This trend is horrible. And needs to stop

Will C wrote:

Completely incorrect. You (not you in particular but the general 'you') don't have the right to destroy a spicy, scary, runout, etc. climb because you're a pansy with entitlement issues; and the difficulty of the climb is immaterial - there should be spicy climbs from 5.0 up through 5.16. Not every climb is for every climber, but they can be for any climber.  You want a clip up? Go bolt a new one.

Wrong. You (generally) don’t have the right to keep someone from bolting something just because you feel entitled to not gain the strength to not clip every bolt you see. Bolts don’t ruin climbs unless you’re too much of a pansy to skip them.

We are in agreement that both spicy and non-spicy climbs should exist. They can even be the same climb.

Tony Danzawrote:

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.

It's not about bolts. And what I'm doing is not even close to the FA style. Royal tied a freakin' manilla rope around his waist, stuck some boards in the crack and foraged up that thing in Converse! I've got Totems and BD cams, sticky rubber on my shoes, dynamic rope... A true purist who says we must all do it in the style of the FA should be there handing out manilla ropes and converse to everyone. 

Sep Mwrote:

Bolts don’t ruin climbs unless you’re too much of a pansy to skip them.

We are in agreement that both spicy and non-spicy climbs should exist. They can even be the same climb.

I'd argue that the presence of a bolt affects the experience, regardless of whether or not you clip it. 

Questing off to the next bolt is much more committing when you know that there won't be additional opportunities for pro. You might be able to down climb to the bolt that you skipped if you get in hot water.

Sep Mwrote:

Bolts don’t ruin climbs unless you’re too much of a pansy to skip them.

Again with this absurdist argument. You will propose bolts every 5 feet but my friend Allen thinks they should be every 4 feet. I, on the other hand, think they should be every 2 feet and according to your logic I will win. This result comes from relying on only one criterion to make a decision. It is akin to a corporation making every decision only on fiscal profitability. We've seen where this leads.

Camdon Kaywrote:

I'd argue that the presence of a bolt affects the experience, regardless of whether or not you clip it. 

Questing off to the next bolt is much more committing when you know that there won't be additional opportunities for pro. You might be able to down climb to the bolt that you skipped if you get in hot water.

I think that is the argument, as I understand it. If I see a bolt halfway up, I MIGHT clip it. That is the mental weakness. Not fully committing to falling and even getting hurt before clipping a bolt that is not part of my climb.

I feel that. It’s not easy to overcome. Like many difficulties in rock climbing, it is tempting to offload that work onto someone else. Maybe my partner should climb the R pitch. Maybe the people who don’t like spicy slabs should have to change their climb. I’m not unsympathetic, just unconvinced the idea holds water. 

(Also, obviously, the idea that everything is a slippery slope is silly. “So you’re saying we should remove every bolt from a slab,” or “so you’re saying the FAist can require everyone to wear a thong while they climb the route” are bad arguments.)

Sep Mwrote:

 “so you’re saying the FAist can require everyone to wear a thong while they climb the route” are bad arguments.)

This is actually an ethic I could support

Ben Gwrote:

 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.  I searched other areas for slabbing opportunities (i.e. Joshua Tree even though its very far from me) and sure enough...the trend continues. 

You are quite INCORRECT that "the trend continues."  There are tens of thousands of sport routes now.  So the situation is vastly different than it was over 30 years ago.  You now have plenty of opportunity to go to places that offer what you want.  As was already pointed out to you, to get to some of those places you listed above, you drove past numerous sport climbing areas, generally places where the land manager doesn't mind numerous anchors.  There is NO reason to alter existing routes without an overwhelming consensus by highly experienced climbers.

I am not trying to take anything away from Ray Jardine.

Ray Jardine chiseled holds on The Nose of El Cap in a failed attempt to manufacture a free ascent, so in that respect he was absolutely at the forefront of European tactics that led to the advances in manufactured route difficulty - point to Peter Beal.

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. 

What if after the bolts are added, it still feels scary and dangerous? Slab climbing is pretty insecure and you seem to feel hell bent that the climbing community should come to your rescue and make things feel better for you. 

Are you going to demand manufactured or enhanced holds so that you can have more security? 

A thought experiment: what if someone puts up a 200 ft route that takes zero protection and no bolts are put in?  In other words, if I free solo a route as first ascensionist, can I then expect that anyone else who wants to climb that route must do the same?  

Yes, perhaps reductio ad absurdum, but I'm curious what others think (my own answer is "yes").

NateCwrote:

Are you going to demand manufactured or enhanced holds so that you can have more security? 

That would be a horrible trend and it is happening.

ubuwrote:

A thought experiment: what if someone puts up a 200 ft route that takes zero protection and no bolts are put in?  In other words, if I free solo a route as first ascensionist, can I then expect that anyone else who wants to climb that route must do the same?  

Yes, perhaps reductio ad absurdum, but I'm curious what others think (my own answer is "yes").

Not 200' climbs but two examples that are over 40 years old:

Edging Skills or Hospital Bills, 10bX,Tuolumne Meadows. Put in by Bachar solo, still has no bolts or pro.

Perilous Journey, 5.11X, Eldorado Canyon. I forget who put it in but again, still unbolted and no pro.

Marc801 Cwrote:

Perilous Journey, 5.11X, Eldorado Canyon. I forget who put it in but again, still unbolted and no pro.

FFA by the late great David Breashears whose hometown is one town over from where I am living now.
May he RIP.

Kevin DeWeese wrote:

To answer your thought experiment I like a nuanced approach: If the route that went up solo was difficult and a true test experience for the FAist, then yes they get to "claim" the experience as a "route" and the style should be preserved. If a route is put up solo and is significantly below the onsight ability of an FAist aka it really was just a walk up for someone with their skills, then claiming that experience as a route that needs to be preserved is pretty bogus. 

In this schema, if any given route is "under-bolted" because it was well below the FA's limit, there is no need to preserve the route's initial style.  That may be fine, but it adds another layer of subjectivity to the process.

bryans wrote:

to someone who is either masterfully trolling or evidently never going to get on board with the informed opinions he's triggering. 

From the start, I figured - 90% - Tradiban deep fake account.

Whatever becomes of this thread may I suggest that people STOP ENCOURAGING n00bs to bolt their own routes?

Namaste 

Can I apply this to scary aid?

Ricky Harlinewrote:  

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

There is here in Texas, where like 95% of the land is privately owned. At the area Ben is talking about, it's nearly impossible to get permission to put in bolts because management wants to preserve the natural state as much as possible. So you can't just put up new routes protected the way you prefer.

Me, I go back and forth on the bolting there. I respect the original style, but there weren't many climbers then, and that's changed a lot since, so sometimes I think I'd like to see more bolts added. Then I get to appreciating that the bolting there keeps the place from turning into an outdoor gym, which is what a lot of the limestone walls are around here. There aren't many shitshows at E-Rock because with a couple exceptions, most routes require actual skill with gear and runouts, and that intimidates a lot of the gym-to-crag people. What I see more often than shitshows and accidents are people walking up and asking where the sport routes are, getting told that the routes are "sporty," not sport, and then putting their packs back on and leaving after they get a look at the routes.

More bolts would make the slab routes safer, and there are some I no longer like to lead, but more bolts would bring more climbers, so that's the dilemma. Since I have the gear and knowledge to set up topropes there, I tend to prefer the fewer-climbers result.

Robert Swrote:

There is here in Texas, where like 95% of the land is privately owned. At the area Ben is talking about, it's nearly impossible to get permission to put in bolts because management wants to preserve the natural state as much as possible. So you can't just put up new routes protected the way you prefer.

Me, I go back and forth on the bolting there. I respect the original style, but there weren't many climbers then, and that's changed a lot since, so sometimes I think I'd like to see more bolts added. Then I get to appreciating that the bolting there keeps the place from turning into an outdoor gym, which is what a lot of the limestone walls are around here. There aren't many shitshows at E-Rock because with a couple exceptions, most routes require actual skill with gear and runouts, and that intimidates a lot of the gym-to-crag people. What I see more often than shitshows and accidents are people walking up and asking where the sport routes are, getting told that the routes are "sporty," not sport, and then putting their packs back on and leaving after they get a look at the routes.

More bolts would make the slab routes safer, and there are some I no longer like to lead, but more bolts would bring more climbers, so that's the dilemma. Since I have the gear and knowledge to set up topropes there, I tend to prefer the fewer-climbers result.

Cool to here from an experienced local. Thank you for your insight and knowledge on the crag, Robert.

Cheers

Ben G wrote:

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

At 20+ years many FAs are doing maintenance of their own routes, often out of a sort of sense of obligation since no one else is likely to do it. Under your rule of the FA not having any say after 20 years I think most FAs would abandon doing maintenance on their own routes. 

Also, I think the system works rather well when the FA is dead, as the core community usually comes together and has a long conversation and decides what to do. But doing this for every route all the time sounds fucking exhausting. No thank you.

Its about not even having the opportunity to prepare for snake dike.

Emigrant Wall my friend. =) best damn slab school in the country

Cherokee Nuneswrote:

Ray Jardine chiseled holds on The Nose of El Cap in a failed attempt to manufacture a free ascent, so in that respect he was absolutely at the forefront of European tactics that led to the advances in manufactured route difficulty - point to Peter Beal.

Yes Jardine did a few things, no question. Word is that chiseled holds first turned up on Outer Limits and rap bolts on Wheat Thin. None of this includes the numerous piton scars, deliberate or not, used elsewhere for free climbing.