Continue with onX Maps
Sign in with Facebook
Perspectives on Bolting
|
In several current threads and in numerous old threads the constant discussion of the ethics of bolting and the endless trad vs sport debates along with the desire for precise categorizing - is a route that's entirely bolted but with 40' runouts and established in 1968 a trad or sport route? - IMO a lot of historical perspective and pragmatism has been lost.I've always maintained that had bolting been easier BITD, we'd see a lot more 'trad' routes with a lot more bolts. In the spirit of that, there is a FB group about the history of rock climbing, then and now. E.C. Joe posted a photo of a typically runout friction slab route with the following caption that gives a lot of that pragmatism and perspective, posted here for your consideration:
|
Marc801 C wrote: there are several reasons why bolts were relatively sparse back then. i ran into steve gerberding while ice climbing at lee vining a couple of years ago and we chatted about retrobolting one of his routes. part of the conversations revolved around running things out and his take was that (to paraphrase) - "we're young and trying to outdo our friends." |
Marc801 C wrote: |
|
Hah, I was going to reply "that's easy, drilled ground up from free stances on lead is trad, rap bolted is sport". DONE, Ok ok. So maybe it's the attitude that matters. If you placed bolts in premeditated locations to protect a falling leader from hitting the ground at any possible point on the climb, then it's a sport route! But this implies...trad climbers don't place bolts to protect falls!? But they do, so isn't that a sport climbing mindset? Or is it the size of the falls that matters? And what about clipping the 2nd bolt on a sport climb, isn't that a ground fall half the time, so is the first 2 bolts of a sport climb actually a trad climb? I now know less about this than when I started. (At least, in Australia, it's easy - carrot bolts are trad. Therefore anything that has hangers or rings is sport, any hangerless bolts are trad. Sorted!) |
|
I really didn't intend to start yet another what is trad vs sport spray-fest. Just thought the perspective was interesting. |
Devin Hanes wrote: True. That's why the Salathé Wall is a sport climb. |
|
Can anyone confirm this: I’ve heard that nearer to the beginning of “traditional climbing,” when using (hemp) ropes for mountain climbing it was seen as poor form to place any protection on lead and only place protection (early pitons?) from a stance at which you intended to belay up the follower(s). |
|
“They also knew not to bolt otherwise unprotected offwidths…”—not accurate. Some of the classic offwidths did indeed have some ( usually very few) protection bolts—Crack of Fear on Lumpy Ridge, CO is one example. In addition to the general ‘ethical’ desire to minimize bolting common in US climbing during the 50s, 60s, and 70s, it is also incredibly hard to place a bolt ( especially hand drilling) while climbing wide cracks—usually you are simultaneously using all 4 limbs, and various other body parts, just to maintain position, let alone make progress, so no way to let go with 2 hands to drill. The general topic of bolting has been discussed in multiple threads here on MP and elsewhere, so really nothing new to add. Climbing ethics evolved over time ( especially as new equipment appeared) and often differently in various regions and locales—often with little rational basis. For generations ( and still to some extent) pitons were considered highly unethical in the UK, but were accepted in most areas on the European continent and in the US. In the US, during the period I mentioned, it was bolts that were considered to be something to be avoided unless absolutely necessary—primarily because they were seen as diminishing the challenge ( this was especially true in aid climbing—with enough time and money any piece of rock could be ascended using bolts, but the ethic also spilled over onto free climbs). As far as distinguishing between ‘traditional’ and ‘sport’ climbing; yes, originally it was all just climbing. It was the French, in the 1980s, who created the designation of ‘sport climbing’ ( ‘Escalade sportif’ ) to describe the routes they were developing with the emphasis on difficulty and athleticism—almost invariably well protected by bolts, in contrast to the ‘alpine style’ ( even on ‘practice cliffs’) routes that had until then been the norm in most of Europe —where the emphasis was on speed and commitment ( on longer routes) with frequent use of aid—if there was a piton it was usually pulled on. Edit to respond to the question Alex just asked. As I said, different places, different ethics.Early ropes were either hemp or manila, neither really strong enough to trust to hold a substantial leader fall—so the original—and long lasting—ethic was that the leader didn’t fall. In the earliest years there really wasn’t anything that could be carried by a climber to put into the rock for protection, so it wasn’t, at least initially, a question of ethics. However, leaders would pass their ropes behind projections or even untie their rope and thread it behind a chockstone ( most early routes were in gullies and chimneys) for some form of protection. This was also how they belayed—many short pitches. Eventually climbers from southern Germany and Austria began to use pitons both for protection and belays—soon adding carabiners to the system. This was initially very controversial there, but even more so in the UK. On the sandstone towers near the Elbe River further north in Germany, the ‘acceptable’ protection was a very large eyebolt ( called a ‘ring’) drilled into the rock. As you said, such rings were supposed to be installed from stances and each ring —very few were placed on any given route, was also a belay stance. So this is likely the information you are remembering. Many of those ‘rules’ are still in place there—an area with some of the most ‘stringent’ ethics anywhere. |
|
The soul searching over is it trad or sport thing is almost peculiarly American. Which is not meant as any form of slight but just a result of your unique climbing history and geography, the massive variety of rock (and the equally massive walls of Yosemite etc). This results in a kind of spectrum when in other places e.g UK its very binary, although even there you get quirks of history and geography, I'm looking at you Welsh slate. As to France, best not to think about the French in my opinion, and I'm married to one. I work by a simple metric, if anyone climbing is using the word 'bro' then its probably sport. If anyone climbing is eating a pork pie then its probably trad. |
Neil B wrote: Pork pie sounds fucking delicious. What's it like? |
|
I used to climb with a bag containing a avocado tomato cheese sandwich. What's that called? |
|
Neil B wrote: I work by a simple metric, if anyone climbing is using the word 'bro' then its probably sport. If anyone climbing is eating a pork pie then its probably trad. I'd say that about says it all, right there. |
Neil B wrote: /thread |
|
I apologize to Marc for furthering the drift of this thread, but where I live I climb with two sorts of people who have very very different ideas of what sport and trad are. The old timers who have dirtbagged in their youth and are deeply embedded in the culture and history of climbing consider anything ground up to be trad. You will see this perspective anywhere that has a significant history of trad which where I live means Yosemite, J Tree, Lover's Leap, places like that. Everyone else considers trad to mean placing gear. So the historical definition of trad is definitely dying out and held on to by a small percentage of middle aged to elderly crusty traddies who think the kids are taking all the adventure out of climbing. As an example of this, Pinnacles National Park has probably close to 1,000 routes, and due to the nature of the rock there they are mostly predominantly or exclusively bolt protected climbs. There are less than 20 routes in the whole park that were put up on rappel. The overwhelming majority of routes were put up ground up, and even if the route has bolts every ten feet it's still considered a trad route. Well, in Pinnacles. By the Pinn-heads at least if not by most of the bay area climbers who make up most of the area's traffic. Words change meaning over time and I'm not trying to say what is or isn't trad-- use whatever definition you want. But many people are surprised to learn that to the old timers and in historic trad climbing areas to this day that trad simply means ground up (try to put up a trad route on rappel in The Valley and let me know how that goes for ya for example). An interesting artifact of this is that there are many routes in Pinnacles that most would consider a sport route, but the old timers would put into the category of "traditionally bolted face climb," so, trad. So a well protected traditionally bolted face climb would fall under the definition of a sport climb, but to the old timers it's also, and most importantly, a trad climb. Back to Marc's point it's interesting to me how many of these guys that put up really bold climbs have mellowed out significantly as they've gotten older and enjoy putting up well protected routes now. As a committed coward I find it nice that at least some of the routes these local legends have put up are climbable by myself. |
Neil B wrote:If anyone climbing is eating a pork pie then its probably trad. Isnt it ham sandwiches for trad climbing? |
Locker wrote: My God, Locker; I hope not! Like Neil B I live an ocean away - actually most of a whole continent plus an ocean away - but I still know exactly who Steve G is; and offer my full and deserved respect. I sincerely hope that aging Brits like us don't know more about US climbing history than the majority of US climbers - or even the majority of those on MP! |
Ignatius Pi wrote: I consider myself a climbing history nerd and I don't know the guy unfortunately. Would love to be educated if anyone has some good resources to share on the dude. |
Devin Hanes wrote: I have heard at least one such old timer (and one whom I respect and appreciate a lot despite his significant cantankerous-ness) that holds on to this definition argue that MP needs a third category for traditionally bolted face climbs. So that's what he would call it. Seems like a reasonable solution to me, but I also realize that we're kind of unique here in NorCal having many traditionally bolted face climbs. Probably in many areas they're a tiny percentage of the routes. But they often climb differently, are more runout, and sometimes have the bolts after cruxes instead of before (easier to pull the crux and then slam in a bolt from a good stance when drilling on lead) so I actually think that whether the route was put up on lead or on rappel is super important information to convey regardless of how you do it. |
Ricky Harline wrote: Would FAs of Kaos, Reticent, Continental Drift and Gulf Stream be a good start? |
Ricky Harline wrote: https://youtu.be/Cx31MBmNr4E?t=1413 https://www.google.com/search?q=site:publications.americanalpineclub.org%2F+gerberding http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=2374120&tn=0&mr=0 https://www.google.com/search?q=site:supertopo.com+%22gerberding%22 |
Rasputin NLN wrote: Dense, waterproof, close to indestructible and containing the three main food groups: Fat, pastry and goodness. Essentially its a very solid filling of chopped pork and pork fat, a soild shell of hot water crust pastry with jellied pork stock filling the gap between filling and crust. I know sounds kinda gross but they're bloody loverly and tend to survive being knocked about in a crag bag quite well.  Adding something more relevent to the topic, I think its OK that trad can mean something different in different regions to reflect their different traditions. |
