New and Experienced Climbers over 50 #32

I was overtired last night and stated a thought so inartfully but it was too late to pull it back.  It regarded that Charles Cole route called déjà vu.  My real curiosity had nothing to do with retro bolting or with how difficult that particular route was. It was more about bolt replacement on dangerous routes that are not well protected—how is it done?  And since I will never be doing that, it isn’t even an important question.  

Thousands of posts ago Jan and Guy set me straight on retro bolting, at least here in Joshua Tree. Guy asked me to imagine one of my favorite routes, Chalk Up Another One, with shiny new bolts added every 5 feet to make it look like a pair of gleaming braces on kids teeth. I suddenly understood.

And now I just feel like a groupie ogling these magnificent routes, and trying to figure out how they were ever done, but certainly not advocating that they be altered.

Man, this is such a private journey. It would be so easy to become despondent when viewing some of the feats that have been and are being done here. We each have to dance our own dance and be grateful for that much.

Chalk Up Another One

Wendy, thank you so much for the reminder. I have December 12 marked on my calendar. There’s a shindig here and I think that may include Rick speaking. I will make sure that I’ve got it right. It was a wonderful book.

Carl… Thank you for the mention of toproping. I really battle the feeling of being “less than“ when top roping. It was a discussion thousands of posts ago with Wendy, rgold and others that helped me settle it for myself.  One thing about this time of life is that it’s helpful to make some narrow decisions.  I have lost the desire to sample everything out there and instead have just honed in on a couple of goals.. which still requires all my attention and ability.

Lori, Rick's the nicest, friendliest person and he'll be accompanied by some of the main Stonemaster climbers.

Lori Milas wrote:

Thinking about The Hardest Route In The World.. I'm wondering about grading. Is there a difference when grading a route that is bolted and structured for sport climbing, as opposed to trad? If someone could hangdog and work that route endlessly, would the grade be the same?

Face climbs and cracks are different. Keep in mind if someone hangdogs a climb it’s not a send in Sport Climbing Speak.

Correct me if I’m wrong, as this is my current understanding of the terminology.

Sport: On sight can only be led and you can’t watch someone else climb it. Flash on TR, Red Point on lead only, Send (clean TR), Projecting (no send).

Boulder: Flash, Send, Working or projecting it.

The grades don’t change, just how you sent or not changes.

Li Hu wrote: Flash on TR, 

Incorrect.

If some tells me they flashed something on TR. I know exactly what they mean. On the other hand, if they tell me they flashed something on their third try, I have to think they're confused about what words mean. You can flash a boulder, a sport route, a trad route, can you flash a free solo? (flash or die!). Why can't you flash something on TR?

Bob Gaines wrote:

I'm with Randy against retro bolting. 

exactly 2 ascents were recorded for Penny Lane in the 29 years between 1987 and 2016. 

In 2016 I added 7 bolts and an anchor, and between 2016 and today there are 393 recorded Ticks (about a dozen commented that it was "scary") and 487 people have it on their "To Do" lists.

You did a good thing there. It's a fun route and a nice addition to Echo. I guess scary is subjective (and the bar seems to be pretty low these days), but it's certainly not dangerous in any way.  We just did it yesterday for some Canadian friends that were getting their slab on for the day. Consensus opinon semed to be that Swing Low (5.7) over in Echo Cove was harder than Penny Lane. We also did Sound of One Shoe Tapping and W.A.C., both always fun, but mostly don't fall options. Photo of my wife on Penny Lane yesterday.

p.s. Count me as a big vote against retrobolting old routes.

I can see Nick's view of retrobolting of routes that were never done very well in the first place, esp. if the FA'ist isn't around any longer to provide consent, and they hadn't expressed clearly that they wished their route to remain as it was 'created'. I'm not sure, though, how practical it is to apply such exceptions, since the decision about which route should be 'improved' is highly subjective, and open to interpretation.

I am curious about the views of some of the regulars in this thread, especially those with significant FA histories- do you see an erosion in the attitude around preserving the protection style and climbing experience that was established in a FA? This question comes up pretty regularly in the broader MP forum community, and it appears a lot of those opinions come from relatively newer climbers, who have not yet developed deep understanding of how climbing has evolved over many decades. This thread, however, has a perspective that can speak to this with depth and understanding. Is this erosion an issue at all, or am I just fretting needlessly? Is this preservation view important enough to try and perpetuate, and what do you think about the prospect of it dwindling away?

FrankPS wrote:

Incorrect.

Frank- I need to disagree on this one. I think a “Flash” is doing something the first time you touch it. Even if you have witnessed someone climb it previously. I recall a climb named “It’s easy to be brave from a distance” … 

Lori- the terminology matters. Don’t say Retro-bolting when you mean- Bolt replacement- two altogether different things. Most replacements I have done are done from a rap line. At the Needles when Kris was making the GB some of the bolts got replaced on lead. We clipped in and placed the new bolt, then switched to the new bolt and removed the old bolt and patched the hole if necessary. The thing is not to change the character of a climb, but sometimes we moved it down 6 inches to accommodate folks of shorter stature.

And, Lori keep this in mind when thinking about grades. If something isn’t miss graded (sandbag)  you take the grade as a consensus of peoples opinion of how it is. So that 5.10a R climbs 5.10 and at the crux, or some other spot, you get handed a “don’t fall- you might get F*+ked up” and X means you will probably die.

@Carl …. I think I could go climbing with you. A refreshing adult beverage for lunch can be like a power drink and a good smoke can make you climb your dead level best. :>) 

Later all- 

edit: apogee- agreed about the “erosion” of skills.
I climb with a bunch of new climbers all the time. I know I will fit in with them when they tell me Suicide was great, especially the weeping wall.
I remember Tradaban when he first came to this site and wanted to retrobolt old classic 5.7’s at T&S then I knew he was a troll when he was firmly against bolts…. 

apogee wrote:

I am curious about the views of some of the regulars in this thread, especially those with significant FA histories- do you see an erosion in the attitude around preserving the protection style and climbing experience that was established in a FA? This question comes up pretty regularly in the broader MP forum community, and it appears a lot of those opinions come from relatively newer climbers, who have not yet developed deep understanding of how climbing has evolved over many decades. This thread, however, has a perspective that can speak to this with depth and understanding. Is this erosion an issue at all, or am I just fretting needlessly? Is this preservation view important enough to try and perpetuate, and what do you think about the prospect of it dwindling away?

Yeah, I see an erosion.  Rarely does someone who puts up an FA go back and removed fixed protection.  Although some have swapped out pins and bashies and the like for bolts or less especially when smaller cams became available for reasonable pro and/or pin scars could be used for nuts, etc.  But, mostly folks have added fixed pro and/or moved belay stations to facilitate a better experience with regard to safety and convenience for a majority of climbers.  Me included and a number of friends who are prolific FA'ers.

But...that's different than routes which don't have an agreement from the FA to add fixed protection.  See the comments and debate on Book of Hate recently:

Book of Hate gets a bolt

For me at least, lead climbing a route with the protection options available to the FA has always been more memorable than a "sport route" especially if the route is a more psychological test piece where there's at least the perception of danger or the unknown if I fell.  I have strong memories of those types of leads.  Good memories.  I wouldn't want to deprive other folks of that experience by changing those types of routes.  Not everybody should be able to lead every route.  And...that's...ok.  Big tent.

We've lobbied against the addition of lead bolts or belay stations on a number of routes over the years. Some battles won, most lost. At least in the cases of those lost, the FA crew was solicited for their put and in some cases they even participated in the additions of pro. That makes it easier to digest for me. And it increased the popularity of those routes many, many fold. So...does that justify the change? Not always. But, in the more accessible-to-the-masses grades, the addition of fixed pro has been well received by the greater community.

Some routes with fixed pro seem to be poorly engineered.  In some cases, makes sense to maybe move a bolt position (especially if they were established on rappel).  But mostly, I'm in the "no retro-bolt" camp.

I think that the validity of retrobolting depends a lot on the area.  At Rumney NH,  pretty much everything except obvious crack lines has been retrobolted since it is a popular sport area.  Closer to home, Rose Ledge has maintained its “no bolt” (except anchors) character.  I have a 5.12 R first ascent there and actually argued against bolts with someone wanting to retrobolt it.  Other areas around here have more of a gear where it is good bolts where it is not ethic.  It doesn’t have to be one size fits all. 

FrankPS wrote:

Incorrect.

What’s the correct name when you send a climb with no prior knowledge on TR?

Li Hu wrote:

What’s the correct name when you send a climb with no prior knowledge on TR?

I'm not aware of any such 'official' designation, though presumably it is a 'TR on sight' ( at least that's what I consider it to be),  though a 'true on sight' is generally assumed to be on the lead.

Li Hu wrote:

What’s the correct name when you send a climb with no prior knowledge on TR?

Rehearsal 

Li Hu wrote:

What’s the correct name when you send a climb with no prior knowledge on TR?

The wife alls that a “TRash”

Ward Smith wrote:

I think that the validity of retrobolting depends a lot on the area.  At Rumney NH,  pretty much everything except obvious crack lines has been retrobolted since it is a popular sport area.  Closer to home, Rose Ledge has maintained its “no bolt” (except anchors) character.  I have a 5.12 R first ascent there and actually argued against bolts with someone wanting to retrobolt it.  Other areas around here have more of a gear where it is good bolts where it is not ethic.  It doesn’t have to be one size fits all. 

Living and climbing in the same area as Ward, I share his attitude on this. As one who started climbing in the '60s, I 'grew up with' and still generally believe in the ' FA principle', but ( and I guess this is a sign of the 'erosion' being discussed) have now come to accept that there can be some exceptions. In this area ( southern New England--but generally true throughout the east coast, as well as in the Northwest), in many areas, routes that are not regularly climbed quickly become quite dirty--so climbed even less, and in a surprisingly short time 'revert back to nature'. And given how much effort is involved in cleaning routes once they are in this state these routes effectively disappear and are highly unlikely to be climbed on sight in the future ( nor were many of them initially climbed that way). Not surprisingly, it is much more often trad routes that suffer this 'fate'--and rarely routes that are considered to be 'classics' or historic bold test pieces. As the bolted routes at these crags become more crowded, does it make sense to resurrect some of the nearby 'abandoned' ones of similar grades, to be reborn as sport routes? I have very mixed feelings on this; but I am aware of 2 adjacent routes of similar grades at one of our local crags, both originally established as trad routes but then not often repeated. One was  subsequently retro bolted ( with FA agreement) and is now one of the most popular routes at the cliff--sometimes with parties waiting to 'go next'. It's neighbor, unbolted, is totally overgrown and no longer climbed ( nor climbable in it's current state). 

Another situation, that I have discussed on another thread are easy/moderate routes at areas where there are few such routes, that received their FAs as solo ascents by folks who regularly climbed at much higher grade levels---so not really a situation where the routes were 'standard setting' in any way. Such routes are rarely if ever repeated despite the fact that there are many climbers looking to climb routes at that level, but not without protection. If these were crack routes, or with reasonable options for placing decent removable protection, this wouldn't be an issue, but when they are smooth slabs, with bolts as the only protection option, I do wonder if this isn't a situation where the FA principle might need a 'modification' ( though also recognize that this is a 'slippery slope'!!!). 

Li Hu wrote:

What’s the correct name when you send a climb with no prior knowledge on TR?

It's called a "toprope."

Eric Engberg wrote:

Rehearsal 

Basically what Frank(s) had just stated. Hahaha, I’ll go with that then.   

FrankPS wrote:

It's called a "toprope."

I love C Miller's word Tronsite, because it has Tron in it.  And that was a good movie BITD when special effects sci-fi was a challenge to do.

Todd Berlier wrote:

"do you folks think the NPS would ever require retro-bolting routes within their boundaries in an attempt to reduce rescue operations?"

No, never. In fact, the new 2023 NPS proposed climbing management guidance prohibits new "bolt intensive face climbs" (ie. sport climbs) in NPS wilderness, favoring "trad face" style, and "rare" bolts.

As someone who has done a fair amount of bolt replacement, I can tell you that the policy at Joshua Tree National Park is that a permit is required to replace a bolt (bolt replacement), and that if you wish to add a bolt to an existing route (retro-bolt) you need to provide written permission from whomever did the first ascent.

Bob Gaines wrote:

No, never. In fact, the new 2023 NPS proposed climbing management guidance prohibits new "bolt intensive face climbs" (ie. sport climbs) in NPS wilderness, favoring "trad face" style, and "rare" bolts.

As someone who has done a fair amount of bolt replacement, I can tell you that the policy at Joshua Tree National Park is that a permit is required to replace a bolt (bolt replacement), and that if you wish to add a bolt to an existing route (retro-bolt) you need to provide written permission from whomever did the first ascent.

Just because that's the current policy there is no guarantee it will stay that way.  Government policies can change on a dime - especially these days.  I would anticipate major cuts to the NPS in the next 4 years.  Given that and the desire to reduce rescue costs, by far the easiest thing would be to just ban climbing