What happened to the Millbrook, Gunks page

Hi Donald -- I read your story on the establishment of Redirectinoalism here. It's a good story of what I consider a proud ascent in good style.

In your words (from the website page): "The goal of the climb had always been to find the finest line, everything else every other line was to be trashed, if not you could have [4 different starts X 4 first over hangs X 4 second overhangs x 6 third overhangs x 3 different finishes = 1152] quite a few different variations keeping you from the perfect line."

Just wondering if you think the other posted routes deserve to be in the same database as that one.

This is hilarious.

Hmm ?
I'm back but given the turn of events and the lunacy of some of the direction this has gone,
I'll choose to hold my comments.

To Michael C - nice,that is you're response to me ?

I sent you a personal guide, I see where you're coming from.

that is just shy of what made the actions of Mr Perry valid.

By all means You should go!
Take him out there Donald!

See if The climbing demands the style . I know it does!

If only this were a troll, it is not. Millbrook, the Cliff is out there waiting
The place is not an easy place to get wired,
it takes at least 5 visits just to get your nose wet.
A year of weekends to know where you are and how to get off the 'Bank' fast.

Un familiar territory to many Gunks climbers, the features are
( continuously Steep , thnx iI was looking for that phrase ).
very different from the High Exposure buttress.for example. Or anything that a place
regularly refered to as the Death ledge has in similarity the party ledge that is the Grand Traverse L.

There is no compacted hang out spot, the ledge can be 6 inches wide - is cracked loose stacked layers some sloping
Almost impossible to recognize,, a handful of spots do exist to have a sort of staging area,
These spots are key To having a 'casual' ' Day' and are not maintained.

Everyone who has played out there more than just a bit , has Top Roped some
have done 1st ascents. On Neerly no gear, and thought about eternity
and the role of the almighty while climbing.

Of course from the time when Fritz came and saw the cliffs
at Mohonk & then went to
Millbrook to assure that his 1st ascent was just that.
The "Bank", Millbrook has been a bold canvas to paint climbing on.
And Donald Perry remains on of the most prolific , painters
(Hans And a Fritz both put in time there, together and separately )

an invetation to climb with Don! . . . ..!!!!! ... Jump on that!

This will be as motivating as the trolls' making fun of my height.
There were a whole generation of 5.12 climbers that put in long hours
Finding cleaning and climbing routes .
We did not all just get along or think that Dick Wiliams in The Gunks or N Sloan in NJ
We're the only people to tell the story of the rock that got climbed.

TV show pitch : "The Real First Ascents of the Gunks"

http://www.mountainproject.com/v/nron-qsr-50-200-6-50-100-60-200--666-tr/112327214

The route names have a very Bon Iver feel hahaha

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/22,_A_Million

SethG wrote:Anyone can go down the cliff, dropping a rope from the top and working the moves on line after line, in a systematic way, giving them all names and listing them. There is nothing wrong with it from an ethical perspective but from a style perspective it leaves much to be desired. Especially at Millbrook, which Goldstone often describes as "the traddest cliff in the country," we ought to value ground-up ascents to enough of a degree that we don't list routes like this.

The point of all of this is to perhaps ask a question of what is mountainproject? Is it fully democratic, an index of whatever any particular user wants to add to the list? If so the end result will look messy, we should accept these entries and move on. On the other side, is MP a quality description of climbing routes in an area, accounting for the standards of style that are specific to the locale? Some of the cliffs in the Shawangunk escarpment then should stay free of everyone's whimsy as to what defines a new climb.

I don't doubt there are some awesome pieces of climbing in there and I'm sure Don that you are very deserving to leave your mark on the history of the place. I question your methods of doing so. As it is I think you dilute your significant legacy by adding a bunch of routes that are not consistent with the more reserved style of Millbrook.

Maybe a compromise would be to pick a few very high quality TR lines that you think are important to share and take the rest down.

History repeating... For reference, there was a long, strange discussion on TR routes that Donald started on gunks.com years ago that should give you more than enough info on this topic. Pro tip: you can gloss over jakedatc posts, at least the first few pages!

Donald wrote:Has the progress of climbing been unnecessarily slowed down? If a new route is freed on top-rope is it a new route gone free? In other words is there any reason to dispute that whatever you can free on second you could have led? Putting in a piece of protection or placing my hand in a crack is the same to me. So why can't I say that whatever ascent I make on top rope is the same as any ascent I make on lead? One might ask, if there is no difference why don't you lead it? Leading takes more time, if there is no cracks then bolts get placed, and is leading often only about the ego than rather than about the climbing? I think this has often been the case with bolts in places where one can toprope. I suppose if it has to do with A4 falls, then there are more questions involved. But if it really has to do with sparse protection perhaps it's not leading anyway. If there really is ultimately no real protection then it's soloing.

And, like some of the posts here:

RangerRob wrote:The thing about calling something a first ascent if it has only been toproped....it just seems like you can hang a toprope literally anywhere you want. So what is stopping us from dropping a line every 4 or 5 feet along the cliff and climbing plumb lines? How many "first ascent" lines can be squeezed into a given section of rock? The same holds true, to a lesser extent, with bolted routes. At some point it all becomes rather absurd.

I hope I'm wrong but it seems the future of climbing are these bolt routes. So maybe 100 years from now these donald perry top rope climbs will become some one else's FA sport climb. Guess he will just have to solo them to get recognized? I don't see why climbing is only good if it's done in the most death defying way. Shouldn't climbing be done as safely as possible? I'm confused why a FA needs to be of TR to be considered a FA. I also don't think his routes look like a 2 year old drawing on a wall, they are there own climbs carefully spaced out. Maybe they need to be climbing by enough people to get into a guide book or somthing. But I'don't have the time to find cool new routes so I'm glad I can search these up and try them.

Comments found on the route "After three days I will rise again."

By Gunkiemike
18 hours ago

200 feet of toprope, albeit stout (5.12). And that makes it Grade V????!!!!!!

How many days did you stay on the wall?

By donald perry
From: New Jersey
16 hours ago

OK, I give up. Does the V stand for grade 5 as in 5:11 and does the V1 stand for aid?, or does it have to do with how many days. I really am for the most part only a cliff climber not a mountain climber, although I have done some big walls. Forgive me for not looking it up.

This made my day! lol...

Betaclimber wrote:I hope I'm wrong but it seems the future of climbing are these bolt routes. So maybe 100 years from now these donald perry top rope climbs will become some one else's FA sport climb. Guess he will just have to solo them to get recognized? I don't see why climbing is only good if it's done in the most death defying way. Shouldn't climbing be done as safely as possible? I'm confused why a FA needs to be of TR to be considered a FA. I also don't think his routes look like a 2 year old drawing on a wall, they are there own climbs carefully spaced out. Maybe they need to be climbing by enough people to get into a guide book or somthing. But I'don't have the time to find cool new routes so I'm glad I can search these up and try them.

Welcome to MTN Project anon new poster.....or are you?

LccClimber wrote: Welcome to MTN Project anon new poster.....or are you?

Exactly. But that's just a technicality. Anyway, he needed some allies. We shouldn't let it stop this incredible thread!

Justin Compton wrote: OK, I give up. Does the V stand for grade 5 as in 5:11 and does the V1 stand for aid?, or does it have to do with how many days. I really am for the most part only a cliff climber not a mountain climber, although I have done some big walls. Forgive me for not looking it up.

It was at this point, along with the pic of him standing ALONE in front of a jeep labeled "that's me, in the white shirt" that I decided this is one elaborate trollfest and we've all been duped. Well played playa, well played.

LccClimber wrote: It was at this point, along with the pic of him standing ALONE in front of a jeep labeled "that's me, in the white shirt" that I decided this is one elaborate trollfest and we've all been duped. Well played playa, well played.

I dunno, man. Look at the old gunks.com forums for Donald Perry

This thread is getting ugly. I think people need to chill out. There is no need to bring in person's personal beliefs that are irrelevant to the discussion as attack fodder no matter that you may not share them. It is like watching a pack of dogs trying to get their bite in. Over some route entries with mislabeled ratings that can easily be corrected or whether a TR is an ascent, really? Personally I think it should be locked and let the administrator for the area help fix the entries up.

LuckyLuke?

M Sprague wrote:There is no need to bring in person's personal beliefs that are irrelevant to the discussion as attack fodder no matter that you may not share them.

I'm guessing this is referencing my link to his website? I debated including it but it turned up from him in one of the previous RC.com or gunks.com discussions when I was looking for the thread Donald posted on TR ascents. It did feel a little off to re-link it for him, hence the debate, but I didn't think Donald would mind. There were a few questions on the naming of his climbs and their religious nature, or even if he is just trolling. I thought that link was specifically discussing what he means by "Redirectionalism", for example. And to show that Donald has been around for a while and seems sincere, not a troll.

At any rate, I removed the link in case it was generally being seen as an attack.

MojoMonkey wrote: I'm guessing this is referencing my link to his website?

Not solely. There were other comments, some in an admin thread running parallel to this. I'm personally rather critical of a lot of religious beliefs and think religion should be put to the critique, but in context. If it is just being used to be mean to somebody or tweak somebody who may have issues, I think that is getting towards jerk territory. My 2 cents to help keep our community somewhat civil.

I've been trying to keep an open mind since these entries first started popping up but this is just getting more and more whacky!

1) TR's, while a valid style of climbing (and possibly worth recording) are not "FA's" to which you attach your name. This simply defies all convention in climbing.

2) Climbs that are "full of hand holds and foot holds that break off", where "there is nowhere to put any protection", that "have loose rocks", are "under a sea of lichen", and have never been climbed by anyone but the submitter are not 4-Star Classics.

3) Submissions with more errors than fact - misuse of FA info, stars, grades (V?), protection ratings (X-rated TR's?), pitch counts (on routes that have never been led and pitched out?), and most of all vague directions and descriptions full of grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors - might be better posted to a personal blog rather than Mountain Project.

No offense meant to donald perry and Betaclimber (are you Donald's son? I seem to remember reading somewhere that you two climbed together often and did a few 5.hard FA's (on lead) at Millbrook (which, incidentally, I would like to see posted)).

Loving this thread, though!

M Sprague wrote:Personally I think it should be locked and let the administrator for the area help fix the entries up.

I would be interested to hear how other folks from the gunks community feel about these as ascents.

The reason many Wikipedia pages are so good and so organized is that administrators work hard to make the entries useful for the entire community. When you make an entry you should realize that it is a contribution, not property. Wikipedia (and MP route descriptions) are not your own blog / website.

Josh Janes wrote:1) TR's, while a valid style of climbing (and possibly worth recording) are not "FA's" to which you attach your name. This simply defies all convention in climbing. 2) Climbs that are "full of hand holds and foot holds that break off", where "there is nowhere to put any protection", that "have loose rocks", are "under a sea of lichen", and have never been climbed by anyone but the submitter are not 4-Star Classics. 3) Submissions with more errors than fact - misuse of FA info, stars, grades (V?), protection ratings (X-rated TR's?), pitch counts (on routes that have never been led and pitched out?), and most of all vague directions and descriptions full of grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors - might be better posted to a personal blog rather than Mountain Project.

Hence, the reactions in this thread.