Begin 25' right from the start of Winds of Fortune.
Climb up to a bolt 15' off the ground, step right, then up to an obvious flake (10d, thin). Traverse left to the L-diagonalling finger crack of Winds of Fortune. Climb this for eight feet to a jug, but then crank out right (10d) to a big flake. Mantle up onto the flake, clip a bolt, then undercling up and right along a seam (crux, 11b). Where the seam turns vertical, face climb up and left across another diagonal seam to gain the low-angle slab above. Belay 20-30 feet higher on a ledge with a slung flake.
2 bolts + small wires and cams to 1.5"
Rappel 90' from sling anchor. If belaying/toproping off this anchor, bring a few med/large stoppers and a 1" cam, plus a cordalette to equalize everything.
Jarrett Tishmack making the long reach out of the ...
Jarrett moving into the crux undercling on the sec...
Oct 18, 2005
Eds. note, this post was moved by request.
I think Brent Armstrong's letter that started this thread should be revisited.
Oct 19, 2005
Eds. note, this post was moved by request.
Yeah, I don't think Brent's comments were meant to be hurtful either. I would love to hear Spanky's response to Brent's implied questions.
The whole libel segue distracted the intent of Brent's letter-which was "Spanky you have expressed high standards for Lumpy, FLAMED those who you think don't hold those same standards, and then put in a route that I (Brent) think is as bad as the routes you have condemned."
Spanky, please don't take my letter personally either. I would just like to know your reasoning behind the route. I haven't climbed it and won't be climbing in a while anyway-ask Paco, ergo sum- don't know about its quality. And I would like to see if you think you have indulged in a little hypocrisy like WE ALL DO occasionally.
I hope I haven't added any more confusion to this thread, nor made enemies. I just want to hear the other side (Spanky's reply) of the issue. If it takes a beer at Ed's for some clarity, I am game.
Sep 9, 2008
Wow, I'm very surprised to see Brent's comment from three years ago recently posted on here. Not sure how/why it recently showed up. Well, his (and Thad's?) post requests a response from me, so here goes....
Brent posted his comment three years ago when I originally had placed two bolts in the lower face. After a few attempts on the route, I decided it was above my head at the time and returned the following summer to remove the two bolts. The holes were patched with epoxy and rock dust and are completely invisible, even to me, and I should know where they were. The two bolts were left in over the winter, however, I got back up there in June, 2006 to remove them as soon as good weather allowed.
Two years later I was climbing much stronger and I decided to attempt the line again. Better bolt placement allowed me to get by with only one bolt on the lower face. This initial bolt, plus one bolt up high protecting the crux, are the only two bolts on the route. The anchor is a sling around a flake, comprised of 9/16" webbing threaded through 1" tubular webbing to protect from damage due to ultraviolet exposure.
I succeeded in redpointing Southern Cross after several lead attempts. Jarrett Tishmack and Garrett Miller belayed me several times on these initial attempts. Jarrett eventually made the second lead ascent of the route and can confirm both the quality of the line and its uncontrived nature. Dan Gambino also attempted it while taking pictures of Jarrett and me on the route. Dan can also confirm the route's high quality. It's a great route with some very unique and exciting moves. I'd encourage anyone climbing in the area to give it a try. It would also make a great cold-weather climb, because that side of the Bookend gets plenty of morning sun and is sheltered from the wind.
A couple of points:
1. Brent's comment referenced only the first twenty feet of climbing where I originally had placed the first two bolts. No one knew at the time where the upper part of the route would go, because I wanted to keep it to myself until the route went. For that reason, Brent's comment is understandable to me, because if I had placed two bolts to climb a 20-foot route, then I would deserve every bit of his chastisement and more.
However, the route Southern Cross, as described here, is entirely different than the section of rock that Brent is referencing. It's three times as tall, with an extra thirty feet of previously unclimbed terrain consisting of several 5.10+ to 5.11- cruxes stacked on top of each other. It's this huge difference between the route described here, and the section of rock Brent is referencing in his post from three years ago, that has me very confused about why his post is all of sudden resurfacing here.
2. Brent (and Thad?) referred to a previous habit of mine to criticize previous users of this site about their climbing ethics on Lumpy Ridge. One person whom I criticized repeatedly was Eli Helmuth. While I believed (and still do) in the actual content of my arguments, the way I went about presenting them was disrespectful and wrong. I have since apologized to Eli for these personal attacks and we are now on very good relations. That was a chapter in my life that has long since been closed, and I really don't desire (nor do I see the need) for all of those old wounds to be reopened.
I hope this response adequately addresses the concerns Brett voiced three years ago. Editors/moderators, could you please either 1. explain to me why his post has recently been moved to here and how it is seen as relevant, or 2. remove the three posts dated 2005, in addition to this post, so any comments included here will be in reference to the climbing route described?
|By kevin murphy|
From: Lafayette, Colorado
Jan 11, 2009
Just talked to Chris on the phone. Reminded me of this route. Little gem of a route. Gets good sun this time of year. Good times....