REI Community
Cottontail Tower
Select Route:
Brer Rabbit T 
Free Gaza T 
Trick of the Tail T 
West Side Story 


YDS: 5.10 French: 6b Ewbanks: 20 UIAA: VII- ZA: 19 British: E2 5b A5 X

Type:  Aid, Grade VI
Original:  YDS: 5.10 French: 6b Ewbanks: 20 UIAA: VII- ZA: 19 British: E2 5b A5 X [details]
FA: Jim Beyer (solo) December 1988
Page Views: 7,439
Submitted By: Ben Folsom on Nov 15, 2001

You & This Route  |  Other Opinions (1)
Your todo list:
Your stars:
Your rating: -none- [change]
Your ticklist: [add new tick]
Your opinion of this PAGE:    [0 people like this page.]

RAIN, WET ROCK and RAPTOR CLOSURES: The sandstone around Moab is fragile and is very easily damaged when it is wet. Also please ask and be aware of Raptor Closures in areas such as CAT WALL and RESERVOIR WALL in Indian Creek MORE INFO >>>


Originally rated A6 by Beyer. According to Beyer there were no holes drilled deeper than 1/4" deep on the first ascent. Tim Wagner on the third ascent filled in holes that were deeper than 1/4" drilled by somebody. The route starts right off the trail on the south face of the tower.

P1- Climb a thin seam that diagonals up and left via beaks and aluminum heads. Climb a dihedral until a hook traverse left on cobbles is possible. Belay underneath a small roof at a fixed pin. (A3+)

P2- Continue up the crack to a left facing corner passing a possible belay. Climb this corner to a small stance and belay there. (A3)

P3- A rotten grovel leads to a horizontal crack. Climb left following this crack with thin nailing and hooking. Climb a vertical A1 crack to a spot below a small roof and set up a hanging belay there. (A4)

P4- This is the business. Climb thin cracks and seams with some hook moves to establish another hanging belay in a right facing corner. (A5)

P5- Continue up this corner at A1 to some discontinuous cracks and features. Climb this via thin nailing and hooking. The pitch ends at another hanging belay in a left facing corner under a roof. (A3+)

P6- Climb the corner above the roof to and A3 crack. Climb the crack up and left to a horn. Tension left off the horn to some hooking and then 5.6 to a large belay ledge to join Brer Rabbit. (A3, 5.6)

P7- Continue up Brer Rabbit climbing a bolt ladder to an A2 crack. Pass an old belay, climb past a hole then a 5.8 mantle and some bolts lead you to the Belay. (5.8, A2)

P8- Climb up a right facing corner to a ledge and thread a hole for pro. From there traverse right to a fixed pin and some awkward grovelling under a roof. Climb bolts and cracks above the roof to the belay. (5.8, A2)

P9- Climb a 5.8 squeeze chimney and a short A1 section on the south face of the summit blob to the summit of the tower. (5.8 A1)

Descent- Make 6 or 7 raps down Road Kill on the Northwest face of the tower.

This route takes a lot of effort and time to set up good belay anchors.


7 beaks, 10 blades, 12 arrows, 5 baby angles, 3 3/4" angles, 2 each 1"-1 1/2" angles, 3-4 sets of cams to #4 camalot. 2 sets of stoppers, many hooks, 20-25 aluminum heads.

Comments on Intifada Add Comment
Show which comments
Comments displayed oldest to newestSkip Ahead to the Most Recent Dated Dec 18, 2016
By Steve "Crusher" Bartlett
Jul 22, 2002

"There were no holes drilled deeper than 1/4" deep on the first ascent".

Yes. Beyer told me that on this route, and on World's End, he developed the innovative technique of drilling two (or was it three?) 1/4" holes immediately above each other and then pounding in an alumihead (the old rectangular Forrest versions work best for this) into the resulting slot. Trenching for the Fishers. He also told me he did not want this printed in Bjornstad's guidebook. This gets a little weird years later when someone tries a second ascent, and the slots have degraded and eroded out ( the rock can erode really fast; I have actually seen Beyer copperheads on top of little protrusions of rock); and there is no mention of any of this in Beyer's own descriptions/topos. What's a second ascentionist to do?In the case of World's End, the second ascentionist retreated, baffled, and, after a long phone call to Beyer, returned to the fray armed with a drill, and rather more liberal attitude to using it.With Intifada, the second ascentionists, once they realized that there were lots of driled holes already on the route, figured there was no harm in deepening existing holes. I was camping in the Fishers when Tim Wagner did the third ascent of Intifada. This was a fine effort, done solo. As I recall, he told me he had no clue about who was responsible for the numerous holes all over the route. He just used the holes he could, and drilled others out deeper as needed (ie if they had degraded/flared out and were unusable).

Anyway, three points/slanderous comments:1. If a route in the Fishers employs an indeterminate number of drilled holes/slots, and the first ascentionist doesn't telll anyone, it seems quite understandable to me that folks, once they realize what was done, will drill deeper holes_and, what is far worse, if they cannot find a hole, they'll drill a new one because they will rationalize that the old hole has eroded out altogether.

2. What do other folks think of this trenching technique?"The second ascent drilled some of the holes deeper to place baby angles." If a hole was drilled by the first ascentionist, is it bad to drill it deeper? If so, why? 3. Anyone who thinks that Jim Beyer, on those A4/5 leads, was taking out his 25-foot Stanly tape and methodically limiting himself to no more than 1/4" deep probably still believes that Clinton resolutely refused to inhale.

By Joe Collins
Jul 23, 2002

To me, the whole idea of "trenching" head and hook placements in this manner sounds like pretty much the same damn thing as drilling holds (or bolting on holds) on a sport route. One is done in the name of adventure, while the other in the name of athleticism. Essentially, I see no difference. Beyer and cohorts, in employing these techniques, do have tradition on their side... but then he has the gaul to take on the role of ethics-policeman when NATURAL sport routes pop up on "his" walls near Durango. One may be able to justify this with the macho-attitude that its far more ballsy to create tenuous placements than place bolts, but with repeated ascents and thus further modification, it is the rock that suffers.

It is very possible that the Fishers will one day be designated a wilderness-type area where, much like the case of Canyonlands NP, only clean protection will be allowed. If land managers only knew (or read this page) what happens up on the walls, this outcome would be a virtual certainty. This type of route development needs to be discouraged if the rest of the climbing community still wants to climb in the Fishers.

By Andy Johnson
May 28, 2003

So let me get this straight. Did Wagner use the trenching method on his ascent? Who did the real second ascent? Also, I have a ton of respect for Jim Beyer. He is definately the ultimate aid master in my eyes, but the whole deal of trenching sounds pretty bad. I have always been told that one should never enhance a placement when heading. You might as well just put in a rivet. Both are modifications in the rock to allow upward progress. The only diference is that one is reuseable and the other is not. Sure it will lower the rating, but it will save the rock from being drilled with every ascent. Reinhold Messner called bolts "the murder of the impossible." I beg someone to tell me the difference.
By Steve "Crusher" Bartlett
Feb 16, 2004

The earlier comment I made reads way worse I intended. It is not meant as a personal criticism of anyone. I was (and I am still) trying to open up a debate (and this is a good forum for such a debate) on different styles of doing aid routes in the Fishers.
By Colin Coulson
Apr 15, 2004

Could it be that the land managers previously mentioned are or one day will be right? Is the elimination of climbing in the Fishers the best decision for the towers? The Fishers are possibly THE place for frightening adventure, but it is simply impossible to surmount these towers without leaving your mark. Even on the trade routes there are scars from _clean_ aid. Granted, these towers may only be around for X number more years (Geologists, help me out on this one!) due to their discontinuity of strata and weak cohesion.Likewise, the marks left by climbers weather away into oblivion as well. So why be so concerned with the damage we leave? Secondly, the history of climbing is marred by countless _epic_ climbs that dealt with the dilemma of bolting and scarring in a rather impertinent manner.Perhaps you have heard of the "Kompressor" Route on Cerro Tore or even the first ascent of El Cap_tan. These accomplishments have been met with considerable scrutiny and the results of such may be considered viable in application to the Fishers. I am not drawing conclusions here, simply stating similar cases. Granted these routes in the Fishers are under significantly less traffic and this fact is crucial in this examination.

It is here that we reach the dilemma:

Is the weathering caused by climbers significant enough to impose regulations beyond those self administered by all respectful participants? Do the natural weathering processes eliminate or lessen the problems cause by climbers? Are the benefits or climbing these towers worth problem of _defacing_ the towers- even if the towers will likely be gone in X number of years?How do we as climbers address this problem?

It is absolutely imperative that WE, the climbers who love these towers most, initiate and uphold standards here before all climbing is completely outlawed in this mysterious corner of America's most majestic dessert.

By Andy Johnson
Apr 20, 2004

Colin, I honestly cannot think of another group of people who care more about these towers than the climbers who climb them. You are probably right however, that we do inflict the greatest amount of damage to them. I think most issues here boil down to style. I personally feel that once a route has gone clean, it should stay clean. I think most people agree with this logic, yet I still hear recent stories of people nailing on echo tower or the colo-northeast ridge on the king fisher when things get hairy. This is absolute bullshit! Most people who like the fishers, like them because they are scary (in a good way). These routes get nailed out fast and become even more difficult. The crux of the NE ridge on the King is a prime example of what happens with excessive nailing. As for your other comment of "they are just going to fall down anyway". I think that this is a rather rediculous comment. Some day life will cease to exist on this planet, yet despite what the current administration would leave you to believe, we probably should not just rape the planet and accelerate the inevitable. You dig it? Just a general note because I think a lot of the people that nail on the clean routes are new to the area (NOT ALWAYS), THIS IS NOT GRANITE AND THE ANCHORS DO NOT ALWAYS LOOK THAT BOMBER. I have talked to a lot of people who get the shit scared out of themselves here. The Fishers are like no ther place. Be forewarned.
By Colin Coulson
Apr 21, 2004

Andy, the comment "that they are just going to fall down anyway" does seem foolhardy. I drew attention to this argument partially due to what Layton Kor said when asked why he was climbing the Titan: "Not because it's there, but because it might not be there much longer." Just FYI.
By Stymingersfink
Nov 12, 2007


I'm curious how you feel about your original route description when compared with the TR provided by the SA team, especially in light of the WoS discussion thread on McTopo?
By Joe Forrester
From: Palo Alto
Jan 28, 2008

Does anyone know how many ascents this has gotten and who did 'em?
By Jim Beyer
Jan 26, 2016

Intifada was A4+ or A5- after the second ascent.I originally climbed the route without bolts(but some drilled hooks, both bathooks and enhanced hooks)I use to think that routes that link with no bolts were the best style.I rated this route A6 close to 30 years ago.The third ascent party,Tim Wagner,called me and said that he found 2 drilled angle holes;one on the second belay and one in the middle of the crux pitch.He said that the hole must be used to progress between 2 features.I agreed and said that I drilled a hook to link the 2 features but did not drill a drilled angle hole (which is a bolt)in the middle of my crux pitch because I was trying to put in a no bolt route and more importantly trying to put in a hard(runout) route.Wagner also said that Deadmans Party is harder. The second ascent party first said that I drilled those 2 holes and then later said that I filled those holes(justifying his 2 drilled holes?) 30 years ago, seams were climbed with Rurps ,Trenched heads or bolts.We didn't use beaks because they had not been invented yet.I don't use trenched heads in the Fisher Towers anymore because I'm lazy and Zamack rivits are faster and weaker.Intifada as first ascended (no bolts) would today rate about modern(2016)A5a.It was, in that day, probably harder than any climb in Yosemite.Check out my latest route, Lone Wolf, on the Titan. It is modern A6.Any climber who does not trench heads has never done a hard El Cap route.Nail every pitch!
By Richard Jensen
Jun 28, 2016

I just came across Beyer's explanation, and I'd like to correct some significant misinformation it contains. Mark and I did the SA about a year after the FA, and we carefully documented with pictures what we encountered AS we encountered it.

Intifada was A4+ or A5- after the second ascent.

The implication here is that we drilled it down in grade. In fact, it was A4+ (old school) for one short section WHEN we did the second ascent. The route was not hard WHEN we found it, and we had no need to "dumb it down" to a lower level of difficulty than we found was already there from the FA. The original A6 grade (and the explanation of what that meant) was pure hype with exactly zero correlative climbing on the route.

I originally climbed the route without bolts(but some drilled hooks, both bathooks and enhanced hooks)

Yeah, a lot, not "some." And quite a few of them were carefully sand-packed to hide them. In several places of windswept blank rock with zero mud-flow, we initially could not figure out what Beyer had done to get across or up. Seeing a slight "dimple," we gently probed with the tip of a nail-punch (which we had learned we needed to dig out Beyer's dead heads from him leaving behind worthless blobs with snapped cables) and discovered sand-packed bat-hook holes.

Given no mud-flow in the area and windswept blank rock, the only way we could duplicate the result we found was to mix sand with spit and carefully pack the mix into one of the holes. It dried quickly, leaving the exact result we initially encountered. I see no way to explain these sand-packed bat-hook holes other than intentional hiding.

I rated this route A6 close to 30 years ago.

Yeah, we read all the hype in two issues of Climbing Magazine. We read about 30+ consecutive hook moves on the final (supposedly) A6 pitch linked to (supposedly) death anchors below. All pure hype. No death anchors anywhere, and the final pitch takes off of a bolt anchor from Brer Rabbit and heads back out onto the face for the sole purpose of a "grand" final pitch that itself wasn't A5 and had no sprees of hook moves.

We found no A6 or even A5, no death anchors, and nothing "ground-breaking" about the route in the slightest sense.

The third ascent party,Tim Wagner,called me and said that he found 2 drilled angle holes;one on the second belay and one in the middle of the crux pitch.

We did not drill anything we found larger or deeper than we found it. In fact, we were able to bypass large numbers of Beyer's holes and trenches using hooks and natural gear like slung horns. Remember that our SA was about a year after the FA, and we had the same gear available to us as Beyer used. Beyer drilled and trenched more often and more deeply than was even necessary. In one place I bypassed a deep hole by slinging a very small, very sloped "horn." The sling was slowly creeping down by millimeters the whole time I was getting beyond it.

He said that the hole must be used to progress between 2 features.

All due respect, but what one person says "must be used" does not render it impossible for another team to bypass. Mark and I have repeatedly hooked and slung things that other teams said, "No way." We have an entire route of some "impossible" looking hooking. As I said, I bypassed one deep hole with a very sketchy slung "horn," and this may have been the spot Wagner is referring to. Regardless, we neither added nor "improved" any drilling to the route. And we used far less than we found.

I agreed and said that I drilled a hook to link the 2 features but did not drill a drilled angle hole (which is a bolt)in the middle of my crux pitch because I was trying to put in a no bolt route and more importantly trying to put in a hard(runout) route.

Whatever. We documented more than two drilled angles on the route. My recollection after all these years is five. Who knows what Beyer was thinking about drilled angles then? Maybe then he didn't think of them as "bolts" and that's a more recent realization. I don't know. All I know is what we found, which was multiple drilled angle holes, which we bypassed without using them.

Wagner also said that Deadmans Party is harder. The second ascent party first said that I drilled those 2 holes and then later said that I filled those holes(justifying his 2 drilled holes?)

Nope. Our story (and pictures) has always been the same. Beyer drilled and left several drilled angle holes. These were not "filled" or sand-packed. He also drilled and filled some bat-hook holes. We are not conflating angle and bat-hook holes, and Beyer shouldn't either.

30 years ago, seams were climbed with Rurps ,Trenched heads or bolts.We didn't use beaks because they had not been invented yet.

We used the same gear that Beyer had available to him. Nothing new had been invented between the FA and SA. On the first pitch I naturally hooked past at least half of Beyer's trenched heads. He could have had a rad A5 pitch off the deck, but he so trenched it out that it was about A3 even with my hooking to bypass many of his trenches. That first pitch was when we first started to realize that the route might be a hype-job all the way up, which it was.

It was, in that day, probably harder than any climb in Yosemite.

Totally unsupported hubris. Beyer had done very little on El Cap at the point of his FA of Intifada. My recollection is that the Climbing Magazine articles mentioned two routes, neither of which was rated A5. I remember Mark and I thinking as we were prepping for Intifada, "If Climbing it so be believed, he's never done any El Cap A5, so how can he claim A6?" That question proved to be prescient.

Wings of Steel (an earlier route than Intifada) was far, far harder than Intifada, as is now widely recognized. Of course, Beyer hadn't done that, so he has no basis of comparison. We found the fifth ascent of the Sea of Dreams, as just another example I'm familiar with, to be far, far harder (and more sustained) than anything on Intifada.

It's easy to think you're doing the "hardest" stuff when you almost entirely solo new routes and do very few comparison routes.

Check out my latest route, Lone Wolf, on the Titan. It is modern A6.

We have no reason to believe that rating. Beyer also traditionally doesn't produce or publish topos, so we have no way to know where this new "A6" goes nor any details of it. So, how are we supposed to "check out" this route?

Let Beyer publish a traditional, detailed topo with gear list, and we'll give it a go.

Until then, perhaps Beyer would like to provide for us all here a rigorous definition of what "modern A6" would even mean!

Any climber who does not trench heads has never done a hard El Cap route.

That sort of ridiculous (and false) statement is why Beyer can't be taken seriously, "ultimate aid master" or no. I mean, that statement is ridiculous on the face of it.

As just one example, I would say that Steve Grossman has done a "hard El Cap route" or two. He flatly denies ever trenching a head, and I believe him. Our differences aside, I do respect Steve as a climber. To say that he's never done anything "hard" is patently ridiculous.

Nail every pitch!

Why? More ridiculousness.
By Kikut
Nov 15, 2016

I just came across Jensen's explanation, and I'd like to point out how ironic is that someone who affirms that he put up an A5 route called "Wings os Steet" in the 80's in Yosemite, which has been downgraded to A3+ after SA, comes here to accuse someone else...
By BigNobody
From: all over, mostly Utah
Nov 15, 2016

I'd like to point out that A5 in the 80's IS the new A3+. I see you're in the Wings of Steel hate group. Ammon affirmed it was gnarly, and contrived, but f-in gnarly nonetheless. Unless you've repeated either and don't have an armchair opinion like the rest of us....STFU.
By Kikut
Nov 16, 2016

So, if A5 in the 80's IS the new A3+, A6 is the new A4+/A5, isn't it? Then, what's wrong with Jensen? Hard to justify how he acuses other people of no-previous aid climbing experience in Yosemite although he and Mark made the SA of Intifada in their very first climbing in the Towers...
And I'm not Wing of Steel hater at all, I only state the incoherence of Jensen again. By the way, I think that he has recently put up a new route in the Fishers...
By Kikut
Nov 21, 2016

Rock Climbing Photo: Jensen in the Towers! Mmmmmmmmmm, old fart now, ri...
Jensen in the Towers! Mmmmmmmmmm, old fart now, rivet ladders on the wall. At least Beyer is still kicking!

Rock Climbing Photo: Oh, I've never seen lead-heads in my life, but...
Oh, I've never seen lead-heads in my life, but they must be some kind of tricky things (although I'm a deep Christian I and do not belive in evil!)...

Rock Climbing Photo: Oh, wood wedges! I've never seen them in my li...
Oh, wood wedges! I've never seen them in my life, but they must be some kind of dark trick to hype the route's rate (although I'm a devote Christian and my holy Lord has always said I must trust people). In addition, it's obvious FA team has used a saw to cut'em. I'm clever and, following my religion, I've never been a hater at all...
By BigNobody
From: all over, mostly Utah
Nov 21, 2016

Benji boy, your hating game is weak. I most definitely do not need to defend my climbing grades, or what I have or haven't been on to an old lecherous 5.9+ crushing geezer like you. It's ok dude, I am old too, just slightly more in tune with the kids these days. When was the last time you climbed outside of Los Angeles at a grade higher than 10a?

I emailed you a coupon for a case of Ensure. Call it my early Christmas present.

Kikut, post the links to the where you stole those pix from.
By Kikut
Nov 22, 2016

Here you are!

Until 3 years ago, everybody could read the report of Intifada's SA in this link:
However, it is not available anymore (why? the answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind...). It is a pity since himself explained with a boring detail how the SA of Intifada (together with Mark Smith) was their very first climg in the Towers. Anyway, instead of having an accident, talented climbers with an special sense to find out "swindels" from Beyer always succeed!

For the pics I uploaded, which were taken in the SA of "Look out, Danger!":
By the way, the route does not exists anymore since he transformed it to a rivet ladder during the SA (because of his absolute ignorance of what lead-heads and wood wedges are).

For the professional profile of Richard Jensen:

And for the book he wrote after "Wings of Steel":
If you don't know him, you'll find how expositive he is. The price of a used book tells much about the content...
By Richard Jensen
Dec 2, 2016

LOL... Kikut must be Pelut or one of his fanbois. We see how quickly the indefensible FA of "Look Out! Weak Sauce!" comes into the mix. That's the real motivation behind these Intifada posts: "Discredit Jensen, and Pelut looks better." LOL

Oh, the humanity. Oh, the drama. Pfttttt.

Intifada at least had a line, with mostly genuine placements. "Weak Sauce!" by stark contrast was a line of bashie holes drilled every 18 inches, each of which was then blown-out into a useless cone when Pelut jerked out the bashies. Kikut even posts a picture from my site showing one of Pelut's (countless) bashies drilled into blank rock (one of the few Pelut left in place). Weak indeed.

Kikut, your butt-hurt is both pitiful and laughable. I dealt with another guy just like you (maybe even you) on Supertopo enough to know that there's no rational argument that can reach you. So....

Go do the 3rd of WoS or the whateverth of Intifada, then (if you're still with us and can still type) report back. Until then, you're just spewing your ignorance.
By Kikut
Dec 5, 2016

Dear R. Jensen, I just put ALL the available info on the table. On the contrary, you just erase some of it at your dicretion and try to dicredit people with insults and disrespect, losing sight that adult people can judge for themselves.
I just repeat that's really ironic that, on one hand, a couple of yong guys climbing in the Fisher Towers for the first time could do the SA of Intifada finding plenty of tricks and describing it always as hype (mysteriously, you've erased your tale on internet. A pitty, since everybody could find out how telented you were) and that, on the other hand, all your diatribes are always invariably harsh criticism against other climbers, in which, by the way, YOU are always better than the cheating FA team (ain't in contradition with your religion?). At least, Mark doesn't follow your tactics, which make him much more credible.
And by the way, since Beyer admits that Intifada would be today an A4+, following your obsesion for the hype, you could admit that Wings of Steel was, at least, as hype as Intifada...
By Richard Jensen
Dec 6, 2016

I know that I'm wasting my time with you, but I'll do my best to provide you a rational response.

You say, "Dear R. Jensen, I just put ALL the available info on the table."

No, you put a selected and highly interpreted subset of the info on the table. As I say, you argue in ignorance, and so you have no choice but to interpret the subset of evidence you possess.

You say, "On the contrary, you just erase some of it at your dicretion"

You treat this like some nefarious act on my part, like I've suddenly decided that I must HIDE that TR. But that interpretation OBVIOUSLY makes no sense. Why would I hide it?

In fact, the simply "answer" to the "mystery" is pretty boring.

I no longer do any consulting, so for many years I was paying to keep up a site that existed ONLY to ensure that a very few links on the Web would not go broken. Eventually, I decided that paying for the site every year was simply not worth it anymore.

I could put those pages up somewhere else with a much cheaper host, but the links would still remain broken. Nothing is "hidden" here; I simply got sick of paying an expensive host hundreds per year for a site the main purpose of which had become irrelevant.

As I said above, you live in ignorance of material facts, so you take liberties with your interpretations of your limited subset, and you "read" that subset in the way that makes me out to be the most nefarious. THAT is pure interpretation, and it is incorrect.

You say, "...and try to dicredit people with insults and disrespect, losing sight that adult people can judge for themselves.

You have an odd notion of "insult," as I don't "discredit" people via insults. I do indeed disrespect Beyer, I've been very public about that, and I don't apologize for it. I've never "insulted" him.

Flatly, I don't respect a guy who climbs and hypes the way Beyer has a long history of doing. I have a right to that opinion and to express it AS OPINION on a public forum, just as you have the right to express your opinions about me.

That said (and VERY much unlike YOU), most of what I've written about Intifada is NOT opinion. Our SA of Intifada revealed FACTS about Beyer's approach to that climb that I simply do not respect. But I have carefully distinguished between FACTS (what can be documented as existing on the rock) and opinions (how I interpret those facts). So, in that sense, I do EXACTLY what you suggest I should: Let adults decide for themselves.

If you don't like the conclusions I've drawn from the FACTS, then you need to show that the facts are not the facts, or you need to show that somebody other than Beyer left the evidences in the stone that he did. Beyer discredited himself with the tactics he employed on Intifada, yet you want to "shoot the messenger."

Well, sorry dude, but tough. It is what it is.

You say, "I just repeat that's really ironic that, on one hand, a couple of yong guys climbing in the Fisher Towers for the first time could do the SA of Intifada finding plenty of tricks and describing it always as hype (mysteriously, you've erased your tale on internet.

You have not described an actual irony. First of all, Intifada was not a hard route. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it just was not hard. So, yeah, "two young guys" certainly could do the SA of that route. It was no big deal.

Another point is that Mark and I were pretty decent big-wall climbers, not just "two young guys" off the street, and we spent days at the Fishers just "aid-bouldering" to discover how to make all sorts of improbably placements work in that "rock." So, there should be no "surprise" (certainly no "irony," whatever it is you think is "irony") that Mark and I could take our decades of aid experience and quickly translate it to the "rock" of the Fishers.

Finally, there is no "mystery" except in your own mind regarding why I took my consulting site down, as I said, simply not wanting to keep paying for it. I'm pretty confident that anybody who wanted to read our SA account did so by now. So, no great loss that that page is now down.

You want me to put it back up? No problem. You can pay to have it hosted somewhere. How about that? Meanwhile, I consider it no great loss.

You say, "A pitty, since everybody could find out how telented you were)...."

Your sarcasm doesn't make your case any better. I have been a talented big wall climber. Beyond that, and UNLIKE BEYER and PELUT, I've never made claims of "greatness" or "way awesome ratings," etc. I'm just a guy who's climbed some big walls. There are MANY way-awesome big wall climbers. I'm no slouch, but I have never considered myself "great." And I would never have imagined to rate anything of MINE A6 under any circumstances.

Beyer has, and he does. Repeatedly. Even today, having apparently not learned his lesson about stratospheric mega-hype ratings. In my opinion, that is hubris, plain and simple. There IS no A6. Period. Doesn't exist. But Beyer honestly (and in error) believes that his routes are the hardest routes in existence. By contrast, you've never heard anything like that from me.

So, your sarcasm is entirely misplaced. Direct it at Beyer. He's the mega-talented one.

You say, "and that, on the other hand, all your diatribes are always invariably harsh criticism against other climbers...."

No, actually, only toward the two climbers in history who have put up routes with mega-hype ratings that then turned out to be no-big-deal and arguably the biggest botch job in climbing history. TWO climbers, not "climbers" in some general sense. You put up an A6 or an A6+ and hype it to the ends of the Earth, and, yeah, when I find out that you lied and tricked and botched, I'm going to call you out on it. That is legitimate critique grounded in facts.

The term, "harsh," is pure interpretation. You don't appear to like facts stated forthrightly. I don't mince words when a guy puts up an A4+ route and then calls it A6 and sprays about it being the hardest thing EVER done ANYWHERE in the world, when he is interviewed for TWO back-to-back articles in Climbing Magazine spraying about how way-awesome his routes are, and then I find out that it is indeed spray. I'll call that spade a spade all day and all night.

Again, if you don't like it, well, tough. It is what it is. Ohhhhh.... I think I might have just been "harsh" again. So, now I'll embrace it: Again, tough.

You say, " which, by the way, YOU are always better than the cheating FA team (ain't in contradition with your religion?)."

That statement is just incoherent. And you repeatedly reveal that you are very confused about religion, particularly Christianity, and what sort of person one "should" be as a Christian.

Regarding "always better" than the "cheating FA team," did it ever occur to you that Mark and I actually were "better" than Beyer, because Beyer wasn't such-a-much? It seems that you cannot get your mind around that idea. So all of your "interpretations" take as a basic premise that Beyer (and Pelut) have been the BEST that have ever been.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's demonstrably not the case.

In fact, Beyer resorted to a slew of tactics that are "cheating" (to the minds of most big wall climbers) and that Mark and I didn't need to resort to. And, even so, we found the route MUCH easier (not even particularly hard) than it was hyped to be. So, yeah, I guess we were "better."

Again, tough. Get over it. Again, DO Intifada, if you can, and you'll be MUCH better informed about the nature of what I'm talking about.

You say, "At least, Mark doesn't follow your tactics, which make him much more credible."

Whatever. Your opinion on all points.

You say, "And by the way, since Beyer admits that Intifada would be today an A4+, following your obsesion for the hype, you could admit that Wings of Steel was, at least, as hype as Intifada..."

Here you are deeply confused. So, let me set you straight.

Beyer gave Intifada a rating that had NEVER been given to ANY other aid route. He called it the hardest thing in existence, and Climbing Magazine published TWO back-to-back articles with interviews of him and asserting that Intifada had reached a whole new level of risk and demonstration of the pinnacle of skill never before seen. ALL of that was false. ALL of that was pure hype. Not only did Intifada NOT set some new standard, it was not even of a quality to rank as a "top standard" route by the standards of the day.

By contrast, we rated ONE pitch of WoS A5, which was not an unprecedented rating. MANY El Cap routes of that day were rated A5, and the "standard" for that rating included an objective fall-distance of somewhere around 60 feet, coupled with the high probability of hitting something. A5 simply denoted high risk, nothing more. MOST of WoS was not rated A5. The A5 pitch is the second, and from just before the first bolt of that pitch, if your hook there fails, you are looking at falling about 110-120 feet down that slab. Ammon will attest to the FACT that you have high probability of hitting things (down a SLAB, after all) at a very high rate of speed, as that slab is about 80-degrees in angle. So, yeah, by the standards of the day, that pitch was indeed an A5 pitch.

A5 means something different now in the "new wave" aid ratings. But we were consistent with the time. I don't back off of that at all today. The second pitch IS "old wave" A5, which was the rating system of the time. AT THAT VERY TIME, Beyer rated Intifada A6! And BY THAT SAME RATING SYSTEM, Intifada was A4+.

So, Intifada DID have a hyped rating, where WoS did not.

Moreover, as the SA has shown, WoS is going to "help you" rack up numbers and distances of falls like MOST (even top-flight) big wall climbers will never experience in any other context. By contrast, Intifada is just another ho-hum A4+ on which you really should not take a single fall. AND, when you fall on WoS, you are falling down a slab. You ARE going to get hurt. BOTH teams that have climbed it have suffered serious injury. By contrast, the longest falls you might take on Intifada are clean, in the air, and very, very unlikely to get you hurt. There is nothing CLOSE to the seriousness on Intifada you will face on WoS. Literally, no comparison at all.

Finally, let's get clear about what "hype" even means! You bandy that term around as though BOTH Beyer and we were "hyping" our ratings. There is NO comparison.

As I've noted, Beyer (and his proxies) HYPED Intifada as being THE master-stroke, way-awesome, ultra-mega-mongo-hard big wall EVER done. EVER!!! It ALONE in all the world was worthy of a brand-new rating that NOBODY had ever had the temerity to apply to one of their creations. HAD Intifada been "all that," it would have been impressive indeed; and it STILL would not have been worthy of an A6 rating, because, I repeat, A6 does not exist. But Intifada was NOT "all that." Virtually everything claimed about the route (including its lofty rating) proved to be false.

By stark contrast, WoS was NEVER "hyped" the way Intifada was! By stark contrast, WoS was discredited "harshly" for decades, as "harsh" remarks were sprayed about in print about Mark's and my characters, our tactics, our perspectives, etc. Lines like, "My grandmother could do it in an afternoon," and, "1000 bolts to Horse Chute" were common currency. The hype was actually against us, not for us.

WE didn't "hype" the route. We have never called it "great" or "cutting edge" or "a new standard," nor did we employ any exotic rating for any pitch of the route nor for the route itself.

When it turned out that the NEGATIVE HYPE was not true, and it turned out that on all material points we had made (within the reasonable boundaries of 30-year-old memories on the tiniest of details) were accurate, THEN our critics (quite apparently you included) started claiming that we had hyped the route, which had been the "motivation" for defaming us so ferociously all along. Pure, unmitigated revisionist-history.

So, let me set you straight about my motivations. I care about CLIMBING! It's an odd game, to be sure, with lots of internal inconsistencies and fuzziness of definitions. But CLIMBING is about being HONEST with yourself and with the rest of the climbing community. Period!

I honestly don't care what "game" any particular climber plays. I don't care if Beyer used the tactics he did. I don't care if Pelut used the tactics HE did. I really don't. I don't see the "rock as sacred" or anything like that. But I DO care about being HONEST about the game you played! There are safety reasons for that, and there are reasons regarding the simple integrity of the sport.

Neither Beyer nor Pelut have been HONEST about their tactics, and THAT, nothing more, is what I've called them out on. Beyer employed TRICKERY on Intifada, quite apparently (imho) to sabotage the route to make the SA SEEM harder than it really should have been. And he DID things he flatly denied doing, such as drilled angles and filled bat-hook holes. Intifada WAS HYPE, from its rating to its tactics; and in that, Intifada was not an HONEST ascent.

The same goes for Pelut and "Look Out! Danger!" ("Look Out! Weak Sauce!"). I do not consider a drilled hole every 18 inches to be a "climb." But that's just my opinion. If Pelut wanted to call it a "climb," and he had been forthright and honest about his tactics, more power to him! But he was not forthright and honest. Just like Beyer, everything from the rating to the tactics were HYPED.

And you can no longer reasonably say those sorts of things about WoS.

So, there is NO comparison between Intifada and WoS on any level, and you are being irrational to claim that BOTH routes were "hyped."

Now, as you see, responding to accusations is more of a project than making them in the first place. I don't intend to indulge you again.

There are a few people like you still lurking around and posting here and there as if you have something useful to say. Sadly, I've learned over decades of experience that NOT responding to such posts is interpreted as "losing the argument" or as "not having any good response." So, I RESPOND.

But I won't respond to you again, unless it is to accept your apology. Any more nonsense from you, well, the DEFAULT interpretation should be: Nonsense. And that's what future silence from me toward you will mean.
By BigNobody
From: all over, mostly Utah
Dec 6, 2016

I just gotta say Kikut. You got served HARD.

Well written Mr Jensen.
By Richard Jensen
Dec 6, 2016

Thank you, BigNobody. Great handle, btw. :-)
By Kikut
Dec 9, 2016

I'll be shorter than you, Mr. Jensen, and I won't write a disertation about the exact meaning of words. Just ideas.

1.- About SA Intifada webpage: you erased it but, however, you keep your "weaksauce" SA page alive on Curious (and explicit) behavour...

2.- Your words: "Flatly, I don't respect a guy who climbs and hypes the way Beyer has a long history of doing.". He said Intifada was A6 and now he says it originally should be A4+/A5. At least he has the courage to tell it in a public forum 30 years later, a thing that your pride does not allow. You should play the lead in Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice"...
You made "WoS" and said it was A5. Ammon made SA and said it was A3+ instead of A5, athough a hook was yet a hook 30 years ago and the rivets Ammon found were not exactly brand new as they were when you placed it. You can justify it with "New age vs Old age", but maybe "WoS" could also be a case of "Stratospheric mega-hype ratings" since instead of A5 is A3+? You can say whatever you want, but even a 2 years old child can catch it. Following your own principles, you do not deserve any respect neither, and your routes are as hype as Beyer's ones! Coherence Mr. Jensen, coherence!

3.- Facts: your lack of respect towards hype climbers and your incessant finding of honesty drives you to put a rivet ladder in the Towers (when searching for tricks and lies). "Eurobashies" and "wooden wedeges sawed "in situ"" were your findings, your justification, and your hilarious contribution to the aid climbing argot. In addition, it places you as the laughing stock of all climbers who have used (and still use) lead-heads and wooden wedges since the very beginning of climbing!

4.- You and climbing: of course, you can tell whatever you want about your motivations, but I do not understand why people should believe in your honestity and not the in the FA team, specially when you systematically just find tricks, lies and hypes on other's routes (only if the are A6 rated, by the way) but yours are the perfect model of ethics and rating (when they ain't at all).
Beyer has not writen a tedious book explaining his epic or made a webpage to explain a SA. Pelut neither. They have always respected other's routes, even if they thought they were a botch. They haven't erased the information on-line at their disposal. Beyer had two articles back-to-back in Climbing Magazine with ease (and other ones, by the way). However, your beavour it is not exactly the same. Much is revealed with this behavour, and since my point of view, that explains how you've became the Inquisitor in chief of hard aid routes. The significant behavour of Mark Smith in all this fest is also very significant...

Here are ideas. Now, everybody with enough time and motivation can search the information and then, judge for him/herself. They are yet adults.
By Richard Jensen
Dec 18, 2016

"Coherence Mr. Jensen, coherence!"


"Cohering" the rating system Ammon used on WoS, Intifada should be rated A2.

Do them both, if you can, and you'll understand exactly what I'm saying. Otherwise, you're just babbling out of ignorance. Most of your post is pure nonsense. But rating "coherence" is a legitimate point.

There, now you have that as well.

Mountain Project

The Definitive Climbing Resource

MTB Project

Next Generation MTB Trail Maps

Powder Project

Backcountry Ski Maps & Secret Stashes
FREE Stickers · Gyms · RSS · School of Rock · Contact · About