Marc Horan wrote:
The first time you climbed something doesn't define it's original or natural state.


Um, I think Bob's put up, maybe, thousands of FA's, so yah, that does mean that the rock was in it's "original" and "natural state".
At least for those routes.

It always cracks me up that people complain about chipping and gluing but will head to a new route with a hacksaw and spade to remove all the vegetation on it.

Bob was there first. You and your buddy have no previous knowledge of the route before it was broken.

Hypothetically, a route was in it's "natural" and "original state" when the FAist first attempts a route and breaks a hold.
So, when you show up it's no longer in its "original state" but some could argue still "natural".
The FAist wants to return the climb to its "original state" and glues the hold back on, now it's no longer natural but back to its original...

I am not saying someone with tons of FAs has a right alter a problem simply because they have experience and taste. I'm guessing Bob didn't glue the hold back onto First, could be wrong, but you seem to be insinuating that Bob did glue the hold back on.
I am saying a FAist may often use discretion when choosing to return a problem to it's "original" state.

I guess we need a new governing board to handle these situations. We can submit proposals, some digital online pictures and have a vote of five hardmen to determine if the Seca should be applied.

Bob,

Did you replace the hold on First Overhang?

Just curious.

PW

No Patrick...

vegastradguy,

Why would I glue a problem?

Well, 'cause sometimes chippin' and gluen' makes a good problem even better!

Gluing the hold back on just sounds like some one couldn't handle change, nostalgia got the better of them. They had a weak moment. What is done is done.

The pin scar argument is weak at best though. A pin scar to me seems parralle to a hold breaking off, gluing a hold back on would be like filling in pin scars with epoxy or such i.e stacking up more shit.

That being said, I'll climb em' anyways and i won't lose sleep over it.

I have no strong opinion one way or the other about this hold being glued back on. I've never been on this problem and I don't really boulder much outdoors. Clearly, arguments can be made either way about gluing holds. To wit, here are a couple.

Pro gluing: routes have historic value. Some routes or boulder problems might be well-known and famous enough to warrant being preserved. I think we've all been on routes where a particular hold "defines" it: maybe there's a particular "thank goddess" hold, or a key sidepull, or fingerlock, without which the route could no longer be climbed. Maybe there's a particularly interesting move to a hold (or off a hold) that if missing would make the route less than interesting. This would clearly be an argument about preserving a route's aesthetics.

Con gluing: we climb the rock as its given to us. First ascentionists climb a piece of rock that had eroded in a particular way over the millenia to arrive at what they climbed on the day of the first ascent. Over time (both geologic time and human scale time), rock erodes. Consider the big rockfall in Eldo last spring: that could have easily been a large chunk of an established route. Regardless, climbers climb what's there and not what used to be there; that could be true whether a section of rock changes through natural forces or human action.

I'm not suggesting that either argument is "correct". Both are simply opinions about how pieces of rock could be climbed.