Dear Douche, (Otto's Route, Independence Monument, Chopped)
|
But wait, if you love 'Murica more than John Otto and you chop his ladder, does that not make it right? |
|
John Wilder wrote: Routes are a picture of a moment in time. Which is why I think that this incident bothers people so much- when they climb it, they marvel at the ridiculous approach that the FA took and wonder what it must have been like to try and do a desert tower so long ago without any modern equipment. That's why this route is special.Thank you for answering my question. |
|
Rob T wrote: Otto's Route went up in 1911, the compressor didn't get hauled up until 1970. Amongst the many differences between these routes, the key one to your argument was the prevailing attitude of the climbing community at the time. There wasn't one to speak of at the time of Otto's ascent, while Maestri's was an intentional slap at his detractors in one hell of a hissy fit b/c they doubted his previous ascent. There was no desert climbing community at the turn of the last century, the next significant tower ascent didn't occur until Kor and Ingalls did Castleton 50 years later. Had Otto put up his route at that point, i would totally understand this kind of action, but the two are only comparable to those ignorant of the history of climbing in their respective regions.This is a silly discussion, but entertaining (and I'm bored and slightly injured), so I'll jump in. I agree with what Rob said. Routes should be judged by the standard of their day, not by modern standards. When Otto's Route went up, there was no standard, since climbing basically didn't exist, so anything was fair game. Even for routes that aren't 100 years old, I think it is best to judge them by the standard of their era, like for pin scarred routes from the 50s and even chipped sport routes from the 80s. They are period pieces, connections to "how things were done back then." They also are the stepping stones that led us to the modern ethic. Climbing practices have developed through a trial and error process, and the "errors" of the past can be seen and enjoyed in a positive way. The practice of judging routes by the appropriate historical standard goes the other way too. If a route was unacceptable by the standard of its day, and also unacceptable by modern standards, then it is appropriate to negatively judge that route. This applies to the Compressor Route. Interestingly, we have decided to give amnesty to routes that were unacceptable by the standard of the day, but acceptable by modern standards (like early rap-bolted routes). Sometimes we even call those routes "visionary". Maybe we should rethink this perspective? |
|
Has any one been up there to veryify that it was chopped and some one is not just having a laugh at an ethics debate. |
|
martinharris wrote:Has any one been up there to veryify that it was chopped and some one is not just having a laugh at an ethics debate.+1, this smells like troll. Is there anyone in the area who can verify? |
|
JCM wrote: When Otto's Route went up, there was no standard, since climbing basically didn't exist, so anything was fair game.I definitely understand everyone's points, and these are all things I too have considered. I was just trying to hopefully start a friendly conversation. I know this is an apples to oranges kind of thing, but I don't think its necessarily fair to say that there "was no standard, because climbing basically didn't exist" I'm certainly no climbing historian, but in Europe people were climbing very ethically minded for at least 40 years before Otto's route went up. When Jones did the Kern Knotts Crack in 1897, despite the fact he free climbed the thing without fixed pro people were upset that he inspected the route first and used an ice axe to gain the start of the crack! When Paul Preuss put his climbs up in 1910, not only did he not place pitons out of principal, but he refused to clip any pins placed by other people as he didnt consider that climbing the mountain "by fair means" (one of the first "you-dont-like-it-you-dont-clip-it" arguments we see all the time even today!) In 1906 Oliver-Perry Smith climbed The Teufelsturm (5.10ish) without cutting steps in. Granted, I know, 1870s-1920s European climbing =/= American desert tower climbing, but it's still interesting to note that somewhere in the world at that time, "clean climbing" ethics did exist in its early forms. All that being said, I still think what happened to the Monument is regrettable. I just also like playing devils advocate from time to time ;) |
|
martinharris wrote:Has any one been up there to veryify that it was chopped and some one is not just having a laugh at an ethics debate. .I don't think anyone is debating anything. It sounds to me that everyone is saying the same things. But it would be nice to know for sure if the route really has been ruined |
|
JCM wrote: Climbing practices have developed through a trial and error process, and the "errors" of the past can be seen and enjoyed in a positive way.Couldn't agree more |
|
JCM wrote: Interestingly, we have decided to give amnesty to routes that were unacceptable by the standard of the day, but acceptable by modern standards (like early rap-bolted routes). Sometimes we even call those routes "visionary". Maybe we should rethink this perspective?Interesting question. However, if we automatically erase any act that fails to conform to the current standard, how can climbing ever evolve? Heretics are a necessary part of growth and progress in any endeavor. Some will be reviled by history, and some will be revered. Jardine's "vision" for a free route on El Cap was a mistake. Skinner & Piana's vision paved the way for our generation. Both approaches were scorned by the establishment climbers of their day. |
|
It appears that this is just a troll. But, a good discussion nonetheless. |
|
1) this must be a troll, and it's a funny one. |
|
This post violated Rule #1. It has been removed by Mountain Project.
|
|
Pretty sure June 14th 1911 is the date John Otto put the flag atop independence monument. I suppose it's possible that the actual first ascent would have been some time earlier but probably not 5 years earlier. If in fact the route as been altered that is sad for the people who were not able to see the labor and work that went into Otto's ascent. I agree, that while an ascent in that fashion would not be accepted today, it was a huge achievement a 100+ years ago given the time period and the climbing equipment available. I hope this is all just a joke. |
|
Who the hell and how the hell would anyone "fill in" the chopped holds? This has to be fake. |
|
Otto's was an abomination , just like any chipped route out there. |
|
Doug Lintz wrote:Who the hell and how the hell would anyone "fill in" the chopped holds?This is a good question! The rock at the top is so sugary and the holds so rounded that I think you'd need to sink some rebar or something to get the cement to adhere. |
|
Peter Blank wrote:I'm sure this violates rule whateverthefuck but Bill C. is kind of a douche.Not sure how I am a douche when I've been agreeing with the masses that the route should not have been altered... I guess its impossible to ask hypothetical questions on the internet without everyone thinking I have some kind of anti-Otto agenda. |
|
saguaro sandy wrote:Otto's was an abomination , just like any chipped route out there.Get outa here Elenor you're just going to make me look worse! haha |
|
I was at the base of the route a few days ago but was unable to climb due to weather. |
|
Andrew Bisharat wrote:Which just goes to show that the "stealing from the future" argument against chipping is fuking dumb and should be put to resti think that argument usually applies to extremely difficult climbs, which there are relatively few of |