This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Tommy Caldwell has now completed pitch 15 and 16 on the Dawn Wall project. This means all the hardest pitches are done!Tommy managed to do the second traverse pitch, ~9a, as well as the "Loop Pitch", ~8b+, a variation to the infamous "dyno pitch", ~9a.
As far as I understand this variation...
Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=69416
1
In reply to UKC News: Isn't doing the "Loop Pitch" rather than the "Dyno Pitch" a cop-out. Which one follows the true line (whatever that may be) of Dawn Wall?
In reply to Michael Hood:
At the moment Dawn Wall doesn't have a true line, as it doesn't yet exist. Even if it were a single existing aid route that they were climbing free there would still be plenty of precedents; lots of free versions of aid routes take slightly different lines from the original.
> Isn't doing the "Loop Pitch" rather than the "Dyno Pitch" a cop-out. Which one follows the true line (whatever that may be) of Dawn Wall?
At the moment Dawn Wall doesn't have a true line, as it doesn't yet exist. Even if it were a single existing aid route that they were climbing free there would still be plenty of precedents; lots of free versions of aid routes take slightly different lines from the original.
1
In reply to Ian Parsons:
So KJ lets his skin heal, ticks Pitch 15 and then does the dyno pitch... where's that leave Caldwell?
So KJ lets his skin heal, ticks Pitch 15 and then does the dyno pitch... where's that leave Caldwell?
In reply to Jackwd:
Brett Lowell: "We @bigupclimbing have always used a system of ground anchoring ropes to not only pull us away, but also stabilize from spinning in space. It was incredible (and a bit intimidating) to bring that technique to El Cap. Thanks to a 2700 foot long single 9mm rope and the brilliant rigging mind of @tommycaldwell the last few days I have been riding this rope out into space to film the boys go to battle with this epic climb."
Brett Lowell: "We @bigupclimbing have always used a system of ground anchoring ropes to not only pull us away, but also stabilize from spinning in space. It was incredible (and a bit intimidating) to bring that technique to El Cap. Thanks to a 2700 foot long single 9mm rope and the brilliant rigging mind of @tommycaldwell the last few days I have been riding this rope out into space to film the boys go to battle with this epic climb."
1
In reply to mrchewy:
I can't see that it would leave him anywhere other than where he is now - ie having already done the pitch. It's a new route so - regardless of what they might have previously planned and practiced - it doesn't actually have a "correct line" until somebody climbs it (I'm assuming here that one regards "climbing it" as a continuous bottom-to-top ascent rather than the isolated practice/redpoint of individual pitches); and, as Caldwell was the first to climb this pitch on the continuous ascent (I'm assuming he led it), it's arguable that his version has become the proper route. So, if anything, the question might be "where does that leave Jorgeson" if he still does the dyno? In my view it would leave both of them heading for the top with the free ascent - team and individual - becoming increasingly likely.
> So KJ lets his skin heal, ticks Pitch 15 and then does the dyno pitch... where's that leave Caldwell?
I can't see that it would leave him anywhere other than where he is now - ie having already done the pitch. It's a new route so - regardless of what they might have previously planned and practiced - it doesn't actually have a "correct line" until somebody climbs it (I'm assuming here that one regards "climbing it" as a continuous bottom-to-top ascent rather than the isolated practice/redpoint of individual pitches); and, as Caldwell was the first to climb this pitch on the continuous ascent (I'm assuming he led it), it's arguable that his version has become the proper route. So, if anything, the question might be "where does that leave Jorgeson" if he still does the dyno? In my view it would leave both of them heading for the top with the free ascent - team and individual - becoming increasingly likely.
In reply to Ian Parsons:
>"with the free ascent - team and individual - becoming increasingly likely"
Would individual free ascents be considered valid due to swinging leads on the easier lower pitches?
I've been thinking that only the team ascent is up for grabs and now hinges on KJ linking P15. Is that wrong?
I'm guessing a lot of people will take the hump with TC's ascent if KJ doesn't manage to link P15.
There are some interesting points being made about the use of climbing "slaves" returning to the ground for supplies on a thread on the other local channel.
While I'm sanguine about it, I'm surprised the use "slaves" hasn't been more openly acknowledged by TC and KJ in their tweets etc.
>"with the free ascent - team and individual - becoming increasingly likely"
Would individual free ascents be considered valid due to swinging leads on the easier lower pitches?
I've been thinking that only the team ascent is up for grabs and now hinges on KJ linking P15. Is that wrong?
I'm guessing a lot of people will take the hump with TC's ascent if KJ doesn't manage to link P15.
There are some interesting points being made about the use of climbing "slaves" returning to the ground for supplies on a thread on the other local channel.
While I'm sanguine about it, I'm surprised the use "slaves" hasn't been more openly acknowledged by TC and KJ in their tweets etc.
In reply to JLS:
I was interested to see that Honnold dropped by with some food for them. Though I'm sure he didn't take much it kind of takes away from the 'unsupported ascent', if you had someone drop off food every day then surely your haul bag would be much lighter and maybe you would be quicker/more successful?
Not impossible. People have abseiled the whole of El Cap on a specialist rope before - see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2403825/Into-void-Daredevils-comple...
> There are some interesting points being made about the use of climbing "slaves" returning to the ground for supplies on a thread on the other local channel.
I was interested to see that Honnold dropped by with some food for them. Though I'm sure he didn't take much it kind of takes away from the 'unsupported ascent', if you had someone drop off food every day then surely your haul bag would be much lighter and maybe you would be quicker/more successful?
> 900m single rope?! Sure that can't be right.
Not impossible. People have abseiled the whole of El Cap on a specialist rope before - see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2403825/Into-void-Daredevils-comple...
In reply to JLS:
Interesting is pushing it. A long way.
Who cares if they seconded a couple of 5.12 pitches on something with multiple 9a pitches??
> There are some interesting points being made about the use of climbing "slaves" returning to the ground for supplies on a thread on the other local channel.
Interesting is pushing it. A long way.
Who cares if they seconded a couple of 5.12 pitches on something with multiple 9a pitches??
In reply to abarro81:
>"Who cares if they seconded a couple of 5.12 pitches on something with multiple 9a pitches??"
I don't know. Perhaps someone who El-cap ascent was poo-pooed due something similar.
>"Who cares if they seconded a couple of 5.12 pitches on something with multiple 9a pitches??"
I don't know. Perhaps someone who El-cap ascent was poo-pooed due something similar.
In reply to JLS:
Not a great deal of difference in using food deposited by others to, say, stashing water supplies to enable NIAD ascents. Like he said, does it matter?
Not a great deal of difference in using food deposited by others to, say, stashing water supplies to enable NIAD ascents. Like he said, does it matter?
In reply to JLS:
I have a confession to make here. When I referred to "team and individual free ascents" I hadn't actually checked as to how these terms are currently understood, and suspect that my understanding might be somewhat out-of-date. Since the term achieved some currency, I've always understood - imagined? - "team free" to roughly describe the style in which Piana and Skinner free-climbed the Salathé Wall; ie each pitch had to have been led free by at least one of the team - nothing more, nothing less; so after the free lead it didn't matter whether the rest of the team led or seconded it, free or with aid, or jumared. For an improvement on this style every pitch had to have been climbed free (but not necessarily led) by all team members; I'm unaware of a specific term, but "individual free ascent" seemed to fit the bill. So if, for the sake of example, the route "Free Dawn Wall" were to finish at the top of pitch 16, it would now exist as a free route - first ascent style "team free". However; if, as I'm sure we all very much hope, Jorgeson manages to cleanly follow pitch 15 (it's a traverse, let's face it, so whether leading or following makes virtually zero difference - but that's irrelevant) and either leads or follows either version of pitch 16 without falling/recourse to aid, I would describe that as an "individual free" ascent.
I've done a bit of googling, however, and appreciate that the term "team free" now generally applies to an ascent in which all, rather than merely one, of the team have free-climbed every pitch - whether leading or seconding. Can anyone advise me as to the term now used in place of what I previously understood as"team free" - ie if every pitch is led free, whatever happens next is irrelevant?
> >"with the free ascent - team and individual - becoming increasingly likely"
> Would individual free ascents be considered valid due to swinging leads on the easier lower pitches?
> I've been thinking that only the team ascent is up for grabs and now hinges on KJ linking P15. Is that wrong?
I have a confession to make here. When I referred to "team and individual free ascents" I hadn't actually checked as to how these terms are currently understood, and suspect that my understanding might be somewhat out-of-date. Since the term achieved some currency, I've always understood - imagined? - "team free" to roughly describe the style in which Piana and Skinner free-climbed the Salathé Wall; ie each pitch had to have been led free by at least one of the team - nothing more, nothing less; so after the free lead it didn't matter whether the rest of the team led or seconded it, free or with aid, or jumared. For an improvement on this style every pitch had to have been climbed free (but not necessarily led) by all team members; I'm unaware of a specific term, but "individual free ascent" seemed to fit the bill. So if, for the sake of example, the route "Free Dawn Wall" were to finish at the top of pitch 16, it would now exist as a free route - first ascent style "team free". However; if, as I'm sure we all very much hope, Jorgeson manages to cleanly follow pitch 15 (it's a traverse, let's face it, so whether leading or following makes virtually zero difference - but that's irrelevant) and either leads or follows either version of pitch 16 without falling/recourse to aid, I would describe that as an "individual free" ascent.
I've done a bit of googling, however, and appreciate that the term "team free" now generally applies to an ascent in which all, rather than merely one, of the team have free-climbed every pitch - whether leading or seconding. Can anyone advise me as to the term now used in place of what I previously understood as"team free" - ie if every pitch is led free, whatever happens next is irrelevant?
In reply to Ian Parsons:
I might be wrong, but I thought that "team free" meant at least one member of the team free-climbed every pitch (this is the original "Huber definition" isn't it?) and "team redpoint" was the one used for the situation where both members of the team freed every pitch. The terminology might have changed from the early 2000s though.
I might be wrong, but I thought that "team free" meant at least one member of the team free-climbed every pitch (this is the original "Huber definition" isn't it?) and "team redpoint" was the one used for the situation where both members of the team freed every pitch. The terminology might have changed from the early 2000s though.
In reply to Ian Parsons:
>"I'm unaware of a specific term, but "individual free ascent" seemed to fit the bill."
My understanding of the accepted terminology is that for an individual to claim a free ascent he would be required to lead every pitch, his second's style being irrelevant. This isn't the case here as TC hasn't led some pitches.
To claim a team ascent each pitch requires to be led by a member of the team and (at least) seconded by the other ie no jumering. Hence the importance of KJ completing P15.
I'm happy to be corrected if my understanding of the terminology is wrong.
>"I'm unaware of a specific term, but "individual free ascent" seemed to fit the bill."
My understanding of the accepted terminology is that for an individual to claim a free ascent he would be required to lead every pitch, his second's style being irrelevant. This isn't the case here as TC hasn't led some pitches.
To claim a team ascent each pitch requires to be led by a member of the team and (at least) seconded by the other ie no jumering. Hence the importance of KJ completing P15.
I'm happy to be corrected if my understanding of the terminology is wrong.
In reply to JLS:
Whilst many want to lead all pitches, plenty of ascents are claimed where people haven't lead every pitch, since that can be a logistical pain.. E.g. Hazel on golden gate, pretty sure Caff and Dan M were swinging leads etc
Whilst many want to lead all pitches, plenty of ascents are claimed where people haven't lead every pitch, since that can be a logistical pain.. E.g. Hazel on golden gate, pretty sure Caff and Dan M were swinging leads etc
In reply to abarro81:
>"Whilst many want to lead all pitches, plenty of ascents are claimed where people haven't lead every pitch, since that can be a logistical pain."
Indeed, people do the best they can. If their ascent doesn't quite fit the current definition of the terminology they generally add caveats where required but they shouldn’t be allowed to just redefine the terminology to suit what they managed to do. Where will that end?
This particular ascent is so outrageously difficult the compromises in style seem wholly justified. I do however think we should all acknowledge that those compromises do exist, to encourage future repeaters to try and improve on the style.
>"Whilst many want to lead all pitches, plenty of ascents are claimed where people haven't lead every pitch, since that can be a logistical pain."
Indeed, people do the best they can. If their ascent doesn't quite fit the current definition of the terminology they generally add caveats where required but they shouldn’t be allowed to just redefine the terminology to suit what they managed to do. Where will that end?
This particular ascent is so outrageously difficult the compromises in style seem wholly justified. I do however think we should all acknowledge that those compromises do exist, to encourage future repeaters to try and improve on the style.
1
In reply to JLS:
I think almost everyone else even close to good enough will be put off the fact you need a full support team to bring you food ( and in KJ's case, special climbing tape all the way from Australia! )
I can just see the super topo beta page... Gear needed: usual big wall free climbing rack, 3 ledges with flys, full support team to fetch burritos, beer and water (or a helicopter if you have one).
> >" to encourage future repeaters to try and improve on the style"
I think almost everyone else even close to good enough will be put off the fact you need a full support team to bring you food ( and in KJ's case, special climbing tape all the way from Australia! )
I can just see the super topo beta page... Gear needed: usual big wall free climbing rack, 3 ledges with flys, full support team to fetch burritos, beer and water (or a helicopter if you have one).
In reply to snoop6060:
>special climbing tape all the way from Australia! )
yes - i was intrigued by that....i wonder if it's from the makers of Hand Jam?
>special climbing tape all the way from Australia! )
yes - i was intrigued by that....i wonder if it's from the makers of Hand Jam?
In reply to UKC News:
To add further confusion, could someone explain what the style that they're going for is relative to "start at the bottom and go to the top without falling off". Is it something like "each of them does all the pitches in the correct order without returning to the ground in between (but they might jug up and down a bit or have repeated goes at any individual pitch)"? All this stuff is so far from UK one-to-four pitch puntering that it's kind of hard to get your head around what the game actually is...
To add further confusion, could someone explain what the style that they're going for is relative to "start at the bottom and go to the top without falling off". Is it something like "each of them does all the pitches in the correct order without returning to the ground in between (but they might jug up and down a bit or have repeated goes at any individual pitch)"? All this stuff is so far from UK one-to-four pitch puntering that it's kind of hard to get your head around what the game actually is...
In reply to Ramblin dave:
My understanding is that they start at the bottom, and as soon as at least one of the team has free climbed a pitch (regardless of how many attempts it takes them) the team as a whole moves onto the next pitch. I imagine it is then up to the climbers who did not manage or even try to free the pitch whether or not they go back for an 'individual lead' of any pitch. And that is the difference between 'team-free' and 'individual-free'.
My understanding is that they start at the bottom, and as soon as at least one of the team has free climbed a pitch (regardless of how many attempts it takes them) the team as a whole moves onto the next pitch. I imagine it is then up to the climbers who did not manage or even try to free the pitch whether or not they go back for an 'individual lead' of any pitch. And that is the difference between 'team-free' and 'individual-free'.
In reply to JLS:
Without at least a degree of considered debate, perhaps so that we can arrive at some consensus?
Quite! And really well put. In many cases, it IS the compromises that define the ethic. We used to call it cheating! This is not the same as discrediting or invalidating an ascent.
> Indeed, people do the best they can.. .. but they shouldn’t be allowed to just redefine the terminology to suit what they managed to do. Where will that end?
Without at least a degree of considered debate, perhaps so that we can arrive at some consensus?
> This particular ascent is so outrageously difficult the compromises in style seem wholly justified. I do however think we should all acknowledge that those compromises do exist, to encourage future repeaters to try and improve on the style.
Quite! And really well put. In many cases, it IS the compromises that define the ethic. We used to call it cheating! This is not the same as discrediting or invalidating an ascent.
In reply to james.slater:
Does nobody read?!? Both climbers are trying to free every pitch. On all the hard pitches they both lead it. On a few of the easy ones it seems that the 2nd person has just seconded.
I don't see any new ethics here - there's plenty of precident for sleeping above high points, fixed lines, stashed gear etc...
Does nobody read?!? Both climbers are trying to free every pitch. On all the hard pitches they both lead it. On a few of the easy ones it seems that the 2nd person has just seconded.
I don't see any new ethics here - there's plenty of precident for sleeping above high points, fixed lines, stashed gear etc...
Post edited at 11:23
In reply to abarro81:
Yes, and I havnt said otherwise... But as far as I understand the ascent would not be considered invalid if only one person manages to free each pitch. It is therefore a personal preference and arguably better style for each of the climbers to free each pitch, but its not necessary for a 'team-free' ascent.
Yes, and I havnt said otherwise... But as far as I understand the ascent would not be considered invalid if only one person manages to free each pitch. It is therefore a personal preference and arguably better style for each of the climbers to free each pitch, but its not necessary for a 'team-free' ascent.
In reply to Ramblin dave:
This might help to clarify things - posted earlier on one of the other threads. Caldwell gives details about what they're actually doing. I should have re-read it; he clearly defines what is meant by team-free.
http://eveningsends.com/climbing/like-dawn-tommy-caldwell-kevin-jorgeson/
This might help to clarify things - posted earlier on one of the other threads. Caldwell gives details about what they're actually doing. I should have re-read it; he clearly defines what is meant by team-free.
http://eveningsends.com/climbing/like-dawn-tommy-caldwell-kevin-jorgeson/
In reply to abarro81:
>"I don't see any new ethics here"
Well the barely acknowledge use of climbing "slaves" to restock camps does to my mind goes a bit beyond maybe stashing 10 litres of water on a ledge somewhere.
I exptect KJ will send P15 and render debates about the exact definition of a team ascent purely academic. However, if he can't, I expect there will be some debate as to whether a valid first ascent has actually taken place by those the care about such things. Personally, I'll just shrug my shoulders.
>"I don't see any new ethics here"
Well the barely acknowledge use of climbing "slaves" to restock camps does to my mind goes a bit beyond maybe stashing 10 litres of water on a ledge somewhere.
I exptect KJ will send P15 and render debates about the exact definition of a team ascent purely academic. However, if he can't, I expect there will be some debate as to whether a valid first ascent has actually taken place by those the care about such things. Personally, I'll just shrug my shoulders.
In reply to Ian Parsons:
Cheers Ian - now I understand what's going on. Great effort by all concerned.
Cheers Ian - now I understand what's going on. Great effort by all concerned.
In reply to JLS:
There's plenty of precident though, just look at salathe ascents where stuff has been brought in from above to long ledge. Not that it's not a slightly strange way compared to capsule style
There's plenty of precident though, just look at salathe ascents where stuff has been brought in from above to long ledge. Not that it's not a slightly strange way compared to capsule style
In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:
And now our Mick is all over the Guardian comments section:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/06/us-climbers-worlds-toughest-ro...
> Not impossible. People have abseiled the whole of El Cap on a specialist rope before - see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2403825/Into-void-Daredevils-comple...
And now our Mick is all over the Guardian comments section:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/06/us-climbers-worlds-toughest-ro...
In reply to felt:
It's in today's Times, too. Apparently, El Capitan is 'the toughest summit in the world'.
It's in today's Times, too. Apparently, El Capitan is 'the toughest summit in the world'.
1
In reply to felt:
That's a bizarre sign off: "Ex-editor..."
> And now our Mick is all over the Guardian comments section:
That's a bizarre sign off: "Ex-editor..."
In reply to Ian Parsons:
It looks like he means basically for any one pitch one person leads (free obviously) and one person seconds (also free). Sounds like a good and sensible style. Good luck to them!
It looks like he means basically for any one pitch one person leads (free obviously) and one person seconds (also free). Sounds like a good and sensible style. Good luck to them!
In reply to UKC News:
Wow, Radio 4, NY Times, The Guardian.. as a PR event I think its success has already been overwhelming. Very few rock climbing achievements manage so much coverage. I guess the fact its such a massive and spectacular wall is what really makes it interesting to the general public though.
Got to say though despite this the videos are really crap. The latest one keeps hopping between still photos and video footage for no reason at all. Why can't they just show continuous video of that pitch from start to where KJ falls. Are attention spans really that bad these days? Great shame and missed opportunity of a historic climbing event. A decent video editor would really have been a boon for this.
Wow, Radio 4, NY Times, The Guardian.. as a PR event I think its success has already been overwhelming. Very few rock climbing achievements manage so much coverage. I guess the fact its such a massive and spectacular wall is what really makes it interesting to the general public though.
Got to say though despite this the videos are really crap. The latest one keeps hopping between still photos and video footage for no reason at all. Why can't they just show continuous video of that pitch from start to where KJ falls. Are attention spans really that bad these days? Great shame and missed opportunity of a historic climbing event. A decent video editor would really have been a boon for this.
In reply to stp:
Yeah, that Josh Lowell's a bit shit! No future in the game.
Although if it's because he's living on a portaledge while filming the ascent, its a well done for getting anything out at all from me.
Yeah, that Josh Lowell's a bit shit! No future in the game.
Although if it's because he's living on a portaledge while filming the ascent, its a well done for getting anything out at all from me.
In reply to Hephaestus:
Surely the real reason is that they plan to produce a properly edited film which they will sell. People won't buy it if they've already seen the footage for free.
Surely the real reason is that they plan to produce a properly edited film which they will sell. People won't buy it if they've already seen the footage for free.
In reply to stp:
As above i'm pretty sure they are keeping hold of the best footage for some kind of full length video covering the whole ascent, by the looks of the number of cameramen floating about the place, there is no way we are seeing the best shots yet.
As above i'm pretty sure they are keeping hold of the best footage for some kind of full length video covering the whole ascent, by the looks of the number of cameramen floating about the place, there is no way we are seeing the best shots yet.
In reply to Dandan:
It seems like holding back like that is missing the boat. The fact that this is a protracted multi day big wall means it's far more suitable for live, or at least quasi-live, reporting. Besides there will probably be loads of footage. The stuff from the ground for instance will be different from stuff on the wall.
It's exciting to follow the daily progress but frustrating there is so little decent quality media. If a film is released in a few months that will be a completely different thing, a historical perspective, to the live reporting at the moment.
Anyway there's an interesting article here from yesterday:
http://eveningsends.com/climbing/notes-dawn-wall/
It seems like holding back like that is missing the boat. The fact that this is a protracted multi day big wall means it's far more suitable for live, or at least quasi-live, reporting. Besides there will probably be loads of footage. The stuff from the ground for instance will be different from stuff on the wall.
It's exciting to follow the daily progress but frustrating there is so little decent quality media. If a film is released in a few months that will be a completely different thing, a historical perspective, to the live reporting at the moment.
Anyway there's an interesting article here from yesterday:
http://eveningsends.com/climbing/notes-dawn-wall/
In reply to stp:
The crew with Tommy and Kevin are mostly filming on a GoPro or small hand held cameras for the daily social media updates. The actual footage will likely be featured in the next Reel Rock Tour. It would be quite difficult to carry the necessary media up and down the wall repeatedly, not to mention not having access to a proper editing suite!
Drones are also banned in all US National Parks.
I agree with Hephaestus...they're doing a fantastic job with what they're getting out just now.
The crew with Tommy and Kevin are mostly filming on a GoPro or small hand held cameras for the daily social media updates. The actual footage will likely be featured in the next Reel Rock Tour. It would be quite difficult to carry the necessary media up and down the wall repeatedly, not to mention not having access to a proper editing suite!
Drones are also banned in all US National Parks.
I agree with Hephaestus...they're doing a fantastic job with what they're getting out just now.
In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:
I would have thought it should be possible to transfer media wirelessly. Editing could then be done anywhere in the world with an internet connection. I didn't mean to suggest Tommy and Kevin would do either the editing or even the shooting. As others have said there are other photographers up there.
The Reel Rock tour is good but is only going to be seen by a very small audience, a minority percentage of climbers. Currently this seems to be attracting the attention of the world wide media - a massive audience. I'd have thought the potential revenue generated by advertising while this was live could far outweigh that of the RR tour and DVDs, especially with sponsors like Addidas. But its not an either/or thing anyway. Good daily media now wouldn't preclude a carefully crafted documentary about the ascent in a few months time. If anything it might generate more interest in such a project.
Interesting about the drone ban. Doubtless a good thing to stop rich American kids using them as toys all over the place. I'd have thought that they could get permission though for a serious, historic film making endeavour like this if they'd asked. Then again the bureaucracy and red tape in the land of the free can be as bad as anywhere at times.
I would have thought it should be possible to transfer media wirelessly. Editing could then be done anywhere in the world with an internet connection. I didn't mean to suggest Tommy and Kevin would do either the editing or even the shooting. As others have said there are other photographers up there.
The Reel Rock tour is good but is only going to be seen by a very small audience, a minority percentage of climbers. Currently this seems to be attracting the attention of the world wide media - a massive audience. I'd have thought the potential revenue generated by advertising while this was live could far outweigh that of the RR tour and DVDs, especially with sponsors like Addidas. But its not an either/or thing anyway. Good daily media now wouldn't preclude a carefully crafted documentary about the ascent in a few months time. If anything it might generate more interest in such a project.
Interesting about the drone ban. Doubtless a good thing to stop rich American kids using them as toys all over the place. I'd have thought that they could get permission though for a serious, historic film making endeavour like this if they'd asked. Then again the bureaucracy and red tape in the land of the free can be as bad as anywhere at times.
In reply to UKC News:
From El Cap report - sounds tense. Full report, photos and and a historical titbit here: http://www.elcapreport.com/content/elcap-report-172015-special-dawn-wall-ed...
They climbed into the night and Tommy got the 17th done and then went to work on the 18th. I left, as the darkness made it impossible for me continue shooting and it was really getting cold!
The climb has a reached a critical point and it will be interesting to see how events unfold. Kevin needs to get the 15th and 16th done so they can continue on to the upper part of the route. He is so close to having the 15th done, that I think it is only a matter of a couple more tries before he gets it. Then they can leave the lower, more difficult pitches, behind and concentrate on the upper wall. They should make better time up there as the climbing is somewhat easier, but by no means easy. Nothing is easy up there. There is all kinds of speculation, floating around, as to what the climbers will do. I am of the opinion that, since Kevin has put in years on the project too, he should have the say as to what will be done about the 15th pitch. If he feels he can send, then the team should give it more time and let him do all the tries he wants. Kevin should go at it until HE either sends, or concedes that, under the present conditions, he will not be able to finish that pitch. There is only 10ft that he is having problems with, due to badly torn up fingers. Tommy is moving ahead now and perhaps Kevin can climb above the 15th and knock off easier pitches and then come back to the 15th before they are high enough to move the Camp up. Friendships can fray in these types of situations and we hope their continued partnership will remain solid. The first ascent of the Dawn wall, by Harding and Dean Caldwell, in 1970, ended up with the climbers feuding and hostile to each other. The forecast is for more warm and sunny days, which certainly doesn't help the situation. My thoughts are ..my thoughts.. They are highly specutlative and my opinon only, derived from very sketchy information and may not be accurate. Just something to think about.
From El Cap report - sounds tense. Full report, photos and and a historical titbit here: http://www.elcapreport.com/content/elcap-report-172015-special-dawn-wall-ed...
They climbed into the night and Tommy got the 17th done and then went to work on the 18th. I left, as the darkness made it impossible for me continue shooting and it was really getting cold!
The climb has a reached a critical point and it will be interesting to see how events unfold. Kevin needs to get the 15th and 16th done so they can continue on to the upper part of the route. He is so close to having the 15th done, that I think it is only a matter of a couple more tries before he gets it. Then they can leave the lower, more difficult pitches, behind and concentrate on the upper wall. They should make better time up there as the climbing is somewhat easier, but by no means easy. Nothing is easy up there. There is all kinds of speculation, floating around, as to what the climbers will do. I am of the opinion that, since Kevin has put in years on the project too, he should have the say as to what will be done about the 15th pitch. If he feels he can send, then the team should give it more time and let him do all the tries he wants. Kevin should go at it until HE either sends, or concedes that, under the present conditions, he will not be able to finish that pitch. There is only 10ft that he is having problems with, due to badly torn up fingers. Tommy is moving ahead now and perhaps Kevin can climb above the 15th and knock off easier pitches and then come back to the 15th before they are high enough to move the Camp up. Friendships can fray in these types of situations and we hope their continued partnership will remain solid. The first ascent of the Dawn wall, by Harding and Dean Caldwell, in 1970, ended up with the climbers feuding and hostile to each other. The forecast is for more warm and sunny days, which certainly doesn't help the situation. My thoughts are ..my thoughts.. They are highly specutlative and my opinon only, derived from very sketchy information and may not be accurate. Just something to think about.
In reply to UKC News:
Following the earlier discussion about bigwall free-climbing styles, in the course of which I achieved a slightly foot-in-mouth position, I became convinced that I had somewhere seen all this written down in a vaguely definitive manner to which we could all refer - until it evolved, obviously, into something different. I assumed it was buried somewhere in a magazine and - despite housing a modest library of such literature - I concluded it would take a considerable degree of perusal to unearth. Inspiration struck, however, on recalling "Yosemite" by Huber and Zak - also fortuitously residing on my bookshelf. For anyone interested, herewith the gist of part of page 174 - my comments in [parentheses]:
REDPOINT ASCENT - Each pitch must be redpointed . If swinging leads, each climber has to follow free the pitches that he/she doesn't lead. [I think I understand this; it awards the redpoint to the ascent itself, rather than to either participating climber. If one climber leads everything, then it's sufficient that he/she free-climbs/redpoints everything; how the rest of the team follow is irrelevant. But if the work of leading is split between team-members, they each not only have to free-climb/redpoint their own pitches, but follow all the others free as well. It seems to me that the latter scenario is in fact what is currently termed as team-free; it sounds like what Caldwell said they're
aiming for on Dawn Wall.]
INDIVIDUAL REDPOINT - One climber leads everything (free/redpoint); the other/s follow/s by any means suitable/convenient. [This simply looks like a subset of REDPOINT ASCENT, the one mentioned above wherein one person does all the leading. "Suitable/convenient" doesn't necessarily mean free.]
FREE ASCENT - All pitches climbed by one climber, ideally led free/redpoint, but sometimes less satisfactorily including following free. [This seems a bit ambiguous, but I think it's the sort of "lowest common denominator" ascent. For a start I don't think it means that the same member of the team has to climb every pitch free; I think it means that each pitch merely has to be climbed free by at least one team member, no matter which one, on whichever end of the rope - ie on reaching the top it can be claimed the the route is free-climbable, and has been after a fashion - possibly.]
TEAM FREE ASCENT - Every pitch is climbed free/redpointed. This can be on a rotating basis, by any team member. The rest of the team follow by any "suitable/convenient" means (again - doesn't have to include free-climbing). [To be honest, this seems to bring it back to where I started; it appears to define fairly precisely how Piana and Skinner climbed The Salathé, and is a notch or two below what Caldwell and Jorgeson are trying to do on Dawn Wall.]
Of course all this really demonstrates is how definitions, and language itself, gradually shift. It was published in 2002/3, and was presumably the received wisdom of the time; twelve years later that may not necessarily be the case. And I realise that most people don't actually go around "claiming" things; it's just a convenient term to aid explanation.
Like I said - just for anyone interested....
Following the earlier discussion about bigwall free-climbing styles, in the course of which I achieved a slightly foot-in-mouth position, I became convinced that I had somewhere seen all this written down in a vaguely definitive manner to which we could all refer - until it evolved, obviously, into something different. I assumed it was buried somewhere in a magazine and - despite housing a modest library of such literature - I concluded it would take a considerable degree of perusal to unearth. Inspiration struck, however, on recalling "Yosemite" by Huber and Zak - also fortuitously residing on my bookshelf. For anyone interested, herewith the gist of part of page 174 - my comments in [parentheses]:
REDPOINT ASCENT - Each pitch must be redpointed . If swinging leads, each climber has to follow free the pitches that he/she doesn't lead. [I think I understand this; it awards the redpoint to the ascent itself, rather than to either participating climber. If one climber leads everything, then it's sufficient that he/she free-climbs/redpoints everything; how the rest of the team follow is irrelevant. But if the work of leading is split between team-members, they each not only have to free-climb/redpoint their own pitches, but follow all the others free as well. It seems to me that the latter scenario is in fact what is currently termed as team-free; it sounds like what Caldwell said they're
aiming for on Dawn Wall.]
INDIVIDUAL REDPOINT - One climber leads everything (free/redpoint); the other/s follow/s by any means suitable/convenient. [This simply looks like a subset of REDPOINT ASCENT, the one mentioned above wherein one person does all the leading. "Suitable/convenient" doesn't necessarily mean free.]
FREE ASCENT - All pitches climbed by one climber, ideally led free/redpoint, but sometimes less satisfactorily including following free. [This seems a bit ambiguous, but I think it's the sort of "lowest common denominator" ascent. For a start I don't think it means that the same member of the team has to climb every pitch free; I think it means that each pitch merely has to be climbed free by at least one team member, no matter which one, on whichever end of the rope - ie on reaching the top it can be claimed the the route is free-climbable, and has been after a fashion - possibly.]
TEAM FREE ASCENT - Every pitch is climbed free/redpointed. This can be on a rotating basis, by any team member. The rest of the team follow by any "suitable/convenient" means (again - doesn't have to include free-climbing). [To be honest, this seems to bring it back to where I started; it appears to define fairly precisely how Piana and Skinner climbed The Salathé, and is a notch or two below what Caldwell and Jorgeson are trying to do on Dawn Wall.]
Of course all this really demonstrates is how definitions, and language itself, gradually shift. It was published in 2002/3, and was presumably the received wisdom of the time; twelve years later that may not necessarily be the case. And I realise that most people don't actually go around "claiming" things; it's just a convenient term to aid explanation.
Like I said - just for anyone interested....
Post edited at 02:20
In reply to Ian Parsons:
The Times has today reported on the ascent for the third day running. The meat of today's article was actually an account of how Caldwell pushed an Islamic gunman off a cliff in 2000.
The Times has today reported on the ascent for the third day running. The meat of today's article was actually an account of how Caldwell pushed an Islamic gunman off a cliff in 2000.
In reply to UKC News:
Is there any news? Has Kevin made progress on his Nemepitch? What's going on, I need news!!!
Is there any news? Has Kevin made progress on his Nemepitch? What's going on, I need news!!!
In reply to puppythedog:
Looks like it's getting to decision time for Kevin...
http://www.elcapreport.com/content/elcap-report-182015-special-dawn-wall-ed...
Looks like it's getting to decision time for Kevin...
http://www.elcapreport.com/content/elcap-report-182015-special-dawn-wall-ed...
In reply to J
. The meat of today's article was actually an account of how Caldwell pushed an Islamic gunman off a cliff in 2000.
I've never heard that one. Not gonna pay to get on the Times site, but any chance of a retelling here?
. The meat of today's article was actually an account of how Caldwell pushed an Islamic gunman off a cliff in 2000.
I've never heard that one. Not gonna pay to get on the Times site, but any chance of a retelling here?
In reply to Hephaestus:
Here's an account of what happened. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0528_030528_rockclimbers.ht...
Here's an account of what happened. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0528_030528_rockclimbers.ht...
In reply to Ian Parsons:
Fantastic! Just the F9a Dyno pitch now! Before things ease from ridiculously hard to just very very hard. Still hopefully high spirits will see him through.
Fantastic! Just the F9a Dyno pitch now! Before things ease from ridiculously hard to just very very hard. Still hopefully high spirits will see him through.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Fri Night Vid Finding Focus - Life Behind The Lens of a Climbing Photographer
This week's Friday Night Video is a portrait of a prolific climbing photographer from Wedge Climbing. Sam Pratt is well known in both the outdoor and competition scene but if you haven't heard of him, you've likely seen...
26 Apr
Loading Notifications...