Retro-Development in Idyllwild

Jake Jones wrote:

So we should just take your word that you have personally talked to every climber that climbs there, and you and only you know what the majority opinion is.  Got it.  Sounds logical.

I said a minority is on MP. How many people do you think climb in Idy? More than twice the number of people posting in this thread, I can tell you that.

Also, I do not care what the majority opinion is because people are irrational and indifferent. Hence, Trump.

Tradiban wrote:

Also, I do not care what the majority opinion is because it is different than mine.  Even though I asked for your opinion.

Fixed that for you.

Mike Womack wrote:

I'll throw out a couple hypothetical questions/scenarios out there to get some input cause I'm genuinely curious:   Imagine a sport climb in a well protected sport climbing area where the 2nd clip is just out of the reach from the good jug and you have to climb the first couple crux moves before making a super strenuous and dangerous clip.  Climbers start thinking, "man, I wish that bolt was just 1 foot lower", and the FA party either totally agrees or doesn't realize that's an issue but once he learns about it- totally agrees.  Then retro-bolting that one bolt seems ok, right?

What about if there's a 80 foot route in Idy and everything is protected fine except for the crux that has a really nasty fall.  Climbers get scared and it only get's climbed a couple times before the negative hype sits in and it becomes covered in dirt, spider webs, and lichen.  When approached to the FA, they say, "yeah, I probably should have added a bolt to that spot, I just didn't for whatever reason...".  Then is it ok to add?  It's safe to say that FA party just did not do a great job, it happens here and there, right?

I mean what if a guy wants to be a jerk and goes to a developing area and does an FA by putting 1 bolt in the middle of a 80 foot 5.11 route that he can easily do but many other's can't just to say F-U to the community?...  I've never heard of this happening, but he, as the FA, could say "no don't touch my route" just in spite. 

These are obviously hypothetical scenarios like I mentioned, but it proves to me that adding/correcting bolts isn't always bad and should be treated on a case by case basis with community consensus.  On the other hand, Tradiban, what if one of these climbs you're thinking of is a mental testpiece to a handful of people?   Maybe it's their local Bachar/Yerian?  I think it's healthy when climbing areas have some R-rated routes in there.  Just take a look at south crack on stately pleasure dome.  If someone threw a bolt on one of the runout faces, then the personality of climb would change dramatically. 

I think the safest thing would be to take each climb you're wanted to retro-bolt and analyze why it was bolted the way it is, get the FA's buy-in, local communities buy-in, and then carefully act on that.  

This isn't about any of that. Natural R rated routes make perfect sense, I enjoy them but these climbs are unnaturally R rated. 

FrankPS wrote:

Why did you even ask, if you don't like the responses? 

This ^ is the existential question of almost every MP question thread.

Jake Jones wrote:

Translation:  There are more people that climb there than people in this thread, but that doesn't matter because I think I'm superior to what a majority would think anyway, so I'll just do what I want.

Cool.

Then why solicit opinions?  Just get your Hilti or your hand drill or whatever and go to town.  But at least post your real name so we'll know that you at least don't lack the courage of your convictions.  

Yes I was curious about what people would say but that doesn't mean I care about or respect their opinion. Why is this so hard to understand?

Jake Jones wrote:

What, in your superior opinion, is a "natural R rated route"?

One that doesn't have an obvious bolting stance in the R section. 

Run-out slabs are the name of the game in IDY. They're not really my thing, I raraely have an appetite for them.

That said it's probably the best use of that resource as most the routes would be much less interesting if they were safe.

Maybe they're not for you either?

Sport-o-ban?

Jake Jones wrote:

Dude, just so happens that one of the FFAs is an honorary member of the Board of Directors of the Access Fund!  

You're in luck!  Not dead, and not difficult to get in touch with!  Go get 'em tiger!  

Now you can tell him that his route would be greatly improved and would be climbed more if it had just that one bolt that he clearly missed from a stance.  

Jake, use your listening ears. Relying on the FA for determination is a dead end policy for reasons stated above. I won't and don't have to ask their permission nor do I really care who the FA is in the first place as they were just the first swinging dick to come along.

Tradiban wrote:

 I won't and don't have to ask their permission nor do I really care who the FA is in the first place as they were just the first swinging dick to come along.

So then why are you still hashing it out on this thread!? Why did you even start this thread!? 

Go do your thing

Tradiban wrote:

Jake, use your listening ears. Relying on the FA for determination is a dead end policy for reasons stated above. I won't and don't have to ask their permission nor do I really care who the FA is in the first place as they were just the first swinging dick to come along.

Speaking of "dead end policies," think of all that work you go through to add bolts, only to have them chopped.  Not to mention your waste of money on hardware.

Since you don't have to ask permission to add bolts, no one else needs permission to remove them!

So, I'm AM curious. If you're asking but don't care the answer, wouldn't you have been better off just to go throw a few discreet bolts on a few obscure routes and not publicize it.?Just let the traffic find its way there?

I don't really have a dog in this fight either way but it seems like you're just challenging someone to go out and look for new bolts to chop.

Tradiban wrote:

Frankly, I probably won't get around to this in the near future but if any dirty bags have got some gumption, I've got the info.

Objections? Encouragement? Banter?

So you don't care what anyone says... these routes are SO good... it's such a good idea... blah blah blah

Can't be that good if You're not gonna get around to it...

The best thing to come outta this thread is 

Sporto-ban! Haha.. 

At this point trolloban would be more accurate. You guys have blinders on or something? Walk away from the computer 

jay2718 wrote:

At its core, climbing is just an adult version the "I can go where you can't" game kids play. There are two ways to win: either be stronger or be bolder than everyone else, or a combination of both.  First Ascensionists are and were always keenly aware of this (e.g., see Climb!, 1977). Consider Derrell Hensel's aptly named route "Someone you're not". Putting up hard routes, and/or bold routes was and is a path to recognition in the climbing community. Unrepeated climbing, alpine, and even gym routes are something of a prize for the FA. Tobin Sorenson was notoriously bold, and the same year Accomazzo and Sorenson put up "The Passover", they were also involved in putting up "SuperFly". Clearly they were capable and interested in playing the bold game--I seriously doubt SuperFly got or gets many repeats. This tradition is steeped in so many Idyllwild routes--you are supposed to want some gear at the top of Mickey Mantle, and just about every route on the Sunshine Face and Weeping wall etc. The absence of bolts is a message from the FA party that it's not needed. If a climber thinks otherwise, that's all about themselves, and their own physical and psychological fitness at the time. When you are up for it, those run-outs seem doable, if not, keep training. That is why it is reasonable for the FA to effectively "claim the rock forever".

jay2718......   hi. FYI SuperFly gets done all the time. Its really common- when your rapping off of the weeping wall and sitting at the bolts- just downclimb a bit- do "the mantle of no-return" to get on top of Piasano then run and jump back... Thats SuperFly.  

The OP is clearly TROLLING, will not use real name. Why bother feeding?

I just realized something, The Passover would just be a variation added. I'm going to go straight up not left like the FA. So we're good to go on that one, yes?

Good to go! ... looking forward to the GoPro footage.

While you’re at it can you place a bolt at the crux of Etude (#donttrustpins) and Valhalla (the 5.9 runout on moondance too if you have time). Those routes would be frickin awesome (instant classics!) if they weren’t so commiting!

Jake Jones wrote:

LMAO.  Why are you even asking?  Like you'd care if we weren't?  

Asking for a friend.

Bolting a new variation is ok right? Adding a bolt to an existing line, even from a stance, not ok? This is y'all's opinion?

The Tradiban is not a person, it's a movement inspired by and against pig-headed Western elitists. Come join us and enjoy true freedom.

DannyJ wrote:

While you’re at it can you place a bolt at the crux of Etude (#donttrustpins) and Valhalla (the 5.9 runout on moondance too if you have time). Those routes would be frickin awesome (instant classics!) if they weren’t so commiting!

You must first swear your allegiance to the Tradiban. 

Tradiban wrote:

You must first swear your allegiance to the Tradiban. 

All hail The Tradiban! First rule of Tradiban: don’t ask permission from the FAs.