The Horse is Dead. Long Live the Horse!

No problems here, Sam. And the offer for the Bosch still stands. You'd be amazed how satisfying all that power feels in your hands after being a hand driller... And I'd recommend rap bolting the last bolt. After all there's a rope hanging next to it.

And as I stated before, I never had a problem with your route as I've never climbed it. I responded to a provocative thread title asking for outside opinion on an ethical style with a reference to a route description.

Also, I'd like to clarify that I wasn't trying to attack you both simply because of the way you bolted this route. I was merely reacting to what I interpereted as ego-induced tone and comments on the part of your climbing partner, which, on a fundamental level, I am suspicious of. Maybe I got bullied too much as a kid by people acting out of false egoism.

However, knowing you personally, and considering you a friend (ironically, I took you climbing at East Animas for your first time), I know that you don't share this mindset and I will say that you might have the most humility of any 20-year-old I've ever met, judging from the interactions I've had with you. Just wanted to set the record straight there.

So... Skyeler asked for the opinion of the larger community and I think he got it to some degree, for better or for worse. I apologize if my opinion about runout rap bolting came off as harsh, but that's how I feel about the matter. I think it's interesting to see just how inflammatory climbing ethics discussions can be. And to some degree, many people are troll-ish because of that, myself included. Please don't take it personally, rock as a resource is just a passionate issue for me.

Regardless, what you two decide to do with the route is your business only. And I applaud both of you for trying to have a vision of some new rock for us to climb.

How's that for long winded? Maybe this thread can really die now?

edit-sorta end type imagery

BDergay wrote:Just to throw in a quick two cents- "Head-pointing" is as lame as it gets. If you've got to top-rope something a bunch of times to figure out the moves- why not leave it as a top-rope?? -oh yeah, so you can brag about how sick you are on run-outs....geez. And a quick jab at definitions- if you're rap-bolting a route, rather than refering to it as "putting up a route," aren't you really "putting down a route"? /rant

Head-pointing isn't lame. It's a perfectly acceptable technique as long as you are honest about what you've done.

Leaving a dangerous run-out on a rap-bolted route IS lame. In fact, leaving a dangerous run-out on any bolted route is lame.

chosspector wrote: If it were my route I'd add a couple bolts so that people will climb it. I like to rap bolt routes that will (hopefully) be popular and people will enjoy. Not to spray about how good I am at runouts on MP.

In my opinion, the style in which this route was done has absolutely nothing to do with having a good head for runouts. That's the whole point of my objection to it...

Sam Feuerborn wrote: Successful resolution? or are we still heretics?

I think that 95% of the 'sewing circle' would be ambivalent about your route, if it weren't for the unwarranted, arrogant-without-cause bloviating of your partner. Dude has some EZ .12's on his profile tick list, yet blows in here with pronouncements about 'proud sends', 'weakening paradigms of risk', 'Climbing use to be about boldness, uncertainty, and adventure', 'under-developed headspace', 'Still...don't whip off the wrong parts of this route...or "You would fall, and turn the white snow red As strawberries in summertime." '.

You would think this guy just walked up and did an onsight FA on the level of Starlight , but instead we're talking about a rap bolted .10+ in soft stone. There's no cred behind all his shit talking. at a very minimum, for some kind of statement to be sent (and we all hate folks using the stone to send statements, btw), the route should be at his limit, not a .10+. It also really appears that since he brought this retarded issue to us in the first place that he's just looking for personal attention.
You guys should road trip up to Thunder Ridge sometime.

Skyeler, I haven't engaged in any personal mudslinging, and I won't start now, but I will respond directly to these two statements.

There is an essential difference between the routes John mentioned, and your new line: They were put up on lead. Yours was not.

As for routes set aside for those who are up to "it", what exactly is the "it" you're referring to? You rap-bolted this route! If you wanted to create a bold testpiece (an aspiration I certainly understand), why not wait until you were up to it? I'll repeat it again: There is simply nothing bold about a rap-bolted runout.

You posed a question to the MP community. Just because you don't like the consensus among the respondents doesn't mean you can dismiss it out of hand.

Safe and happy climbing, and thanks for having the motivation to develop routes. It's often a thankless task. Everybody is a critic (including me in this case!). I hope this discussion has given you some perspectives to honestly reflect on.

I do not have the perspective to comment specifically on this route, but I'd like to point out some inconsistencies in the application of the "first ascentionists get to dictate the style" ethic we all seem to take as gospel.

After reading this thread, it seems to me that that ethic is more about preserving the status quo than any true conviction that the FA's should be the final say in the style of climbing. Take these situations as examples:

1. Someone posts up that they think that there is a needlessly dangerous section on a climb and that adding a bolt is appropriate. The response back is to contact the FA party to get their blessings. If they say "no, don't bolt," the climbing commmunity sees it as preserving the historical significance of the climb (even on relatively new climbs).

2. A party bolts a route and purposefully leaves it dangerously runout. There is an outcry that the FA didn't do it in 'goood style" and a movement to coerce the FA to bolt it more heavily.

Personally, I do not like to expose myself to risk, so I'd benefit if these routes were more closely bolted. At the same time, I see hypocrisy in the calls for the FA to retro bolt the climb.

So what if they rapped down to preview the route?

This does not "force other parties to do the route in more demanding style." Future parties could access the top and rap down before their lead just like the bolters did.

Why is bolting a dangerous climb so offensive, but leaving a dangerous situation on an established climb "hostorical."

In a way, the invocation of the "FA sets the style" ethic is similiar to how the GOP invokes the constitution.

When the consitutioin supports their ethics, they invoke it. ie: "The second amendment gives us the right to bear arms. No new gun control. Period." But when it offends their ethic, the consitution goes out the window. "Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and religious freedom" but we are going to try to legislate who can get married to who because marriage is a 'holy union."

Doesn't make too much sense to me and neither do the cries of poor FA style. I don't see that they unduly damaged the rock or force people unwittingly into a dangerous situation. They are the FA's, so why don't they get to choose the style?

Sorry to drag this on... But I gotta ask:

What length and type of bolts did you guys use on this route? Kinda matters, ya know?

I've only climbed a little around Durango and what I've done has been mostly good, add in how close to town it is and it is great.

First off, head-pointing is a term applied to traditional routes in the UK that rely only on natural protection that is not close enough together to make any lead safe, there have been routes put up in the US recently that have used the same tactic. It is not something done on a bolted route. I know that the OP did not bring up the term but someone else did and in essence it is kind of what the FA did except by rap bolting the route "they" are able to choose where "they" felt that they need gear to be safe

Second, I agree with most people in saying I have no problem with a runout route that is bolted as long as those bolts are put in on lead. However to rap bolt a line and purposely leave it runout (of course I'm not sure if it is or not, but if it is) is asking to be called out. I'll have to re watch psyche2 but the crux pitch at least does not have bolts, so nobody is really going to have a problem with the pitch being inspected on TR other than the fact that the FA party, since they had wanted to do the route ground up. Nature is dictating the challenge, not someone with a drill. Bold routes should be put up on lead.

@Evan. I would hazard a guess that in the first situation you present, many times the route was put up on lead and in the second, as is the case here, it was rap bolted.

Enough for now.

Dear climbers,

I want to thank you guys for calling me out on my bullshit. It wasn't easy to hear all this critique, but I do respect you guys, even if our perspectives don't exactly line up.

My route descriptions do tend to get self-indulgent, and I realize how lame that is, so I have changed both Martyr's Crown and I Need a Batholith, to reflect all of the feedback received.

Personally, I enjoy these ethical rants, and I have learned a lot from this discussion. I know most if not all of you have disagreed with my style. Trying to limit the number of bolts is not the worthy goal I had thought it was. It is an interesting dilemma, since runnout routes put up on lead tend to have bolts in the easy sections where there are stances, while rap-bolted runnout routes like these have bolts where they were deemed most effective in preventing a groundfall. What makes for a better route? It is clear the climbing community rejects the second style.

Again, thank you all for commenting (even if you were talking out of your ass, haha). I hope in the future, many of you will pass through Durango, and will have a chance to climb some of the classics at East A and you'll see what all the fuss is about. Its a great spot with a history of proud ascents. I'm sorry that my attempt at adding more "bold" routes tarnished that reputation.

And Choss, I used 3/8" by 3 1/2" 5-piece Rawls.

Skyeler

Sweet, good to know.

Good for you Skyeler! It can be hard to hear others voices when they are critical. Way to own it and see the other side. And it is rare when people step up and admit their shortcomings. That is an action that is worth something.

Skyeler Congdon wrote:Dear climbers, I want to thank you guys for calling me out on my bullshit. It wasn't easy to hear all this critique, but I do respect you guys, even if our perspectives don't exactly line up. My route descriptions do tend to get self-indulgent, and I realize how lame that is, so I have changed both Martyr's Crown and I Need a Batholith, to reflect all of the feedback received. Personally, I enjoy these ethical rants, and I have learned a lot from this discussion. I know most if not all of you have disagreed with my style. Trying to limit the number of bolts is not the worthy goal I had thought it was. It is an interesting dilemma, since runnout routes put up on lead tend to have bolts in the easy sections where there are stances, while rap-bolted runnout routes like these have bolts where they were deemed most effective in preventing a groundfall. What makes for a better route? It is clear the climbing community rejects the second style. Again, thank you all for commenting (even if you were talking out of your ass, haha). I hope in the future, many of you will pass through Durango, and will have a chance to climb some of the classics at East A and you'll see what all the fuss is about. Its a great spot with a history of proud ascents. I'm sorry that my attempt at adding more "bold" routes tarnished that reputation. And Choss, I used 3/8" by 3 1/2" 5-piece Rawls. Skyeler

Classy response.

Derek Doucet wrote: Classy response.

Definitely. Good on you for taking criticism constructively, Skyeler. I hope this and your future routes are well received and better for your insight.

When I saw "The Horse is Dead" under the Colorado/Rocky Mountain Region forum, I thought they were closing down the Dark Horse. Had me nervous for a second.

Dork House Forever!

Ben Cassedy wrote:When I saw "The Horse is Dead" under the Colorado/Rocky Mountain Region forum, I thought they were closing down the Dark Horse. Had me nervous for a second. Dork House Forever!

+10...that rumor always goes around every few years too, so we are due!

John Wilder wrote: Indeed. Good on you.

+1

Climbed hard for 15ish yrs and remember having these debates all the time. Have been out of "the scene" (thank god) for a couple of yrs and everytime I look back in it is all the same lame discussions. Seriously...its a little climb on a little crag in a little area...why get so worked up about it? And WHO CARES what other people think of what you, or how, you did?! Just be honest...first to yourself....then to others. If you were too scared to put something up on lead and hung from a rope to create a climb....fine....just say that and move on.

Ray wrote:Climbed hard for 15ish yrs and remember having these debates all the time. Have been out of "the scene" (thank god) for a couple of yrs and everytime I look back in it is all the same lame discussions. Seriously...its a little climb on a little crag in a little area...why get so worked up about it? And WHO CARES what other people think of what you, or how, you did?! Just be honest...first to yourself....then to others. If you were too scared to put something up on lead and hung from a rope to create a climb....fine....just say that and move on.

Resurrecting a thread is your way of moving on?

This thread is actually one where there was some kind of resolution. I thought it was kinda cool, not a regular thing on the old internet at all. Climbing is all kinds of contrived games though, so I can agree that it's best to be honest about which one you are playing.