What happened to the Millbrook, Gunks page

Don't know if it would be a reasonable solution or not, but...

Just like Maple Canyon has ice routes and rock routes, you could add a Millbrook area for just TR's. That way the beta is separate based on what folks want to experience.

That way, there's a standard Millbrook Gunks page and one for TR's. Then, each can be managed as a separate area.

Brian in SLC wrote:Don't know if it would be a reasonable solution or not, but... Just like Maple Canyon has ice routes and rock routes, you could add a Millbrook area for just TR's. That way the beta is separate based on what folks want to experience. That way, there's a standard Millbrook Gunks page and one for TR's. Then, each can be managed as a separate area.

Sounds to me like that would be a precedent for creating a mess of MP. Just a quick look and it looked like the admin cleaned up some of the issues.

donald perry wrote:3. Lastly you are claiming FA's for a TR's ... From Donald: When you look in the Williams guide the roman numerals stand something else. Now I understand what you are using them for. The fact that it is a top rope under my name already explains that it is an x, see my aid climbs. Top roping is the option I chose. There is no question marks going down on my lines. You can put those on your own climbs if you wish. Please don't insult me with question marks. Please explain the reason why my climbing needs to be followed by questions, thanks.

This isnt a personal thing and you clearly are taking it as such..That wont help here in the forums.

Also I get that you have a rational for why you included the trad safety ratings and appreicate that you took the time here to explain but you appear to have failed to understand the rational I provided earlier. Its not a trad climb.. yet... so no safety ratings should be recorded in the MP database as they are associated with Trad Climbs. TR routes are by their nature G rated.

The question regarding the FA is that you are claiming you're the first person ever to TR a line at the gunks... how do you know that in a place with such a long history? Maybe you have done all the research and spoken with the previous parties who have worked the area and confirmed it is in fact one. Point was it is a big claim.

Williams Guide... sorry I believe you may be wrong here.

You also don't need to reference yourself in your posts "From Donald:"

Also are you a born again christian or something? Whats with all the biblical names references?

donald perry wrote:3. Lastly you are claiming FA's for a TR's ... From Donald: When you look in the Williams guide the roman numerals stand something else.

What Roman numerals in the Willaims guide?

Gunkiemike wrote: What Roman numerals in the Willaims guide?

IIRC, there were Roman numerals in the 1972 blue Williams guide. Not sure about the later red one.

"The question regarding the FA is that you are claiming you're the first person ever to TR a line at the gunks... how do you know that in a place with such a long history? "

From Don: Because when we do these climbs they are full of hand holds and foot holds that break off and there is nowhere to put any protection. And the reason for the poster here can be to wait for a challenge to the FA. Are you going to now put question marks on all the cimbs?, if not why do I need to do that? Please explain, thanks.

donald perry wrote: Which ones did you do so far?

I have climbed redirectionalism and abram believed. These climbs and other new ones you have have added have loose rocks and some parts are under a sea of lichen. The evidence on the rocks would show you would have to be the first person to route them. Besides the fact people say you have been on them sense the 70's.

I mean no disrespect to Michael S or to Don Perry-- I'm sure they have greater immersion in Gunks history than I do. However, I am a Gunks regular and I've been around a while, and I think I have the right to an opinion, which is based on my experience and understanding of Gunks history.

Of course routes in the Gunks have been done on top rope. I have no issue with Don or anyone else doing routes on top rope.

I am sure some of the routes that Don has listed have been explored before on top rope either wholly or in part. And that is fine.

But while there may be isolated exceptions, I don't think it is in keeping with the tradition of the Gunks to claim first ascents and list routes that have only been top roped. I know of a couple of old Russ Clune projects here and there, things like that, which were given working names... But this is something different.

Anyone can go down the cliff, dropping a rope from the top and working the moves on line after line, in a systematic way, giving them all names and listing them. There is nothing wrong with it from an ethical perspective but from a style perspective it leaves much to be desired. Especially at Millbrook, which Goldstone often describes as "the traddest cliff in the country," we ought to value ground-up ascents to enough of a degree that we don't list routes like this.

I joked in a comment on one of these routes that Don should name the route "the Murder of the Impossible." I'm not sure he got the joke, or realized the reference I was making to the Compressor Route in Patagonia. Obviously I am not saying that he is doing the same thing as bolting an impossible line into oblivion. But to some degree these top rope previews, accompanied by publication, cheapen these lines for everyone.

donald perry wrote:And the reason for the poster here can be to wait for a challenge to the FA.

From Morgan: Fair enough... that's valid.

SethG wrote:But to some degree these top rope previews, accompanied by publication, cheapen these lines for everyone.

I also agree having all these TR's detracts/takes away from the very real committing hard X rated trad routes put up in good style and what the area is known for. We had the same issue in CT with Ken Nichols. Most of his TR routes are no longer published in guides likely for the reasons you mentioned.

Betaclimber wrote: Besides the fact people say you have been on them sense the 70's.

Lets take 1975 as your reference point... Donald is 47 per his Mountain Project Profile. 1975 is 41 years ago.

That means you believe he was out here at age 6 cleaning and putting up TR routes. I don't believe this statement and it takes away credibility.

Also the MP profile would suggest that these routes are all recently send (last year or two) so I don't think there's nearly as much history as you're indicating.

wivanoff wrote: IIRC, there were Roman numerals in the 1972 blue Williams guide. Not sure about the later red one.

Correct, Roman numerals WERE used for Gunks routes 44 years ago. And not since then. Anyone writing route descriptions in 2016 ought to be a bit more up-to-date than using 44 year old conventions. I mean, no one would accept, "The crux protects well with a 1-1/2 inch angle" in a 2016 Gunks route description.

I started climbing in the Gunks in 1977 and Donald looked quite a bit older than eight then...just saying. He was a fixture in the Uberfall who always wore dark green work clothes and climbed stuff to 5.8 in work boots as I recall.

This has to be some very elaborate and very weird troll right?

I'm just going to leave this here.

Tom Stryker wrote:I started climbing in the Gunks in 1977 and Donald looked quite a bit older than eight then...just saying. He was a fixture in the Uberfall who always wore dark green work clothes and climbed stuff to 5.8 in work boots as I recall.

I'm only doing the math from his profile...

And I'd also point out he sure looks ~47 in his profile image showing him in front of a ~2015 Jeep submitted this year.

Michael Schneider wrote:I have not read what you said and won't for a few hours. Just know that you are so out of your depth here that you should stop.

Maybe taking the time to read what I wrote before responding would have been helpful?

Following the logic of what’s happening here, I’m going to need to update the NJ Guidebook and create a MP page solely dedicated to Watchung for all the TR fist ascents I’ve put up there over the years. Because, as you know, there’s plenty of unclaimed and unnamed rock in between the established routes. Doesn't matter if it's leadable. Doesn't matter if there's an actual sequence of moves. Just so long as it's rock without a name that I can drop a rope on from up top and find a way up, it's good.

Now, am I right or am I out of my depth?

Well I recall being amazed he was planning to live all summer on forty dollars back then, so now finding out he was just eight really blows me away !

Burlingame had a Land Cruiser I think, I hope he wasn't like ten or something!

donald perry wrote: Whats being noted by me is quality not quantity. My intention is to bring attention to an awesome line, what's yours?

If these are actually quality routes, awesome. Really. I'll gladly spend the day on the wall, be your belay slave, and buy you dinner and drinks if you've gone an unearthed some overlooked climbing gems.