This trend is horrible. And needs to stop

Ben G wrote:

From a very passionately debated thread from 2022. I will post at the bottom.

@Ricky Harline

NOBODY will have the same experience as the FA. Because nobody else will hold on to whatever holds or stand on whatever ledge drilling holes and pounding bolts. More so, the FAs are much higher skilled climbers than most people coming after them. Especially on "easy" runout slabs. Yes for them it was so easy they didn't need a bolt for 70ft for the people that actually go on those 5.6-5.7 its hard and scary (weather bolted safely or not). And exactly what audience is gonna attract those grades?

Yes, Snake Dike is famous on a most famous wall. The more reason it should be accessible to ALL. Yet the chest pounding hard cores want to keep that 5.7 climb for themselves (as read in the below thread). Against the FAs wishes

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/123362153/retro-bolt-snake-dike

Dude it gets thousands of ascents a year. It’s ALREADY accessible to all who can make the hike up there. But if you really wanted to make it accessible to all you’d put an elevator to the base of the route since the approach is the hardest part. That sounds like the kind of convenience and safety you’re looking for.

If you can’t handle the runout, even though literally thousands of people do every single year for the last fifty years, then you don’t get to lead the route. 

You can still hire a guide and climb it that way. Why do you keep insisting that the route be placated for YOUR risk tolerance? What if my tolerance demands a bolt every six inches, are we doing that?

There was a survey taken at a local elementary school concerning basketball hoops. Turns out 75% demanded all hoops in the U.S. be lowered to 5 feet. 19% realized they would eventually grow up. The other 6% of responses was in unreadable crayon. 

Ben G wrote:

Very well said. There was another poll taken which was posted on one of the Snake Dike threads on here (as the poll was going) with about 75% in favor of retro bolting snake dike. So we ARE the majority. By far. 

This is the real horrible trend that needs to stop

Ben G wrote:

Very well said. There was another poll taken which was posted on one of the Snake Dike threads on here (as the poll was going) with about 75% in favor of retro bolting snake dike. So we ARE the majority. By far. The ego maniacs on here are just the ones screaming the loudest. 

When faced with a climb above one's skill level and/or risk tolerance, most climbers do one of three things:

-Improve their skills until they can do the climb in question

-Hire a guide or find a partner to lead the climb

-Go climb something else that suits one's skill level and risk tolerance

You on the other hand want to bring the climb down to your level, talk about an ego maniac.

Ben G wrote:

Very well said. There was another poll taken which was posted on one of the Snake Dike threads on here (as the poll was going) with about 75% in favor of retro bolting snake dike. So we ARE the majority. By far. The ego maniacs on here are just the ones screaming the loudest. 

Pointing to a small sample poll, like I named on the last page as the foundation of reality is disingenuous to the actually reality.
I know I didn't put in my vote, and I'm quite sure there are literally dozens more of us! I think my point is obvious though, the FB and MP crowd yelling about bolts are the ones who likely have not "earned their turns" and want the climb to be brought to a state they feel comfortable attempting it. Easy to cry fowl from a place of fear and lack of skills.
Again, if the route lays unused due to the lack of pro, considering change is likely worth it, but if the route regularly gets used without bodies getting maimed from the "dangerous" nature of the route, its probably good to keep as a test piece as it does get used....and all those who make it are likely better for it. This isn't to say accidents wont happen, but they happen just as much on tightly bolted sport routes, and maybe more than runout 5.7 trad climbs.
Go climb snake dike, then form an opinion on its bolting....you don't even need to lead the scary pitches if you choose your partner right!

To your last point... it sounds like the bolt adding ego maniacs may have actually been loudest according to the referenced polls
=)

Scott Kidney wrote:

And that brings me to my thesis statement:

Put a bolt at the starting traverse of Calypso or chop the bolts on The Web.

Is your thesis that the Web is unsafely bolted or that it should be climbed in a different style...?

Tom England wrote:

This is the reply that weaponized Ben into a rabid proponent of retro-bolting for the rest of his life.

I wonder how this thread would have gone if the first reply explained bolting ethics and the value of runouts in a kind manner. 

Yeah, but I'm guessing he'll just expect someone else to take care of that for him as well.

So if I go out with drill in hand and put bolts to keep myself safe on a runout slab, say put one every 20ft to halve a 40ft runout, it’s all good if I do it on lead, right? Since it’s a trad game and I would clearly abide by the trad rules it’s all kosher, no? 

Fehim Hasecic wrote:

So if I go out with drill in hand and put bolts to keep myself safe on a runout slab, say put one every 20ft to halve a 40ft runout, it’s all good if I do it on lead, right? Since it’s a trad game and I would clearly abide by the trad rules it’s all kosher, no? 

No, requiring FA permission is part of the trad rules.

It’s been a few years since the last time I’ve done it, but doesn’t the crux of snake dike have a bolt right at your waist? All the runouts are on like 5.3 terrain, and if you can’t handle that without a bolt every 6 feet how would someone make it up the long 3rd class slog to the summit?

Hey Ben, hire a guide to sus it out. I bet you’d see that it’s quite reasonable.

Gary Thomas wrote:

When faced with a climb above one's skill level and/or risk tolerance, most climbers do one of three things:

-Improve their skills until they can do the climb in question

-Hire a guide or find a partner to lead the climb

-Go climb something else that suits one's skill level and risk tolerance

You on the other hand want to bring the climb down to your level, talk about an ego maniac.

You would think it would be so simple. 

I hate these threads because you have no idea who you're talking to and what their background is. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I have to say some opinions are worth more than others. 

Sorry Ben but if your tick list is indicative of your experience then you're just pissing in the wind. Your solution is to bring the challenge for everyone down to YOUR particular comfort level. One of the fallacies of this thinking is that it is rooted in a world view of only single pitch crag climbing. What will happen when you and your sanitized brethren venture out into the greater complex climbing world? You will be wholly unprepared, that's what.

I suggested earlier that you seek instruction because I have to think you have not sought this out. Have you? Take responsibility for your abilities and start socializing with the community around you before you conclude that you have the answers. You have a lot to learn.

This whole problem can be fixed by developing mental fortitude. I’m not claiming to be an expert, I still get scared often. Probably always will. I can only manage some of the way easier slabs. But mental fortitude is an important part of the climbing game we should all work on.

As soon as climbers are strong enough to not clip a bolt, retro bolting won’t be an issue. Just use your mental fortitude to climb past the extra bolts without clipping.

Eric Craig wrote:

You apparently "know " facts kinda like I do, from a certain perspective based on your own limited experience.  Were we differ is your abject insistence that "facts" you did not experience, or don't fit your narrative, do not exist. 

Presumably you have heard of Smith Rock? It is Oregon. It was a very busy place in the 1980's, I have heard. I've never been there. 

I don't know much about the Skinner/Piana Salathe Wall climb, or their experience in the Valley. I wasn't around most of the later '80's. And I was done with the Valley. about 1995. I never even heard of El Nino until recently, but I had heard of the Huber brothers somewhere, somehow, many  years ago. 

So, is there a page in your revisionist history for Lynn Hill? 

I'm not even gonna bother mentioning the Valley locals  and visiting climbers (often teaming up with locals) who contributed at least as much as Ray Jardine to the incredible free climbing revolution in Yosemite, and  elsewhere,  during the 1970's. Oh yeah, those people were using hexentrics. Friends were being kept under Jardine's outer T- shirt. Nothing against Ray Jardine here, that's just the way it was. I was there.  Some of the time. 

Looking at actual climbs by actual people, it's easy to see that after the no-bolt, no-rehearsal approach was abandoned, climbing grades jumped significantly. Jardine's Phoenix was head and shoulders above the previous top routes in the Valley and interestingly was first repeated by another outsider, Mark Hudon.

Speaking of Lynn Hill, she actually bought a house in France and did most of her training for freeing the Nose in a day on sport routes in Europe. Her FFA was no doubt aided by her very successful comp career and ability on sport routes.

The Valley insider consensus on the freeing of the Salathe was that there was no way they could have done it and its repeat was a long time in the making, done by outsiders again. The Huber Brothers went from 5.easy in JTree to freeing the Salathe in a few months. El Nino opened up the whole right side of El Cap by adding bolts to rock that would clearly go free but without typical crack gear. And so on.

I wasn't there personally, though I had my own share of bolting controversies in the 1980s. But there are plenty of books, magazine articles, Supertopo posts etc., that lay out what happened in this era pretty clearly. The old guard eventually blinked and the results of the new approach were indisputable.

This controversy of decades ago still pops up from to time as climbers argue about the merits of added or modified protection and make claims about FA "rights" along with threats of chopping bolts etc. This is a direct legacy from the bolt-removing episode on the Wall of the Early Morning Light and has plagued American climbing ever since. Ironically in that instance, the "FA Principle" was not followed, though Robbins maintained the chopping was justified because the route was so out of line with what he imagined was an appropriate standard. What justified him being judge jury and executioner has never been fully explained, to my knowledge, but plenty of others emulated his example over the years. 

The situation became so bad around Boulder that ultimately it was decided LCO-based consensus on anchor installation (as in the Flatirons and Eldo) was the correct approach and things have (more or less) become stable and many new areas and routes were established as a result, without the drama of yesteryear.

Ben G wrote:

Very well said. There was another poll taken which was posted on one of the Snake Dike threads on here (as the poll was going) with about 75% in favor of retro bolting snake dike. So we ARE the majority. By far. The ego maniacs on here are just the ones screaming the loudest. 

Very indicative of someone ignoring evidence that doesn't support what you want and not understanding the situation.

Evidence: every reply that advocates against retro bolts in this thread has more likes than once advocating retro bolting. By far. LOL. Yet this is ignored and polls on other posts are talked about instead.

It's not about ego. It's about preserving the experience of the climb for future climbers. Vilifying the people who don't agree with you is an easy way to ignore what they are saying.

Ricky Harline wrote:

No, requiring FA permission is part of the trad rules.

I'm not taking a position pro-bolt or anti-bolt, but don't you agree that it's weird for people to get so proprietary over public lands? I mean, shit, if you own the land, sure, implement whatever rules you want. But we're all just one tiny little user group on public land, most of the time. 

Patrik wrote:

Extending this reasoning, gear-protected climbs will surely disappear in a hurry. A huge majority of climbers (at least in US) are sport/gym climbers. If we let the majority rule, every gear-protected climb will be bolted every 6 ft. Do you really think this is reasonable? Not only will Snake Dike be bolted, but also Yellow Spur (Eldo), Naked Edge (Eldo), Madame G's (Gunks), Modern Times (Gunks), Supercrack (Creek) ...

That is pure speculation. I personally don't believe that would be the case. And even if it was...if thats what a "huge majority" wants, too bad for the small minority.

I see its tough for the old timers to accept the sport has changed. And some seem to really resent it. OH WELL. Everything in life evolves. Rock climbing has evolved into a main stream, Olympic sport and most people nowadays dont do it for the same reasons you did when you started back in the days. And we dont have to, just because that's what you did.

Lets talk about  "having the experience the FA did". As I mentioned in previous posts, NOBODY will have that experience anyway. And how do you know thats what most people want? You dont. You ASSUME. As far as moderates go (the routes I started this thread for), Im willing to bet most climbers (the newbies) couldn't care less what experience the FA had. The only people that care, are the old timers and hard cores that will never even get on those 5.6s. But they still want it for themselves. Screw the ones that want to have something to learn on safely. Well...just because thats how i learned back in the days. And because thats how I did it, thats how you should do it.

While we are on the subject of FAs, let me make another proposal that might rattle a few. Lets put a time limit on how long a FA has a say. Just like a patent. How does 20 years sound. Thats a very long time.

And to the ones that got on here just to snipe with purely emotional comments...CHILL OUT. Its a hobby. We do it for fun. You dont own the hobby, you dont own the rock. Stop taking it so personally. 

WOW. My students are taking their finals right now and I was running out of things to entertain myself. THANK YOU. Great material here. 

Let me leave you with this statistic: Ben G has used "chest-pounding hard cores" or "thrill-seeking hard cores" in 3 of his 7 comments in this thread. 

I highly doubt that anyone in this thread has chest-pounded after finishing a 5.6 slab. 

The most scared I have ever been in climbing was the first time I led the 5.4 slab finish at Tahquitz. However, after time and with improvement, I've realized how freakin' chill it is. You'll improve, Ben. And one day you may look back at this and cringe.

You also mention your thrill-seeking behavior in the past. From my perspective, it seems you now have generalized that experience to every climber and think we're all adrenaline junkies. We're not. I think we all simply believe that a climb shouldn't be taken down to the level of the user. The climber should rise to the level of the climb. 

Your feelings are valid. It is OK to want more pro when you're scared and run out. 

However, I cannot relate to your lack of humility. I find it so bizarre that a newer (or newly returning) climber doesn't want to integrate into a community and seek out knowledge before spraying their self-importance and say how things should be changed based off of their very limited experience.

@dannguyen - well said

 Thank you 

Dan Nguyen wrote:

The most scared I have ever been in climbing was the first time I led the 5.4 slab finish at Tahquitz. However, after time and with improvement, I've realized how freakin' chill it is. 

I know EXACTLY the spot you're talking about. Probably the greatest exposure (or feeling of exposure) on any 5.4 around. 

Ben G wrote:

I see its tough for the old timers to accept the sport has changed.

I'm not even sure we're talking the same sport.