Retro-Development in Idyllwild

Tradition usually sucks and will be replaced by other traditions. Just ask the classical empires of the past. 

Btw, what ever new line you are looking at I already free soloed, so, ya know, time to sack up.

Talk to a woman, minority or poor person in many less developed countries and discover the wonderful features of old outdated traditions. 

Like illiteracy.

Starvation.

Extreme poverty.

Uncured disease.

Short lifespans.

Yep, all traditions are fantastic!

All progress is evil!

King Tut wrote:

ROFL. 

Did you read that pablum on the back of a box of cereal?

The true narcicist owns every rock they ever touched, for eternity, until the sun burns out or super novas.

Fat Dad wrote:

Other,

Pathetic troll angry that every outdoor climb isn't as tightly bolted as the blue 5.8 at the gym. Believes that personal attacks are the only means of responding to those who disagree with him on climbing related subjects, of which he knows very little.

other wrote:

Talk to a woman, minority or poor person in many less developed countries and discover the wonderful features of old outdated traditions. 

Like illiteracy.

Starvation.

Extreme poverty.

Uncured disease.

Short lifespans.

Yep, all traditions are fantastic!

All progress is evil!

I don't think this word "tradition" means what you think it means.

I suspect that Tradiban and his very few supporters have closed their ears and minds to rational argument on this topic, but let’s give it one more try:

There are two main elements to what is being argued. First, that adherance to the standards of the FA is slavish devotion to some kind of outworn dogma, in which old climbers unnecessarily put themselves and future climbers at risk. To start with, there is no evidence that run-out routes were put up merely to exaggerate the boldness of the original climber and to endanger future aspirants to the route. Some routes are just like that. But the argument for keeping them as they are (other than replacing bolts where currently located) is nothing more than respect for the original vision. We don’t cut a few chapters from Moby Dick to make it more palatable for a modern audience, or throw a bit of paint on the Mona Lisa to “improve” it. Refraining from doing these things is not mindless devotion to the past, it is simply respect for what someone has achieved. Respect for the history of the sport, and respect for the climber who put up the line. Nothing more, nothing less.

The second argument is one that is frequently expressed, to the effect that boldness and risk should be extracted from climbing. When I first began climbing in the early 70s, with Fabiano Black Beauties as climbing shoes and hip belays for protection, risk was an inherent part of climbing. The whole point was to understand the risk, accept as much of it as you were capable, and learn not to overstep your limitations. Today climbing has evolved to focus on the highest level of difficulty one can achieve, safe in the knowledge that there are no consequences for failure.

I acknowledge that transition, but would ask why it must be applicable to all climbs. What is wrong with having some climbs stand as testaments to boldness and courage? Why homogenize all climbs to reduce them to gymnastic exercises? I say this as someone who heads straight for the G rated climbs in whatever area I happen to be in, and feel bold when I venture into the land of PG. But I would never suggest that every climb be reduced to my comfort level of protection. I just pass on the climbs that would make my hands sweat and my legs shake. And I have never run out of climbs to do.

This thread started with your asking the community how they felt about your proposal. Before you decided that the community’s voice did not matter because it did not support what you wanted to do, you received a clear answer. I suggest that you calm down, take a deep breath, and listen to the almost unanimous response you generated on this thread. The best response is to put up new routes of your own, where you – and only you - can be the judge of what constitutes proper protection for the line. But leave the work of others alone. Even if you do so, you will never run out of routes. Happy climbing.

mark wallach wrote:

I suspect that Tradiban and his very few supporters have closed their ears and minds to rational argument on this topic, but let’s give it one more try:

There are two main elements to what is being argued. First, that adherance to the standards of the FA is slavish devotion to some kind of outworn dogma, in which old climbers unnecessarily put themselves and future climbers at risk. To start with, there is no evidence that run-out routes were put up merely to exaggerate the boldness of the original climber and to endanger future aspirants to the route. Some routes are just like that. But the argument for keeping them as they are (other than replacing bolts where currently located) is nothing more than respect for the original vision. We don’t cut a few chapters from Moby Dick to make it more palatable for a modern audience, or throw a bit of paint on the Mona Lisa to “improve” it. Refraining from doing these things is not mindless devotion to the past, it is simply respect for what someone has achieved. Respect for the history of the sport, and respect for the climber who put up the line. Nothing more, nothing less.

The second argument is one that is frequently expressed, to the effect that boldness and risk should be extracted from climbing. When I first began climbing in the early 70s, with Fabiano Black Beauties as climbing shoes and hip belays for protection, risk was an inherent part of climbing. The whole point was to understand the risk, accept as much of it as you were capable, and learn not to overstep your limitations. Today climbing has evolved to focus on the highest level of difficulty one can achieve, safe in the knowledge that there are no consequences for failure.

I acknowledge that transition, but would ask why it must be applicable to all climbs. What is wrong with having some climbs stand as testaments to boldness and courage? Why homogenize all climbs to reduce them to gymnastic exercises? I say this as someone who heads straight for the G rated climbs in whatever area I happen to be in, and feel bold when I venture into the land of PG. But I would never suggest that every climb be reduced to my comfort level of protection. I just pass on the climbs that would make my hands sweat and my legs shake. And I have never run out of climbs to do.

This thread started with your asking the community how they felt about your proposal. Before you decided that the community’s voice did not matter because it did not support what you wanted to do, you received a clear answer. I suggest that you calm down, take a deep breath, and listen to the almost unanimous response you generated on this thread. The best response is to put up new routes of your own, where you – and only you - can be the judge of what constitutes proper protection for the line. But leave the work of others alone. Even if you do so, you will never run out of routes. Happy climbing.

I love these long eloquent responses....that completely miss the nuanced point of "retro-development". It's not retro-bolting, there's a difference.

Good thing I wasn't coming to MP for advice or guidance (eye roll).

The residents of Pakistan and Afghanistan can introduce you to their many glorious traditions on your climbing trip.

modern practices are overrated.

Tradiban wrote:

I love these long eloquent responses....that completely miss the nuanced point of "retro-development". It's not retro-bolting, there's a difference.

Good thing I wasn't coming to MP for advice or guidance (eye roll).

I love’em too. 14 pages.. It’s the definition of insanity.

If I skip the opinions, history and explanations can you insult me too? I’m feeling left out.

Routes are not akin to art

But it is art, A vision of the FA to create the picture of his choice.

IcePick wrote:

But it is art, A vision of the FA to create the picture of his choice.

Is more like science, we stand on the shoulders of Giants and improve upon the past, making it better while also respecting it with the same ethics.

other wrote:

Blind unquestioning adherence to traditions is responsible for many of the horrors and atrocities of our species' past, present and certainly future. 

Anyone who advocates keeping outdated, archaic bad traditions is ignorant or unbalanced. 

Watch and read the news and world history.

youd still be grovelling and starving in a cold mud hole if your pre historic ancestors had stuck with their then accepted and acceptable traditions.

youre welcome.

Those who oppose retro-development (almost everyone on this thread) would argue that these routes are more similar to a work of art than a "bad tradition." Nobody is clamoring at the doors of the Louvre picketing for artwork to be changed. If they are they're part of a vocal minority. 

The second argument is one that is frequently expressed, to the effect that boldness and risk should be extracted from climbing. When I first began climbing in the early 70s, with Fabiano Black Beauties as climbing shoes and hip belays for protection, risk was an inherent part of climbing. The whole point was to understand the risk, accept as much of it as you were capable, and learn not to overstep your limitations. Today climbing has evolved to focus on the highest level of difficulty one can achieve, safe in the knowledge that there are no consequences for failure.

Honest question: Is this how you see things - that today's climbers, as a whole, have little to no appetite for risk? Sure, sport climbing and gym climbing are more popular, but if anything, it seems like these two avenues would bring a greater more capable generation of climbers to the slabs, cracks, and alpine.

DannyJ wrote:

Honest question: Is this how you see things - that today's climbers, as a whole, have little to no appetite for risk? Sure, sport climbing and gym climbing are more popular, but if anything, it seems like these two avenues would bring a greater more capable generation of climbers to the slabs, cracks, and alpine.

I think it is more that there is a choice now. Earlier, the risk was simply how it was, now, people may choose to never leave the gym. My experience, based on talking with folks at the gyms, is that latter category is not uncommon at all. Surprises the heck out of me, too, that many have no interest at all in climbing outdoors, or even leading inside.

Best, OLH

Old lady H wrote:

I think it is more that there is a choice now. Earlier, the risk was simply how it was, now, people may choose to never leave the gym. My experience, based on talking with folks at the gyms, is that latter category is not uncommon at all. Surprises the heck out of me, too, that many have no interest at all in climbing outdoors, or even leading inside.

There are climbers at climbing gyms and there are people climbing there who are merely doing so 'cause it's a cool, "extreme" thing to do. They should not be confused with each other.

Tradiban wrote:

I love these long eloquent responses....that completely miss the nuanced point of "retro-development". It's not retro-bolting, there's a difference.

I love these short, pithy sound bite responses that completely miss the not nuanced at all point that "retro-development" is identical to retro-bolting. 

Good thing I wasn't coming to MP for advice or guidance (eye roll).

So this would mean you like arguing on MP far more than actually climbing.

Marc801 C wrote:

I love these short, pithy sound bite responses that completely miss the not nuanced at all point that "retro-development" is identical to retro-bolting. 

So this would mean you like arguing on MP far more than actually climbing.

Don't be so butt hurt Marc, it's unflattering.

The difference between the two is that retro-development stays with the ethic while retro-bolting dismisses it.

Marc801 C wrote:

 

So this would mean you like arguing on MP far more than actually climbing.

ha ha, tradiban can at least keep things interesting with his trolling. I'd put you waaaaaaayyyy ahead of him in the arguing department.

Marc801 C wrote:

There are climbers at climbing gyms and there are people climbing there who are merely doing so 'cause it's a cool, "extreme" thing to do. They should not be confused with each other.

And, there are also those who have discovered indoor climbing as a legitimate, enjoyable workout. Way more fun than staring at a CSI rerun while hamster caging at a regular gym. YMMV, of course.

Best, OLH

Tradiban wrote:

Don't be so butt hurt Marc, it's unflattering.

The difference between the two is that retro-development stays with the ethic while retro-bolting dismisses it.

Dude, stop with the patently obvious self-serving theorycrafting.

We get it, you want to do something stupid but large numbers of other people that know better tell you its a bad idea.

Deal with it. Its called being an Adult. Instead you are throwing a tantrum.

Go put up your own routes and if you stance drill them, we will respect you and future generations might know your name. If you rap drill them, we will thank you for the work (if done in a craftsman like manner) and forget you tomorrow. Your choice.

Adding bolts to legit FAs done in a style you don't have the balls for is weak.