Liquid Sky

JJ Armstrong wrote: The second ascent wasn't always taken into consideration. 

That's exactly why that ethic died and has been overwritten with something better. 

Scotty D wrote:

That's exactly why that ethic died and has been overwritten with something better. 

Better for whom?

Definitely in bad form.  If it's too hard or sketchy for me, I just won't climb it.

A sort of tangential thought I'd like to add: climbers of my generation (I'm 35) and younger seem to expect it to be really hard/impossible to get in touch with older first ascentionists to ask about retrofitting or making changes to their routes.

In my experience, that is a misperception. True, some folks are impossible to find or passed away. But I have been pleasantly surprised 9 times out of 10 how easy it is to contact a first ascentionist... as well as how open minded to changes they often seem to be.

There's really no excuse not to at least try. Slow down; be patient. At least make the effort. It's not just a sign of respect, you may learn something that changes your mind about the adjustments you'd been considering.

Dave K wrote:

Better than "I got here before you were born, so every generation that follows must do it may way" ?

The idea that today's generation is less bold than the boomers is utterly laughable.

Not really. Every one who learned to climb in the 70s or early 80s had to learn trad.  If you started to lead, you lead trad.  No bolts every body length. No guarantee of fixed anchors atop every pitch.  You sucked it up and did it.  Having said, there are a great many absolutely inspiring, bold younger climbers.  People who have really stood of the shoulders of the earlier generation and just knocked it out of the park.  We all know who these people are.  In contrast to that, there are also a good many newer climbers who expect tightly bolted routes, and characterize trad bolted routes as “elitist” or ego statements, and essentially want routes dumbed down so they can climbed them and not be scared.  Some actually carry our their wishes and alter routes, supposedly in the name of public service.

Back to Liquid Sky: I’ve always admired that route (really all the routes on the west side of Magician). Scary, futuristic looking routes on an amazing stretch of rock, even by Needles standards.  I’ve always wanted to climb it and, while I’ve done stuff that hard, never got the chance to work up to something that mentally taxing.  At this point, I probably never will, but that’s OK.  I don’t, nor does everyone else, need to climb every route out there.   If the the first ascentionists agree to let someone modify their route, then fine.  But if not, is it really that bad to sit and marvel at the skill and cool heads those guys needed to establish that route?

Fat Dad wrote:

Not really. Every one who learned to climb in the 70s or early 80s had to learn trad.  If you started to lead, you lead trad.  No bolts every body length. No guarantee of fixed anchors atop every pitch.  You sucked it up and did it.  Having said, there are a great many absolutely inspiring, bold younger climbers.  People who have really stood of the shoulders of the earlier generation and just knocked it out of the park.  We all know who these people are.  In contrast to that, there are also a good many newer climbers who expect tightly bolted routes, and characterize trad bolted routes as “elitist” or ego statements, and essentially want routes dumbed down so they can climbed them and not be scared.  Some actually carry our their wishes and alter routes, supposedly in the name of public service.

^^^ this is the masterbatory reverence I was referring to in my original response. 

Scotty D wrote:

^^^ this is the masterbatory reverence I was referring to in my original response. 

Dude, get your mind (and hands) off of phalluses...

Tiny Cam wrote: Nobody will say it, but I will:  old climbers think they were better than current climbers, but they aren't.  They just had poorer judgement on bolt/anchor placement.  That's what it boils down to.

For starters let me thank everyone for the well thought out and civil posts. There are some which I don't agree with and others that I do, so let me try to boil down my OP to the things that are important to me.

1.) Some of the routes from "back in the day" are mega classics as they stand. Liquid Sky is among them. I've heard it referred to as the Bachar Yerian of the Needles. Of course it's not. It's no where near as bold. The crux is harder though. Whatever, I think it should have been left to stand as it was. I wouldn't necessarily say that about every old route out there. But since I mentioned the B&Y, are there people here who advocate for adding bolts to that one? A friend of mine led it a couple of years ago. He trained specifically for that climb for two years to feel comfortable about getting on it. He earned a great reward for himself. Perhaps a lifetime achievement. That's what I'm talking about. On these classic test-pieces bring yourself up, not the route down.

2.) Regarding the quote above. I'm 66. Most of my friends are in the same age bracket. Not one of us will say that we were better climbers than some are today. That idea is nuts, and has nothing to do with my op, which is about a specific climb, as well as my concerns about retro-bolting such climbs. Are there some cranky old codgers out there who don't respect climbers today? You bet, but it's a minority, and I plan on outliving most of 'em  .

3.) A few of you have intimated that ground up climbing is obsolete and doesn't result in the best routes. I went through a period where I thought rap bolting and the use of power drills was vandalism. Then I made a few trips to the Owens Gorge and learned otherwise. Each approach has its merits, and the choice is situational. Both approaches produce great climbs, but I think it's important to make the distinction of what and where. It would be silly to set sport climbs on lead (in most cases), and almost certainly result in lower quality routes (Pick Pocket in the ORG is an exception. A great lead done "one arm bandit" ground up by Bachar). The Needles, on the other hand, is ideally suited for ground up tactics. There might be one or two stupidly bolted routes in the place, although I can't think of them off the top of my head (maybe Straight to Hell). Bold does not equal stupid. But our Liquid Sky retro-bolter wasn't even into reducing the boldness of the climb. He comfortised it. But without understanding the classic beauty of the second pitch, he added a belay. For those of you who asked, there were not bolts in that location before.

Again thanks all. Clarity is usually more important and rewarding than agreement.

Scotty D wrote:

^^^ this is the masterbatory reverence I was referring to in my original response. 

 You so desperatly want to be heard at this point. 

"What did any of the FA party who were contacted have to say about the change? "

Just noticed this question up-thread. A member of the FA was first contacted after the fact. 

Kristian Solem wrote: "What did any of the FA party who were contacted have to say about the change? "

Just noticed this question up-thread. A member of the FA was first contacted after the fact. 

Though after the fact curious to know what they thought about the change. There have been similar cases with responses from both ends of the spectrum.

As someone who learned to climb in the late 70s, it's fascinating to see the old dads, especially non-active climbers, cling to the idea of FAs. Unfortunately there's a kind of dilemma involved here. You want the community to recognize the sacrosanct nature of the FA but you don't want the community to change anything. Sorry guys, you can't have it both ways. The alternative is to put up remote routes that nobody knows about but the problem for many is that nobody knows about them.

So the essence of the problem is that you're gong to have to either argue with words or with violence, as in chopping bolts etc. The latter is destructive and stupid and closes down areas. What most communities have done is organize an LCO to work these things out. The era of the FA hero like Bachar et al is pretty much done. That frontier is basically closed and anyone who puts up FAs is going to have to recognize a broader community, including land management agencies, access orgs etc. The FAist doesn't own the route anymore. That was an agreed upon idea long ago (except when it wasn't) and now it's gone in favor of a broader consensus.

Dave K wrote:

I'm almost as old as you but fortunate enough not to be so stuck in the past. You've convinced yourself that your generation is better because you are comparing the best of your generation with clichéd stereotypes of today's generation. 

Listen to yourself: "these kids today!"   Did you ever think you'd become that? Well you did.

Compare the best of the latest generation with the best of the boomers and the boomers really have is an earlier birthday.

Not what I said. at all.  Did you read my response or just assume I meant something other than what I specifically wrote?  

If you're older, does that mean you are forbidden from comparing some examples from the past to some examples from the present?  How is the criticism that older climbers are dinosaurs any more valid than your gripe that older climbers unfairly criticize climbers from a subsequent generation?  

Back to Liquid Sky:  if the retrobolter didn't get the OK from the FAist beforehand, he shouldn't have added bolts.  I understand his argument that you can pretty much climb the route in it's original style by using a longer rope, but if he say it as a no harm no foul situation, why didn't he ask first?  It could have been they would have appreciated the ask and said yes when he explained his intentions.  Granted, this example is not like someone going and completely bolting every pitch, but small differences can change the character of a climb.    

Kristian Solem wrote:

But our Liquid Sky retro-bolter wasn't even into reducing the boldness of the climb. He comfortised it. But without understanding the classic beauty of the second pitch, he added a belay. For those of you who asked, there were not bolts in that location before.

Kris,

For clarity, can you confirm the following?

1) The original p1 belay (2 bolts) was removed and replaced by a 2 bolt anchor 15-20 feet below at a "more comfortable" ledge.

2) A new 2 bolt belay anchor was added in the middle of p2.

"Populism" and more particularly rabid populism are ever-creeping further into the various aspects of life.
Too bad about that.

When you restore the route, please do so in the best possible way and reuse what old holes you can, and patch the ones where you've removed the retros.

Kristian Solem wrote:

He comfortised it. But without understanding the classic beauty of the second pitch, he added a belay. For those of you who asked, there were not bolts in that location before.

Why didn't you tell us this in the first place?

This changes things considerably in my eyes. My assumption was that the new belay was simply extra bolt where one had been previously. This does change the character of a classic. A longer rope or re-adding the original belay doesn't solve this. 

Between not talking to the first ascent party and new bolt locations it's pretty clear to me that the retrobolter is totally in the wrong here, used flawed judgmenr, and should not have touched the route. 

Dave K wrote:

This is exactly what you wrote:

"Having said, there are a great many absolutely inspiring, bold younger climbers.  People who have really stood of the shoulders of the earlier generation and just knocked it out of the park."

You're right, I'm trashing an entire generation here... Sorry, but this is more about your personal butt-hurt than than anything else.   

Fat Dad wrote:

"Having said, there are a great many absolutely inspiring, bold younger climbers.  People who have really stood of the shoulders of the earlier generation and just knocked it out of the park"

That's a offhanded compliment at best. You only gave credit to the younger climbers so you could heap even more praise on the shoulders they stood on.

Weak sauce. 

Jon Clark wrote:

Kris,

For clarity, can you confirm the following?

1) The original p1 belay (2 bolts) was removed and replaced by a 2 bolt anchor 15-20 feet below at a "more comfortable" ledge.

2) A new 2 bolt belay anchor was added in the middle of p2.

That's it.

Allen Sanderson wrote:

Though after the fact curious to know what they thought about the change. There have been similar cases with responses from both ends of the spectrum.

The guy I know , who I become friends with over the last few years, is not pleased (to say the least).