Bolting scary run out sport routes

@Chris

The question I would ask is: If someone got hurt on one of your routes during a standard fall, what kind of reaction would you have? Would you go back and add a bolt, or would you say no big deal? I think your answer to that would say a lot about your intentions in developing.

PWZ wrote:

Sounds like an argument FOR somewhat more sparse bolting?

Lol, maybe. Or maybe you would be creating a toproping heaven. That’s what happens in all old school “bold” areas with a lot of moderates. I’ve never seen so much toproping anywhere, as I saw in Smith Rock, or the Gunks. Bold old school bastions that they are...

You want to control crowds, you better not bolt anything below 12+. And then, if it’s your project grade... I’m guessing you would not put any run outs into it. ;)

I bolt projects for myself, for the vast majority, where i know I'll be taking a lot of falls, and my first thought is, 'I dont want to jug a mile every rip", and my second thought is, 'i dont want to eat up my rope working one project'. I like when the crux moves are protected well, and to me there's no reason not to bolt this way. But, that's me, and every developer is different. Maybe Chris doesnt bolt anything that he needs to project, so those thoughts never cross his mind.

 I know someone who added two bolts to a route, with perfectly clean falls, after their wife climbed it and wasnt happy about the run outs (I was happy about it too). I think that is the only true way of changing the minds of a developer- The Old Lady (not H).

Perhaps there needs to be some sort of certification system for route developing? Especially on public land. The responsibilities are probably beyond what a guide even has.

Tradiban wrote: Perhaps there needs to be some sort of certification system for route developing? Especially on public land. The responsibilities are probably beyond what a guide even has.

ooooh! with this new bomb I bet this goes to 20 pages!

It’s really not all that complicated and we all probably agree 98% or more.

The FA walks up to blank rock (no cracks now!) and does his thing at own expense.  Takes responsibility for their methods.  

Climberz choose to climb or not and take responsibility for own actions and safety.  

Now, say it’s on public land (like most) and it becomes obvious to majority that the FA did a either a botch job or an ego job....now what.

In my book, the FA gets some weighted influence on any proposed mods (if any), but the route is now not “sacrosanct” by any means.

FA saw some public rock and did some work to climb it.   Now I can walk up and do some work to climb it as well....I.e. add a bolt.  Within reason and again giving added weight to the FA.  It’s obviously a gray area, but common sense should prevail on shared resources and it does require input from the dreaded “community”.  

What’s the argument then?   Seems only an argument arises if you believe A.) an FA must always consider the community when establishing the route - seems kinda ridiculous
or you believe B). once established, the pro is absolutely set in stone and no adjustment can ever be made to that climb, the FA “owns it” - also ridiculous 

Does anyone truly believe A or B?

Mark Pilate wrote: It’s really not all that complicated and we all probably agree 98% or more.

This thread has, of course, devolved way past the original question. As threads on MP do. 

The original q was quite simple: “do you enjoy spicy runouts on a sport climb? I do, but talking to other people, I’m becoming increasingly aware that many don’t share this love. Thoughts?”

The q wasn’t about whether the bolter is allowed to use his discretion in placing bolts. It wasn’t about whether all routes should be safe. Or all routes should be enjoyed by everyone. It wasn’t about advice for people who don’t enjoy runouts. Or about retrobolting. 
But... 

Spicy runouts are awesome. Spicy runouts are not for everyone. If you don't like the spice, go climb something else, or develop your own routes.

Imagine if there were laws against spicy food, because some people didn't like it... In fact, they were so scared of it, they didn't even want it on the menu.

Runouts are not the cause of all the anecdotal injury stories, incompetence is to blame. Sometimes holds break, but incompetence is the biggest factor here. If you're going to attempt leading a sporty run-out 12a, you should probably be a solid 13a climber or better. This will give you a cushion to overpower a botched sequence or downclimb and rest, and otherwise deploy wisdom... instead of stressing out, freezing on the worst holds on the entire route, holding your breath, wobbling legs, mid runout, and taking a sketchy fall with a stiff body full of fear. That is a recipe for injury.

The failed logic expressed by many here, is that runouts hurt climbers. Nonsense. If runouts hurt climbers, then they would be injurious to every climber. Not the case. Climbers doing stupid shit risk hurting themselves. Stupid shit = taking risks without proper calculation and adequate skill and strength and conditions for success.

ROCKMAN2 wrote: Spicy runouts are awesome. Spicy runouts are not for everyone. If you don't like the spice, go climb something else, or develop your own routes.

Imagine if there were laws against spicy food, because some people didn't like it... In fact, they were so scared of it, they didn't even want it on the menu.

Runouts are not the cause of all the anecdotal injury stories, incompetence is to blame. Sometimes holds break, but incompetence is the biggest factor here. If you're going to attempt leading a sporty run-out 12a, you should probably be a solid 13a climber or better. This will give you a cushion to overpower a botched sequence or downclimb and rest, and otherwise deploy wisdom... instead of stressing out, freezing on the worst holds on the entire route, holding your breath, wobbling legs, mid runout, and taking a sketchy fall with a stiff body full of fear. That is a recipe for injury.

The failed logic expressed by many here, is that runouts hurt climbers. Nonsense. If runouts hurt climbers, then they would be injurious to every climber. Not the case. Climbers doing stupid shit risk hurting themselves. Stupid shit = taking risks without proper calculation and adequate skill and strength and conditions for success.

Rap bolting.

If you dont want 12a climbers on a 12a, something is wrong with you.

Marc801 C wrote: No, that's Eldo brobrah idiocy directed by misguided ideology. It has nothing to do trad climbing. Cathedral Ledge in NH suffers from the same neanderthal thinking.

This is spot on. God forbid someone replaced a pin with a bolt without the approval of the “coalition” in Eldo.

Mark Pilate wrote: 

an FA must always consider the community when establishing the route -

How accessible should it be? Im sure Louie was thinking of the "community" too.

Buck Rio wrote:

One of my bud's does the same thing, involuntary scream like a little girl when coming off unexpectedly. If he knows it isn't working he won't yell or scream, but the surprise ones it is hilarious.

You just described my falls perfectly. Everything from a chickenshit squawk to the terrified squeal of a young child.

 

Mike Brady wrote:

How accessible should it be? Im sure Louie was thinking of the "community" too.

Haha , first things first.  Let’s solve the sport bolting dilemma before moving on to chipping.  Won’t get to that till maybe page 40...  ;)

Dave K wrote:

That's an oversimplification as there really is no "blank" rock any more insomuch that every route developed today is done in a crag with established routes, ethics, and character. In the context of this discussion, whether or not the area is a sport climbing area matters.

Like most climbers that have been around a while, I believe in B. Not because of some moral code or reverence for the FA, but out of practical necessity. It's the only feasible system of governance in our community. It's not at all a perfect system, but it's the best system we will ever have.

But because of B, A is important. A isn't as much a rule as it is a guideline, there are many exceptions, but it's important (it's more true in sport crags than in others.)

BTW, I see no one has yet attempted toi define sport climbing. Everyone is bypassing the crux.

Dave - good points and I mainly agree with you.  Both A and B are guidelines both ways.  So let’s answer your last question first....Define “sport climb”.    Regardless of whether it IS or not, I’m gonna define a sport climb as anything that was rap bolted.  Rap bolted essentially means arbitrarily bolted and what I meant by blank slate....and with a reasonable expectation of not getting hurt  

Ok, so now let’s just confine ourselves for arguments sake to that small subset of climbs that have any substantial “issue or controversy”...and I’m gonna define that as proven or likely risk of injury.   
Because it was rap bolted on a public resource, I’m saying that good ol’ simple democracy holds sway over any FA ego or claimed rap bolting “tradition”. I’ve been around long enough to say rap bolting doesn’t get to claim any tradition.  I’d give the FA benefit of the doubt and due consideration, but ultimately if it comes down to a majority wanting to fix a blatant safety issue, I’d be on board.  

the list of climbs is vey small.  Most FA’s when made aware of a recurring safety issue support a correction and undertake it themselves or give blessing.  
I’m not talking about “scary climbs” where just a clean whip is expected >90% of the time and then the other rare case is just a broken ankle if it all goes worst case. 

OK I’ll bite the troll. I really don’t know if some just pretend that they do not know what a sport climb is. Basically it is a climb “put up” via rap. Climbs established like this must be as perfect as possible and by perfect I mean- bolt location, rope management, anchors at the right height etc. Bolts get added as needed for safety- by just about anyone who wishes to. The FAist is not that important and neither is their permission to modify the climbs. I feel like the bolt spacing is not important- but it should be reasonable for the grade. Don’t bolt a 5.9 -sport-and create an x route because people will add more- and they will.
I have seen 5.13 sport climbs with big space in between- but heck - the in between is only 5.10.
Now go out and start at the deck and climb up placing bolts where you need them- That’s a personal statement. That is what’s called “Trad” (God do I hate that term) now days. These sorts of climbs should never be changed except by, or with the permission of the FA team. Now that can not be that difficult of a concept to understand.

Flame on! 

Ma Ja wrote: @Chris

The question I would ask is: If someone got hurt on one of your routes during a standard fall, what kind of reaction would you have? Would you go back and add a bolt, or would you say no big deal? I think your answer to that would say a lot about your intentions in developing.

No, one person getting hurt on a route is not a game changer. 

Tradiban wrote: Perhaps there needs to be some sort of certification system for route developing? Especially on public land. The responsibilities are probably beyond what a guide even has.

Certification requires 5.10+ trad experience minimum (think international)

Ma Ja wrote: @Chris

The question I would ask is: If someone got hurt on one of your routes during a standard fall, what kind of reaction would you have? Would you go back and add a bolt, or would you say no big deal? I think your answer to that would say a lot about your intentions in developing.

Thankfully nobody has gotten hurt so far.. But yes, if there was a spicy section on a route that could potentially cause injury I go back and add the bolts that are needed.

I don‘t think all routes should be scary/spicy/runout/spaced/whateveryouwanttocallit, but the one’s you can space out from time to time, I’m going to keep doing that! There’s still a ton going up right now with lots of bolts in them! There’s also a handful some of you will want to save for a special day. And that’s ok. 

Gosh, it's almost like people who don't put up routes should be putting up resources for those who do. Otherwise, shut up. Route development is hard work and you sure azz ain't out there doing it.

M Mobes wrote:

Certification requires 5.10+ trad experience minimum (think international)

And a High School education. GED ok.