Dear Shelf Road Chiseler:

All these chipping apologists... unbelievable!

It pains me to state the obvious but the issue is this: let's say you are a guy that can only climb 5.11. If you chip a route down to your level, the 5.12 that would have been put there is gone. And on up the scale. So personally I will give a dude a pass if he is chipping a 5.15, since there is no "up the scale", and frankly I have no chance of doing that route anyway.

But chipping down to 5.11? Holy moly, there are schoolchildren who can boulder that sans rope, with a stuffed animal hanging off their harness...

Scott McMahon wrote: haha..didn't expect it to take 7 pages for the "Boulder" comment to come out. Come on guys!! I expect so much more out of ya'll!

who says i'm not from boulder, er um the nanny state, also? ;)

L G wrote: I'm just not persuaded by the old-school argument of "it's bad because I wouldn't do it and so you shouldn't, either."

This is not the old school argument, and you should probably read the thread more carefully if you think it is.

L G wrote:The modern standard is to craft routes that others can climb. If someone doesn't like the route, there are literally hundreds of other routes in the area, or one could choose to skip the pocket to alter the difficulty.

This is also not the modern standard at most climbing areas. At least, it is not what most people think is the standard, as reading this thread should have indicated.

Tony B wrote: Well, not that interesting really. After all, you have to be pretty careful about listening to what people have to say about themselves as well as about others. Because they have a pretty vested interest in the perception that they are trying to create.

and that's what i find interesting.

slim wrote: who says i'm not from boulder, er um the nanny state, also? ;)

I'm pretty sure you are!

Nanny State? That's new one...elaborate por favor!

you know, boulder city council is always inventing new "laws" to protect us from ourselves. uggh.

in other news i just published my once-every-5-years-or-so manifesto. should be front page news any time now. might want to get a cup of coffee for this one....

slim wrote:you know, boulder city council is always inventing new "laws" to protect us from ourselves.

That always pisses me off.

slim wrote: in other news i just published my once-every-5-years-or-so manifesto. should be front page news any time now. might want to get a cup of coffee for this one....

Shelf road really brings out the idiots in climbing for some reason, ever notice that? first chipping, then trundling...

Darren Mabe wrote: now that would be an interesting new thread. "What are your reasons for establishing new routes?"

I haven't done too much of this. The only climbs I may have an FA on were trad on a chosspile up in cheyenne canyon, and aren't really even worth posting on MP.

I think it is good for some routes to be put up for others to enjoy. However, at places like shelf there are something like twenty gazillion like that. Why did they need to manufacture a route at that level, surrounded by climbs of the same difficulty? What is wrong with a 5.12, or 5.13, there instead?

richard magill wrote:All these chipping apologists... unbelievable! It pains me to state the obvious but the issue is this: let's say you are a guy that can only climb 5.11. If you chip a route down to your level, the 5.12 that would have been put there is gone. And on up the scale. So personally I will give a dude a pass if he is chipping a 5.15, since there is no "up the scale", and frankly I have no chance of doing that route anyway. But chipping down to 5.11? Holy moly, there are schoolchildren who can boulder that sans rope, with a stuffed animal hanging off their harness...

Lots of people chip in order to make routes harder too. By your argument if I made a 5.11 into a 5.15 you'd be okay with it?

Darren Mabe wrote: and that's what i find interesting.

Well the ultimate answer, no matter what anyone claims, is "because they wanted to."

WOW