This trend is horrible. And needs to stop

Will C wrote:

Unoriginal bait. Boooo

Still true, though. I haven’t seen much new on this, and I can’t help thinking it’s cause the basic hangup  is still the basic hangup.

Andrew Ricewrote:

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. 

I used to believe this and argue that the FAs essentially having a sort of property right on public land is wrong and immoral. I argued exactly that here in MP for a year or two probably around 2018-2020 or something like that. 

Then I read a bunch about climbing history and the bolt wars and why we have the system we have now. Is the system we have now perfect? No, it's far from it, and I think it's inevitable that it will change over time. 

The problem is that most people that take issue with the current system -such as myself 4 to 5 years ago- aren't aware of the problems we faced in the past and thus propose solutions that would inevitably take us back to bolt wars. 

Point out the issues with the current system-- understanding the failings of it is good and productive. However, any potential new system would have to A) meet our needs better than the current system and B) be attractive to route developers and maintainers. That's a tall order. 

Ultimately our current rules and norms are the best solution we arrived at after much bickering and bolt chopping. Considering that bolt wars tend to be few and isolated I think the current rules are actually working extremely well, albeit with certain strange edge cases where what to do is unclear, such as Snake Dike. But realistically any system we could implement would probably have such edge cases. We want general guidelines after all, not an extensive book with subsections that we reference before we go out there and add bolts to a route. 

Eric Craig wrote:

So no where, ever, have I been in denial of the advances brought forth by gym and sport climbing. You clearly are a devotee of that creed. Fine. Your views on the development of American rock climbing are incredibly simplistic. But, you have every right to just play the game by the numbers. 

As for the phenomenal free climbing achievements on El Capitan and other walls everywhere, many are kind of a blend of sport and traditional rock climbing, but not all. Maybe there's a name for it I don't know?

The Phoenix was a step up in difficulty.  My take on it would be that Ray Jardine made that advance off of his previous Valley routes,  accomplished in the same style,  with the aid of his Friends. All of his previous Valley routes that I am aware of are no more significant than routes established in the Yosemite tradition by the likes of Dale Bard,  Ron Kauk, John Bachar,  Henry Barber (whom I never met), and others I can't think of right now. This is during the same time period,  1975-7 or so. Style does make a difference. 

I find it interesting that there is no record of any of the climbers you name ever repeating Phoenix and of those names Ron Kauk was the only one who truly got on board with the new style, culminating with his ascent of Magic Line, a very hard route indeed.

I think you are misreading my comments about climbing as it being all about numbers. Climbing has always been preoccupied with a search for difficulty and that has always been in part defined by numbers. That's a simplistic read of my points. I am trying to say that the restrictions placed on modes of climbing and protection by climbers such as Robbins or Bachar were unrealistic and thanks to their uneven and unreasonable enforcement, prompted a significant number of people to reject them. The current debate in this thread is a reflection of that debate of long ago. Debates about style typically degenerate into accusations of lack of courage and say more about the states of mind of the accusers. There's a better way to handle it.

Ben Gwrote:

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. 

After the 20 years what happens then? 

And you've never answered the question I and many others have posed to you: why not keep bold routes for those who want them and put up new routes for those who want more timid climbs? Why should bold climbs be rare or hard to find as would occur under your ideal world?

I'm a huge chicken and committed coward and even I enjoy bold climbs now and again. I'm not opposed to adding 2-4 bolts per pitch to Snake Dike, I don't really have strong feelings on that one way or the other.  But if you added enough to make it "safe" then something beautiful would be lost. 

I vividly remember my day out on Snake Dike on my birthday five or so years ago BECAUSE it's a dangerous route. It's an aspirational route that many climbers go to in order to test their mental fortitude. You consistently examine what will be gained and overlook what will be lost. 

Again, why not just create more, well protected routes? There's no shortage of rock. 

Ricky Harlinewrote:

I used to believe this and argue that the FAs essentially having a sort of property right on public land is wrong and immoral. I argued exactly that here in MP for a year or two probably around 2018-2020 or something like that. 

Then I read a bunch about climbing history and the bolt wars and why we have the system we have now. Is the system we have now perfect? No, it's far from it, and I think it's inevitable that it will change over time. 

The problem is that most people that take issue with the current system -such as myself 4 to 5 years ago- aren't aware of the problems we faced in the past and thus propose solutions that would inevitably take us back to bolt wars. 

Point out the issues with the current system-- understanding the failings of it is good and productive. However, any potential new system would have to A) meet our needs better than the current system and B) be attractive to route developers and maintainers. That's a tall order. 

Ultimately our current rules and norms are the best solution we arrived at after much bickering and bolt chopping. Considering that bolt wars tend to be few and isolated I think the current rules are actually working extremely well, albeit with certain strange edge cases where what to do is unclear, such as Snake Dike. But realistically any system we could implement would probably have such edge cases. We want general guidelines after all, not an extensive book with subsections that we reference before we go out there and add bolts to a route. 

I'm not arguing that it's wrong or immoral. I'm just saying it's a tempest in a teapot. I'm sure there are some very strict ethics to birding, too. But nobody gives a shit. Rock climbing is somewhat unique in that I don't know a lot of other public land sports that commonly drill holes into rock and install hardware. Certainly there are other uses that are much harder on the resources like equestrian use, motorcycle and 4wd off-roading, etc. I guess my issue is with the ethic that modern repeats of a climb are having the "same experience as the FA" no matter what. Am I really climbing The Open Book in the same style that Royal Robbins did using 2x4 wood braces and wearing his Converse? Please don't let the old school tell me I can't use my #4 cams and my sticky rubber just to be in his "style", because I'm way too big of a wimp for that. 

What's really horrible is the direction our country is headed politically. Climbing? Meh. Besides the masses of gymbros with newly formed opinions, nothing much has changed. 

Will C wrote:

Ah, I must have missed the memo that only a certain subset of climbers are obligated to have mental fortitude; namely, the mental 'fortitude' to skip existing bolts; and that other climbers need not have the mental fortitude to do without bolts on whatever climb they determine should be rightfully theirs to ascend.

Oh shit, no one sent you the memo? I thought we all got a copy. Here:

========================

FWD:RE:Climbing 

You are responsible for your climb.

=======================

So if I want to have a spicy climb, it’s on me to make it spicy. If that can be done with the climb ALSO being secure for someone else, I don’t get to demand they don’t get their climb just so I don’t have to be strong for mine.

It’s the same reason “you need to bolt a slab more closely” is a bad argument but “I want to add bolts” is not a bad argument.

I’m not saying important test piece climbs don’t exist. I’m saying they’re like well-behaved crag dogs. There’s not that many of them, but everyone thinks they’re definitely sitting on one. Fortunately, with a bit of mental fortitude, you can keep that world-changing spicy slab and have a chill beginner route in the same place.

Ben Gwrote:

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. It’s a hobby. We do it for fun. You dont own the hobby, you dont own the rock. Stop taking it so personally. 

There is no shortage of well protected beginner routes out there. There just isn’t, so please stop implying that there is. I know you have this obsession with Snake Dike, but that’s merely one of a hundred-thousand 5.7s in the US, a lot of which are totally safe for most people, and some are even safe for someone with zero risk tolerance like yourself.

You don’t own the rock either. So why should YOU get to put bolts in? The onus ought to be on you, the one who wants to add more bolts, not the FA, who should rightfully so decide how many bolts and where they go. Don’t like it? PUT UP YOUR OWN ROUTE. Why do you need to change an already existing route to meet your standards? Again, put up your own damn routes if you so desire the safety you claim to need.

Andrew Ricewrote:

I'm not arguing that it's wrong or immoral. I'm just saying it's a tempest in a teapot. I'm sure there are some very strict ethics to birding, too. But nobody gives a shit. Rock climbing is somewhat unique in that I don't know a lot of other public land sports that commonly drill holes into rock and install hardware. Certainly there are other uses that are much harder on the resources like equestrian use, motorcycle and 4wd off-roading, etc. I guess my issue is with the ethic that modern repeats of a climb are having the "same experience as the FA" no matter what. Am I really climbing The Open Book in the same style that Royal Robbins did using 2x4 wood braces and wearing his Converse? Please don't let the old school tell me I can't use my #4 cams and my sticky rubber just to be in his "style", because I'm way too big of a wimp for that. 

Don’t think so literally. If he used a wooden wedge and you used a cam, but both came out of the rock after you climbed the route, then you did climb it close to the FA style. Adding a bolt where there wasn’t one is not the same thing.

Why do you need to change an already existing route to meet your standards?

The curated and safe Disney consumer experience.

Dan Nguyenwrote:

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. 

Dan, thank you for compiling those statistics. Did you by any chance also keep track of how many personal insults I received in this thread?   Either way, your post seems to come from a place of reasoning unlike most others so I also gave the   

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

My comments about chest pounders was made in response to the multiple snarky comments I got about being too scared, too green, having too horrible of a tick list, how back in the days they did this and that, and how I should man up or shut up, etc...etc...

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. 

I made it clear in earlier posts that I don't expect the climbing community to adjust to my shortcomings LOL. That WOULD be ridiculous. The thrill seeker comments I made because most of the reasoning I got for big runouts, is the desire to feel nervous and scared. And many climbers expressed how thats where the fun is for them on these type of climbs. I see nothing wrong with that. But that can be achieved in ways where others can also enjoy the same "easy" route without the thrill seeking. 

All I'm advocating, is for the newbs to have a place to start SOMEWHERE...SAFELY. Weather its TR routes, or the easy routes (that may not be TR accessible) to be safely bolted. I totally get a 5.7 slab having a 5.3 or 5.4 runout (Snake Dike is not even the subject of this thread) but at my local crag there is a 3 pitch route, with bolted anchors, rated at 5.5 thats an absolutely blank slab for the first 70ft or even more with ZERO bolts. When you finally come to a flake where you can put some pro in, you wonder if that flake will even stay attached in case of a slip up. My question is WHY? I understand the reasons that route might've been put up that way, but don't understand the push back on making this very beginner route, beginner friendly. Not who would pay for it, who would do it,  how many bolts, etc...only that its NOT acceptable.

So 1. Would any climber with a lot of experience get any thrill from climbing that? If so, would he get the same thrill from free soloing (I bet more so), or skipping bolts? Would he get the same thrill the 2nd time he climbed it? Would he even bother climbing such an easy route a 2nd time?

2. Does the lack of protection deter the newbs from climbing it? To learn, to gain experience? Is it possible that now this piece of rock sits there completely useless when it can be helpful to many?

This IS me seeking knowledge. Asking questions. Instead I get mostly attacked and insulted. And I was warned from the very beginning by a gracious member that I will "get flamed" for this. But he didnt warn me to what extent   

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.

This one is flabbergasting. I don't understand how you read lack of humility and self importance into all this but that's definitely not the vibe I was going for. How humble do I need to be to come onto a forum full of very experienced climbers with many veterans of the sport, and ask why there aren't more bolts on a 5.5 slab route?   And then still keep my ticks public after many comments about how green they make me.   

Ben Gwrote:

Dan, thank you for compiling those statistics. Did you by any chance also keep track of how many personal insults I received in this thread?

You are not being personally attacked! Of course people are going to get defensive when a brand new climber starts spouting off telling route developers/climbing community what they are doing is completely wrong. Not only have people put a lot of money into routes they also put in tons of time. With all due respect have you even been climbing long enough to form a well rounded opinion or is this just a knee jerk reaction? Fortunately there are a few pretty simple solutions for your problem. 

A) get more experience (find a mentor or TR more) to become more comfortable in your climbing skills so run outs don’t feel as scary 

B) develop your own routes and bolt them to your standard 

C) come to the decision that outdoor climbing is too risky and just climb in the gym

Ricky Harlinewrote:

After the 20 years what happens then? 

I would think whatever happens when the FA is no longer with us. 

And you've never answered the question I and many others have posed to you: why not keep bold routes for those who want them and put up new routes for those who want more timid climbs? Why should bold climbs be rare or hard to find as would occur under your ideal world?

Completely misunderstood here. I don't want bold climbs to be rare or hard to find. And I'm totally fine with new routes. But here in TX theres not all that much rock. And 96% of all land is privately owned. So options are very limited. The claim that many made on here "there's enough rock for everyone" doesn't really apply.

Another experience I had was in Scottsdale AZ. Went to a place with tons of slabs and I could only find one route that was TR accessible. It was a 5.4. This was my very first slabbing experience. And it was hard at first...and scary. But I did it and I learned. And I wanted to try something harder. All around me were 5.5-5.6 boulders 40-60 ft high with bolted anchors and one or two bolts. And Im thinking...Why cant at least a couple of these easy for most but hard for me routes have some decent bolting? I searched other areas for slabbing opportunities (i.e. Joshua Tree even though its very far from me) and sure enough...the trend continues. 

I'm a huge chicken and committed coward and even I enjoy bold climbs now and again. I'm not opposed to adding 2-4 bolts per pitch to Snake Dike, I don't really have strong feelings on that one way or the other.  But if you added enough to make it "safe" then something beautiful would be lost. 

This thread is not even about Snake Dike. Im not even sure how well the 5.7 sections are protected. Weather bolts or trad. And I dont have strong feelings about that particular route either. Its about not even having the opportunity to prepare for snake dike. 

I vividly remember my day out on Snake Dike on my birthday five or so years ago BECAUSE it's a dangerous route. It's an aspirational route that many climbers go to in order to test their mental fortitude. You consistently examine what will be gained and overlook what will be lost. 

Well...isn't that just speculation? Is there a way to know how many do it for the thrill and how many do it so they can climb (not hike) Half Dome? I'll definitely do it for the latter.

P.S. Thanks for your level headed and insightful posts on this crazy thread.

Ben Gwrote:

What is with this prevailing trend for long runouts on “easy” routes. Some even dozens of feet  before a clip. Especially slabs. I don’t get it.

Easy for who??? The people that can climb much higher grades? Are they the ones that will take a break from climbing 11s and 12s so they can do a 5.6 or 5.7 route? Or 5.4 - 5.5 route?

Which routes are the total newbies supposed to start on and climb repeatedly? Do you think a 5.6 slab is easy for them? In case you’ve been climbing for so long that you forgot what starting out felt like, I’ll tell you…It’s NOT. And I imagine those 5.5/5.6 routes were bolted for them.

Even though I have climbing experience from back in the days, I never did slabs. And when I did my first one it was a 5.6 and I was TERRIFIED. On top rope LOL. I didn’t think any of the footholds will hold and constantly saw my face and knees cheese grated on the crystalline granite. And my girl who was a fairly new climber didn’t even think it was possible to climb it.

I say bolt those routes GENEROUSLY. Let the newbs have something safe to start and practice on. Once you get into the higher grades, do whatever you want to feed your ego (I’ve seen very advanced climbers in very heated debates on why a 5.7 slab should be left dangerously runout). Again… I don’t get it. 

You've had a page for one year. I doubt you've been climbing that much longer. Learn the skills and build your head. Retrobolting established lines are bad form. Gym bolting outside is lame. Practice the most important skill in climbing. Learning to walk away from that which is dangerous for you.

I haven’t read through the 200+ posts, so pardon me if I’m repeating what someone has already said. Do a lot of practice traversing on easy slab close enough to the base that you are not going to get Injured if you fall or slip off. Do this with climbs you feel comfortable at the grade and slowly work your way up as you gain confidence and technique. As has already been said most climbers put in a significant amount of time before they started leading.

If I make a parallel with learning steep skiing, I would practice jump turns on a low angle slope no higher than I want to fall if I screw up, and slowly increase the slope angle and lengths of the practice runs. Similarly mountaineers learn and practice self arrest with an ice axe on a very small slope with a flat run out at first, and then increase the steepness once they’ve acquired basic technique.

I did DM you some suggestions for easy relatively well bolted sport climbs. Here’s another at Stately Pleasure Dome put up on a slab that most people walk off of.
https://www.mountainproject.com/v/121360417

Pothole Dome climbs that are easy to set up for TR walking in from the side:
https://www.mountainproject.com/v/106520388

Check out this book, if you don’t have it already: https://www.amazon.com/Tuolumne-Topropes-R-Floyd/dp/1892540126

Complaining about the climbing in Texas is like complaining about the surfing in Iowa

Ben Gwrote:

 (i.e. Joshua Tree even though its very far from me) and sure enough...the trend continues. 

Ben you went from one old school area to another and you must have skipped over hundreds of well protected sport climbs to get there. The trend you speak of ended in the 90's most routes put up since then have been sport bolted.
If anything the trend has been to bolt up anything and everything and outdoor gyms are pretty common. And https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/125346419/public-comment-on-wilderness-area-fixed-hardware land managers are taking notice.

 Also maybe don't think about these older style climbs as being intentional gatekeeping, many routes below 5.7 were first climbed in the days of hemp ropes when the leader must not fall wasn't some bravado, safe lead falls just didn't happen. Even after nylon ropes came on the scene climbing gear was still pitons being pounded in with a hammer. Bold climbing was the norm for many decades, the same admiration now given to high end sport climbing was given to boldness. In the early 50's climbers ability to face climb quickly surpassed their ability to protect it, hardware store bolts and hangers made from last nights dinner can. No one was thinking hey lets lock up all of the easy climbs by leaving them all run out, it's just the way things happened. 

Ben just contradicts himself left and right. He's just vested in his position here and as driver of this thread I feel like he thinks he is obligated to keep responding.

in order of likelihood Ben will:
Keep digging his MP grave in this thread 
Complain in new threads on the same topic
Climb more and maybe adjust expectations, but unlikely
Climb Snake dike and get scared, maybe adjust his expectations, more likely
put up a new route near him
Retro bolt a climb near him
Complain on MP that once his skills are up, he gets why one would keep some routes character and defend the runout

So I get back from three days of climbing in the backwoods and only 56 people have responded to this thread?

Rookie numbers.

Dan N. has the post of the thread. Teachers do make the best MPeons, in my highly biased perspective.

I know wading into a conversation like this is a bit like farting at the wind but skimming through I’m struck again and again by the impatience and narrow mindedness of the OP’s post and further replies.  Like the comment that beginner climbers want to climb big faces too but don’t want spice. Well sure, so go with an experienced climber and follow, or go climb one of the many sport bolted big walls in US or around the world.

It’s okay not to be ready for climbs, but one of the most rewarding aspects about this activity is making careful risk decisions and rising to meet challenges and not demanding someone else work to bring the challenge down to your level.

It’s been said a lot already. There are climbs out there exactly like you’re looking for. Don’t demand a climb should be changed just because it isn’t right for you.

And be patient. Just because you can’t imagine ever feeling confident on an easy runout right now doesn’t mean you never will.