Bolt chopping

Slartibartfast wrote: It's extremely rare because I wanted an extreme example. In your opinion, does it change matters if the FA puts up a mixed route with a huge runout that he protected either not at all or with lousy gear? How about a stellar, 100 foot 5.8 that is too poorly protected for 97% of leaders, but would make an incredible top-rope that could be enjoyed by many, if only the FA would be nice enough to let somebody set some anchors? Both problems could be fixed with 2 well-placed bolts, but too often, in real life, such contributions to the community are stonewalled by someone who thinks that, because he got there first, he gets to impose his personal ethic on everyone who comes after. To me, that's not ethical, it's elitist. And yes, I'd say that bolts most definitely do save lives. Cure for cancer? Maybe not. They may even create a false sense of security in those too dense to educate themselves beyond "climb, clip, climb, clip". But that is a user error, not a product failure. Should we teach 16 year olds to drive without a seatbelt because it will make them more careful? Again, I'm not saying that every route out there should be grid-bolted, nor are we talking specifically about backcountry wilderness areas that must be totally preserved in a natural state; the topic at hand is "what's up with bolt choppers." My problem with choppers and the "FA calls the shots forever" attitude is that, on many routes, an extra bolt or two could add safety, contribute to the community by allowing more people to enjoy the route, and would harm absolutely no living creature. No one is forcing you to climb a route just because it's there, but no one is forcing you to clip a bolt just because it's there, either. Why can't choppers just climb past a bolt if they really want to prove it's not necessary. I can understand if we are talking about a pristine wilderness that is totally undeveloped for a reason, but, outside of that, I think a chopper should need far more support and confirmation from the local community than a bolter.

You are not saying anything new. Literally nothing you or anyone else has said this entire thread has not been said hundreds of times before.

Oops, except for the "if you don't like the bolt just don't clip it" part. Never heard that one before. Brilliant insight.

Slartibartfast, can you show us a few examples of this mythical ultra classic but very poorly protected 5.8 route? Just one or two? Please?

That'd be great.

Slartibartfast wrote: It's extremely rare because I wanted an extreme example.

So its extremely rare?

Slartibartfast wrote: but too often, in real life, such contributions to the community are stonewalled by someone who thinks that.....

No, wait, wait. The "extremely rare" example happens too often?

Alexander Blum wrote:Slartibartfast, can you show us a few examples of this mythical ultra classic but very poorly protected 5.8 route? Just one or two? Please? That'd be great.

Double Cross (5.7), Joshua Tree. My guidebook mentions several people having been hospitalized as a result of trying to lead it.

David Gibbs wrote: Double Cross (5.7), Joshua Tree. My guidebook mentions several people having been hospitalized as a result of trying to lead it.

So the guidebook warns of the danger, yet people choose to get on it anyway. Hmmm.

1 in 10 die attempting to climb Everest. Yet, thousands try ever year. Maybe we should install a tram.

David Gibbs wrote: Double Cross (5.7), Joshua Tree. My guidebook mentions several people having been hospitalized as a result of trying to lead it.

And there's nothing else safe nearby for an up and coming 5.7 trad leader to hop on, right? A quick look at JTree on this site revealed a smorgasbord of options. The same old, tired, arguments with no basis in reality. This has all been rehashed so many times I was tempted to copy and paste the appropriate replies from one of the billion other threads on this topic.

Ultra Classics That need bolts that are 5.8 mountainproject.com/v/needl…
mountainproject.com/v/patie…

Ultra classic that no one will climb now
mountainproject.com/v/barbe…

Lowest common denominator is a bolt every 4 feet, right? Yeah let's do that. Maybe we can get Mickey and Minnie to sign autographs for the kiddos at the base of the climbs also. Plus, id love to replace the Nose on El Cap with a tram or gandola. That way my Meemaw can enjoy the route as much as I do. Because everybody, regardless of their tolerance for risk and adventure, should be able to experience the exact same things that I do. These 'improvements' in no way alter my enjoyment of the routes, do they?

Greg D wrote: Since this is an extremely rare occurrence, it really adds little to this discussion.

Not actually a rare occurrence at all, I can think of half a dozen climbs at my local crag that are reportedly excellent but virtually no one leads because the first ascensionist got two or three shitty micros and called it good. By modern standards they should be sport climbs, but no one will retro-bolt them for fear of starting a chop war.

This basic argument has played out many times, but for good reason, the issue has never been settled. The notion of dibs is a bit childish, but we are all terrified of our classic crack climbs getting bolted. Are R and X rated routes in popular areas justified, or should the majority, who want well protected climbs, rule? It comes does to what climbing is really about - having fun or scaring yourself shitless? (and what i believe is revealed by how i phrased that).
We keep having these debates because no one has any good answers.

Actually there is a very simple answer that some can not accept: The acceptance of things not having to be all or nothing according to one's own opinion.

Let there be scary run out trad routes in some places.

Let there be clinically safe bolted sport routes in other places.

Something for everyone.

Diversity is good and allows everyone some choice.

mountainhick wrote:Diversity is good and allows everyone some choice.

Agreed, but I think there are two debates that happen anytime someone mentions bolts.

1) should the person who got the FA have finals say over the protection used on the route or should it be up to the local community?

2) is there a place for very dangerous routes in very popular areas?

To me the first question is hard to answer but more often than not the person who got the FA is supported by the community and it isn't too problematic. The second question gets the more annoying people in the climbing community all fired up. I think there is a place for dangerous routes in popular areas because popular areas are popular regardless of the few X rated routes. The a-holes go on a tirade about how climbing is dangerous and should stay that way, blah blah blah. While climbing is dangerous and there should be entire crags for super sketchy climbs, these people need to chill out and realize climbing is becoming more commercial and part of that is that it will get more safe as standard. If you don't like your sport becoming more main stream, that is a separate issue.

Jacob Smith wrote: . By modern standards they should be sport climbs, but no one will retro-bolt them for fear of starting a chop war.

Lets be clear about the definition of "modern standards" which is neither.

Today, there is a growing number of climbers that begin in the gym. Lets calll him Schmomosapien or Schmo for short. Often, this Schmo will climb well beyond his skill level by simply yelling take at most every bolt. Stand up, clip, take, rest. This is not leading, but instead just complex top roping. Using this tactic a new Schmo may be "leading" (not really) 5.11 or 5.12 in no time.. Take this same pathetic tactic outside and you see Schmo doing this same thing on sport routes.

But now this Schmo want to climbs a route that is protected by micro nuts. He has little experience placing gear and even less falling on gear. Now he wants to climb it like a Schmo but he can't because of inexperience. He has two choices. Walk away and gain the necessary skill and experience that will allow him to come back and climb it in the future. Or remain a Schmo and advocate bolts where his skills fall short.

In short, the term modern standard is used by those that have a limited skill set and have not developed metal and tactical skills but feel they should have the opportunity to climb every route out there.

Don't be a Schmo.

Ditto what Greg D said.

Greg D wrote: Lets be clear about the definition of "modern standards" which is neither. Today, there is a growing number of climbers that begin in the gym. Lets calll him Schmomosapien or Schmo for short. Often, this Schmo will climb well beyond his skill level by simply yelling take at most every bolt. Stand up, clip, take, rest. This is not leading, but instead just complex top roping. Using this tactic a new Schmo may be "leading" (not really) 5.11 or 5.12 in no time.. Take this same pathetic tactic outside and you see Schmo doing this same thing on sport routes. But now this Schmo want to climbs a route that is protected by micro nuts. He has little experience placing gear and even less falling on gear. Now he wants to climb it like a Schmo but he can't because of inexperience. He has two choices. Walk away and gain the necessary skill and experience that will allow him to come back and climb it in the future. Or remain a Schmo and advocate bolts where his skills fall short. In short, the term modern standard is used by those that have a limited skill set and have not developed metal and tactical skills but feel they should have the opportunity to climb every route out there. Don't be a Schmo.

Although I technically agree w/ your point, that those kinds of tactics are ridiculous and translate very poorly to trad climbing, I disagree entirely w/ your premise, that there are an increasing number of climbers doing this because of gyms.
All of the strongest climbers I know got started in the gym, guys that aren't afraid to run it out on 5.11-12 terrain, who climb until they whip regularly. In my experience, an aversion to climbing gyms makes for nothing but poor finger strength and a weak lead head.
People talking about the "new generation" who grew up in gyms always bugs me - all of the strongest rock climbers today (I honestly can't think of a single exception) started as gym climbers.

Greg D wrote: So its extremely rare? No, wait, wait. The "extremely rare" example happens too often?

Reading comprehension, kiddo.

If you care, are interested, or even just like conversation, reread my post. Otherwise, why participate?

Remember, this conversation isn't about if bolts are bad, but why people chop. My feelings are that someone who takes a unilateral decision, be it a FA who claims to have the final word or a chopper who doesn't think long and hard before destroying someone else's work, has overinflated the value of his opinions and personal "ethics".

People chop.... cause the bolt was added later.... don't mess with routes.

I don't know of any other good reason to remove bolts.

I cast you all out as complete leopards.

Guy Keesee wrote:People chop.... cause the bolt was added later.... don't mess with routes. I don't know of any other good reason to remove bolts.

But is even that always a good enough reason? What if the bolt SHOULD have been added, but the FA didn't worry about it that day, refuses to consider it now,or can't be contacted to give his permission? If any other FA would have placed a bolt there and eliminated the issue, why should the community refuse to progress out of respect for a standard that has no logical basis?

To those looking for examples of my mythical, poorly protectable, but classic 5.8, I think any classic R/X rated route in the world could fairly be considered. And before anyone gets upset, I said CONSIDERED.

Slartibartfast wrote: Reading comprehension, kiddo. If you care, are interested, or even just like conversation, reread my post. Otherwise, why participate?

My apologies. I just started reading last year. I read my first book 6 months ago. It was 510 pages long. Last month I read my first 511 page book. I hope to read one that is 512 pages long next week. Every book I have read had really big words that were easy to grasp. I just started reading outside of books and ventured into the Internet. I find some of the reading difficult to understand since I don't have much experience.

Could you please use modern standards when writing. Adding commas, paragraphs, tone and inflection would make it safer and easier for me to read and allow others to enjoy too.