first overhang on flagstaff. New hold?

Bob D'Antonio wrote: I never said it was right...I'm talking about replacing a hold that broke off. There is a difference.

Please excuse me if I'm misinterpreting this statement, but I read:

"It's OK to glue a hold on if it breaks off."

--Marc

Marc Horan wrote: Pins, cams, stoppers, and bolts are used for protection. In this case we're talking about someone using glue or epoxy to secure a piece of rock to another, larger piece of rock. Comparing protection to glued-on holds is simply comparing apples to oranges; they are not even close to the same thing. I really don't understand why you guys keep putting a glued-on hold in the same category as protection! --Marc

Marc,

If you tell me that you have free climbed a classic 5.11 crack, which I know to have been enhanced by pins, over time, I will contend that you had climbed a manufactured route. If you were able to lock or jam a finger in a crack only because it has been enlarged by repeated nailing, then how in the world could you ever call it - by any stretch of the imagination - a natural route? Think carefully before you answer this one.

Ken Cangi wrote: Marc, If you tell me that you have free climbed a classic 5.11 crack, which I know to have been enhanced by pins, over time, I will contend that you had climbed a manufactured route. If you were able to jam a finger in a crack only because it has been enlarged by repeated nailing, then how in the world could you ever call it - by any stretch of the imagination - a natural route? Think carefully before you answer this one.

I wouldn't say that I climbed this hypothetical route in it's natural state. I climbed Serenity Crack a couple years ago in it's current state; the same state that virtually every free-climber has climbed it in. From the moment that crack had it's first pin slammed into it, till the moment that it had it's last pin slammed into it, that route has been getting easier and easier. I understand that.

My point is that using pitons to protect against a fall is nowhere near the same as gluing a hold onto a boulder problem; not even fucking close.

I still have yet for someone to give me an example as to when it's justifiable to glue a smaller piece of rock onto a larger piece of rock. I just want one reasonable example! If no one can give me one, then we're done here, IMO.

--Marc

Marc Horan wrote: I wouldn't say that I climbed this hypothetical route in it's natural state. I climbed Serenity Crack a couple years ago in it's current state; the same state that virtually every free-climber has climbed it in. From the moment that crack had it's first pin slammed into it, till the moment that it had it's last pin slammed into it, that route has been getting easier and easier. I understand that. My point is that using pitons to protect against a fall is nowhere near the same as gluing a hold onto a boulder problem; not even fucking close. I still have yet for someone to give me an example as to when it's justifiable to glue a smaller piece of rock onto a larger piece of rock. I just want one reasonable example! If no one can give me one, then we're done here, IMO. --Marc

By your answers so far, I don't think anyone's example - reasonable or not - will satisfy you.

Bob D'Antonio wrote: You have no problem with using pins that intentionally alter the natural state of the rock...

I've never (oh, there's that nasty word again) placed a piton in my entire life. Not once.

Bob wrote:but using a little glue to put on a hold that broke off really bothers you.

It is accurate to say that gluing on holds does "really bother [me]." That is a fair statement and one that I'll stand behind.

Bob wrote:It's oh so clear to me now.

I can't believe it really took you that long.

--Marc

Ken Cangi wrote: By your answers so far, I don't think anyone's example - reasonable or not - will satisfy you.

WHAT?!?!? That's the worst cop-out I've ever heard! That's your excuse for not coming up with an example!?!? Why don't you try, Ken (or anyone else for that matter)?

--Marc

Bob D'Antonio wrote: No..but you have no problem using them or the scars they leave even through [sic] you know that they intentionally alter the rock.

I clip pitons to keep me from decking. I avoid manufactured climbing routes and boulder problems because I find them wholly unappealing. That's not the definition of a hypocrite.

Bob wrote:You are a hypocrite.

Funny. Maybe you should look up the definition; it is incorrect to call me a hypocrite for clipping pitons but avoiding manufactured climbs. It simply doesn't fit, Bob.

--Marc

Marc Horan wrote: WHAT?!?!? That's the worst cop-out I've ever heard! That's your excuse for not coming up with an example!?!? Why don't you try, Ken (or anyone for that matter)? --Marc

Marc,

This is the problem with arguing in absolutes. As I already pointed out, no matter which reason someone gives for gluing a hold back on, you have already made it painfully clear that there is "NO" excuse as far as you're concerned. Hence, why even try?

Ken Cangi wrote: Marc, This is the problem with arguing in absolutes. As I already pointed out, no matter which reason someone gives for gluing a hold back on, you have already made it painfully clear that there is "NO" excuse as far as you're concerned. Hence, why even try?

Because I've been proven wrong before. Ken, you and I have been involved in some of the same threads here on MP.com. Therefore, I have to assume that you've seen me proven wrong before. If someone comes up with a reasonable example of when it might be justifiable to glue a hold onto an otherwise natural rock, I would be happy to hear it.

You don't know until you try.

--Marc

Marc Horan wrote: I still have yet for someone to give me an example as to when it's justifiable to glue a smaller piece of rock onto a larger piece of rock. I just want one reasonable example!

When one wishes to create a Rock of Aesthetic value

Marc Horan wrote: Because I've been proven wrong before. Ken, you and I have been involved in some of the same threads here on MP.com. Therefore, I have to assume that you've seen me proven wrong before. If someone comes up with a reasonable example of when it might be justifiable to glue a hold onto an otherwise natural rock, I would be happy to hear it. You don't know until you try. --Marc

Reasonable arguments have been presented, for some of us.

kirra wrote: When one wishes to create a Rock of Aesthetic value

I said reasonable, Kirra. :)

Ken Cangi wrote: Reasonable arguments have been presented, for some of us.

Yet not one example..

--Marc

Bob D'Antonio wrote: Pay attention here Marc...no one is talking about ADDING a glue-on-hold from another piece of rock onto another rock. We are talking about replacing a natural piece of rock that broke off unnaturally to it's former natural state with the help of glue.

The word you're looking for is "incidentally," not unnaturally.

I understand what the discussion is about, but thanks for the recap.

Remember when I said this:

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

I think that fits real well in here, too.

Got an example yet, Bob?

--Marc

patrick wild wrote: 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".

No, it doesn't Patrick. Imagine this scenario:

On a Monday morning, Bob breaks a key hand-hold of off First Overhang. At noontime, I show up to the boulder problem for the first time in my life. I project the problem for a couple hours and ultimately send the problem. Bob then returns in the evening with the hold that he broke off and some epoxy. He glues the hold back onto the rock. I then return on Tues to show my buddy this great new (to us) boulder problem. And voila (sp?), the boulder problem has sprouted a new potato-sized hold!!

So because Bob has hundreds (possibly thousands) or FAs to his credit, he gets to do whatever he wants? I couldn't disagree more.

--Marc

Bob D'Antonio wrote: No it's not.

LOL. "Incidentally" is the correct word; it's much more accurate than "unnaturally."

You're impossible. LOL

--Marc

Still laughing..

Bob D'Antonio wrote: It's not a new hold...no one is adding a new hold to the problem...you can't seem to grasp that.

You can't seem to read. I'll isolate the relevant words for you, Bob. Maybe that will make it easier for you:

Marc Horan wrote:Bob then returns in the evening with the hold that he broke off...

See, I did "grasp" it. You need to read better.

--Marc

Edit: I gotta go to bed. This is way too fuckin easy.

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.

patrick wild wrote:vegastradguy, Why would I glue a problem? Well, 'cause sometimes chippin' and gluen' makes a good problem even better!

Sounds like the gym is more your fancy. Just move the tape and holds around until you find your classic. With no damage and without pissing anyone off.

Somtimes holds breaking make a problem even better.

IMO it made this problem worse. It was not necessary to do the problem there for is just someone gluing crap to the wall for no damn good reason but to try to restore history. Maybe we should take a big crane in to Jtree and crane up the block that fell near gunsmoke that is now Iron Resolution (now a classic). Should that be put back as well to restore its orignal state and the possible classic sport climbs that lay underneath it? Maybe a little far fetched but to me it is just as crazy as gluing a hold back on a problem that did not need it. I understand if it were like the hold glued on three of a kind wall in Flagg on the far left that was needing a good start hold to complete the first moves still. Again not necessary for this problem. so why botch up a perfectly good climb with man slime.
the pebble looks retarded up there. as if someone just glued it up there. Oh wait...

Joey Wolfe wrote: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.

Not weak at all if you consider the point of the example, simply that glued-on holds are not natural nor are pin scars. Both are fabricated. No one said that is was okay to fill in pin scars.