Mountain Project Logo

.

Josh Janes · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2001 · Points: 9,954

I saw the rock dust up on the Ultraman Wall yesterday and wondered what the new routes were - now I know. I look forward to checking them out - they sound fun.

That said, in your description for one of the routes (Destroy All Monsters), you say the route was “…put up with the intent to show that quality sport lines can be put up in good style and still be an adventure to establish.” While I don’t want to take away from the work you put in to the route or the fun day I’m sure you had, since you are putting this out there to solicit discussion/input, here goes:

Do you really want to use a 10 bolt, two-star, 5.10- pitch on a high-profile wall ten minutes from, and visible from, the parking lot as an example to support the cause of ground-up “adventure” climbing and/or good style?

A good example of “adventure” would be going ground-up on Mt. Wilson. The 1st Pullout is kinda the other extreme.

And good style is about picking the most appropriate tactic given the wall. At Ultraman, maybe that’s ground-up, I don’t know. But I will say this, when you’re talking hard sport routes (5.13 and up) the chances of getting it right first try ground-up are extremely low. Conversely, there are more than a few examples of “big wall free climbs” here in Red Rocks that have been established top-down with pretty lame results.

Careful consideration of both your experience climbing an FA and the legacy you leave behind once you’re done, and then fine-tuning your approach from there will yield the best result.

M Mobley · · Bar Harbor, ME · Joined Mar 2006 · Points: 911
VaGenius wrote:So you have to preview the route to put it up as a lead, determine all hardware locations top down, then bolt either way as it suits you? Do you think this is the acceptable method for all first ascents, not just turning TRs into leads? The leader is not competent to make decisions on the lead, therefore a TR is required to make smart choices on protection placement? This leads interesting places...
Ken Nichols/CT style right there, then chop(if a bolt was put in) after God chimes in. Know your heros Killis.
SenorDB · · Old Pueblo · Joined Apr 2012 · Points: 8,550

I agree with Mark that a rapped-in line should be flawless. And I also agree with Brad and VaGenuis that the vast majority of sport climbing that I have done leaves me feeling that the installers didn't put as much thought into bolt placements as I would have liked. Not just from the contrived feeling of a bolt next to a crack or from an awkward clip or less than natural flowing line, but also from a practical standpoint, of poorly engineered placements (e.g. placements too close to a weakness: fissures, lips/edges, old bolt hole, detaching blocks, etc.). Climbing a line before bolting it on rappel seems to be a method used by the minority. My experience is that rappel-placed climbs tend to follow the hanging rope and not a natural line.

Whether a route is established ground up or top down is not nearly as important as the end result. Both methods have yielded excellently crafted routes as well as crappy ones and how they turn out depends entirely on the nature of the person doing the work and objective hazards if leading. Preferably, a person who is out placing bolts has gone through an apprenticeship and/or taken the time to understand the mechanics of all the hardware involved and the applied physics that is unique to each placement.

Climbing is inherently a solitary and selfish pursuit. Doesn't matter if you're following or leading, when you're doing it, it's all about you and nobody else. As an FA'er, it is about bagging the line, for me, every time. Going out on a limb I'd say that's pretty much true for everyone but the motivation to bag lines is different for all of us. My motive is that only when I'm doing an FA do I get the best flavor of endorphins. It's the joy of discovery you get from not knowing the answers to the test.

That being said, if people are going to climb the line after me, I would like them to get as much enjoyment out of it as I did. So I do my best to make sure that when I'm done, the route is at its optimum potential. By optimum potential I mean the most aesthetic, natural flowing line with mechanically sound and thought out bolt placements, if any. That doesn't mean that it has to be 100% safe.

Mark is correct that there is a lot more opportunity for a botched bolt placements on lead than TR. I have definitely done my share of botched or scared chuklehead placements, including being embarrassed enough to remove a couple. However overall in the end I feel that putting a route in ground up results in a better all around climb even with the occasional poorly placed bolt.

Out-of-reach bolts might sometimes be due to tall climbers. I have been razzed several times for putting a bolt in that others, from the same holds, can't reach. Mark mentioned that it is improbable to lead a very hard climb ground up and to put bolts in right where you need them. Just because the hardest bolted climbs are done on rappel doesn't mean that the ethos of climbing it first is adhered to. It seems most of the hardest climbs use a tactic that equips a line with more bolts than are needed and aren't all intended to be clipped. Pointless overbolting is something I feel is very irresponsible.

I agree with VaGenius, more bolts does not a better climb make. The Glow of Accomplishment is far stronger (and better) when some risk is involved. Sometimes I want a nice safe work out, sometimes I want to be scared and exhilarated, sometimes I just want to get the hell of this damn rock and go sit on the couch eating pizza. Point is we all want different things at different times and this is a big enough world to accommodate it all, as long as we are all courteous and respectful to our environment and each other.

Also, there is no shortage of hard bolted climbs in Calico Hills that have been established on lead. The area was put up by traditionalists and sport climbers, if not hand in hand, then side by side with some friendlyish friction.

And, I would love to see a book with a complete list of climbs in the Santa Catalinas and Mt. Lemon or any of the other phenomenal areas around Tucson. Just not a mad rush to climb every last line as quickly as possible. Same as I feel for every area.

Rip Shredrock · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2012 · Points: 0
VaGenius wrote:...ethics of leading TRs for the purpose of a first ascent.
What does constitute a first ascent?

VaGenius wrote:...To me, TRing something from a top anchor doesn't establish all that much of a future ownership situation...
Can anyone really have ownership on public lands? If anyone assumes the right to establish a bolted route, anyone else can assume the right to take it out.

Brad Caldwell wrote:...as with many Carolina traditions, this is the state that the route is expected to remain as unless the FA'er says otherwise...
What if the FA'er is no longer climbing and/or could care less? Or passed away? Would you seek out such a person to satisfy tradition? Or just do as you wanted like most climbers today do?

It seems to me, not may climbers really care these days, at least newer climbers, though there is a new small trad movement. In my experience it's mostly only trad climbers that really respect traditions of any established area, and it's those climbers that exert any real influence over younger, newer climbers to follow traditions. Then again, there are those areas that will not tolerate change in tradition(s) of the area, at least until those enforcing the tradition(s) are no longer climbing or have died. Then surely those traditions will change as newer climbers begin climbing there. This very thing has happened a lot in the Red Rocks. Take the Rainbow Wall for instance, put up as aid, bolted as a free climb (badly, very badly) without permission, chopped without permission, rebolted without permission, and is still an ugly mess (a few years ago, not sure today), though most anyone who has climbed it would acknowledge it's excellent free climb. Same with the Calico Hills, covered with bolts, many rapped in bolts, some routes are only 25 feet tall, and the last time I was there I couldn't believe all the chains hanging on many of the routes.

Roman G wrote:I feel like leading it on gear and finishing the route makes it a First Ascent regardless if it has been TRd before.
An ascent, whether it's the first or not, is to climb or move across the rock, whether you have a rope trailing behind you, over your head, or no rope at all. How can you tell if the first ascent wasn't a solo and someone came along later and TR'ed or led it? John Muir wasn't a climber per se, but he solo climbed some incredible lines in the High Sierra that have been reestablished, are now rated, and can be found in guide books.

Roman G wrote:Is top roping it clean and sending the route and giving it a name and a rating ESTABLISHES a route?
Sure, there are many classic top ropes around today that are clearly established routes. Even guide books written about them, such as Bay Area Top Ropes, Yosemite Sport Climbs and Top Ropes, to name a couple. Do a Google search.

CJC wrote:To the original point, the only reason an established TR gets sprayed with retro-bolts is ego. If it's a TR because there's sketchy gear or runouts and it gets lead on gear it's a different story. But turning a TR into a clip up is pretty clearly an ego stroke.
This not always the case, a few, or a bunch of drunk climbers at a party having fun and too inebriated to actually risk leading a route might (remembering more than one of these circumstances myself) set a TR on it, establish it as a route and then later, sometimes years later, come back and lead it ground up in otherwise good style with bolts where necessary.

DesertDan wrote:I learned to climb in a deeply traditional area where placing bolts on lead from a hook instead of a stance had only recently been accepted. Some previously top roped routes were deemed by our multi-generational local community to be fair game for establishing a lead. Others were total sacrilege to consider converting to a lead. Even putting bolted anchors at the top of these sacred climbs is not tolerated.
What have you been to as of late in that deeply trad area Dan? Huh? Hang doggin', yoyoin', TRin' before leading? Lol. Don't hide now. I know you've added botls to TR routes that weren't even yours while establishing them as leads. You're a good example of changing ethics really. I've seen yours change from hardcore trad to 'I'm scared and I'm gonna do whatever I want' and just this year, leaning back again toward serious trad. Yeah.

Mark Paulson wrote:I am of the opinion that if a route that has or can be done on toprope gets bolted, it should be done on rap.
Rap bolting puts fear ahead of all other aspects of climbing, especially style, it reduces climbing to the equivalent of using training wheels on a motorcycle.

The first bolt I ever put in was on TR, I got my ass chewed out for it, went back the next day, pulled and patched it and never did it again. That was 36 years ago. Trad is the only real good climbing style to me, the rest is compromise, based on fear, ego, and a quest for numbers (read: fame). Now we have to deal with Plaisir Climbing, that's what almost happened on the Rainbow Wall years ago (well did happen until it got chopped).

Great topic VaGenius, it prompted me to post instead of just read.
Tim Stich · · Colorado Springs, Colorado · Joined Jan 2001 · Points: 1,520

I bolted a little known if long forgotten toprope route for leading at a popular limestone area in Texas known as Reimer's. It had been covered with vegetation for many years. It got so much attention that it isn't even in any of the guide books for the area. Ha ha ha. So there is one example of how little this seems to matter to most people. Oh, look, I can lead that now. Kind of like the last time I blew my nose.

Darren S · · Minneapolis, MN · Joined Feb 2006 · Points: 3,388

A couple of things come to mind for me when reading this topic
1. In my mind an "established TR" does not count as a completed route. In my mind the heirarchy should go something like this TR < sport lead < ground up trad < solo. If you can improve on the style, then go for it.

2. I agree that the top-down top rope rehearsed run-out routes that have sprung up in Red Rock are BS. I think that multi-pitch routes should be established with the understanding that subsequent parties are going to start at the ground and go from there. I would have a few choice things to say if there were a thread about this.

As climbers we should aspire to repeat routes in the style of the first ascent. In order for me to repeat some of the "headpoint" routes in Red Rock I would have to break the law and leave fixed lines strewn about the canyons.

3. Top down vs. ground up both yield good and bad results. It is the quality of the rock and skill of the route developer within the context of that style that determines the quality of the route.

I would disagree that using top down methods only yield crappy routes. Go climb Drifting sometime. It is awesome. While you are there, you might notice that there are a few stray bolts on other places on that wall. These are most likely ground up routes that dead-end. With all of the ground-up talent that has roamed these canyons, no one was able to go ground up on that section of wall. To link the subtle features on that wall proved to be too much of a deterrent to traditional tactics.

I have dabbled in top down and ground up styles, and even blended the two to establish a route. In the end, they are all pretty good routes, and the style had less to do with that than my commitment to creating a quality route.

With all of that being said, if you are into ground up for the adventure that it gives you, then go for it. It is good that there are still people who wave the banner for this style of climbing.

Brian Adzima · · San Francisco · Joined Sep 2006 · Points: 560

Talks cheap. Nobody has slashed your tires, punched you out, or shot your dog, right? You are probably good to go. :-)

Rip Shredrock · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2012 · Points: 0

Darren,

It seems to me you're saying a few misplaced ground up bolts justifies top down placing of bolts. That is reprehensible. Even after decades of top engineers developing safe systems, the Space Shuttle blew up in flight. Not all ground up efforts can be completely free of errors, it's the nature of being human, statistically, mistakes will happen over time and can't be avoided altogether. That is not justification for compromising style. In fact, it's just the opposite, it's a justification for improving style. It's an easy point to make that more bad bolts have been placed via top rope than have ever been placed on the lead (unless you consider all bolts placed to be bad).

Darren in Vegas wrote:Top down vs. ground up both yield good and bad results
I agree with that 100%.

Darren in Vegas wrote:As climbers we should aspire to repeat routes in the style of the first ascent. In order for me to repeat some of the "headpoint" routes in Red Rock I would have to break the law and leave fixed lines strewn about the canyons.
1. If all climbers should aspire to that sentiment, you are saying everyone should rehearse on TR in order to repeat those routes. Then you say...

Darren in Vegas wrote:I agree that the top-down top rope rehearsed run-out routes that have sprung up in Red Rock are BS.
Which is the exact opposite. Climbers should aspire to repeat in the first ascent style even if rehearsing is required, or rehearsing is BS, which is it?

2. It's not against any law I know of to TR a route. TR'ing does not require fixed ropes being strewn about.

3. I personally, do not aspire to TR all routes that have been TR'ed prior to being lead, before I lead them.

Darren in Vegas wrote:I agree that the top-down top rope rehearsed run-out routes that have sprung up in Red Rock are BS.
Darren in Vegas wrote:I have dabbled in top down and ground up styles, and even blended the two to establish a route. In the end, they are all pretty good routes, and the style had less to do with that than my commitment to creating a quality route.
Those two statements are in direct opposition to each other. How can you, or anyone, think about establishing a 'quality route' top down without rehearsing it first? If you didn't rehearse it first, how could you possibly know where to best place the bolts? The only way, I can see, to make a 'quality route' via top down, is to climb the route on TR and determine from the stances as you climb, where you could clip from, and therefore place the bolts. This becomes more a factor the harder the route. Take a look at many, if not most, of the hardest sport routes in the world, there are bolts spattered all over the place and draws and slings on all of them, only the bolts that can be clipped are clipped, the rest are bolt gun fodder, which makes those bolts far worse than the few bolts you talked about on failed ground up attempts on a scattered few routes. That is hugely bad style, and highlights my point about more bad bolts being placed on TR than ever placed on the lead. That can not be called quality. It's a pursuit of numbers and noting else. Compromising the rock and personal standards for the sake of ratings and fame.

Darren in Vegas wrote:I think that multi-pitch routes should be established with the understanding that subsequent parties are going to start at the ground and go from there.
It already pretty much holds true with single pitch routes as well, whether top down or ground up as first assents, that subsequent parties will start at the ground. That is another example of compromise in style when the route wasn't established from the ground up, but was red pointed after top down establishing, before publishing it. Everyone after that will naturally start from the ground.

Darren in Vegas wrote:In my mind the heirarchy should go something like this TR < sport lead < ground up trad < solo. If you can improve on the style, then go for it.
It's clear that you're saying it's okay to place bolts from the top down to make quality routes, which requires rehearsing, but it's not okay to rehearse moves first for 'head point' ascents, which are in essence solo climbs while dragging a rope. Yet your own hierarchy of putting solo ascents above TR'ing seems contradict that.

Darren in Vegas wrote:I would disagree that using top down methods only yield crappy routes.
Top down yields crappy style regardless of quality.

With all of that being said, if you are into top down for the supposed quality that it gives you, then go for it. It is the majority of people who climb today that feel that way.

Darren in Vegas wrote:It is good that there are still people who wave the banner for this style of climbing.
As long as I'm alive and climbing, I will continue to wave the banner of that style of climbing.

VaGenius wrote:Darren, best post in a while. Brian, breathalyzer.
Good pot stirring!
M Mobley · · Bar Harbor, ME · Joined Mar 2006 · Points: 911

thank holy jebus we have ethics cops on the internet to protect us all from having original thoughts or changing our minds!

2014, year of the Bosch?

now back to telling everyone how rap bolted routes never have bolts in the right spot...

Darren S · · Minneapolis, MN · Joined Feb 2006 · Points: 3,388
Rip Shredrock wrote:Darren, It seems to me you're saying a few misplaced ground up bolts justifies top down placing of bolts.
No, I am just saying that there are as many bad examples of ground up routes as there are top down

Rip Shredrock wrote:That is reprehensible.
Reprehensible is a strong word when referring to climbing tactics, climbing isn't that important in the grand scheme of things to have such a visceral reaction to others' ways of establishing routes.

Rip Shredrock wrote:It's an easy point to make that more bad bolts have been placed via top rope than have ever been placed on the lead
I would disagree.
Rip Shredrock wrote: 1. If all climbers should aspire to that sentiment, you are saying everyone should rehearse on TR in order to repeat those routes. Then you say... Which is the exact opposite. Climbers should aspire to repeat in the first ascent style even if rehearsing is required, or rehearsing is BS, which is it?
I am saying their style shouldn't be considered a style because it introduces an artificial danger factor.
Rip Shredrock wrote: 2. It's not against any law I know of to TR a route. TR'ing does not require fixed ropes being strewn about.
It does if I want to repeat some of the routes in question in the style of the first ascent. Many of the routes I am talking about had ropes on them for months while the FA party worked out the climbs. We are talking about routes that are between 500 and 1000 feet long, not cragging routes I can walk to the top of and set a rope on it. It is against the law to leave fixed ropes up in Red Rock for these lengths of time.
Rip Shredrock wrote: 3. I personally, do not aspire to TR all routes that have been TR'ed prior to being lead, before I lead them.
Not what I am saying.
Rip Shredrock wrote: How can you, or anyone, think about establishing a 'quality route' top down without rehearsing it first? If you didn't rehearse it first, how could you possibly know where to best place the bolts? The only way, I can see, to make a 'quality route' via top down, is to climb the route on TR and determine from the stances as you climb, where you could clip from, and therefore place the bolts.
I am saying this. I don't think this is a bad thing, again if I get the luxury of a top rope while figuring out a route, then I am obligated to make the route safe. Safe for the FA should mean safe for everyone.

I am guessing you are not aware of the recent development history in Red Rock. Having this context is helpful in understanding what I am referring to. PM me if you want to know more about it.

In the end I like to climb everything. I don't care what style was used as long as the route is good. I like ground up, run out, scary trad routes and I like quality top down sport climbs. I like to climb because it is fun and because it challenges me mentally and physically. I think that some people place too much importance on this whole ground up style. The only style I have a problem with is "headpointing" because it creates an illusion that the FA was bold. I see it as a dishonest method of establishing a route.
Darren S · · Minneapolis, MN · Joined Feb 2006 · Points: 3,388
VaGenius wrote: The dishonesty comes not when a new route is headpointed, but when the tactics used to put up the route are disguised, covered up, or outright lied about.
Agreed.
However, I have had some conversations with one member of the FA party and he was rather forthcoming about methods used.
He even mentioned that he thought one of the routes in question could use some more bolts. I think his ideas have evolved a bit over time.

VaGenius wrote: Darren, you're talking about other threads, PM ing you for details. What purpose does it serve to keep disguising the limit? No one's pretending that Drifting was a route put up from the ground, why should we pretend that Jet Stream wasn't a fixed line headpoint that was put up to serve the interests of topropers and rope fixers and to not serve the interests of the average climber comfortable at that grade, who reads the description in the guidebook and mistakes the line as something intended to be climbed without rehearsal? Word of mouth says the big 5.11 runout on Tri Tip was aided, TRed, and then freed after dialing to the nth degree, leaving the impression of a Punks style route to people that climb from the ground (everyone but the FA party) but about as genuine as a four dollar bill.
I am just trying to disagree with the tactics used, and not be contentious toward the FA party as people, some I consider friends. I enjoy debating tactics, but I don't want to attack people. (I appreciate the irony of that statement given some of the things I have typed on this site before)

However, I do agree that these routes should have been described in the guide as multipitch headpoints.

I do think that there is some credit to be given to these guys for their free ascent of Buffalo Soldier. I am under the impression that they were attempting to free climb it without adding new hardware. Top rope rehearsal allowed them to do it. I like it that they were attempting to find some middle ground between preserving the aid route and free climbing it.

I also think that as soon as you break out the drill while dangling from a top rope, you are obligated to make a safe route. I think Drifting is a great example of this idea and that Tri Tip is the antithesis of this idea.

In the future I see a Red Rock where ground up routes exist next to top down routes in harmony. You know, with unicorns and moonbeams and s#!t. So for now I will continue to attempt to espouse the validity of either methodology because I see good outcomes from both methods. I just want to climb rocks, with as many cool people as I can before my body falls apart even more.
J. Thompson · · denver, co · Joined Jan 2001 · Points: 1,425

Darren you're spot on.
You have the all around knowledge and experience base to form opinions about many different styles and types of climbing.
Thanks for adding your opinion and not turning it into a witch hunt.

Since Jet Stream was brought up, and I've been on it, I have some comments about it.

This route really is a head point climb, and quite an extreme example of one.
I was fortunate to climb this with a VERY strong partner, I'm not going to name him or Qualify his abilities but just assume he's the real deal.
It took him multiple tries to climb the crux on pitch #2, given 5.12c originally. It doesn't, normally, take him that long to climb that difficulty. That section is very well protected.
Then on Pitch #4 there is a section that was originally given 5.12a. It's very,very cryptic and it's not safe. My partner aided/French freed through that crux and established a very good piece above the crux, then spent over an hour working it on TR. Never really getting it clean. Before continuing up the route. Again 5.12a isn't an issue for him.

Jet Stream was established top down and the results are very mixed. Some sections are well protected, but the ratings may be off. Is that the result of TRing them into submission over months?
Some sections are runout, and the ratings may be off. Is that, also, the result of TRing them into submission over months?

So. Given the above description, my point is this.
Jet Stream is a Brilliant line. Linking the natural features on that wall is an awesome example of route finding. It likely could not have been done ground up. However a lot of the things that can go wrong in top down style, did.
With some more ascents the grading will figure itself out. But spending months memorizing every move before the send doesn't compare to repeating a route onsight. This is a reason to note the style it was done in.
The bolting could be fixed to make the route more quality (and inline with the protection on other sections) over all. Given the top down style of the FA this would seem to be a viable option, certainly one that could be discussed with the FA.

Personally I've done plenty of FA's in a wide variety of styles. I look at putting up routes as a craft. Especially if I'm putting in bolts. What I leave behind should be something other folks want to climb.
I've done some ground up routes that required no fixed gear and were good enough to report for others. I've done some that were so bad I just never said anything.
I've also gone ground up, run it out on very good climbing, then later realized that it would be a much better route with a bolt added. So I went back and made a better route, on rappel.
This is getting to long, so I'll try to get to my point here.
There are very few absolutes. Sometimes ground up is better. Sometimes top down is. Sometimes going back and combining styles is the way to go.
Saying one way or another is the only way just doesn't work. There are way to many variables. Be honest about the style you used, leave your ego out of it, and try to think about the impact you will have for others.
Oh and it's climbing, HAVE FUN.

josh

Rip Shredrock · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2012 · Points: 0
Darren in Vegas wrote:It does if I want to repeat some of the routes in question in the style of the first ascent. Many of the routes I am talking about had ropes on them for months while the FA party worked out the climbs. We are talking about routes that are between 500 and 1000 feet long, not cragging routes I can walk to the top of and set a rope on it. It is against the law to leave fixed ropes up in Red Rock for these lengths of time.
You're not required to fix ropes in order to rehearse pitches, even on 1000' routes. Sure, it's much easier to do it that way but, you could hike around and rap the route to the pitch you want to TR for the day, then pull your ropes and rap to the ground, to come back another day. Pretending fixed ropes are necessary is a poor argument and shows that taking the easy way out by fixing ropes is once again a compromise in style.

Darren in Vegas wrote:...if I get the luxury of a top rope while figuring out a route, then I am obligated to make the route safe. Safe for the FA should mean safe for everyone.
Climbing can never be made safe. It's inherently dangerous. The FA party can never make a route safe because they can never account for the skill of the parties to climb the route later. As an example, in the Calico Basin, on a new route that was bolt protected, two different teams on the same day, both dropped their partner, while lowering the climber after compleating the route. Both belayers were very experienced climbers and failed to knot the end of the rope, the rope slipped through the belay device, on a pitch that was longer than half the rope they were using, the standard rope of the day, and the climbers being lowered were dropped the last 15' of the route, one of them broke an ankle. Today, with longer ropes, that would not have happened. The point is, the route was not at fault for being safe or not safe, but the climbers weren't safe. No matter how hard the FA party tries to make a safe route, it comes down to the climbers that climb the route to make things safe or not. A route can not be inherently safe. Using a TR during the FA can not make the resulting route safe either. That is just a crutch to say so and results in compromised style in the process.

As far as history goes, let's review a bit of it... Pitons were the main protection on every ones rack in the past and no one seemed to mind how much damage was done with their use, then along came clean protection that didn't damage the rock, and pitons disappeared from almost every ones rack except bigwall and alpine climbers, most everyone caught on to the idea of not damaging the rock. When sport climbing swept across the country, once again climbers took to damaging the rock, this time with fixed protection. Nowadays, it's rampant, repel placed bolts everywhere. Very few climbing areas are immune to top down bolting. And once again many climbers don't seem to mind the damage they are causing. Enter head pointing, rehearsing and wiring before leading, finding a way to preserve the environment while still climbing hard routes. You say that head pointing is a cheating. I ask you, how is repel placing bolts and not saying so in the guides not the same kind of cheat? Without saying that the route was rehearsed on TR and the bolts placed on TR, every subsequent party is cheated into thinking it could have been (was) established ground up since they're approaching it from the ground. You made a point about 'As climbers we should aspire to repeat routes in the style of the first ascent.' and without saying that the route was top down, that's the very same cheat you're complaining about with rehearsed head pointing.

You don't seem to agree with the head pointing style of establishing a route, and complain about such things as fixing ropes. Most of Red Rock is a conservation area, where no bolting is legal at all. How many bolts have you personally placed in the conservation area since all bolting became illegal? Not many climbers seem to care at all that it's illegal and bolted routes go up by at least the tens, perhaps hundreds each year. At one time bolting was legal throughout Red Rock, that changed because of the damage being caused to the conservation area. How can you (probably) place bolts illegally and think that's okay while complaining about others fixing ropes? When the bolts you (probably) placed will endure for decades and the fixed ropes you complain about are there for a few months at most. I find that to be very hypocritical. I say (probably) because I don't know for sure if you have ever placed a bolt in the conservation area. However, if you have never done so, you clearly support others who have and continue to do so. Your legal argument is empty.

Darren in Vegas wrote:The only style I have a problem with is "headpointing" because it creates an illusion that the FA was bold. I see it as a dishonest method of establishing a route.
I can remember when some of the heavily bolted routes on the Black Velvet Wall were established, it wasn't published in any guide that many of those bolts were placed on aid and some repel placed, that kind of illusion has been going on for decades in Red Rock, there's nothing new about it. As a consequence, other routes were established right next to the bolted ones in run out trad style. Surely you know about that too. Head pointing is a style that tries to preserve the rock in concordance with the conservation areas ideas, where as top down placed routes using bolts are in direct opposition.

Top down bolting has ripped the heart out of the tradition of trad climbing, that's visceral.

You should keep in mind, making an argument for establishing top down routes in a Trad Climbing forum will surely bring on this kind of disagreement.
J. Thompson · · denver, co · Joined Jan 2001 · Points: 1,425

" I don't feel that this kind of backstabbing "

While I agree with you, you should ask some honest questions of the person you are referring to, in private email form.
I can tell you that what you think happened isn't quite the case.

josh

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Trad Climbing
Post a Reply to "."

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.