Mountain Project Logo

Routes in Tower Two

Big Chill, The S 5.10b 6a+ 19 VII- 19 E2 5b
Cave Man T 5.11c/d 7a 24 VIII 25 E4 6a
Deja Vu S 5.11a 6c 22 VII+ 22 E3 5c
Desp-Arête S 5.10d 6b+ 21 VII+ 21 E3 5b PG13
Falcon Corner T 5.9+ 5c 17 VI 17 E1 5a
From Trilobites to Lycra Tights T,S 5.11d 7a 24 VIII 25 E5 6a
Fryable T 5.9 5c 17 VI 17 HVS 5a
Insane in the Brain S 5.11a/b 6c 23 VIII- 23 E3 5c
Klein's Girls T 5.11a 6c 22 VII+ 22 E3 5c
Not Bosched Up T 5.9+ 5c 17 VI 17 E1 5a R
Radiation Babies S 5.10 6b 20 VII- 19 E2 5b
Shadow, The T 5.9+ 5c 17 VI 17 E1 5a
Social Realism T 5.10a 6a 18 VI+ 18 E1 5a
Whiskey and Weed Power S 5.11b 6c 23 VIII- 23 E3 5c
Type: Sport, 75 ft
FA: Greg M, Zack G July/2000.
Page Views: 217 total, 2/month
Shared By: Boissal on Sep 4, 2007
Admins: Andrew Gram, Perin Blanchard, grk10vq

You & This Route

19 Opinions

Your To-Do List:

Add To-Do

Your Star Rating:

     Clear Rating

Your Difficulty Rating:

-none- Change

Your Ticks:

Add New Tick
Park your car off of the main canyon road. Details
Gate Buttress Area Recreational Lease: Climbs on Church Buttress above vault remain closed Details

Description (3 cruxes up high)

IINT is an excellent techy route that wanders up the belly of Tower 2 and takes you through a series of three cruxes.
Moderate climbing on good holds brings you to a dark roof with a high 4th bolt. Work those sidepulls to surmount the right side of the roof and keep going on small but positives holds and the occasional savior pocket. A second bulgy crux brings you back left for a pumpy finish up a steep section which seems to be bare of holds.

Clip the anchor and lower or if you feel real manly tackle the uber-gnar two bolt extension proudly FFAed (and named) by JS (see comments). It is reminiscent of the finish of Deja-Vu with a steep bulge on thin holds.


You'll find this tribute to Cypress Hill about 10' to the right of the black V-slot that marks the start of Deja Vu. If you step down off the platform of boulders you've gone too far right and are looking at Whiskey and Weed Power.


10 bolts to a 2 bolt anchor.


- No Photos -
The one bolt extension has always been a favorite way for me to get an FA also :) May 28, 2008
John Steiger
John Steiger  
Not to pick a scab off an old wound, but I'm compelled to admit that I added the bolt on Reality Check and did the FFA last September. Sorry for the ruckus. May 26, 2008
Greg Martinez
Greg Martinez   SLC UTAH
the chains at cecret lake that were replaced was not on my climbs girls on film didn't have any chains they were added Tyler Phillips climb. & junk head Luke Douglas put up .they put the same thickness chains on but longer & shiny Luke went back cut & painted the new ones. Sep 25, 2007
Brian in SLC
Sandy, Utah
Brian in SLC   Sandy, Utah
Greg, I don't mean to bitch, and, you're routes are great, but, 1/4" chain is just too small to leave. Only a couple rope pulls and the zinc coating is gone. They'll rust, and, no telling how long they'll last when that starts up.

One good season of folks on some of the popular routes, and, they'll get grooved out. Just makes too much sense if you're going to put up routes and buff them out for the community to enjoy, then bump up the chain size to 3/8". I think some of the anchors (around Cecret Lake) are already seeing folks replacing the chains on their own.

Best bet is to use a Fixe (or similar) ring on a rapide. Those 10mm rings are rated huge, and, they last and last.

Happy climbs! Sep 22, 2007
Greg Martinez
Greg Martinez   SLC UTAH
all of my new routes have a locking link and 5 pieces of chain. if wearing shows they can be flipped over or replaced if need be.i haven't had to replace any chains so far.if the time comes then i will.but some people like to bitch about anything they can. but the chains on insane in the brain were some of my first.i bolted the chains into rock like most of the routes i had climbed in the past with the 3rd bolt being part of the anchor. just like a lot of trad routes that have webbing around a tree with a locking link for an you just take the webbing or replace it when you climb the route.i replace it or add one to it. most all the routes i had climbed up until then never had replaceable chains around here if so what routes? and as far as bolting. IM bolting sport routes not mixed routes any more. IM going back and retro bolting most all of them if people want to place gear then go for it. i added bolts to some of the more moderate climbs to after i climbed them because some of my friends that don't climb 10`s 11`s or 12`s wanted an extra bolt. Sep 21, 2007
Allen Sanderson   Oootah
Hey Greg,

What do you mean by the anchors can be flipped over and continued to be used? If they are chains and the last link is worn it should be removed as it is now the weak link in the system. Flipping it or all of the section of chain will not make any difference. So I could use a little clarification by what you mean. Thanks for moving your other anchors down.


Allen Sep 21, 2007
Greg Martinez
Greg Martinez   SLC UTAH
i moved the anchor down 1 bolt on radiation baby's no way to clip anything from not boshed up any more .i will matain my routes as long as IM alive and still climb. Sep 20, 2007
I have communicated with both GM and AS privately. Both of them are correct in their thinking and actions going forward. I am not taking sides, because both of them are being honest to themselves. In other words, no one is trying to fuck with someone else. I think this was an excellent place to carry on this discussion, rather than in a more public forum as it keeps it somewhat confined to the area (Hellgate) and to the people. I think it was good that the exchange went on, because I think really we are all on the same page when all is said and done....simply lots of miscommunication and misunderstanding at the onset.

It only takes one unsafe anchor to produce a widow, I certainly wasn't implying all of Gregorio's 100+ routes have bad anchors. I may remind you that I have drilled in the Hellgate cliffs in the past and even weaker rock more recently. I could go on and on, but basically, I have witnessed the consequences of anchor failure. I am pretty sure the FA party (Steve Hong) knew a thing or two about placing bolts and had no intention of causing harm to someone...and believe me, that accident involving bolt failure was in better rock than at the Hellgate.

Criticism can be constructive. Try not to be so defensive and lash out. People have been critical of many aspects of routes I have been involved with. I try to listen, I try to assess it, and often I do something about it. I am all about safe beyond any doubt belay anchors. Maybe you have done Black Streak up at DC? That route has seen many changes, many upgrades through the years. I did all of them, but mostly at other people's suggestions. I think it is a better route for it....greater than the sum of its parts so to speak!Hellgate anchors may just not be all that great after 7-8 years. On the third pitch of Till Hell Freezes Over (A hanging belay), I have 4 bolts and added a Glue In years after the FA. These routes need constant attention and maintanence (and who better than the FA party if they are available and motivated?), in contrast to the granite or quartzite...that is my take on it anyway.
Cheers Sep 14, 2007
Greg Martinez
Greg Martinez   SLC UTAH
perhaps if I didn`t hear about you talking down my routes from other people & your posts.sadly poorly over bolted to many bolts and so on then perhaps might be a polite way .but coming from you just seems sarcastic.just replace the sling it was there before .I don't just take slings off a climb if worn out I replace it with another one .or go put my locking link on one of the chains & I will replace the sling .the rock & anchor look fine I wood trust it for another 100 years or longer the way it was. Sep 13, 2007
Allen Sanderson   Oootah
Under no certain terms did I say "take out the chains altogether" that is an order, nor was what I said "passively malicious"

What I said was - "PERHAPS the original chains should be removed,"

From the dicitionary:

perhaps |p?r?(h)aps| adverb

• used to express uncertainty or possibility
• used when one does not wish to be too definite or assertive in the expression of an opinion
• used when making a polite request, offer, or suggestion

All three of the above apply to the statement.

Sheez ... Sep 13, 2007
Greg Martinez
Greg Martinez   SLC UTAH
the bolts are 3.25 inches long x 3`8 not 2.25 . i don`t care if there's an extension. the anchor has worked just fine the way its been for 7 or 8 years as a 3 piece . Allen said take out the chains altogether that's changing the line. and for the chains on my new climbs they hold 2300 lbs each and can be flipped over or changed when wearing shows.I haven't had to change any chains since 1999 .none of my anchors have been replaced on hellgate so get your facts right. if so what climb. Sep 13, 2007
Duncan Murray
Salt Lake City
Duncan Murray   Salt Lake City
James, nothing I said replied to your comment or to colby's, I didn't reply to your comment because parts had nothing to do with this climb, that's forum thread talk and this isn't such a place. Thanks for understanding my point to a degree but I believe its generally hitting a brick wall with everyone that's going to back up Allen, of which it is obvious I'm not to fond of for other reasons left for a thred (oh, and I never saw the forum posts you are talking about or am I not understanding you?) but I stand by what I said. If the bolt is still there then there is nothing to it, and that has been clarified, and should have been left at that, however to mention that you should just erase a line as said,

"Perhaps the original chains should be removed, since they seem to unnecessarily break up the line" passively malicious (if such words can be used together) and that is something I'll argue against. I liked that climb the way it was and if Greg wishes to strengthen those 2 anchor's in question I would be happy and continue to have both lines up. That third anchor was to be used for that climb only and it seems it seems now it has been adopted into the Reality Check line.

Also, I didn't respond about the anchor's in colby's post because I didn't have the time, I think if they are suspect then they should be replaced, however James, if I am grabbing your innuendo right with the 100+ climbs to mean Greg's? If so that's a huge assumption to imply that 100+ may not be up to grade for safety. I've learned that assumptions are the mother of all fuck-ups as I just learned one post ago on my part! Greg's climbs are safe, and he is shelling out mo-co bucks and time for all these climbs. The fact that this has been discovered on one route doesn't imply the rest are alike, and there just "might" have been a really good reason to the third bolt/anchor. And if people wish to live while climbing and see 3 anchors they should use them, when I hit an anchor with 3 bolts, I use them all because you never know why the 3 are there instead of just 2, and I'm not going to just, assume! Sep 13, 2007
Brian in SLC
Sandy, Utah
Brian in SLC   Sandy, Utah
2.25" x 3/8" 5 piece Rawls occupied by an inch of washers and through the chain

Washer stack anchors. Ugh. Yeah, who was that guy who wrote the article which appeared in the climbing rag telling us all how great these types of anchors were?

Ha! Sep 13, 2007
Quite simply, it doesn't sound like that. And I assume you are addressing the bloody retarded reference to what I wrote. I interpreted your initial post as defensive and acting offended. Yea, unfortunately, ethics DO play a role here. I appreciate you responding once again, however, you did not address those very ethical issues that seemed so important to you before. Unlike the other people who lashed out, I sense you are acknowledging misunderstanding Allen in the first place....which is also a good thing.....thankyou.

Strange, though, Allan didn't even report the "new route" before taking it to the forum and bringing it up publicly first for you to give your opinions. Well, he got it, along with threats and innuendos. The name Reality Check....geez, I wonder what that implies.

The anchor situation that Colby mentions presents a more serious scenario than maybe you care to admit. I agree with Colby and Bill Hunt (we used to call him Mr. Hellgate in the 90s), it carries costs to put up FAs. If you don't want to buck up and put in quality anchors that are safe for more than 100 ascents, maybe you need to reacess your overall motivations. These good routes up there get LOTS of traffic. Swingset chain doesn't hack it. And 2.25" x 3/8" 5 piece Rawls occupied by an inch of washers and through the chain in Hellgate Limestone doesn't hack it either. If someone was telling me something like this about one of my projects, I would thank them, check into it, and improve it....sure better than going to another funeral and feeling responsible for it on top of that. What are you gonna tell the wife or kids or husband?...."well, geez this stuff is expensive, we had to cut corners somewhere." Sep 13, 2007
Duncan Murray
Salt Lake City
Duncan Murray   Salt Lake City
Quite simply when you read that initial post it sounds like "hey, this is the new name of the route, let's remove the chains to the other one." I have never had a problem with extensions onto routes, but I do have a huge issue when someone cuts a bolt, anchors, or whatever and then renames the climb. If this is not the case here then no one has anything to bloody-well worry about or do you? I said just that, and if such is not the case then don't get all offended or pissed off. Just say you did or didn't do that or don't at all, but to hack into that ethics statement is bloody retarded, everyone knows damn well that you don't just go hack someone's route put in one new bolt and rename the son of a bitch something else. Period, if that is not the case then why worry about this, and Allen why the long discourse and innuendo to other climbs and ethics when most of what you are talking about doesn't pertain to this climb. Save for a thread or something... Sep 13, 2007
Colby Wayment
Ogden, UT
Colby Wayment   Ogden, UT
Extensions are not alterations of the climb!

I do not personally know this climb, but it sounds as if a legitimate extension was put in. Please do not chop for your ego. We already have enough chopping wars going on in SLC.

Coming from one of the original Hellgate FA's, Bill Hunt, it sounds as if this crew attacking Allen have bolted many of the pre-existing Top Ropes in the Towers area. The routes were envisioned and climbed (on TR) before you got to them, but nobody cares or complains about your need for recognition. I realize you invested a lot of money to establish fun and worthwile climbs.

Also, though I'm not sure whose routes they were, but Bill has replaced at least one set (that I know of) of anchor chains at the semi-recently developed East Hellgate due to the incredibly weak links that were installed by the FA. So, it is not suprising to me that, for safety reasons, that anchors at the Hellgate may need someone else to tend to. Sep 12, 2007
A possible defense of what Allan is talking about is the route RADIATION BABIES on the Hellgate Cliffs. Apparently, the anchor was installed right in the middle of the run out ending to NOT BOSCHED UP. Just because the First Ascensionist is dead,(he was an inspiration, at least to me and many others like Allan), doesn't mean other climbers with more trad backgrounds wouldn't be irritated by that route. I know if Mugs was around today, that route wouldn't have existed for longer than a week. Now, I am sure it will also be argued by some that they were just installing a "variation". That is bullshit and it always will be bullshit. Self responsibility starts at home.

Like, what's next? Is it OK to go rap drill FOSSILS FROM HELL and then give it a new name (variation name)? Just because some of you may have been in diapers when that climb was first done, ignorance to it's existence (because you don't see many bolts on it) is no defense.

Possibly a more important point, however, is the issue of route length. If one is climbing on a 100 or 200 or 300 foot wall and decides that a new route should only ascend 60 feet of it (or frequently even less!), they don't own the territory or landscape above like seemingly alot of climbers seem to think they do. I am maybe alone on this issue, but I have always been a proponent of going all the way to the top of cliffs (Unless there is a real obvious reason not to), hence, I support extensions. I support the idea of second pitches or extensions only if it does not alter the existing climb...I believe that is what Allan is talking about here.
On the other hand, installing the anchors for Radiation Babies in the middle of another long standing Hellgate classic put up by a true legend is a much greater travesty. Sep 12, 2007
Allen Sanderson   Oootah
The original route has not been changed in any shape or form. Reread the post. More climbing has been added above nothing more and nothing less. Only the sling which was weathered baked garbage that could not be trusted was removed. The "third" bolt and hanger are still there - and are used to protect the crux moves on "Reality Check" (nicely I might add).

If the anchors with chains are that suspect or not of the proper length why has this not been noted until now? This revelation is rather bothersome. Anyother routes that folks should know about that are like this?

If the anchors are that suspect why not just remove them, let the route continue to a more natural finish and use the anchors for Deja Vu? Or if the Deja Vu anchors are not acceptable putting in new anchors that are realiable would seem to be prudent.

Duncan you noted - "Follow the ethics we have all been doing so for years" Hmm, there are quite a few routes that have been added to over the years with the extensions or variations being given their own separate names. For instance, "Chicken Little" which is a two bolt direct start to "The Bungle", or how about "One" and the extension "The One That Got Away" ? No bolts were removed, no bolts were moved, no credit was claimed were it was not due, no names changed. As such, could you elaborate on this?

As for ethics, care to comment on some recently established routes with bolts on them that have safe and adequate gear from top to bottom, routes with multiple safe gear placements that are also bolted, as well as new bolted routes on long established gear routes? As far as I know the ethics have been to shun such things. Yet, I have seen examples of each recently.

BTW it is not my bolt nor did I do the FFA of this but spied the line and worked the moves. Sep 12, 2007
Duncan Murray
Salt Lake City
Duncan Murray   Salt Lake City
Amen, Greg!!! Who would just change someone's route and then rename it? I know one person but that's not getting rehashed. Allan it just seems to me that you are creating trouble for no good reason. Follow the ethics we have all been doing so for years or trouble will start and frankly it shouldn't have to be that way. Put that bolt for the chains back as you do not have the right to wipe from existence a route that you didn't put up. Make the original line safe to climb again!!! End of story and don't even reply to this just do it, you'll be wasting your breathe when it should be spent fixing this. Sep 11, 2007
Greg Martinez
Greg Martinez   SLC UTAH
you better put the third anchor back this week.or IM chopping your route been there for years.if your trying to start shit your doing a good job. you made the anchor a lot weaker the bolts holding the chains are only in a few inches. the third anchor with the sling & locking link was the back up part of anchor the bolt is 3.25 inches by 3/8 put a sling back that's all. if somebody gets killed blame your self.I have replaced it before & I have replaced other peoples slings but not removed them altogether. Sep 10, 2007
Allen Sanderson   Oootah
This line originally ended about 80 feet up at a hanging stance with three anchors (two with chains) below a bulge. Recently, another bolt has been added above the anchors that protects moves over the bulge to the chains on Deja Vu. This extension is called Reality Check and makes the line 5.11+ (maybe harder for shorter folks). If climbing Reality Check, a 60m rope is necessary to lower off the Deja Vu chains. Perhaps the original chains should be removed, since they seem to unnecessarily break up the line. Sep 5, 2007