Bolts on White Horse

Mike C. Robinson wrote: Really? "more comfortable on 5.7" "Hey guys, look at this jack ass that thinks he can climb" pretty self righteous comment to make from someone who has had enough time in the world to know better. Clearly you are well established as a Climbing Legend in Colorado which is all the more reason to show more tact than that. I have noticed that the people who aren't really that great at what they do are usually the ones to be so arrogant about it. People who Are that good at what they do don't feel the need to point out others of a lower skill level. And, like a good friend once told me, climbers are destined for obscurity. Very few who don't climb know who Chris Sharma is and I have a feeling he is number grades better than you...tough guy. -10 Charisma points from my opinion

Mike if you get a chance you might want to peek through Webster's guide for the whites and look at "Unwanted Guests" next to the Ethereal buttress on Whitehorse. For that matter look at any of the first ascents John did in new england, better still go and climb them, cause after all that's really what matters right? The climbing.

Brian wrote: But where you have a hypothetical 5.8 route that is well protected with gear except for one 40 foot run-out I would have no problem adding a bolt in the middle of that run-out so that more people could enjoy it safely.

Rarely is there going to be a 40 foot run out that is the crux of a route. Typically if you are on a 5.8 anything 5.6 or easier is going to be run out. Even if there were a crack to place gear in most climbers will run it out on the easy section.

How about this hypothetical on a route that's mostly 5.8 but has a short blank section of 5.10 how about we bolt on a hold so more people can enjoy it. After all you don't have to use it.

cjdrover wrote: Short answer - even if you skip it you can still chicken out and downclimb to it. No committment.

The only people who think that skipping bolts should be easy are the people who never would. Just my opinion obviously.

Some climbers have the ability to move up the grades and climb super hard routes. Some climbers have the ability to control their fear and climb super run out routes. Some climbers have both. Most older climbing area's have something for both types of climber.

I'll go along with the concept that the FA doesn't own the rock. But then I would expect that it would still be left as is so that future climbers can test themselves. That goes for adding bolts for safety as well as changing the route to make it physically easier.

David Houston wrote:I think the reason to maintain such routes is not for the ego of the first ascensionist but for the experience of everyone who follows.

The experience is not just about climbing and everyone getting up it. The ability to control your fear and maintain control so you don't fall is far more memorable than scampering up a route that has been brought down to a level that the average can climb.

What people did in the day was badass.

Now if 5.10 climbers are out there doing run out 5.7s these days that is silly, bolt it up. But I wouldn't destroy an historic route just so everyone can do it.

My comment about being comfy on 5.7 wasnot meant to belittle anyone, you clearly did not feel comfy on Interloper.

i don't think being frightened on a climb is a bad thing and it's all relative. WE should not change climbs so people will feel safe on them.

Whitehorse is not a sport area and should not be treated as one.

ahh Whitehorse! I had one of my first scary leads on Whitehorse back in the 90's. 100ft pitch with one bolt that I couldn't find!! There's a lot of mental cruxes on whitehorse. That 100ft run out I think goes at 5.5, but it felt a lot harder. Sliding Board is 5.7 by NH standards.

I think it remains incumbant on us to preserve the ethics and standards of an area. Granted there are some bolts that need to be replaced, but I wouldn't add any. I feel more exhilarated on that 5.7 slab on Whitehorse than I do on a 5.10 overly bolted route on Sheeprock out here. If it makes one overly nervous don't climb it or challenge yourself to get better at it. In over 10 years of climbing there I don't remember too many accidents (correct if wrong). Maybe some epics though!

I've done almost every route on the slabs... it was a process but eventually over many years i worked up to climbing Interloper without feeling super sketched, and it felt better having to work for it... if you dont like putting your ass on the line you might think about finding a nut case to follow :)
as for adding bolts to old routes... i just dont like to get in to that conversation...

1Eric Rhicard wrote: The experience is not just about climbing and everyone getting up it. The ability to control your fear and maintain control so you don't fall is far more memorable than scampering up a route that has been brought down to a level that the average can climb. What people did in the day was badass. Now if 5.10 climbers are out there doing run out 5.7s these days that is silly, bolt it up. But I wouldn't destroy an historic route just so everyone can do it.

Good points Eric, I totally agree on the modern aspect. I still believe in the ground up ethos but sure if you can drill you should within reason. That is to say keep the route safe enough with out making it a pin cushion.

At this time with the gear at our disposal, namely sticky rubber shoes, there's no good reason to add bolts to routes put up in the 70's.

I hope that people don't destroy the historic routes in the name of mass appeal.

Those climbers back in the day were bad ass and they played by the rules. Maybe if they had called them rules instead of ethics more people would have stuck to them. No doubt climbers back in the day wanted nothing to do with rules. But they did have rules and if you wanted to be bad ass and do an FA you had to play by those rules. It's funny to read some recent sport post about trad climbers not being competitive. If anything they were even more competitive for FA's back then. And if you didn't play by the rules your route got the chop. At least in some area's.

Tim- thanks for your good reply
I have done tons of f/as in the white mountains- I don't really care if they get repeated... some get done , some don't

I'm all for replacing bolts with good stuff, but retro a climb that has sstood for 30 yeara ? NO

Again , I don't care if you do the climb,it's up to you

I just did Sliding Board again last weekend. If you can climb the 5.7 runout cruxes, you shouldn't be having any trouble on the 5.5 runouts. Interloper has mellow 5.8 climbing between the 5.10b cruxes. If anything, the 2nd belay on Interloper could get some attention.

I have noticed one difference for our generation. In the 60's and 70's when many of these routes opened up, only primitive clean gear was available. Nowadays, with the invention of modern small cams(mini BD C3's, mini aliens, mini tcu's), off set wires and micronuts, many old R rated climbs can be more like PG, as long as you put in the effort.

Just a thought towards saving things for the next generation of adventure seekers.

john strand wrote:My comment about being comfy on 5.7 wasnot meant to belittle anyone, you clearly did not feel comfy on Interloper. i don't think being frightened on a climb is a bad thing and it's all relative. WE should not change climbs so people will feel safe on them. Whitehorse is not a sport area and should not be treated as one.

After some thought...I would agree that I reacted to your comment. I am aware that Bolting conflicts went on all over and that John has FA's in N. Conway. As far as changing a historical route I'm on the fence, more likely to agree with replacing old bolts than stitching it up like a sport route. Most important to note is the fact that I would never take the liberty to alter a route I didn't put up. Nor would I form a coalition to do the same. It does seem fair that if an entire community has voted to make a historical route safer then they should have the right to. While on the other hand the person who put up the route deserves some reasonable input too. It is also good to have a variety of climbs that each test a different aspect of climbing. Mainly my opinion on this matter is ever evolving but I don't see myself ever being firmly routed on one side or another.

Mike C. Robinson wrote:It does seem fair that if an entire community has voted to make a historical route safer then they should have the right to. While on the other hand the person who put up the route deserves some reasonable input too.

Every time this comes up its portrayed as some sort of dictatorship by the FA (not saying that you said this Mike, but just in general), but that is rarely the case. As evidenced by most of the posts in this thread, the community consensus is generally to leave them as they were done.