Hot Takes 2024

Matthew Hoffwrote:

Dude, I totally agree. I have friends who ended up buying the Solution Comps, while my broke ass is wearing whatever was cheap (under $50) and on consignment at my local climbing store. The funniest part is when they struggle on 5.7, despite the shoes that were supposed to make them climb 5.13. While I used to spend quite a bit of money on shoes, I've found that getting better technique has helped the most and led me to progress far more as a climber instead of just buying the next best pair of shoes. I also feel like the lack of super-good equipment makes me think more about my movements and the way I place each part of my body on the rock because my shoes don't allow me to just stick my foot wherever. 

I mean yeah super downturned shoes don't really matter on 5.8 or even 5.10. and they won't turn a 5.7 climber into a 5.13 climber. But they definitely do make a difference at higher grades when you have to stand on very small feet or hooks get more technical. They are just a more precise tool, but if you are a caveman it doesn't really matter. 

Ice cold take: people that make the distinction between redpoint and pinkpoint for sport climbs are insufferable 

I use trad as an adjective.

I always thought the issue with ticking is just a matter of courtesy. If everybody ticked and left their ticks on any particular route/boulder, since people are different sizes and climb with different styles, the climb would look like a mangled mash of white spots and lines.

Sort of like listening to music in public, if one person does it, it’s annoying, but if everybody listened to their own music all at once, nobody would be listening to music. So you don’t do it.

F r i t zwrote:

Two sincere questions to clarify your position, because I'm inclined to think that I disagree with you. Feel free to engage, decline , message or whatever -- I'm not a zealot.

 1) By "putting up," do you differentiate between ground-up and top-down modes of route development?

For example, I say rap-bolting a spicy route is disingenuous and hypocritical, but establishing a spicy route ground-up (aka "trad" in the classical sense) is respectable and laudable as long as the danger is clearly communicated to prospective suitors.

I'd argue that even if going ground up, which is the more common way I've done development for the bit I've done, there's not much reason to be extra spicy. While there is a difference between a place you can clip from and a place you can effectively drill from, there's nothing to stop you from intelligently placing bolts on top rope after you've put in a run out one. Yes, your drilling stances might have been bold, but clipping stances, while similar to drilling ones, aren't quite the same. I'm potentially willing to clip from a thinner edge or more balance-y position than I'd want to drill from, especially if I was doing it by hand (required in national parks and such).

TaylorPwrote:

Hot take: Shoes aren't actually that important unless you're climbing 5.14. Stop wasting $200 on shoes, throw on whatever is comfortable and has some rubber.

Steep limestone jug haul? Sure, shoes don’t matter. Vert 5.11-5.13 granite? Shoes definitely matter. Try climbing blue suede shoes (V5 slab) or kauk slab (v8) in camp 4 with shitty old soft shoes and then try with crisp TC pros. It’s many V grades easier with the fresh rubber. Same goes for freeblast slabs, middle cathedral face routes, or any other slab-vert granite with imaginary hand holds. Of course all these routes were put up in EBs so everyone who climbs these routes with modern expensive shoes still sucks :D

John Bruckwrote:

No matter what you do you're annoying someone.

Yes that rock is capable of movement. No, it does not need an X you can see from space, three Facebook posts, and its own Instagram account.

Andrew Childwrote:

1. Sport climbing is the most contrived form of climbing and arguably the lamest. Trad and bouldering follow logical features up a rock formation. Sport follows a dotted line of bolts drawn by some random guy with an inflated ego.

Sport climbers tried bolting natural features like cracks once. It didn't go over very well with trad climbers.

Michael Bwrote:

Sport climbers tried bolting natural features like cracks once. It didn't go over very well with trad climbers.

Also one could argue that holds are also "logical features". Tufas are just reverse cracks anyway.

Michael Bwrote:

Sport climbers tried bolting natural features like cracks once. It didn't go over very well with trad climbers.

*trad climbers in the US

Natalie Blackburnwrote:

I'd argue that even if going ground up, which is the more common way I've done development for the bit I've done, there's not much reason to be extra spicy. While there is a difference between a place you can clip from and a place you can effectively drill from, there's nothing to stop you from intelligently placing bolts on top rope after you've put in a run out one. Yes, your drilling stances might have been bold, but clipping stances, while similar to drilling ones, aren't quite the same. I'm potentially willing to clip from a thinner edge or more balance-y position than I'd want to drill from, especially if I was doing it by hand (required in national parks and such).

Thanks for the response! I agree with your assessment of user experience as regards clipping stances.

However, I think the more compelling issue at stake when it comes to the value of spicy/bold/runout trad (=groundup) routes is the user experience that they provide to the leader.

In my opinion, those who say "don't like, don't clip" demonstrate a critical lack of awareness as to what that user experience is.

My other question still stands, though. By what authority does anyone claim climbing "ought" to be done a certain way?

 Including me. Except that I'm literally trolling right now, as in, a fishing boat. More to come. Looking forward to continuing the discussion.

F r i t zwrote:

Thanks for the response! I agree with your assessment of user experience as regards clipping stances.

However, I think the more compelling issue at stake when it comes to the value of spicy/bold/runout trad (=groundup) routes is the user experience that they provide to the leader.

In my opinion, those who say "don't like, don't clip" demonstrate a critical lack of awareness as to what that user experience is.

My other question still stands, though. By what authority does anyone claim climbing "ought" to be done a certain way?

 Including me. Except that I'm literally trolling right now, as in, a fishing boat. More to come. Looking forward to continuing the discussion.

Trolling on a troll thread? Disgraceful.

I think troll threads are distasteful and shouldn’t be allowed on this constructive forum where there are new climbers. I doesn’t create an inclusive environment. Trolls should have to use their real names or be banned for bringing down the discourse.

While there is a difference between a place you can clip from and a place you can effectively drill from, there's nothing to stop you from intelligently placing bolts on top rope after you've put in a run out one.

Bad rock/ no flat surface (especially at Pinnacles) will keep you from installing a bolt. Sometimes the R section of routes there is on a section of bad or very hollow rock.

Climbing is STILL super fun

F r i t zwrote:

Thanks for the response! I agree with your assessment of user experience as regards clipping stances.

However, I think the more compelling issue at stake when it comes to the value of spicy/bold/runout trad (=groundup) routes is the user experience that they provide to the leader.

In my opinion, those who say "don't like, don't clip" demonstrate a critical lack of awareness as to what that user experience is.

My other question still stands, though. By what authority does anyone claim climbing "ought" to be done a certain way?

 Including me. Except that I'm literally trolling right now, as in, a fishing boat. More to come. Looking forward to continuing the discussion.

I guess I'd argue that there's quite a lot of the spicy/bold/runout stuff already by the nature of how development happened in the "old days". Folks put up routes with however many bolts they happened to have. They gave no concern to the experience those following them might have, and, on terrain that was easy for them, would run it out with dozens of feet between pieces of protection. Most of those routes are still in the same condition, and you can go climb them for that experience. There are plenty around, at least in all the popular places with long climbing history. There's value there, but I think getting that kind of experience is simple enough in most places that we don't need more of it than already exists. That said, the basic answer to "who has authority" is no one. Or the community at large. Or, as it relates to a single route, the FA, I guess. It's a nebulous concept at best. As an example, even if "the community" decided it was comfortable with retro bolting an old route where the FA was no longer with us, as long as there's someone willing to go out and chop those bolts, the status quo will probably remain, hence no one really has the authority.

^^^ Yep! She who can destroy a thing, controls that thing. Hence the Choppers are the ultimate conservative Iduntolyas.

Natalie Blackburnwrote:

[…], as long as there's someone willing to go out and chop those bolts, the status quo will probably remain, hence no one really has the authority.

I don’t know anyone who chops. Definitely nobody on this thread for sure

I'd argue that even if going ground up, which is the more common way I've done development for the bit I've done, there's not much reason to be extra spicy.

Power drills, or this point is moot. 

So going ground-up in a protected Wilderness Area means hand drilling (or none at all). And hand drilling labor is, was and always will be a valid reason for running it out. 

For those who never climbed before a world of cheap and easy battery powered hammer drills, it's a lot of work to hand drill esp. in bullet granite, and the like.

Natalie Blackburnwrote:

I guess I'd argue that there's quite a lot of the spicy/bold/runout stuff already by the nature of how development happened in the "old days". Folks put up routes with however many bolts they happened to have. They gave no concern to the experience those following them might have, and, on terrain that was easy for them, would run it out with dozens of feet between pieces of protection. Most of those routes are still in the same condition, and you can go climb them for that experience. There are plenty around, at least in all the popular places with long climbing history. There's value there, but I think getting that kind of experience is simple enough in most places that we don't need more of it than already exists. That said, the basic answer to "who has authority" is no one. Or the community at large. Or, as it relates to a single route, the FA, I guess. It's a nebulous concept at best. As an example, even if "the community" decided it was comfortable with retro bolting an old route where the FA was no longer with us, as long as there's someone willing to go out and chop those bolts, the status quo will probably remain, hence no one really has the authority.

Just sneaking a reply from the boat ritemeow to say you rock, and thanks for the constructive MP disagreement. I wish more people here put as much thought into their responses as you have.

I think we're still kind of two ships passing in the night here as regards this, but it's all good.

José Flovinwrote:

Somehow lost the strap and just didn’t want to capitulate to Big Chalk Bag and buy a whole new one just for the strap. 

No need to buy a whole new chalk bag. I made my own strap with nylon webbing and a GearAid buckle for like $5 plus 10 minutes of labor. More secure than the default kind and doubles as bail cord if needed.

My hot take, outdoor performance clothing is no better for climbing and much worse for the environment then the t shirt and sweats then I bought from the thrift store.  Why clothing companies are seeking to profit from climbing is beyond me