/ Bolts? This goes further back.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
j0ntyg on 13 May 2014

"With reference to the summer issue of Mountain Craft, October 1968, Keith McCallum, in his article on Lake District climbing, would seem to imply that the local climbers of Lakeland are incompetent to do good new routes. it also suggests that Paul Ross over graded his new routes. I have seen numerous good climbers including Alan Austin and top Welsh climbers spend many hours on these 'over graded' climbs. The climbs that Austin put up in the Lakes are very poor. He is good but not a god as his fans suggest. Many of the pitons that were used in the 60's 70's in the lakes were used to clean the routes and then removed. Few Lakes climbers carry metal wire protection devices which can be removed and so show no evidence of aid. Pitons tend to be there for a long time, unless you are poor and must hammer them in then out again to use again."
This is a précis of a letter, 1968. remember that cams were not widespread back then. Only pegs and nuts.

Post edited at 19:15
Offwidth - on 13 May 2014
In reply to j0ntyg:

How is a 1968 letter comenting on 70's?
j0ntyg on 13 May 2014
In reply to Offwidth:
Look at the " and ' quotes. No-one is suggesting that that cams existed in 1968. That was the way it was. Don't get too clever if you weren't there.

Hardonicus - on 13 May 2014
In reply to j0ntyg:

I fail to see how a precis of a letter written in 1968 can refer to 1970?
Firestarter on 13 May 2014
In reply to Hardonicus:

The letter starts 'with reference to the summer issue of Mountain Craft, October 1968', so it is referring to something that has already been published? The letter itself could have been written yesterday? j0ntyg, your last sentence does suggest the letter was written in 1968, in which case the above comments are correct. Can you confirm when the letter was written?
Jimbo C - on 13 May 2014
In reply to j0ntyg:

Besides the apparent decade confusion, I don't get your point - what is it?
Bulls Crack - on 13 May 2014
In reply to Jimbo C:

I think it something to do with sour grapes.
andyathome - on 13 May 2014
In reply to j0ntyg:

> No-one is suggesting that that cams existed in 1968. That was the way it was. Don't get too clever if you weren't there.

I was there, or thereabouts. And I'm dead cleverish.

And just don't understand your, 'Look at the " and ' quotes' comment at all. Your précis has double quotation marks around it and single quotation marks within it so suggest that 'over-graded' is an unsubstantiated statement (see current quotation mark use in newspaper headlines).

The précis you have provided is pretty incoherent. Is it saying that, in fact Paul Ross correctly graded his routes? That Allan Austin was crap? That Lakes climbers pegged routes and then removed the evidence; especially if they were part of the 'poor'. McCallum? Hmmmm. No relation to the Gogarth McCallum?

And, caller, your point is?

(apart from the fact that bitchy point scoring between top climbers was alive and well nearly 50 years ago)

FactorXXX - on 13 May 2014
In reply to j0ntyg:

Is this the original article (from your photo gallery): -

http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.html?id=239480
andyathome - on 13 May 2014
In reply to FactorXXX:

I think it is. And it makes the precis offered pretty laughable!

j0ntyg on 13 May 2014
In reply to FactorXXX:

Yes but only half of it.
andyathome - on 13 May 2014
In reply to j0ntyg:
You appear to précis the sentence, 'Although I admit that Allan Austin is one of the finest climbers in the country today his hangers-on try to make a god of him' as 'He is good but not a god as his fans suggest'.

I'd suggest that you repost; omitting any quotation marks if you're going to present such a travesty of what is actually stated.

And I should make it clear that I never thought Chubby was a god nor that Paul Ross over-graded his routes (Bludgeon pushed me in the 70's!).
Post edited at 20:44
j0ntyg on 13 May 2014
In reply to Firestarter:

> The letter starts 'with reference to the summer issue of Mountain Craft, October 1968', so it is referring to something that has already been published? The letter itself could have been written yesterday? j0ntyg, your last sentence does suggest the letter was written in 1968, in which case the above comments are correct. Can you confirm when the letter was written?

It is taken from "Rocksport, the magazine for rock climbers by rock climbers" October 1968. It cost rwo shillings. The article wasn't written by me, the article is about another article in Mountain Craft which seems to have irritated Lakes climbers at the time. The point of my post is that there was in 1968 and today, differences of opinions about protection.
j0ntyg on 13 May 2014
In reply to Offwidth:

OK so I should have not said the 70's. But the basis point remains and is that there has always differences of opinions about protection. Bolts today. pegs in the 1960's.
j0ntyg on 13 May 2014
In reply to Hardonicus:
> I fail to see how a precis of a letter written in 1968 can refer to 1970?

OK but don't get too nit picking. When did cams first come to the Lakes?
The letter was written in 1968, the reference to the 70's was not part of the original letter, just a note that others were still saying that Lakes routes had too many pitons. That attitude extended into the '70's.
Post edited at 20:57
j0ntyg on 13 May 2014
In reply to andyathome:

> I think it is. And it makes the precis offered pretty laughable!

My mates reading your post have just asked me "Is he a climber, a pedant or an English teacher? If he can't see the climbing content of the post, he shouldn't reduce his input to trivialities.

Mick Ward - on 13 May 2014
In reply to j0ntyg:

'Don't get too clever if you weren't there.'

Seems as though you've done the former - but not the latter.

And quoting Keith McCallum...

Mick
andyathome - on 13 May 2014
In reply to j0ntyg:
> My mates reading your post have just asked me "Is he a climber, a pedant or an English teacher? If he can't see the climbing content of the post, he shouldn't reduce his input to trivialities.

Tell your mates, 'all three' :-)


And I'm flattered you've called your mates round to comment.
Post edited at 21:57
mockerkin on 13 May 2014
In reply to Mick Ward:

He didn't quote K. McCallum Most of his OP came from a letter sent by R.McHaffie in October 1968 to Rocksport magazine. It was long and full of examples. Basically it was meant to point out that protection has always been a source of different opinions in climbing. It didn't start with bolting.
Mick Ward - on 14 May 2014
In reply to mockerkin:

> He didn't quote K. McCallum Most of his OP came from a letter sent by R.McHaffie in October 1968 to Rocksport magazine.

The OP quoted Ray McHaffie quoting Keith McCallum. I dimly remember both the letter and the article. Ray McHaffie was quite right to issue a riposte. The original article was shit-stirring par excellence. Had Keith McCallum done Post Mortem, for instance? Not to put too fine a point on it, had he done anything?


> Basically it was meant to point out that protection has always been a source of different opinions in climbing. It didn't start with bolting.

The OP seems to have found an amazingly laboured means of telling us stuff we already know. And, of course, it's not just about protection. Pegs and bolts have always been a source of different opinions in climbing, whether for aid or protection. Messner's original diatribe was against bolts for aid, not protection. The peg debates that raged from the 1930s (e.g. Munich Climb) to the 1970s were largely about aid, not protection.

Climbers argued about pegs for 40 years, then bolts for another 40. The bolt debate is more mature than the smelliest of Swiss cheeses. To be of significance, any further contributions need to have unusual merit. .

Mick

ads.ukclimbing.com
Offwidth - on 14 May 2014
In reply to mockerkin:

Who exactly do we need to enlighten with that obvious point for anyone with an interest in climbing history?

For the OP, pedantry is pointing out spelling or grammar mistakes when the meaning is clear: you willl find me challenging such pedants on a regular basis here. Changing dates and quotes can amount to misrepresentation, however well intended, so need questioning
Gordon Stainforth - on 14 May 2014
In reply to Mick Ward:

<old fart alert>

I have always regarded the placing of bolts, certainly in a widespread way, as a form of vandalism, pure and simple. As the President of the Alpine Club (Lord Strutt) said of the Nazi Munich travesty on Tryfan, 'Any man who would place a peg on British rock would shoot a fox.' I'd say: anyone who places pegs on world rock would shoot wild game.

<end of alert>
jkarran - on 14 May 2014
In reply to j0ntyg:

Ignoring the curious timeline I fail to see what point you're making. Perhaps something has been lost in translation or the curious punctuation but I don't see any reference or relevance to bolting 46 years on.

What are you trying to say or seeing in this cutting that I'm not?

jk
Phil Kelly - on 14 May 2014
In reply to j0ntyg:
Now where have I heard that [McCallum] name before?

Phil
Post edited at 14:40
jon on 14 May 2014
In reply to j0ntyg:

You do know who McCallum was, don't you?
mockerkin on 14 May 2014
In reply to j0ntyg:

When we look at the photos from the last two days we find two photos of the text of R.McHaffie's letter to Rocksport concerning an article or letter in Mountain Craft that he did not agree with. The two parts should have been shown together, then it would have been easier for people to see that bolts weren't the first form of protection to cause controversy and it would have been a good fit to the 'Why do we use bolts thread'.
You cannot believe the work I had to do in the last day to find someone who could send a copy of that article to me via the internet. I hope that it now makes more sense to readers.
andyathome - on 14 May 2014
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> As the President of the Alpine Club (Lord Strutt) said of the Nazi Munich travesty on Tryfan, 'Any man who would place a peg on British rock would shoot a fox.'

He was a bit of an imperialist tw*t, though. Why not shoot foxes?

And I think Gordon I do have to take real exception to your phrase 'Nazi Munich travesty'. You have some concrete evidence that Teufel - a bloody good climber of his time - was a paid up member?

There was some real racist tosh going on at the time. Look at the achievements of the germans in the limestone mountains of the tyrol at the time and they were probably well ahead of the non fox shooting bits in technical achievement.
Post edited at 19:42
andyathome - on 14 May 2014
In reply to jon:

Jon,

Is that Keith McC or Neil McC of Gogarth fame? They might be different folks.
Andy
jon on 14 May 2014
andyathome - on 14 May 2014
In reply to jon:

Cheers, Jon. I stand corrected! I'd always got the Gogarth hoaxer in my head as 'Neil' McCallum.

Mind you, all the routes he claimed, and were declared as impossible, did get climbed in fairly short order didn't they...... :-)

But this is slightly off the ropes/chockstones/pitons/bolts were the thin end of the wedge really tenor of this thread.

Ciao
andyathome - on 14 May 2014
In reply to jon:

By the way - that is an absolutely cracking article! So well written. We are losing a lot as we move into the digital age.....
Gordon Stainforth - on 14 May 2014
In reply to andyathome:

> He was a bit of an imperialist tw*t, though. Why not shoot foxes?

> And I think Gordon I do have to take real exception to your phrase 'Nazi Munich travesty'. You have some concrete evidence that Teufel - a bloody good climber of his time - was a paid up member?

> There was some real racist tosh going on at the time. Look at the achievements of the germans in the limestone mountains of the tyrol at the time and they were probably well ahead of the non fox shooting bits in technical achievement.

You completely failed to miss the touch of irony that was implicit in the way I bracketed what I said with 'old fart alert'. Oh, dear.
Gordon Stainforth - on 14 May 2014
In reply to andyathome:

And I thought the irony of the 'Nazi Munich travesty' was glaring. Because anyone who has read up anything about it will know that the comment was out of place even at the time, for they were known to be very fine climbers.
Rob Parsons on 14 May 2014
In reply to andyathome:

> ... We are losing a lot as we move into the digital age.....

In this context, I don't understand your point. What's 'the digital age' got to do with it?
Gordon Stainforth - on 14 May 2014
In reply to Rob Parsons:

I thought we started to move into the digital age about 2 1/2 to 3 decades ago.
Simon Caldwell - on 15 May 2014
In reply to andyathome:

> By the way - that is an absolutely cracking article! So well written. We are losing a lot as we move into the digital age.....

It's the digital age that made the article available for you to read

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.