Retro-Development in Idyllwild

Tradiban wrote:

This "ruining" you are speaking of is in the eye of the beholder. The route was "ruined" during the FA when good pro was skipped making the route a shit show that nobody climbs.

So what? That was their choice. Ignore the route if you don't like the pro.

Tradiban wrote:

This "ruining" you are speaking of is in the eye of the beholder. The route was "ruined" during the FA when good pro was skipped making the route a shit show that nobody climbs.

Wait, did you just conflate "not drilling a bolt" to "skipping good pro"... because bravo sir, such mastery of the trolling arts is seldom seen!

Marc801 C wrote:

So what? That was their choice. Ignore the route if you don't like the pro.

Just pointing out that Tradi's point is rather than letting a badly bolted route ruin a good climb, fix the bolting so that the climb actually gets climbed. Carry on.

Marc801 C wrote:

So what? That was their choice. Ignore the route if you don't like the pro.

To choose to make a route dangerous on purpose is irrational and reckless.

Ryan Maitland wrote:

This thread really has it all.

Since the OP seems to be dazzled by charts, here is another to add to the mix:

Since we are taking about numbers...

Number of fucks given by The Tradiban regarding the FA or "consensus" equals zero.

A real consensus is impossible to obtain and FAs are eventually gone making that idea a dead end.

Tradiban wrote:

Where is this "consensus" being taken from? The one or two votes on MP? That's not a consensus and this concept is the entire point of this thread.

But there has been a consensus because much of it happened before you where born or paying attention doesn't mean that it didn't happen, you have consistently framed your point like it was you against a couple of locales, when the idea of respect for the style of a 1st accent is nationwide and sport wide, goes back decades and has been hashed over numerous times and continues to brought up and looked at. It is an idea that has stood the test of time to both preserve style and to preserve rock. (I am sure those folks climbing in the Elbe valley would welcome some of you enlightenment and save a few bolts for English grit stone while your at it) If you are going to whine about something at least you can develop a knowledge and perspective that sees at least a little bit past the length of your nose. 

Tradiban wrote:

A real consensus is impossible to obtain and FAs are eventually gone making that idea a dead end.

Considering it's been said that one of the FAists in question is in fact still alive and still puttering around, I'm going to start using this logic with my girlfriend when we fight about monogamy, 

"Well, would you want me to never date again if you were to die and I was still alive?" 

"Of course not! I want you to be happy if I'm dead and you're still alive. But if I'm alive you better keep your power drill in your pants!"

"Well, everyone dies eventually, so you'll die eventually, so the idea of respecting your wishes while you're alive is just a dead end."

Tradiban wrote:

To choose to make a route dangerous on purpose is irrational and reckless.

Climbing is inherently irrational [and reckless most non-climbers would argue].  Climbing a rock?  Why?  For what purpose?

Safe climbs allow more people to climb the route.  I get it, I like safe climbs too.

I also like some risk in my climbing.  You saying that any climb that has risk should be retrobolted so more people can climb it?  That doesnt make any sense.  If you follow that pathway, you are also stuck with gear being more dangerous and prone to pulling than clipping bolts, in which case we may as well just bolt cracks.  You are literally telling Gritstone [England] that they are doing it all wrong.  Climbing is about different styles, simply put.  Variety is the spice of life, and climbing.

If I were to condense your arguments, it is that routes should have no risk or danger, so they can be safe and more people climb them.  I vehemently disagree because I think that there should be climbs with different characteristics, including risk and danger for sheer variety, challenge, and providing people a different type of climbing.

Jake Jones wrote:

Why is it so important that it gets climbed?  Can someone answer that for me?  I still have yet to hear an answer on why it is so important that a route you didn't establish gets climbed more.  Are you just so much of a climbing philanthropist that seeing other people enjoy themselves safely really gets you going?  I honestly don't get it.  What do you care?  It's not your FA.  It has no bearing on you whatsoever.  That is the underlying point of this thread.  

Adding a bolt(s) serves the ego of the person that added it.  Nothing more.  "Look what I did!  I made a good (meaning a more protectable) route out of one that was scary!  I did a service for the community at large!"  The problem with this mentality is that you open the door with precedent.  Once you say "ok, fine" then anyone that thinks that a route is too run out or can lead to injury can say "well, look what was done at XYZ.  We should add bolts."  Then that same mentality can be applied elsewhere as well.  "Oh man, I really like climbing thin cracks, but the pro is just so SMALL, and it could rip if (god forbid I haven't mastered my craft of placing small gear and picking good placements).  Let's add a few bolts to an otherwise protectable route.  You know, to make it safer.  You know, so more people will climb it."  It's a backward argument with more wrong with it than right.  To some, bolts every 10-12 feet is run out on a "sport" route.  Should they be given the green light to go add bolts to it?  And if not, why not?  Where's the line?  What's the defining criteria?  What space between bolts or injury potential is acceptable or unacceptable?  To some, a 30ft fall where you could bust an ankle is more risk than they're willing to take.  So your answer is that we should add more fixed pro just so that route gets climbed more?  Stop a minute and consider that.  

There are plenty of "unsafe" routes out there.  Since when was the primary concern of someone that doesn't and hasn't established any routes to make routes safer to ensure that they get more traffic?  I just don't get the argument of "it needs to get climbed more".  No, it doesn't.  If we start making everything safe, it's a mistake.  Have you been to crags with lines that climb really nice and are generously bolted?  I have.  It's a goddamned shitshow.  You want safe, grab your drill and find a chunk of rock to develop your own line.  Put bolts every five feet if you want.  It'll surely get climbed by tons of people.  And I'll disagree with people that say it's an eyesore bolt ladder should have half the bolts chopped.  The vision and effort of the FA should be left as it is no matter what style it was put up.  Rap bolt it, hand drill it on lead, idgaf.  But once it's there, leave it alone.  

For someone with the name "Tradiban" you sure seem hellbent on ignoring an important and long-standing tradition.

Maybe the tradition of leaving bold lines bold, will, idk, force people to slowly and incrementally accept risk as they build their skill set and have something toward which to work.  Or, you know, we could just bolt everything and watch climbers hang dog shit they're years away from sending while we all get tans waiting in line and eagerly anticipate the Instagram pics.

TLDR but to answer paragraph one the route should be fixed so that more people can enjoy it. So, yes, Im that much of a climbing philanthropist.

beensandbagged wrote:

But there has been a consensus because much of it happened before you where born or paying attention doesn't mean that it didn't happen, you have consistently framed your point like it was you against a couple of locales, when the idea of respect for the style of a 1st accent is nationwide and sport wide, goes back decades and has been hashed over numerous times and continues to brought up and looked at. It is an idea that has stood the test of time to both preserve style and to preserve rock. (I am sure those folks climbing in the Elbe valley would welcome some of you enlightenment and save a few bolts for English grit stone while your at it) If you are going to whine about something at least you can develop a knowledge and perspective that sees at least a little bit past the length of your nose. 

Did ya know, it was once tradition to own humans?

Pete Spri wrote:

Climbing is inherently irrational [and reckless most non-climbers would argue].  Climbing a rock?  Why?  For what purpose?

Safe climbs allow more people to climb the route.  I get it, I like safe climbs too.

I also like some risk in my climbing.  You saying that any climb that has risk should be retrobolted so more people can climb it?  That doesnt make any sense.  If you follow that pathway, you are also stuck with gear being more dangerous and prone to pulling than clipping bolts, in which case we may as well just bolt cracks.  You are literally telling Gritstone [England] that they are doing it all wrong.  Climbing is about different styles, simply put.  Variety is the spice of life, and climbing.

If I were to condense your arguments, it is that routes should have no risk or danger, so they can be safe and more people climb them.  I vehemently disagree because I think that there should be climbs with different characteristics, including risk and danger for sheer variety, challenge, and providing people a different type of climbing.

You missed the main part of all of this. Im proposing adding bolts within the style of which the climbs were put up in, and in some cases better style then they were put up in. Hence, "retro-development".

Any moron that retro-bolts a Bob Kamps route should be laughed out of climbing and added bolts chopped.

You can replace any existing bolts you want with better quality hardware.

But you are not welcome to erase Southern California climbing history.

Dylan B. wrote:

Very interesting. I do sympathize with both sides of this argument. I think that being open to "retro development" of a route can set a precedent in an area that can cause bolts to end up on routes they shouldn't be on. Also, I think there are some routes in Idy that can be improved. The proper way to do this is to ask the first ascensionist, but if this isn't possible I think there should be an alternative without people having to get their pitch-forks out. That being said, I think replacing existing bolts on a number of routes up there would serve the climbing community much better and with less controversy. Hair Lip, South Arete, and several routes on Flinstone Slab could definitely use some replacement. 

I've climbed several times with Tradiban and he is a phenomenal climber with a real passion for climbing in Idyllwild - more so than anyone I've met up there. He serves the climbing community up there by posting up tons of route pages for the area, gives great advice to anyone asking about the area on MP (also warns about potential death blocks), and climbs with lots of different people of varying skill levels up in Idy. He's even helped out in a couple rescues. Contrary to his trolling he isn't going to go on a bender and throw a bolt-ladder through the crux of Valhalla

Also, WHAT ABOUT THE BACHAR-YERIAN??? WHAT ABOUT HAYDEN KENNEDY CHOPPING THE COMPRESSOR ROUTE??? LOCALS ONLY. 

Tradiban wrote:

To choose to make a route dangerous on purpose is irrational and reckless.

FFS, like I and others have said, the routes in question were not intentionally made dangerous on purpose.

Jake Jones wrote:

Holy strawman!

Nah, just flippant way of saying "just because it's been a certain way for awhile doesn't make it right".

I guess I need to ask you the same question. Why do you feel the need to defend a FA that isn't even yours? What are you doing for the community by refusing to change?

Marc801 C wrote:

FFS, like I and others have said, the routes in question were not intentionally made dangerous on purpose.

Ok, they were made dangerous by mistake :)

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/109479575/decapitation

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=3018553&tn=40

This "retro-development" of decapitation on the North Face is an example of the power of talking with the first ascensionist. Supposedly whoever did it talked with Bob Gaines. I would consider it poorly done with bolt placement that is too frequent and not in-line with other routes in the area. For the record I'm opposed to turning established top ropes into leads. Why doesn't it get chopped? Probably because he asked 

DannyJ wrote:

I've climbed several times with Tradiban and he is a phenomenal climber with a real passion for climbing in Idyllwild - more so than anyone I've met up there. 

Look dude, if he has this passion that he claims to have he should look up who the fuck are Bob Kamps, Richard Coats, Tom Higgins and Tobin Sorenson and Rick Accamazzo and be ashamed of himself.

There IS a place for "fixing" some shit show....that assembled group of historic figures never put up one.

I, for one, would wholeheartedly support replacing the existing bolts with quality stainless hardware and even adding to existing belays if they were remotely suspect...but the climbing between them should remain a test piece as envisioned by the FA and used by the FFA.

King Tut wrote:

Look dude, if he has this passion that he claims to have he should look up who the fuck are Bob Kamps, Richard Coats, Tom Higgins and Tobin Sorenson and Rick Accamazzo and be ashamed of himself.

There IS a place for "fixing" some shit show....that assembled group of historic figures never put up one.

I, for one, would wholeheartedly support replacing the existing bolts with quality stainless hardware and even adding to existing belays if they were remotely suspect...but the climbing between them should remain a test piece as envisioned by the FA and used by the FFA.

Tradiban wrote:

You missed the main part of all of this. Im proposing adding bolts within the style of which the climbs were put up in, and in some cases better style then they were put up in. Hence, "retro-development".

Not missing anything.  Going back after the route has already been equipped changes everything about doing a second ascent and placing additional bolts.  This would keep having bolts added until the whole thing is bolted because there are people with far lower risk and danger thresholds than yourself.