Chipping vs. Gluing

well on the plus side it did give you the opportunity to drag out the old "actual experience" gray mare.

PWZwrote:

well on the plus side it did give you the opportunity to drag out the old "actual experience" gray mare.

;P

John Tuttlewrote:

I think we have pretty much exhausted this topic. 

You are relatively new here.
It ain't over till the dead horse sings.

amariuswrote:

You are relatively new here.
It ain't over till the dead horse sings.

I think that’s just gas leaking from the bloated carcass. 

Not only is it logically incoherent, but it's about things completely outside your experience.

Did you read what you wrote before you posted? It was illogical and loaded with errors. 

Matt Wetmorewrote:

Comfortizing is small potatoes when compared to bolting when it comes to impact on the rock.

Matt I'm not trying to call you out or disagreeing with your reply, I'm just quoting you to make a point.

IMO It's not about "impact on the rock". It's about "impact on future climbers". I think a lot of climbers don't see this and it leads to people not seeing what the real issues are. The rock is not animate. It's not sacred. It's a limited resource that we should conserve for our fellow climbers. That's why there's different 'rules' for sport vs. trad. Sport climbers are expecting and wanting to climb a sport route. Trad climbers are expecting a trad route. Trad ethics don't necessarily apply to sport climbs and vice versa. 

So if you are talking about purely physical impact to the rock, yes a bolt hole will likely remove more rock and be a more substantial physical change. But if you are talking about impacting a SPORT climb for future climbers a bolt is a protection point that probably doesn't affect the difficulty / aesthetics / climbing (if done correctly) while comfortizing may be a significant change how a person experiences the actual climbing, so I would say that's a more significant impact than a bolt. 

For TRAD there's different factors at play. The amount / quality / type of protection is much more of a factor in a trad climb. An added bolt may change the climb from being X rated to PG rated. That may really affect the mental challenge of the climb. So in that case bolting has a huge impact on future climbers. 

"It'll clean up eventually" is my personal motto. That motto has been questioned yet still the routes are popular. Go figure.

Chossy limestone and bomber granite are not apples to apples.  Different areas have their own set of issues let the people in their local areas police themselves.  Some one who climbs 5.10 in the gunks probably doesn't know much about what 13c in rifle is all about.  Some one clilbing 13c in rifle probably should not invoke their ethics on a 5.8 in the gunks. 

Martin Harriswrote:

Chossy limestone and bomber granite are not apples to apples.  Different areas have their own set of issues let the people in their local areas police themselves.  Some one who climbs 5.10 in the gunks probably doesn't know much about what 13c in rifle is all about.  Some one clilbing 13c in rifle probably should not invoke their ethics on a 5.8 in the gunks. 

Is "ethics" grade dependent?

Patrikwrote:

Is "ethics" grade dependent?

Sure, you projecting 5.4 for 30 sessions is a gumby polishing the shit out of an easy classic, 30 sessions to do a 5.14d is enviable.

Once our biosphere has collapsed around us, this issue will be laughable. Fkucing humans and their Hubris.

Matt Wetmorewrote:

I get that you aren't completely against any form of rock modification, but I think you can forgive anyone who didn't come away thinking that after reading your posts. It's not really clear why you are demanding people say that they don't _have_ to comfortize. Everyone knows that they don't _have_ to, just like we don't _have_ to climb rocks at all. It's baked in. So when you write paragraph upon paragraph splitting hairs and calling out people for making excuses you come off as a anti-rock-modification zealot.

I see this a different way. I think if people really were conscious of the fact that they don't have to comfortize, they wouldn't react so negatively when I say that comfortization isn't necessary.

Is it such an unreasonable thing to demand that people explore climbing purely-trad-protectable routes before bolting? The general climbing culture has decided that yes, it is unreasonable to ask that we exhaust all trad routes before we consider bolting. Comfortizing is small potatoes when compared to bolting when it comes to impact on the rock.

I don't think "the general climbing culture" is a cohesive unit. My view is that ethics are dependent on your community. The RRG community doesn't seem to have objections to the bolting of routes that could go on gear (i.e Proper Soul) whereas the community around Moore's Wall doesn't want any fixed gear at all, not even for rapping. And there isn't a clean sport vs. trad divide here, there's a full spectrum in between, such as crags in the Adirondacks which have routes that are bolted only where there aren't available features for placing gear.

rock freak wrote:

You're bothered by ethics used on grades you don't climb, and ethics at crags you don't visit.

[Citation needed.]

It seems a lot more like you're bothered by posts you didn't read.

Do I tell Adam Ondra how to climb? Do I tell Chris Sharma how to develop routes? Have I told anyone what they should and should not do, beyond simply, "make your choices thoughtfully and take responsibility for them"?

For someone who is accusing others of speaking outside their experience, you seem very confident responding to posts which are apparently outside your experience.

a) The difference is sometimes clear, but sometimes very much not.

b) The ethics vary from crag to crag, and there are some communities where that battle is very much not lost.

I'm against all of those things in certain situations, and not against them in other situations.

Agreed!

Do you have any objection to my saying that there's a lot of nuance to where we draw that line, and people should draw it thoughtfully and take responsibility for where they draw it?

Just a few things which I think should go into it: what the local community thinks, what existing routes in the area are like, who is likely to climb in the area, prior ascentionists, the nature of the rock, non-climbers who recreate in the area, local authorities and landowners, etc. etc. etc. If a developer's entire thought process is "I can't grab this rock without my finger bleeding so I'm getting my chisel and you would too!", would you agree that's a pretty drastic oversimplification?

David Kwrote:

Agreed!

Do you have any objection to my saying that there's a lot of nuance to where we draw that line, and people should draw it thoughtfully and take responsibility for where they draw it?

I do not. What I object to is your criticism of us out here on the other side of the country. Many (dare I say most?) developers of limestone sport routes use some form of comfortizing on their routes. I dont want to climb on razor sharp crimps that would actually slice my skin open. I've decided that comfortizing is something worth doing. You appear to be trying (unsuccessfully) to convince us all that comfortizing holds is somehow equivalent to fabricating new holds out of blank rock. 

You said earlier that you object to: fixed gear, slung trees, belaying at the tops of cliffs, walking/belaying at the base of cliffs. I sincerely ask you how you personally justify the activity of climbing. If all of those things are unacceptable "in certain situations" how can you climb? And why aren't you consistently applying those ethics everywhere you go?

Dylan Pikewrote:

I do not. What I object to is your criticism of us out here on the other side of the country.

Well, rest assured I'm not criticizing a whole half of the country.

You appear to be trying (unsuccessfully) to convince us all that comfortizing holds is somehow equivalent to fabricating new holds out of blank rock. 

In some cases it is--there's a whole lot of grey area here.

But since you seem insistent on take this personally: no I'm not saying that it's equivalent in the cases where you're doing it. I have no idea where you've developed routes so I can't possibly have an opinion on your routes. Which is why I don't have an opinion on your routes.

You said earlier that you object to: fixed gear, slung trees, belaying at the tops of cliffs, walking/belaying at the base of cliffs.

No I didn't say that. I said: "I'm against all of those things in certain situations, and not against them in other situations." It really seems like you just stopped reading my post mid-sentence to object to a thought you didn't actually finish reading.

I sincerely ask you how you personally justify the activity of climbing. If all of those things are unacceptable "in certain situations" how can you climb?

By climbing in the situations where they are acceptable.

And why aren't you consistently applying those ethics everywhere you go?

I am applying my ethics consistently, you're just ignoring the nuances. Let me reiterate what some of those nuances are:

Just a few things which I think should go into it: what the local community thinks, what existing routes in the area are like, who is likely to climb in the area, prior ascentionists, the nature of the rock, non-climbers who recreate in the area, local authorities and landowners, etc. etc. etc. If a developer's entire thought process is "I can't grab this rock without my finger bleeding so I'm getting my chisel and you would too!", would you agree that's a pretty drastic oversimplification?

And again, since you seem intent on taking this personally: no, I'm not saying that's your entire thought process.

David Kwrote:

And again, since you seem intent on taking this personally: no, I'm not saying that's your entire thought process.

I'm taking your comments personally because I think comfortizing holds (especially on sharp limestone sport routes) is a good thing and I do it on pretty much every new limestone route that I equip. You seem to be arguing that it is bad and is just as bad as creating new holds (chipping). 

I'm just genuinely confused about how you equate comfortizing holds with chipping. You used those words interchangeably in earlier posts and seemed to justify your opinion by saying that we should leave the rock as it is to preserve difficulty for future generations. I agree with that sentiment when we are talking about creating holds where there were seemingly none before. What I disagree with is that filing down a razor sharp edge on a hold is the same thing as creating a new hold. 

You say that you support different ethics based on the specific local areas. Does that mean that if you came out west and did a tour de limestone, you would be cool with comfortized holds at those crags? Because you would most probably be using some.

Dylan Pikewrote:

I'm taking your comments personally because I think comfortizing holds (especially on sharp limestone sport routes) is a good thing and I do it on pretty much every new limestone route that I equip. You seem to be arguing that it is bad and is just as bad as creating new holds (chipping). 

It is EXACTLY THAT... you just created new holds. Is this like a Trump tweet where you repeat yourself until its true thing? Its chipping, you did it. Stop trying to rename it.

Own it.

M Mwrote:

It is EXACTLY THAT... you just created new holds. Is this like a Trump tweet where you repeat yourself until its true thing? Its chipping, you did it. Stop trying to rename it.

An argument could be made that comfortizing is a type of chipping. But to say removing a sharp crystal is EXACTLY the same as creating holds is ridiculous and subverts any point you are trying to make. 

Gloweringwrote:

An argument could be made that comfortizing is a type of chipping. But to say removing a sharp crystal is EXACTLY the same as creating holds is ridiculous and subverts any point you are trying to make. 

And certainly you are unbiased. Ive personally known many sequences with sharp crystals, you have to be careful there. Or just hammer it until it feels good. Soft people should stick to gyms.

HUGE Tradifan wrote:

When you are "cleaning and gardening", you are bringing the rock down to your level, who's to say where "cleaning and gardening" ends and "enhancing" begins?

ftfy