissenault and the Rounsfords (sp?) would have choosen to climb with crappy pro, straight alpine-style tools, and mountaineering crampons?  They did it that way because that's what they had.  Should, then, future climbers be forced to climb the route only with the equipment available to the first ascensionists?  I'm not advocating unbridled bolting...but I do think that it's a bit disingenuous to hold up the past as a standard to which all future climbing must be held.  Turner's flake on Cathedral was led for the first time with no gear whatsoever...who wants to do it that way now?  Should we say that, because those guys had no pins big enough to protect the flake, that future climbers should be forced to leave their big Camalots on the ground?  
Retrobolting existing routes is, I think most agree, a bad idea.  But in the case of BPG, the mixed start was not, as far as I know, an established route as such.  And I think its legit to suggest that adding bolts to a route to make pins unnecessary might be a good idea.  In the end, it's not really the debate that's the problem, it's the tone of self-rightousness and indignation that ticks me off.
Logged
Everybody wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.183 seconds with 22 queries.