Mt. Lemmon Sandbags and Sandbags that should have an R or X.

1Eric Rhicard wrote:The reason I think folks need to have climbed things more than once is that it is easy to miss holds or sequences. We need only look at all the beta that has made routes at the Orifice easier after hundreds of runs.

Man Eric, adding a caveat for every route on Lemmon would be REALLY tough! Introducing the newest addition of Squeezing The Lemmon!!!!

Which could also be confused as the first chapter of "Understanding Women".

I have found run outs I wasn't fond of and holds that seemed hidden, I agree with what you're saying but after climbing a route a few times and "unlocking it" if you will, I no longer feel like I can correctly call the grade.

I may use grading all wrong though which is my point to this post. I tend to use it as my chance of cleanly climbing the route, 5.6 and I'm 95% sure I'll get up it just fine, 5.11 and I'm 95% sure I won't. I don't climb on anything over a 5.10 though so the game may totally change at that level.

You sure that's not the intro to
"Trying to Understand Women, while Squeezing the Lemmon."

I've always considered the ratings in Tucson to be part of the TDS (Tucson Decimal System) - no letter, only + or -; no pg or pg-13 and the first 15 ft. or so don't count towards the grade (i.e., Old Man, FIUTT, Days of Future Past, etc.). The severity of a climb is determined by the few letters after the grade. If it says SG or DB watch out. If it says SA or TL, then no big deal.

Mark Hawthorne wrote: The severity of a climb is determined by the few letters after the grade. If it says SG or DB watch out. If it says SA or TL, then no big deal.

+1 Best point so far.

I might add PD to that list, too.

Christian wrote:In terms of protecting beginners, the runouts on the easy stuff at Hairpin Left Hand wall are ill-advised. The 5.7s or 8s that have a 12-15 foot runout on 5.5-5.6 ground, there are at least two.

I think you're talking about Unemployment Line and Resume Builder on the Left Hand Wall. As the person who did the first ascents I can provide insight on why they were bolted runout on the easy terrain. Those sections were bolted on lead, so I didn't stop and place a bolt every 6ft. Anyone who can lead the bottom crux sections has the technical skills to lead the upper sections. Just because a route has bolts doesn't mean that it's 100% safe. As an old school climber, I take exception to the newer climbers who want to "sanitize" the outdoors so that everyone can climb in complete safety. Climbing has always been a risky undertaking and always will be. People need to exercise judgment and if you don't like the looks of the route ahead, then back off. It's not like I haven't done that on numerous routes over the years. The rock will always be there, so come back another day when your physical and mental skills are up to the challenge. A blurb in the beta section giving climbers a heads up about easy runouts is fine, but going back and adding bolts so that it's a "beginner friendly" route is not.

Caverdude, I have to take exception to your posts.

First putting up runout sport routes is lame. If your gonna drill a bunch of holes up a face, drill a few more more to make it safe.

There are three reasons people don't do this:
1) They're cheap and don't want to spend the extra six bucks for a few more bolts and hangers
2) They just don't have a clue how to put up a good route.
3) They think putting up runout 5.7 routes shows the climbing community how bad ass they are. Reading your bio I think the latter is the case here.

I've done a hand full of new routes on Mt. Lemmon and I am always willing to change something on a route if several climbers think it would be better that way. You should check your ego and do the same.

I've always thought these routes where badly bolted and should be fixed even though I can usually worm my way up a runout 5.7 section without too much whining.

Like it or not the hairpin has become a popular area. There is nothing wrong with going back a making your "sport routes" safer for all.

Hell you won't even need to spend any time or money to do it! Several folks have volunteered to add some bolts themselves.

Routes of this grade attract beginner climbers so they should be bolted for that crowd.

If some newbie comes whipping off one of these badly bolted routes and gets seriously injured you gonna pat yourself and your ego on the back for refusing to let someone add a bolt or two to your 5.8 sport route?

I've done a bunch of routes ground up and then added a few bolts to make is safer and more enjoyable for all. (Including myself the next time I lead it.)

Putting up routes a la Steve Grossman is cool, badly drilling up a sport route is stupid.

Jimbo,

why don't you check your ego. I like how you play internet psychologist and make lots of assumptions about my character. You don't even know me.
My routes are over 20 years old and were put up using the climbing ethics of that time. In all this time no one has been hurt on these routes so why get your panties in a bunch and start whining that they need to be retro bolted to satisfy the new safety criteria of the rock gym generation? If people can't climb outdoor routes as they are, or lack the judgment to figure out if a climb is within their capabilities, then stay in the rock gym where it is 100% safe.

I don't get the mentality that all routes have to be safe for everyone. Mean Mistreater only has a couple bolts so maybe we should create a bolt ladder on that so mere mortals other than SG can lead it? I've never led that route since my climbing skills were not up to it. I'm not hurt that I can't lead it and don't expect to have the climb brought down to my leading abilities. Why don't the newer climbers climb within their capabilities and save climbs that seem slightly scary for when they have the necessary mental capabilities. What ever happened to the motto "Don't bring the climb down to your skill level, but bring your climbing skills up to the level of the climb"?

Hairpin Left Hand Wall = Bail Biner Farm. People don't seem to have any trouble backing off of those routes.

I should clarify that I have no opinion either way...

Chris Horton wrote:Hairpin Left Hand Wall = Bail Biner Farm. People don't seem to have any trouble backing off of those routes. I should clarify that I have no opinion either way...

Actually they usually leave brand new quickdraws..like the last time I walked by there, had to stop just to booty it..

About the rest of the thread...All these clichés about "bringing the climb to your level", "sanitizing climbing"... whatever...It's friggin Hairpin, not the Rockfellows..A chosspile like 100 feet from the road..

Why not just make it a place people can bag a few of their first outdoor leads safely?

My point exactly Christian. The hairpin is a SPORT area right next to the road that attracts loads of newbie climbers. There are no time honored classics here, but there are plenty of old school scarefests in othere places on Mt Lemmon, that aren't on a wall full of SPORT climbs, that the newbies can go test their metal on.

Caverdudes protestations that he is doing the newbies a favor by insisting they have to step up or stay off off of his routes seems a bit disingenuous to me.

Ground up or not they are badly bolted and it would be a public service to fix them. Of course that would mean the FAist would have to admit that some of his routes need to be improved.

As I said before I've done a couple of new routes, and if bunches of people were saying this or that needed to be changed, and they would even do it, I would tell them them to "get er done".

Why, because as long as I've already altered the rock by drilling some bolts I figure a few more to make my "sport route" better and safer is a good thing, and my ego isn't so fragile that I can't admitt I messed up on a route.

Caverdude I don't know you but someone who puts these comments in their bio is obviously in need of some ego stroking from someone.

soloed from parking lot in 3hrs to summit. Awesome climb

Onsight solo! Hard snow at bottom, but alpine ice near top. Would recommend roped climbing.

Climbed it in 9.5hrs rt. Descent via NW Ridge. Very exposed climbing freesolo

Dude free soloing WI2 and exposed 4th class is about as out there as buying a latte at Starbucks.

I freesoloed Mt. Hood in 4.5 hours car to car but I did't put that in my bio because it ain't that impressive and I know it. Just saying.

bail biner farm. never heard that term but laughed when i saw it!

it makes sense that if someone is going to put up a sport climb it ought to be safe. i also agree that hairpin turn is a far cry from the reef of rocks or cochise, and that a lot of new climbers go there.

the part that worries me is that if people get together and retrobolt these routes what's to stop other people from retrobolting other routes? for example, let's say that someone wants to add bolts to space cowboy or desire. neither of these are meant to be sport climbs, of course, but i think it's worth pointing out that this could get tricky.

i've long considered the climbs on the left wall to be mixed climbs and stuffed some gear in between bolt placements. maybe one alternative is to list them as mixed climbs in SQL.

Geir wrote:i also agree that hairpin turn is a far cry from the reef of rocks or cochise

True, the bolts are at least twice as far apart as the average Sheepshead route....

Just trying to muddy the ethical waters a bit further :)

Caverdude, when you put these routes up "on lead," did you use a power drill?

Geir wrote: if people get together and retrobolt these routes what's to stop other people from retrobolting other routes?

Bingo !

The idea of scared newbies doesn't bother me at all.

Caverdude did them ground up 20 years ago. For him it was a big enough deal that he wants to leave them in their original state. Hell most routes were done that way. I don't see that it is a big deal. If he had done 10 or 20 the same way then I might agree that he ought to retro bolt some of them. But it is only two routes. Sheeeiit, we put up enough super safe routes these days that who cares.

More importantly Christian wants a new career as a farmer. Don't spoil his dream Jimbo!

1Eric Rhicard wrote:Caverdude did them ground up 20 years ago. For him it was a big enough deal that he wants to leave them in their original state. Hell most routes were done that way. I don't see that it is a big deal. If he had done 10 or 20 the same way then I might agree that he ought to retro bolt some of them. But it is only two routes. Sheeeiit, we put up enough super safe routes these days that who cares. More importantly Christian wants a new career as a farmer. Don't spoil his dream Jimbo!

Eric glad to see you coming out on the side of leaving things in the original state. Admittedly I came to Tucson as an experience climber, I never had a problem finding safe routes to do on the Lemmon.

Jimbo you make a good argument with the rest of the area being all sport, and spot on about the lack of classics. To be honest I really don't care what happens on some little crag along the highway. But as long as it's not an ongoing problem, why not leave things as they are.

Also Jimbo you can check my profile but you won't find much. I only ticked the Cleavland route recently to see how the feature worked. I have climbed a few routes along the highway, including Mean Mistreater, Space Cowboy and others. I always enjoyed the mixed or at lest trad bolted routes over pure sport routes like Chihuahua Power.

Not trying to be the jerk but the title of the thread was what routes need R X warnings not what routes do people want retro bolted. In an area with so many well protected routes how can it hurt to have a couple of old school routes in the mix. Even if its just to have something open when the place if full of noobs.

Adam Block wrote: Man Eric, adding a caveat for every route on Lemmon would be REALLY tough!

For some reason I just can't imagine Eric wearing skinny jeans. And those shoes wouldn't last a day on the job.

People, I have nothing invested in those routes what so ever.

To Geir's point.

The old slippery slope argument is a non starter here. I was not suggesting I or we should start retro bolting any route we feel needs to be safer. I was simple pointing out that a badly protected climb on a cliff full of sport climbs would be improved by added a few bolts.
I found Caverdudes comments on his profile a bit over the top which is why I felt his ego was being hurt by suggesting we change one of his routes. I may have been out of line here, if so I apologize to him and all MP readers.

Eric, sounds like you've talked with Caverdude and ego is involved here.

I also never suggested that any route should ever be altered without the permission of the FAist. (A fully chiseled route being the exception)
I'm trying to convince Caverdude that two of his routes would be better if he would let someone add some bolts. If he says no, then they remain as is, period.

I attempted to personalise by explaining I would have no problems if someone added, subtracted or moved some bolts on one of my sport routes if the climbing community thought it would make the route better. (Of course I've never done a route that wasn't perfect in every way so the idea of someone wanting to change it is strictly for illustrative purposes.)

Killis, I'm not pissing on someones hard work. I was suggesting that perhaps a few routes that many people had complained about could be improved very easily with one or two bolts. Seems like a simple thing.
Also many folks have commented on the unsafe nature of these routes, not just me. Again this has become a newbie sport wall. So in my opinion the routes should be safe for newbies.

Whether he intended it or not, Caverdudes routes have become popular with the newbie crowd. Which is great. I just don't see how adding a few bolts to what is already sport route is such a big deal if it will keep a few newbies out of the hospital.

Now, do any of us who do new routes have a moral or ethical responsibility to make them safe? No, but if you've already drilled 10 holes on a rock face what's the big deal about one more to keep people off the deck.

Nuff said on this subject. Cheers.

Jimbo wrote: (Of course I've never done a route that wasn't perfect in every way so the idea of someone wanting to change it is strictly for illustrative purposes.)

Haha. Perfect. I literally LOLed. Good speech.

Jimbo wrote:Eric, sounds like you've talked with Caverdude and ego is involved here.....(Of course I've never done a route that wasn't perfect in every way so the idea of someone wanting to change it is strictly for illustrative purposes.).....Now, do any of us who do new routes have a moral or ethical responsibility to make them safe? No, but if you've already drilled 10 holes on a rock face what's the big deal about one more to keep people off the deck. Nuff said on this subject. Cheers.

No I never talked with Caverdude but I remember him. There may be some ego there which is rare is this game we play.

Jimbo has never made a mistake while putting up new routes. According to him I am the one who makes the mistakes!

+1 on the llth hole point.