New and Experienced Climbers over 50 #42

ed esmond wrote:

What happened to your flue pan? Looks like someone ran into it, hard!

GO

Just heard a terrific quote on NPR...

"I fear standing still more than I fear falling". 

Blind dude who runs marathons and half marathons. Has had specially trained guide dogs in the past, and is currently testing out AI glasses. Still has a human accompanying him, for safety.

That quote, though, applies pretty broadly, and to most, if not all, of us on here! 

Helen 

Lori said….. 

But just to add a small layer onto what we have been discussing here, a friend of mine weighed in on the subject this morning… “Remember, those early climbers never intended to repeat a route. They just brought the minimum gear needed to make it to the top one time. They were not thinking about creating classic masterpieces for future generations. Whereas these days we are thinking about all the climbers we hope will visit our route and we put a lot of time into placement of bolts and potential falls, etc.”

Lori. Your friend is speaking about “sport climbing” I believe. That’s a whole different thing altogether. When speaking about ethics in climbing I feel that the distinction between the two is key to understanding the ethics involved.

Adventure climbing is “pure” - if I might use the term- exploration. You see something big, beautiful and unknown. The sort of thing one dreams and wonders about with fear and curiosity. Real danger (imagined or real) exists.
One must possess the necessary skills to be successful.

Sport Climbing is quite different. The stone has been inspected closely (or should be) before the bolts are added- by any means- in the exact location needed. The finished product should be as perfect as possible with regard for safety and convenience.

I think this has been hashed out in the last 25 years or so and we climbers know the rules.

There is a place, not far from JT, an early “sport” venue where the FA folks rap bolted in a bunch of roots. Hardest climbs in SoCal they claimed, even made a guide book- hoping to make some money. Only thing is the climbs didn’t “go” and many qualified people worked on them and declared them “bull shit”. Fast forward a decade, some “locals” went and closely inspected these climbs on TR. They found 2 great climbs buried under the grid bolting. So they pulled the old bolts and raped placed new ones- in the correct spot's - creating two really good routes.

Now if the original roots had actually been climbed- free climbed- it would have been wrong to pull the bolts.

Bottom line….. Rap bolted “sport climbs” get worked on if needed.

And I would say that all those young Boulder people would sell their souls to learn how to get the rope up there. I know this cause I get asked to show/teach the secrets all the time.

Good topic for thoughtful discussion. 

"They were not trying to create masterpieces for future generations."

That, Lori, is unadulterated hogwash.

Lori Milas wrote:

So many of these existing routes that once were oncethe subject of super heroic feats are literally disappearing – – I guess we can’t stop time.

But just to add a small layer onto what we have been discussing here, a friend of mine weighed in on the subject this morning… “Remember, those early climbers never intended to repeat a route. They just brought the minimum gear needed to make it to the top one time. They were not thinking about creating classic masterpieces for future generations. Whereas these days we are thinking about all the climbers we hope will visit our route and we put a lot of time into placement of bolts and potential falls, etc.”

I don't believe either one of these statements is true. 

The climbs are still there, and with a very few exceptions, people are still climbing them... as long as fixed hardware is upgraded and/or replaced... which a few dedicated climbers are actually undertaking.

Many people putting up routes in the past were out trying to spy classic lines and nab them before someone else did. We wanted them to become classics (even if often they were not).  Once the route was established we absolutely wanted others to climb it and tell us how great it was (even if it wasn't). If the routes were good, we absolutely wanted to (and did) repeat them. While this was not true for everyone establishing routes, it was the prevailing attitude. 

Since bolts were put up on the lead with hand drills, bolts were placed on natural stances -- where you could let go with two hands. This often meant placing bolts sparingly and where actually needed to protect hard moves. As Guy mentioned, the concept of thinking out placements of bolts and falls is much more a sport climbing ethic -- routes that are generally not amenable to lead bolting due to steepness of the rock or lack of stances.

And, as others have pointed out, if you started climbing in the last couple decades, often learning climbing in a gym and transitioning to sport climbing, your expectations about protection and risk might be very different -- and only one point of view.

Brad Young wrote:

Daniel Shively wrote:

It's both.

I can give two examples of why tradition matters and why it involves both:

-  the "worship of ashes" - which I presume means admiring those who came before/those who made the routes in question, and also;

-  the "preservation of fire."

There could be literally hundreds of examples, but just two.

First, regarding a famous climb, The Bachar-Yerian in Tuolumne Meadows. Rated 5.11c X.

It's famous. Why? Not because it's a great quality 5.11 face climb. It's famous because its a great quality 5.11 face climb AND for  its incredibly bold history AND for the extreme courage/boldness and just "go" that one must have to lead it (I've never been on it). All of this in the very best traditions of our sport.

All of this would disappear - just evaporate - if The Bachar-Yerian was retro-bolted. Not every climb needs to be accessible to every climber.

Second, here's a photo of a similar situation, but regarding a route which is unknown other than to a small niche of climbers.

The two climbers are on a route called Daedalus. It's on Machete Ridge on the West Side of Pinnacles. Rated 5.8 R A1, it's actually almost an X, with 30 foot free-climbing runouts on merely good quality Pinnacles rock (excellent rock there can still break off).

The route was put up in 1976 by Glen Denny and Gary Coliver. These two put up a series of routes at Pinnacles which are way beyond bold - routes that see very, very few ascents. Routes that could kill you. Routes that are wildly famous (and, frankly, infamous) to those who know the park's climbing history.

This ascent was by two 25 year old climbers who, like me, are huge Pinnacles fans. They were making the route's third ascent. In 2025.

The two on this route? They were fanatically cautious. On a mere 5.8. And they pulled it off wonderfully. They were damn proud too once they'd finished.

They weren't proud because they'd done a 5.8 multi-pitch.

They were proud because they had the fire; fire enough to go for broke on a route which, like The Bachar-Yerian, absolutely requires going for broke. They'd done what legends before them had done and they'd done it in equal style.

All of which is a massive, massive difference from "just" another 5.8.

There are plenty of routes of all types to choose from (plenty!!). Not everything has to be dumbed down to a lowest denominator.

EDIT: And no, I obviously do not have any strong feelings on this issue ;)

One should add that B-Y is "famous" because it was done by a larger than life climber who didn't shirk away from publicity; and was a subject of a great piece of writing by John Long.

Without these two added factors it would just be another crazy, dangerous, rarely repeated first ascent by a very strong, very bold climber. Which is an achievement in own right.

 I'm not saying it should be retro-ed, nor am I saying it isn't a great route; but I don't understand why it's always held up as a touchstone for what climbing should always be.

I can't believe any reasonable person actually thinks retro-ing bold, iconic routes like B-Y is a good idea.  

ed "Reverse Osmosis is sugaring's version of retrobolting...  And don't get me started on burning dead dinosaurs instead of renewable wood.  What's next, adding high fructose corn syrup? ;)" e*

ps. Gabe: that pans been around a long time, current shed isn't its original home.  

* Bad attempt to parody most of the retro-bolt discussions above...

Tim K wrote:

Speaking of unadulterated hogwash.

Yup. Kids warm up on stuff that was cutting edge BITD. And it's not just well bolted sport routes. Plenty of youngsters doing hard runout stuff too. Maybe not as large a percentage as BITD but the overall climbing population is so much larger now the absolute numbers are greater.

Boulderers know how to get the rope up, they use ladders, walk up the backside, toss it over like Batman, or ask one of their friends who climbs to put it up for them. Lol

ed esmond wrote:

One should add that B-Y is "famous" because it was done by a larger than life climber who didn't shirk away from publicity; and was a subject of a great piece of writing by John Long.

Without these two added factors it would just be another crazy, dangerous, rarely repeated first ascent by a very strong, very bold climber. Which is an achievement in own right.

 I'm not saying it should be retro-ed, nor am I saying it isn't a great route; but I don't understand why it's always held up as a touchstone for what climbing should always be.

I can't believe any reasonable person actually thinks retro-ing bold, iconic routes like B-Y is a good idea.  

ed "Reverse Osmosis is sugaring's version of retrobolting...  And don't get me started on burning dead dinosaurs instead of renewable wood.  What's next, adding high fructose corn syrup? ;)" e*

ps. Gabe: that pans been around a long time, current shed isn't its original home.  

* Bad attempt to parody most of the retro-bolt discussions above...

I’d think that the BY being located on one of the most beautiful granite faces on earth may have something to do with its mystique too.  (Obviously a projection of my love for Yosemite and its environs.) 

ed esmond wrote:

 I'm not saying it should be retro-ed, nor am I saying it isn't a great route; but I don't understand why it's always held up as a touchstone for what climbing should always be.

B-Y may have been held up at one time as the 'way climbing should always be', but this was at a time of heated debate about ethics and style. At this point, I see B-Y simply as one way to experience climbing, and have great admiration for the people who prefer this approach. It's perfectly acceptable to me that there are many, many routes I will never climb- and it's wonderful to me to know they are out there, and how they came to be.

Lol! 

Well, this got fun (yes, actually fun).

Within the framework of absolute truths, that routes should be left "as is", "sport" climbing is assumed to be bolted safely, and pad people secretly lust in their heart to climb "real" climbs.....

There is just a metric shit ton of nuance in between all of this, some of it pretty interesting.

My highly esteemed friend Jay put up a bunch of stuff at City of Rocks, bitd. He did choose to revisit a route and add some bolts. Now it is a super popular route. He also very humorously has a hefty bunch of redacted route names over there (totally makes me smile). So, just one guy, with nuance in the choices he made back then.....and later.....and the reactions of the masses to it all.

But, at COR?

Managers have swapped out anchors on single pitch to mussy hooks, not without controversy for the "dumbing down" of climbing.

Camping has gotten more and more managed over the years (with old timers grumbling about "back in the day we did whatever we wanted"), as has fire policy and even just dogs on leashes. Infrastructure has been constructed, on and on.

That's just people management, for the most part.

But, some day, managers will have some interesting decisions to face, between respecting the past, and modernizing. What to do with the rebar route on Bath rock? More interesting, what about the fixed piton that is part of the rather spicy start of a very classic route (with a boulder to slam into in the mix)?

Is it still reasonable, going forward, to put up routes that end up "mixed"? Mostly bolted, but a bit of gear?

2 routes are a great contrast. Conceptual Reality is one of the very first routes with bolts added, and those bolts are very safe spacing. 

For the top part, that is bolted. 

The bottom, needs gear (if the climber chooses), as it's a super fun crack climb. 

That one, HAS to stay as is. It's historic, safe, and honestly, super fun. 

A couple newer, easier, routes, however, appear to be sport climbs if you are standing there sussing them out, with bolt lines visible. Until someone discovers the significantly spicy fact that, they are actually mixed. 

Yes, that is on the climbers. 

But being there when these weren't in any book or online, yet....

Yeah, got to watch some head scratching, lol!

At my local crag?

Sorry, but, I do think that it's both. Some were done to be great climbs, when the bolting started, but others, especially the easier ones, they only put it some bolts, not very generously, and they are neither safe nor good enough to justify that bolting. But done, is done.

Originally?

My local stuff was considered practice for the "real thing", which meant mountains. Truly dangerous stuff. It was all climbed with no fixed pro at all, and, you gad to top out and walk off. My friend told me that top out was often the hardest part.

Needless to say, he (and others) were horrified with the rise of "sport" stuff.

For my friend, that outrage lasted years.

But then came his children. And grandchildren. 

Well, okay. He softened to that call from the future.

For myself?

My local shuff is still just shitty, unsafe, climbing, for the lower grades. 

But then again?

If I can climb my local crap?

I'm climbing on far more difficult rock than anyplace else I've been so far.

Best all, Helen

The line between sport and trad can be blurry. Also, hybrid routes are quite common. The distinction between retro-bolting and rebolting is clearer. Not everyone agrees with, or abides by, the first ascent ethic, around here at least. I'm told permits for new bolts in J Tree are not being issued. I wonder if the scale of Yosemite makes maverick actions less obvious? It would be interesting to hear from the Gunks contingent. 

Daniel Shively wrote:

I’d think that the BY being located on one of the most beautiful granite faces on earth may have something to do with its mystique too.  (Obviously a projection of my love for Yosemite and its environs.) 

The rock on all of Medlicott is wonderful.  So many good routes from left to right!

Indeed!!!

It would be interesting to hear from the Gunks contingent. 

What would you like to know? 

Lori Milas wrote:

Guy, Randy… I have some heartfelt thoughts on bolting here in Joshua Tree and the preservation of history.   I’ve done so much hiking and exploring of routes that Based strictly on the bolting of a route I can almost know the life and times of the FAs.  

Buenos Aires was done in 1974. I have never heard of the two guys who did the FA – – are they even alive? Yet Here we are 50 years later and that piece of real estate is frozen in time.  Can’t be touched or modified to meet the needs of climbers today. I understand why it’s a tough problem.

I’ve been lucky to climb mostly with Bob who remembers the history of most of these routes. He describes just very different headspace for the earliest climbers here and I have a mixture of admiration and awe. But then on a day like yesterday I was happily moving up the face of that rock(on top rope) I traveled a long way before finally seeing that first bolt I was astonished – – couldn’t believe anyone would do that.  Today I realize no one is going to climb Buenos Aires cuz unnecessary risk taking is not a thing anymore. So there it sits.  

I don’t see the harm in one more bolt but I don’t get a vote.  

—-

Dragons gave a pretty good overview of WHOOP. I do wear it 24 seven. I had to satisfy myself that EMF‘s were minimal with the device. Had the experience of definitely feeling weaker when I wore an Apple Watch.

I don’t know whether it measures a strain or stress. I’m sure it’s not always accurate but it knows when I take a walk and it knows when I crank it up on the rock. It knows when I take a breath.  It also is surprisingly accurate with. letting me know if I’m getting rundown or sick.  It’s been comforting to have this device follow me over the last six months— especially the recovery aspect, my recovery scores were way off September through December and I knew I was not healthy. Then mid January my numbers started to normalize.  So I understand the device and what it offers and it’s just become quite normal for me – – I don’t need anything more.

I think the plan I am on would replace this device if it broke and when they upgrade, they give you the upgrade for a song.  

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/stats/105722104/buenos-aires

I can't believe I'm the first one doing this days later, but it's very easy to search a route name and see if people are leading it before asserting that nobody is leading it. And I bet that across the board (this is definitely area and route specific) maybe 5 to 20% of people even bother to add ticks to MP - if they even have MP accounts in the first place. So this is obviously an undercount.

Also if you don't lead routes in the first place, it's not a great idea to opine on style and ethics and history. Luckily dozens of people already made this point. Me, I rarely lead even PG-13 routes but I am SO glad they exist for SO many reasons: not only are they bold statements from the past but they inspire others to future achievements. 

PS - it is crazy to say "unnecessary risk taking is not a thing anymore" when you climb at J Tree where on a daily basis people lead R rated routes. Do you ever look around? Is this some weird kind of boomer nostalgia where you tell yourself future generations simply are not as badass as yours? 

philip bone wrote:

The line between sport and trad can be blurry. Also, hybrid routes are quite common. The distinction between retro-bolting and rebolting is clearer. Not everyone agrees with, or abides by, the first ascent ethic, around here at least. I'm told permits for new bolts in J Tree are not being issued. I wonder if the scale of Yosemite makes maverick actions less obvious? It would be interesting to hear from the Gunks contingent. 

So Philip Bone to be crystal clear about this topic.

People in your neck of the woods go and add bolts to established climbs?

Do you think the line between Sport and Traditional climbing is blurry? How so?

I’m genuinely curious about this, local customs do matter.

When I have climbed in the “ Gunks” I knew that every climb was “traditional” the fixed angle pins with chains said it all.

Edit to add 

Tim K said

Speaking of unadulterated hogwash.

So you don’t think what I said is true? I take young super strong, V10 outside, capable folks out all the time. We start at the beginning- how to repel, how to belay, how to place stoppers and hexes, anchors, everything

I have always enjoyed this “Mentoring” because teaching the young/new is what my elders taught me is the right thing to do. What is different with the gym climbers/boulders is you get to show people who are very strong how “IT” all works.

What has been your experience?

Edit to really add: 

Brad ….. I agree with most of what you say except for me there is a huge distinction between the two -Trad (I 8 that by the way and I just use the term Climbing) and Sport.
You want to say sport is defined by “closely spaced bolts” and that’s a good definition.

Five bolts in 110 feet is definitely a climb. If those bolts were placed on Rap I would call it a travesty.

I cut my teeth At Suicide Rock- the origin of bolted climbing. I don’t consider any climb at that place a sport climb.

Later all …. I think I have exceeded my limit. 

philip bone wrote:

The line between sport and trad can be blurry. Also, hybrid routes are quite common.

It's only blurry if one insists on just two definitions, "sport" and "trad." Like certain internet sites which have their digital heads up their digital rear ends.

So many kids these days think a climb is "sport" if it's all bolt protected.

Ah, no, that's not how it works.

A sport climb is a closely bolted face climb. You know, so you can focus on the sport and not the danger?

An all-bolt protected route that has let's say five bolts in 110 feet and that's all the protection? That's not a sport climb, it's a traditionally protected (or bolted) face climb.

Sport climbs are a single sub-category.

Trad (stupid phrase, actually) encompasses several categories - gear protected routes, traditionally bolted routes, and routes protected by bolts and gear.

Go back to your roots old friend (not routes in this case). You were climbing long before "sport climbing" was a thing and you already know all this.

And goddammit, where's a handy cloud to shake my old man's fist at as I curse at all the world's foibles?

The recent Enormocast/Taps (Last Rites) episode threw out the idea of tossing out the distinctions of 'trad' vs 'sport' climbing at this point in the evolution of the sport (or whatever you wanna call it), and now there's just 'rock climbing'. I understand the rationale for that argument, but I do think the distinctions are still useful (likewise, wish there was a better word for 'trad'...this is stooopid). Of course, they were ranting under heavy influence of scotch, and they are from Colorado. Jes' sayin'.

Edit:

Here comes the bloviation…

Guy Keesee wrote:

So Philip Bone to be crystal clear about this topic.

People in your neck of the woods go and add bolts to established climbs?

Do you think the line between Sport and Traditional climbing is blurry? How so?

I’m genuinely curious about this, local customs do matter.

When I have climbed in the “ Gunks” I knew that every climb was “traditional” the fixed angle pins with chains said it all.

Edit to add 

Tim K said

Speaking of unadulterated hogwash.

So you don’t think what I said is true? I take young super strong, V10 outside, capable folks out all the time. We start at the beginning- how to repel, how to belay, how to place stoppers and hexes, anchors, everything

I have always enjoyed this “Mentoring” because teaching the young/new is what my elders taught me is the right thing to do. What is different with the gym climbers/boulders is you get to show people who are very strong how “IT” all works.

What has been your experience? 

Guy, I can tell you exactly what people in our neck of the woods (in the Sonora Pass area) do, since I do a fair amount of it with Phil (and I think he's at his post limit for the day).

In the last few years both of us have gone back to some of the routes THAT WE PUT UP (that is to say he or me did the first ascent) and added bolts. I've done this with maybe four or five routes that I put up and Phil started doing it last year to some of his. I've helped him retro in multiple cases.

Here's an example of a "correction" to the 2013 guidebook that I posted to the Sonora Pass Climbing web site in this regard:

"85. Change, pages 220 and 221 (route A, "Ma Bone"):  Phil Bone has been looking over some of his older Potter's Rock routes and considering changes. Although the climb Ma Bone is not "R" rated in the book, this is a close call. The route's crux moves are made far enough above a good cam that a fall there could break an ankle. On September 18, 2025, Phil added a lead bolt halfway through this crux (Brad Young helped). This makes for a much more pleasant lead."

In another case I'd established a route decades ago that friend called "four out of three stars" (we use a three star system up here and he really, really liked the climb). I'd hand drilled the route and put in three bolts in 150 feet (it's 150 feet of perfect, perfect 5.7 granite slab). I got to thinking about how inaccessible that kind of runout made the climb, which really is quite good quality. So I went back and re and retro-bolted the route. I replaced the three original bolts with 3/8 stainless and added three more lead bolts, leaving a still-spicey, but much, much better route.

Phil's post may not have made it clear that there's been no adding bolts up here EXCEPT BY THE ROUTE'S FIRST ASCENT AUTHORS (sorry to shout, but this really matters).

Now obviously a first ascentionist adding bolts to a route that they put up is a very, very different thing than what most of this conversation has been about (adding bolts to routes that other people established). I think that this type of conduct has been universally accepted by the climbing community?

One possible exception has recently emerged here though - a series of routes at Table Mountain which, when established 30 years ago felt reasonably closely bolted, but don't feel that way now, when measured by modern standards. Each of these had 20 feet of 5.8 climbing over jagged talus to the first bolt (and are then middle 5.10 above that).

These routes were slipping into oblivion (which does happen to some routes everywhere, Lori). So Phil and I reached out to the first ascentionist on these routes (he lives in Oregon now). We identified what we thought was the issue and asked if we could add new lead bolts to the routes to make the starts less intimidating. That FA author gave his enthusiastic permission to doing so (although I've been so focused on getting the new Pinnacles guidebook done that we haven't made time to act on this permission yet).

Again, if/when we get to doing this, it will be with explicit permission which I have also always believed is universally accepted by the climbing community?

Now, can we get back to talking about how the orange f#$kface is f#4king things up instead of having these interesting types of climbing-centric conversations? (See what you started, Lori?)

EDIT: And, directing this comment to Guy in particular, climbers of your caliber (longevity and sense of tradition - not raw climbing numbers at our current ages) really should try out our granite. Which is just coming into season right now.

Unlike kids these days, who seem to need crowds and lines of climbers, we've got some incredible stuff here - rock that would blow you away - and if we see other climbers on it we either know them or we're shocked that someone else found the place and then we're social. Approaches from 45 seconds to ten minutes to longer and much longer.

(And I should be sorry about the kids-these-days comment. Lots of 20-something year old climbers live and/or climb up here - we've got an excellent if small climbing community.)