Bolting scary run out sport routes

Chris Hatzai wrote:

Totally man! I try really hard to push that boundary without stepping over the line. 

I do however crash dummy all of my routes. No top ropes or micro tractioning. I bolt them, then I try them. Now obviously I have an unfair advantage already knowing what’s up there, but let me tell you, the first time you pull onto an unchalked route with holds you don’t quite trust yet. Damn that’s exciting.  

Makes you appreciate the ground up shit that guys(gals) were doing before battery powered hammer drills came into existence.  Climb into the unknown/uncleaned, with a hammer and hand drill, hoping you can find a stance to drill from, or a crack you can whack a pin into.

EDIT: Of course people knew how to downclimb then...

Mike Brady wrote:

Nothing?!? I thought I took this shit seriously!

Heh. Got me. 

I like areas like Kalymnos where the ethic seems to be "nobody should get badly injured on our routes".  I think it helps me push my grade.  And I can always skip bolts on easy stuff.

bryans wrote:

Agree. Tradiban, for every person who says something supportive towards you, always know there are dozens of us who have read your "look at me" drivel for years and see right through you.  I even sent you personal messages you in an attempt to get you to drop the mask. No luck.

Listen, Chris came here obviously trying to justify "scary" (his word, not mine) runouts on SPORT climbs! "Scary" has no place in sport climbing, if he's bolting routes to be "scary", that's for him, ergo ego. He even admits in the OP that he's learning that most people don't like them. When you are developing climbs to whatever you like and ignoring the "community" that's pure ego. 

Also, there's no telling how each person may fall, it may be "safe" in your eyes but one day some kid hooks a heal, smashes his head open, and DIES simply because the developer enjoys "scary" runouts. So stupid.

If you think sport climbing needs to be a thrill ride, maybe just go sky diving. I look forward to your hate mail!

Ultimately the FA team gets to decide how to put up a route - if you are drilling top down, you can make unsafe or a terrible experience, but people might hate you and it probably won't get climbed much, you may even have an accident on it.. Best is always to follow suit for the style of the crag., see what other routes 'feel' like and build on that. All good.

Ground up? Do whatever you want. I have zero problem with someone bolting a sketch ground up route in the middle of a sport climbing area. Just make sure the guidebook reflects that. But, I grew up climbing in Joshua Tree, so am pretty used to it lol. Could be outdated....

Tradiban wrote:

Listen, Chris came here obviously trying to justify "scary" (his word, not mine) runouts on SPORT climbs! "Scary" has no place in sport climbing, if he's bolting routes to be "scary", that's for him, ergo ego. He even admits in the OP that he's learning that most people don't like them. When you are developing climbs to whatever you like and ignoring the "community" that's pure ego. 

Also, there's no telling how each person may fall, it may be "safe" in your eyes but one day some kid hooks a heal, smashes his head open, and DIES simply because the developer enjoys "scary" runouts. So stupid.

If you think sport climbing needs to be a thrill ride, maybe just go sky diving. I look forward to your hate mail!

So you won’t be climbing my routes then? Boo hoo. 

This topic is almost as heated as talking politics or religion. I find it very interesting...

edit: Tradiban, you’re not strong enough to climb the routes I put up.. OOoo, fightin words.   

Tradiban wrote:

Listen, Chris came here obviously trying to justify "scary" (his word, not mine) runouts on SPORT climbs! "Scary" has no place in sport climbing, if he's bolting routes to be "scary", that's for him, ergo ego. He even admits in the OP that he's learning that most people don't like them. When you are developing climbs to whatever you like and ignoring the "community" that's pure ego. 

Also, there's no telling how each person may fall, it may be "safe" in your eyes but one day some kid hooks a heal, smashes his head open, and DIES simply because the developer enjoys "scary" runouts. So stupid.

If you think sport climbing needs to be a thrill ride, maybe just go sky diving. I look forward to your hate mail!

Says the guy who lives in a gym!

Ma Ja wrote:

If someone wants the spice, they can skip a clip if they'd like.

Do you feel the same way about bolting cracks?  Bolt all the cracks and people who are afraid to lead on gear can climb them too. 

Marc801 C wrote: Right. But if you're a 5.12 climber and you're putting up say a 10a, then yeah, you had better consider the 5.9 climber, assuming you'd like 5.9 climbers pushing into 5.10 to repeat your route.

The threat of lesser climbers not attempting to repeat your route is laughable.   Take the Bachar-Yarian for example: One of the most classic climbing test pieces but rarely gets repeated. We should add some bolts so every dude-bro who climbs 11c in the gym will climb it. 

Don Ferris III wrote:

Do you feel the same way about bolting cracks?  Bolt all the cracks and people who are afraid to lead on gear can climb them too. 

I do not feel like anyone should be bolting traditionally protectable lines. First off, it's a waste of money. Secondly, why would you? It's a waste of money. I dont have a problem adding a bolt to gear lines that need it though, but that's on the FA.

Ask this guy. Runout I’m sure.
I’m gonna say this climb is anything but a sport route though.
Love the daisy clipped to the drill bit!

I like plenty of bolts.
Have enough excitement in my life, don’t need it on a sport climb. 
But if you put up the route you get to decide. 

Don Ferris III wrote:

The threat of lesser climbers not attempting to repeat your route is laughable.   Take the Bachar-Yarian for example: One of the most classic climbing test pieces but rarely gets repeated. We should add some bolts so every dude-bro who climbs 11c in the gym will climb it. 

Actually this is laughable. We aren't talking about Yosemite, and nobody is putting up the next Bachar-Yerian, which isn't a sport climb by any stretch. 

I agree with Marc that easier climbs should generally be more closely bolted, especially since at areas like Smith, the easier stuff has poorer quality rock and lower-angle terrain. Climbers getting on 5.11 and harder should be able to handle safe runouts if they want to. Agree with others that 'scary' shouldn't really apply if it is a completely safe fall, but 'exciting' and 'exhilarating' definitely can. There is certainly some grey area and when rap-bolting, the developer has some room for creativity, with bolt placement as long as they are willing to get up there and take all the falls, which Chris does. I would hate to see someone fall and get hurt on one of my routes when I could have bolted it more safely. There are plenty of other opportunities to do dangerous things in climbing, people mostly sport climb to push their physical limits in a safe-ish enviroment. I think it's key to remember that the rock is a finite resource and to always think twice about each placement, then think again before drilling the hole. 

This has been a surprisingly positive(MP standards) and productive thread and I agree with parts of almost every comment in some way. Do your thing Chris, and out-troll Tradiban.

Tradiban wrote:

"Scary" has no place in sport climbing, if he's bolting routes to be "scary", that's for him, ergo ego. He even admits in the OP that he's learning that most people don't like them. When you are developing climbs to whatever you like and ignoring the "community" that's pure ego. 

This is pretty far from the truth.  There are a lot of sport routes that are considered mega classics that have scary climbing on them.  Many (tho certainly not all) of them are at Smith.

Tradiban wrote:Also, there's no telling how each person may fall, it may be "safe" in your eyes but one day some kid hooks a heal, smashes his head open, and DIES simply because the developer enjoys "scary" runouts. So stupid.

Here's where I actually agree with you.  I think the concept of non-event feedback is pretty pertinent here.  Just because you can take a big whip 9 times and it ends okay doesn't mean you're not going to smash your face or ankle on the 10th.  This is true in any fall on vertical to slabby terrain, but the added distance for sure compounds the consequence.  This is why the difficulty of the 'airy' climbing should be carefully assessed in relationship to the maximum difficulty of the route.  If it's as hard (or is) the crux, then that's not really that cool.  If it's more like 50-70% as hard as the hardest moves, (especially if the movement isn't super committing) then I think it's pretty spot on.  Dreamin is a great example of this.  Well protected where you need it and then it forces you to earn some clips on climbing that's 2-3 letter grades easier than the crux.

Tradiban is pretty much right on this one.  Some of you need to try trad climbing.

The FAists can bolt however they want, but nothing's stopping others from adding a few bolt holes after the fact.

Drill holes every 2ft and rack up with climbtech RBs. Then you get to make the call on how runout you want it. It's the future.

seamus mcshane wrote: Ask this guy. Runout I’m sure.
I’m gonna say this climb is anything but a sport route though.
Love the daisy clipped to the drill bit!

Darrell Hensel FA Picante 5.12a
Photo:Kevin Powell

Henny could climb the shit out of some slab

Whatever man. It’s sport climbing, what are you trying to prove?

Just space your bolts out so that there is an enjoyable amount of safe climbing between them, without having to stop every few feet. If you’re spacing them out for the sake of making a sport route “scary,” then you’re a tool. I have a feeling you know where the line is.

There’s some silly runout warmups at Mill Creek. Got a strange vibe from some locals when I was climbing there. Dudes, this area is not a locals only area and I’m not gonna take a piss in the creek. Just chill. 

If it adds to the “exhilaration”, cool
if it needlessly adds to risk of serious injury, not cool.

That's a good succinct way to say it.  It's pretty clear from this thread that there are different opinions about how routes should be bolted, and one person's exhilarating is another person's scary.  It's customary that routes remain bolted as the FA party bolted them, which results in routes that are closely bolted, runout, and everything in between, so everyone can find something to their taste.  It's a conceit to think that all routes should be bolted the way you think they should be.

Route developers should craft their routes thoughtfully and safely, the rest of us should accept their work as it is, and if the developers botch a route, it can be fixed by consensus.