UKC

Neil Gresham recently added Premonition 8b+ to Kilnsey - a full-height extension to Ron Fawcett's Extreme Rock classic E5, Deja Vu. After much deliberation, Neil replaced the three threads in the lower E5 section with two new bolts as well as placing a new bolt higher up to reduce a run-out section. His actions have received a mixed response from the climbing community and Neil felt it necessary to speak out and defend his decision.

Read more

In reply to UKC News:

Doesn't matter how you justify it Neil, those bolts are coming out.

If someone else hasn't already, I'll be doing it.

As I explained, if it was grotty quarry route or something at Gig North it wouldn't matter that much, but in this case of such a classic route that is a big deal for many, please leave well alone.

You are really milking the publicity on this new route of yours. Good effort on that score, you are a pro and hats off to you for your recent fantastic ascents.

All the best,

Mick

In reply to UKC News:

For the record, when Neil says:

“I established a new version of the first pitch of Déjà vu […] My version climbs the start of Déjà Vu (which is/was protected by a cluster of 3 threads) and then joins the fully-bolted Visitation 7b for the middle section before finishing up the somewhat plentifully-bolted top groove of Déjà Vu.”

He is talking about this line, which isn't new and has previously been climbed by others:
Vizzy Vu (7b)

In reply to UKC News:
Oh and Harold Drasdo died recently.

http://tohatchacrow.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/harold-drasdoa-long-days-journey...

And Robbie Phillips and Willis Morris did Paciencia

http://www.rockandice.com/lates-news/scottish-team-climbs-paciencia-on-the-...

In reply to Michael Ryan:

So why are three unsightly threads better than bolts on a route that requires no gear placements at all?

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:


because they require no 'manufacturing' of the natural rock, once removed they leave no trace (ok maybe a slight stain but that will wash off eventually), simple.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

It's sad day for climbing and the environment when a climber does not or cannot distinguish between the temporary nature of a thread and the permanent damage caused by a bolt.

Al

In reply to Michael Ryan:


Why? How has the route changed other than one of the many in situ pieces of gear will be made of metal rather than webbing?

When you turn up at the crag with your pitch fork and debolting kit will you also be stripping the bolts out of Dominatrix and Directissima? Will you be removing the new bolts from the bottom of Sticky Wicket? Will you then go ver to Malham and do the same to Yosemite Wall and then remove the extra bolts from the run outs on Supercool at Goredale etc etc. Is this really where the line in the sand is to be drawn?

In reply to Webster:


1. The bolts higher up on this route did require 'manufacturing' of the rock, what do you propose is done about them?
2. Why are you planning to remove the threads anyway?

In reply to UKC News:
Neil says that the first ascentionist being able to dictate how a route is equipped "has been part of the traditions since climbing began". This is sort of true, with quite a few caveats, but only at the time of the first ascent. I don't think it's ever been a tradition for the first ascentionist to have the final word on whether their routes are retro bolted without broad(ish) consensus from the climbing community when a route is historically significant.

Extreme Rock E5s are important to our climbing heritage, lots of people aspire to climb them and the route was relatively popular in its previous state.

There are also reports that the new bolt on Visitation can be clipped from the Deja Vu run out which is definitely going to change the character of the route - more so than the initial bolts. I don't think Neil has satisfactorily addressed this point - and it has been pointed out to him on facebook,

Has it always been the case that the top section of Deja Vu is such a clip up? If not then using this as part of the justification for retro bolting is a great example of "the thin end of the wedge".

In reply to GridNorth:


This crag already has hundreds of bolts all over it. Your reasoning might work for loads of other crags but not here, and not on a route that can already be climbed with only a rack of quickdraws.

In reply to UKC News:
Why were there threads in the first place as its a E5, shouldn't slings just be placed on lead?

In reply to malx:

Yes

If so then why aren't they the thin end of the wedge anyway?

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

Yes I realised afterwards that I should have taken your question in context. Just went in to delete it but too late.

Al

In reply to malx:


The anti-bolters would have us believe otherwise when the first asecentionist doesn't want the route bolted...

In reply to Michael Ryan:



Why don't you check with the FA and FFA....oh wait somebody already has!

In reply to UKC News:

"Neil Gresham Defends Retro Bolts at Kilnsey"

Checked this article looking forward to an article about Neil Gresham defending a load of Jamaican sprinters dressed in 70s disco gear from local youths. How disappointing.

In reply to Webster:

2 small holes in the rock, extremely localised and provides safety. Yet, the widespread damage caused by climbers, litter, chalk, polish, traditional pitons...

If it's about the rock, then the bolts would stay in otherwise you'll end up with more holes...

Narrow minded.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

Fantastic to see such encouragement of pushing the UK standards and establishing new and modern routes in the UK. Chill out mate, its just bolts. I find Pegs and old bits of tat far more of a destructive eye sore. Also why kick up such fuss about bolting on a crag that is already plastered in bolts? Bit like complaining why Vegetarian food isn't sold in a butchers shop.
Effort Neil for the recent ascents! and keep up the new routing.
Personally I like to see positive comments and stories about climbing as I cant get out myself as often as id like these days. So seeing negativity about someone achieving just puts a downer on it all.
Be nice people

over and out

Ioan

In reply to UKC News:

Well done Neil for what I see as a far bolder move than leading Deja Vu the old way. The only thing I disagree with is this:


I hope that fear does come true. Personally I feel Kilnsey is possibly the best sport crag in country whilst simultaneously being the worst bolted. On many of the routes the undercut nature of the crag means the starts are really hard, often the crux of the route yet the first bit of gear is way above this. Well one approach is lets keep these bold starts as they are. But the reality is that most climbers are voting with either their bouldering pads or cheat sticks to avoid the sometimes nasty falls on these starts.

There seem to be two divergent attitudes towards bolting. One is keep the routes as they always were, preserve the history etc. The other I think is something climbers who have climbed abroad have learned to appreciate. That is bolt routes in an optimal and friendly way. Bolts are placed where they're easy to clip (by a jug or resting place) and they're done in a way so that a climber trying route ground up and onsight won't encounter undue difficulty because of the bolting. It's the rock that provides the challenge, not the fact that someone has artificially placed a bolt somewhere difficult to clip. This doesn't mean that routes are to be overbolted like a climbing wall or Kalymnos. There are plenty of run out routes in Europe. But the runouts aren't usually on the crux of routes and you don't need a cheat stick or a bouldering mat before you even leave the ground.

Interestingly it seems only in Yorkshire that this backward (i.e historical) approach to bolting still exists. Last weekend I was in North Wales and climbed two routes both which had recently been retroed and there was nothing controversial about it at all. In Wales, like Europe, re-equipping a route is seen as a good thing, a service to the climbing community rather than something negative.

In reply to Tyler:


As someone who decked it from the bottom of Directissima a couple of years ago and have had a jiggered back ever since, I wish some of the bolts there now had been there then! That being said, I understand why they weren't and have no beef with the rational for not bolting the route from the base (it was my own fault I fell), I still don't fully understand the concept of a route being effectively half sport - half trad.

In reply to UKC News:

This just reminds me of how everyone 10/15 years ago thought that being gay was "Just Wrong", "Not Natural". But slowly the people start to expand and become a little more compassionate and a little less narrow minded. Well, atleast I think that people these days are more accepting and open minded.

Perhaps we could apply the same transition here.

In reply to stp:

Thats your view but there is an alternative that Neil seems to me to be significantly understating. Neil could have put this out to open debate at an area meeting or on an open web forum so we could at least have judged how much support he really had. I am saying this as someone who has no uniform view on retrobolting, having supported some cases and been against others based on the details. In the end someone is always going to chop such contentious bolts (as they always have).

There is no such thing as a cheat stick in sports climbing it's a clip stick and a standard tool of the trade.

In reply to Fraser:

If I understand correctly, then I think the new bolts wouldn't have helped you (unless you actually broke the threads). From what I can see (I haven't climbed it since 1993) it appears that it has now become a slightly bolder E5 with a first bolt higher than the dangle of the old thread, albeit with a better bit of gear to clip when you get there.

Alan

Edit - mis-read your Directissima as Deja Vu, but the rest of my comments remain.

In reply to Michael Ryan:


I've seen a couple of people do Deju Vu this year and both times they use a cheat stick to clip the first thread. This means the entire crux of the route has become a top rope problem. If we want these routes to retain their boldness then we need a way to ban cheat sticks and bouldering mats from the crags. Not sure how you'd enforce this. Any suggestions?



If you think that then you don't what you're talking about. Neil already added one new bolt to a route at Kilnsey earlier this year and it was chopped. Clearly there is controversy and a debate about this is both healthy and needed. Bringing this up on UKC is the obvious thing to do and nothing to do with publicity.

In reply to El3ctroFuzz:


I don't feel particularly strongly about Mr Gresham's new bolts, but this comparison is a bit much. It also unfairly and bizarrely puts those who disagree with Mr Gresham on a par with homophobes. We are talking about bolts in the rock, not human rights.

In reply to stp:

So what if they did this? The only problem I can see would be if they dishonestly claimed otherwise (which even if they did is hardly an earth shattering crime).

In reply to stp:

There's no controversy or debate Steve. It's quite simple, those bolts are coming out.

In reply to malx:


You are wrong. FAs are the only once that actually can have their saying. It's their creation, so to speak, so their vision should be followed. Even if it changes.

So in short. You do FA on how you like (following the limitations of the rock, laws and ethical consensus of the date). If someone feels the need to change the route (as in bolts instead of trad gear, tat or pins), the only person who should be consulted is the one who did the FA. Sure, others can also voice their opinion... but everyone has their own. And only one counts, which is the one who did the FA (because the route is his/her child/creation/vision).

'nuff said.

In reply to stp:


It's their choice. So what?

In reply to Michael Ryan:


There seems to be quite a consensus against this, what gives you the right to force your outdated ethics on everyone else?

In reply to Michael Ryan:

What right do you have to remove them? Why, in fact, does this matter to you?

In reply to Michael Ryan:


So, you have more saying on the matter than the persons who did the FA and FFA (latter counts more)?

Care to explain?

In reply to Michael Ryan:


Oh, in which case I'm sure you'll be takin' the original aid bolts off as well?

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

Why have three unsightly threads when you can have one long one, you mean?

In reply to HeMa:


You are wrong.

This concept of ownership of a route by a first ascensionist and that they can go back and add more gear or give people permission to change the route holds no water.

They have the joy of doing the first ascent, their name in a guidebook and experiencing others repeat their route. It stops there.

Once the first ascent has been climbed that is the first ascensionists statement of a route. The route then gets repeated and people have their own experiences on that route. How that route was climbed originally and how people experience it personally, joins the collective consciousness and ownership of the climbing community.

If someone decides to change the nature of a route after the first ascensionist they are doing that individually, often with the support of friends and acquaintances, there really isn't any consensus or agreement unless it is enforced - for example no bolts on grit.

In this particular case the fuzzy line has been crossed with Deja Vu, a classic E4/5 with a mix of gear, a lovely history and one which many people have had fine climbing experiences; bouldering out the start, the doubt of whether you trust the threads and running it out between the bolts.

Similar routes may have been retrobolted in Yorkshire, but not this one.

Mick
bolter
retrobolter
debolter
new router

In reply to Michael Ryan:
No offence Mick but I'd suggest you grow up a little. Get over it. Neil has concientiously justified his decisions and whether or not you agree, move on. Who are you to assume ownership of these bolts and chop them.

This reminds me of one of those funny cycling vs. car videos where the car driver - often in the wrong but so engrossed in their own self importance and misinterpretation of quite clear codes of conduct flip and see red. They then act like stubborn children and refuse to reason or think logically for a few minutes before retaliating, tripping and embarrassing themselves for everyone's enjoyment.

Don't be the car driver Mick. Good work Neil.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

So again, you're claiming that your opinion is more valid than the FFA's? Because he got his name in the guidebook.

The route, is still FA/FFAs creation. If you feel like it shouldn't be changed then perhaps you should have opened the line in question.

In reply to Michael Ryan:


Mick. Neil has written a long a thoughtful justification of his actions.

If/when you chop the bolts, can we assume that you will write an equally long and thoughtful justification? I presume Alan would give you the space to do so here.

Simply saying "those bolts are coming out" is not good enough for many.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

It would be nice to see a critique of what Neil has said rather than what looks like just blind disagreement.

In reply to Twisty:


Well, with respect, you haven't really provided any reasons why Mick should just 'move on'. He clearly believes his case as passionately as Neil believes his, and has also argued it conscientiously. Arguably it is Neil, and not Mick, who has changed the status quo, so Mick really needs no justification to return the route to its original state. Is it not the purpose of BMC area meetings to come to a consensus on these matters *before* routes are altered?


Interestingly, you rarely see videos from Car drivers showing bad behaviour by cyclists. I'd venture to guess that this is more likely because fewer cars are equipped with dashboard cameras, than it is cyclists being immune from bad behaviour on the roads.

In reply to Alun:
Nope.

I could have written a similar justification as Neil myself and an opposing one. This house believes that...etc... that's easy. I know the debate inside out and have lived it a few times.

Neil as a professional climber has also to get publicity, and as well as doing new routes, this is an excellent way to get attention. I have no need for that in climbing.

I will contribute on this thread a little. It's great click bait and will hopefully increase traffic and google analytics for advertising purposes.

If the bolts don't get chopped soon, I'm busy getting a book to the printers at the moment, I will remove them cleanly, fill in the holes and replace the threads.

I will be on my way to the Lakes then and I will drop of the bolts at Neil's and get a promise off him not to retro-bolt Deja Vu again.

M

In reply to HeMa:

Just a general point. The FA doesn't own a route. They should be consulted wherever possible, and their views considered, but their views shouldn't always prevail i.e. when an overwhelming consensus goes against them.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

Fair enough, like you say the arguments are well known and you stated which side you are on but you have failed to address one thing, are you going to remove the bolts from other routes in Yorkshire where they have been placed to replace old fixed gear like threads and pegs?

In reply to El3ctroFuzz:


You could. But if you did you'd be a wildly over-reacting idiot.
Dislike of retro-bolting does not equate to homophobia.

To be honest Gresham's explanation comes across like any other shifting-sands statement of ethical bum-wash.
Mild appeal of understanding to both camps, some self-defense statements and a large dollop of 'well, I wanted to do it this way'.

Would be nice to see someone admit they just fancied doing a route in a tweaked style and just hold to that instead of vanishing into the fog of ethics for a change.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

So, general consensus goes over the opinion of the creator?

Will this also hold true for art?

Because crafting a route on a black canvas of rock is not that far fetched to compare with creation of makin' a painting on yet again blank canvas.

It's their creation after all. And if someone disagrees, well shait perhaps they should have climbed it first.


And I'll assume you'll be taking out *all* the bolts then? Also the ones on the top section? After all, why only chop 2 bolts that spoil the experience... chop them all, but be sure to then also ascent this "cleaned" version as well.

In reply to Tyler:
No I'm not. Some routes I would if I had the time, but not all, no.

As you know Tyler this isn't a clear cut debate and often logic goes out the window.

It is really about ethics, emotions, memory, and feelings of ownership.

Neil is spending a period of time at the moment at Kilnsey and doing some great new routes.

He will have strong feelings of ownership toward Kilnsey because of this and because he has a strong 'tidy gene' he'll be looking around and thinking,

'Hmmm, this place needs a bit of a tidy up'

I know, I've had the same feelings.

Hence his retrobolts to make Deja Vu a convenient clip up rather than a rather messy clip up with a mix of fixed gear and the odd wire, and a bit of the fear.

He needs to know when he has crossed the very fuzzy line. A message has to be sent.

There's nothing wrong with nut routes and bolt routes on the same crag or fixed and placed gear on the same route.

It makes life interesting.

In reply to HeMa:

I don't understand how you can be so certain on what is clearly a very subjective matter. Neil understands this: "It's not for me to say if this is wrong or right but this has been part of the traditions since climbing began."

I think the majority of British climbers would disagree with your absolutist stance. If the FA of Bastille at High Tor, or Central wall at Kilnsey (or any number of other classic routes at mixed crags) decided on a whim that they would be better as sport routes then most people would not accept it - I'm certain that Neil wouldn't.

These retro bolting cases are very nuanced and need to be decided on a case by case basis.

For Deja Vu, I don't think it's that big a deal. I'm a bit sad because I want to do it and I like quirky hybrid routes with history. Maybe it's just me, but even if the protection situation is quite similar I often find routes on threads feel quite different, . However, it probably hasn't changed the character of the route that much and I can see the argument from both sides.

I do still think that Neil might have set a pretty bad precedent with his consultation. The facebook thread was only open to "friends" of Neil, he invited people to agree with him by clicking the "like" button but there was no equivalent if you disagreed. Canvassing people at the crag is also not great as its mostly going to be full of sport climbers and people might not want to disagree with someone as enthusiastic and high profile as Neil.

In reply to Alun:

Long but hardly thoughtful. He doesnt live in a bubble so why ignore a lot of the standard protocol whilst complaining about old traditionalists when deciding to do something he is aware is controversial (and completely unneccesary for his ascent) whilst claiming huge support from of all things his facebook friends. It also seems pretty odd to talk about trad spirit then say threads are untidy rubbish. The whole thing reads likes like a publicity generating muddle to me.

The BMC position on fixed gear is as follows:

( https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-drilled-equipment-and-dry-tooling-position-sta... )

"retro-bolting proposals should be widely publicised prior to discussion, and agreed on a consensus basis.

In these discussions the following factors must be given careful consideration:

• Access, environmental and land ownership issues.
• The history of the area or crag in terms of the established climbing ethics.
• Existing drilled equipment policies and agreements in place.
• The views of the first ascensionists.
• The level of importance (i.e. local / regional / national) of the area or crag in question.
• The nature of the rock (i.e. natural or quarried) and the availability of natural protection.
• The aspirations of current and future generations of climbers.

In the case of substantive and potentially controversial proposals to use drilled equipment, wider consultation should be carried out through National Council, the BMC Area structure and the BMC’s media outlets prior to agreement. The document provides further guidance to the BMC drilled equipment policy 1992."

In reply to Offwidth:

boring

In reply to Michael Ryan:


But this is an (arbitrary) rule that has been recognised by the climbing community in the UK for many years now. Who are you to say otherwise?

I have struggled with this 'rule' myself over the years but usually from the opposite side of the argument to Mick.

Seeking the first ascentionist's permission to alter the nature of a route does make sense to me if the first ascent was climbed solely on leader placed (and removed) protection ie, the cliff was left in the same state as it was found following the ascent (give or take a few dabs of chalk). To add fixed gear to a route that has previously required none, seems to be a backwards step and I would be gutted if any of my trad first ascents were altered in this way without anyone contacting me first and putting forwards their reasons for altering the route (and consequently the experience of subsequent ascentionists).

Where I have more trouble justifiying the 'seek the first ascentionist's permission' is where they have placed fixed or (even more strongly) drilled gear. In this situation, the first ascentionist will have had the benefit of new, safe gear that was probably bomb proof or, in the case of a run out drilled gear route, will have at the very least abseiled the line and probably will have practised it on top rope. To turn round to future generations of climbers and say 'tough', you will have to take your chances on my 30 year old pegs/threads if you want the onsight seems to me to be completely unreasonable. I feel it would be far healthier for the opinions of a first ascentionist who has placed drilled gear on a route (like Deja Vu for example) to be only as valid as the opinions of the next climber.

In this situation, Neil claims to have canvassed opinion and sought the opinion of the first ascentionists, so it would seem to be pretty cut and dried. Taking the new bolts out seems to be completely unjustifiable. I do wonder whether, however, a first ascentionist having the ultimate say on routes they have contrived to protect by altering the rock for their own convenience should continue to hold sway when there are so many rotting relics littering our crags that nobody will ever go near again (but would make enjoyable and popular sports routes).

In reply to HeMa:


OVERWHELMING general consensus does.

The link (if it exists) between new routing and art is rather overstated. There is no blank canvas - nature has created the features. Most of the time a route goes where it does because that's where the holds are.

I won't be taking out any bolts. I was making a general point (as I said above).

In reply to malx:


Because it's how we roll it here.

Granted we don't have such a long tradition of climbing, but what we do have is limited rock. So in order to value the little heritage we have, we also need to respect the ones who did the work in the 1st place (ie. the FA/FFA).

And don't worry, even if we follow this simple ethical standpoint... we still have our fare share of ethical dilemmas to dabble about online and in real life.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


Yes, but I've yet to see any notation of it. Has there been a representative voting on the matter? Where are the results, and was it really that representative?

Because, there's always the load minority that is mostly heard. Not the silent majority, that equals owerwhelming general consensus. Capiché


Indeed, the creator goes where nature has dictated. But if none have been there, the person doing the FA is in essence making his way up a blank canvas (no routes there).

In reply to tomrainbow:


Well, it clearly isn't 'cut and dried', no matter how many people from either side of the argument will claim that it is, otherwise there would have been zero reaction to Neil's bolts and no need to defend his position in an official article.

It is nuanced, grey and messy.

In reply to IOAN D:



Well...yes. It is about bolts on existing routes isn't it?

And if we accept the argument that Kilnsey is now a 'sport crag' is anyone charging up their drill to 'sort' The Diedre? And if not, why not?

In reply to tomrainbow:
How come so many are people complaining and making cogent arguments against on this page and on the other channel if the consensus to replace those start threads with a bolt is so strong? Don't you think if Ken Wilson had had facebook friends they would have strongly agreed with his anti-bolt stance?

I cant find the survey details but did find this..

Neil Gresham, Facebook 03AUG14
"quick ethical Q: any objections to me placing some lower first bolts on a few notable sport routes at Kilnsey so folk can climb without stupid sticks or breaking ankles?"
.
.
"Thanks to you all for your replies. No trad or mixed-gear routes will be touched. A few first ascentionists have given permission already. BMC area meet - ha ha, I presume that was a joke : )"

In reply to Michael Ryan:

Yes ethics are never logical and I'm quite happy with that, I think in situations like this every route should be treated on its merits. Which is why I am interested to know why you are happy for the bolts to remain in Dominatrix and Directissima because to my mind they are very similar situations? I'm also curious to know why you are happy for extra bolts an extra lower bolt to have been placed in Directissima after the original revolting had taken place?

Actually, scrub all that, I'm just shit stirring as, I suspect, are you.

In reply to UKC News:

Wow! What an amazing screw up.

The bolts weren’t needed as the thread were bomber, but have been placed anyway for some weird reason of aesthetics (threads being the most unsightly thing at a crag)

And now another dude who thinks he is more special than the first dude is going to make it all better by removing them.

Idiots the pair of them.

In reply to Andy Say:


why would they?

In reply to HeMa:

You are correct - in this case there is not an obvious overwhelming consensus against the FA (or FFA).

I just think 'blank canvas' is a poor metaphor in terms of art. It's more like there's a painting consisting of a lot of different dots and you're merely choosing which ones to join together.

In reply to Twisty:


But I am sure that everyone who places a bolt, no matter where it is, is able to 'justify' their actions? I've removed bolts from Yorkshire Grit crags. The bolter, I am sure, would be able to give a justification for their actions.

It's a human trait; 'I've done it so its right because......'

In reply to Michael Gordon:

There's texture in a painting canvas... Some artist might say that it affects the way you do the creation of said artwork.

In reply to HeMa:


Again, like the rest of the bum-wash in this thread is a great ethical standpoint, but also doesn't function in the real world.

Say for example, the 'new' route i've just done follows someones elses FA, but though a section of rockfall thats happened since the FA, Do i have to ask their permission? Or just for the first 7 meters that hasn't fallen off?

In Greshams case here this is ALSO muddled further by the fact that 'his' link up that hes extended, isn't even his bloody link up!

People need to admit that their ethical standpoint is actually as fluid as changes in gear, trends and the rock itself.
We only ever see this debates after someones taken an action they tries to justify it post-tense. Usually in the form of an 'statement' that has a bow to the New Faith of the Bolt, a Hail Mary for the Old Church of Trad, when really they might as well just say 'I did a thing because i wanted to, and thats as far as my train of thought went'.

In reply to UKC News:

Wow a 2000 word essay when all he needed to say was "Deja Vu was making my new super-route look scruffy so I bolted it." because basically that is what this is all about.

Bog

In reply to Michael Ryan:


relevant

In reply to Michael Gordon:

I don't think a "Painting" is a good metaphor at all. An artist does not make his paintings available to the public so that they can share in the experience of creating it ( which is what I would argue climbing is like ). The appreciation of a painting is passive, the appreciation of a climb active.

If you're going to use analogies, it's more like a composer who makes his score available for other musicians to play. Neil argues that, with the permission of the composer, he can change the notes. Mike argues that the score is now in the public domain, with several musicians having made their interpretations of it, and the composer has no right to change it.

In reply to Tyler:

Because it's a 'sport crag'.

In reply to HeMa:


Hmmm. Again that's overstating any possible link. Most cliffs consist of more than just 'texture' - there are actual features, like holds. The real artist has already done the work before the FA gets anywhere near the crag.

In reply to Andy Say:


No it's not.

Bog

In reply to Michael Ryan:




You are on very shaky ground when you claim to know what someone else thinks.

In reply to planetmarshall:



Nature has made the rock available. I guess the FA has interpreted it.



I don't think the musical analogy works. A route takes a visual line up a crag.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


It's just an analogy, and not to be taken literally ( or seriously )

In reply to UKC News:
UKC in mind-numbingly dull circular eternal argument shocker.


To be fair I wish people wouldn't do this kind of thing so we don't have to fart the old opinions out about it yet again.

In reply to UKC News:

He should have not touched any existing lines and just used them to get up the the start of his roof extension and just gave that a name and grade instead of incorporating and retroing any existing climbs. What a bellend.

In reply to Bogwalloper:

I'll just cite 'This crag already has hundreds of bolts all over it. Your reasoning might work for loads of other crags but not here, and not on a route that can already be climbed with only a rack of quickdraws.' as an example. But, surely, you must be aware of the argument, often presented, that says that if there are a lot of sport routes on a crag then it's a 'sport crag' and should be fully 'converted' to such? There's been a few threads

In reply to Andy Say:

Will never happen at Kilnsey - far too many classic 3* pure trad routes.

Bog

In reply to Steve nevers:


In which case UKC would be deprived of significant advertising revenue. I think my favourite UKC trope is

"You hold position X, therefore you must also hold position X+1, ad infinitum"

eg "If you want to strip these bolts, why don't you also STRIP ALL THE BOLTS IN THE WORLD!!!!". etc.

In reply to planetmarshall:



how about:

'If you want a new FA, find a new bit of f*cking rock.'

Could be argued that instead of Neil having a new route, everyone else has two compromised ones. (totally stirring the pot here.)

In reply to Andy Say:

That's one of those straw man arguments I hear about isn't it? In case it's not and you genuinely don't know anything about Kilnsey it's a crag with both trad and sport routes. Originally it had many aid routes which were gradually freed. Some were freed with entirely or mostly removable protection and that is how they remain. Some were freed using fixed gear which was either replaced with bolts straight away (the Bulge, Mandela) or the fixed gear was replaced with bolts over time (Dominatrix). Some routes were easy enough to be freed by lots of climbers, on sight, so it didn't matter that the fixed gear wasn't perfect (they didn't need to be worked nor did the fixed gear take repeated falls) it also meant we could claim to have climbed E3, E4 or E5 when really we'd just climbed a 6c, 7a or 7b. Because we all prefer to say we've climbed an E4/5 than a poxy 7a we made sure the old tat stayed in Deja Vu to preserve the legitimacy of the E4/5 tick. Here it gets confusing because the same thing should have happened with Directissima but for some reason it was ok to bolt that, you'll need to ask someone like Mick why that is ok as he obviously understands the ethic better than me.

In reply to Steve nevers:


That's the best argument I've heard, either for or against the bolts, yet!

In reply to UKC News:

Frankie comes to (Kilnsey) premonition

Does anyone get a sense of Déjà vu?

In reply to Bogwalloper:


You missed the part about "...and maybe that will help me to score some more free shoes from La Sportiva".

In reply to Tyler:


Somebody will put them in...
Somebody will take them out...
We'll all puff our chests...
and call each other pricks...
then we'll do it again...

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Dumb post.

Neils climbing history as well as his endless enthusiasm for all forms* of climbing speaks for itself and fully justifies why companies sponsor him.

*except Alpinism. The only thing missing from his palmares (to steal a cycling term) and that is down to him liking a nice bed and decent meal at the end of the day.

If people think Neil is motified by his sponsors they couldn't be more wrong. Sure he makes his living from climbing but that is a distant second to his genuine love of it.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

I expect the rand has started to come away from his current pairs.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:
That comment was largely tongue-in-cheek. I'm not generally a fan of badmouthing people based on what you imagine their motivation to be!

So to get slightly back on topic, what difference does replacing the threads with bolts actually make to the character of either route? It looks relatively insignificant - either way you've got more-or-less bomber gear that you don't need to worry about placing - but that's basically that view from a punter's armchair so I'm happy to be schooled.

In reply to Ramblin dave:
To me, that is kind of the point. there was no need. And there is equally no need to remove them now they are in


Edit: there was no need to place the bolts

In reply to WB:


There, that sounds good enough.

Can we all go back to arguing about grades none of us can actually do and debating if chalks better because it comes in a fancy bag now?

In reply to UKC News:

I know nothing about the ethics of this, one way or another. I do find this interesting though:-

OP (Neil) - Likes = 48, Dislikes = 3
Mikes response - Likes = 18, Dislikes = 64

Also, I'm available to chuck in a Godwin if anyone asks

In reply to RedFive:



Judging the world based on sodding internet likes is a rather large sign why the western world is dying on its arse.

In reply to Steve nevers:

Just to be clear (which i thought I was), I'm not judging, just reporting. Big difference my friend.

I don't do Facewack, Tw*tter or any other social media so your post is rather wide of the mark old boy.

Though I do agree with you.

In reply to RedFive:

I'm not judging either, tbh i've given up having much of an opinion on these odd retros that i just have a giggle at people loosing their minds over it.

In reply to Steve nevers:

Like

In reply to RedFive:



And i'm saying that as a mostly trad head.

In reply to RedFive:

I haven't 'liked' or 'disliked' any posts.

But I'm disappointed in Neil. It is pretty shoddy to be messing about with two existing lines as a kind of justification for claiming a new route. Premonition? Of this furore? It would have been more honourable to leave the existing 'access' routes unchanged, and call his extension Deja Vu Direct Finish.

In reply to UKC News:

So why has Michael Ryan been restricted fron posting? Yes I know that "Most restrictions are only temporary. Please don't start threads about banned users. You can contact us if you wish to discuss this restriction", but then I also know that in this instance that this is total bollocks. Feel free to ban me too - there are other, better, climbing forums around so I don't suppose it will be a big loss to either of us.

In reply to UKC News:

Why didn't Neil release this statement before he bolted it? If he truly wanted to gain an understanding of what people thought he would have done.
Instead he asked his fans on Facebook, with a biased question and got the answer he wanted.
As others have said, he should have just said 'I wanted to bolt this so I did' and taken the inevitable flak. Rather than trying to justify it in any other way.

Looks like an insane route anyway!

In reply to Tyler:


No. It is a frequently cited justification for retrobolting; just have a look at Norber Scar. Sorry, Robin Proctor's.

Old Allan Austin routes have been bolted on the basis that 'no-body does them' and 'its a sport crag now'.

>In case you genuinely don't know anything about Kilnsey ....

Cheeky monkey.

In reply to Michael Ryan:


The onus is on you to free the whole route without any fixed protection before you have the right to remove the bolts.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

You might say he is lucky then in never being shy in publicity terms and yes I know his enthusiasm is genine and his acheivements impressive. He was the one who retrobolted something he didn't need to and pushed the story and I just can't see why he bothered if just climbing is the main motivation. Like others have said already I would never have predicted it. Running a facebook debate before putting it up on a climbing forum or a (laughable suggestion of an?) area meeting was always gonna be regarded as stirring.

In reply to mark_wellin:

Is there any link... the only question I found was the original one I include above (Aug2014) which was about adding a bolt to sports routes when the first bolt was too high, with a follow up comment stating no intention of bolting mixed or trad routes.

In reply to Andy Say:

When someone creates something while destroying someone else's creation,there are varying degrees of AGGRESSION in that,depending on the level of disruption. In the recent case of my peg at Millstone,I(unwittingly) put a peg in another climber's route.Once I found he wanted that peg out,that was fine by me.Many of my trad routes have been destroyed twice.Once when they are retrobolted,and secondly,when people polish up the holds with multiple ascents.The route can wait for ever,as far as I am concerned,to receive trad ascents.Bolts don't make a trad route accessible,BECAUSE IT IS NO LONGER A TRAD ROUTE!!! Duh.... Many of my routes have been ruined,and not surprisingly,without consultation. Bolted routes are ,generally, junk food for people without the balls to do trad routes. MITCH

In reply to UKC News:
If I get this right, Neil did his new route and then removed the threads that he did his route on. So why did he need to remove the gear he (and countless others) used on Déjà Vu? To make his line 'better'. How f*cking selfish can he get? The gear on the route was part of its character. Who is he Neil to decide to change it? Mick, get chopping, replace the tat. Its the right thing to do.

Andy F

All,
I have never ever commented about anything on UKC before, however I feel I need to here and support Neil's actions. I have not really climbed in the UK since leaving in 2001 and some may feel that this gives me no right to comment, however I do still feel passionate about Kilnsey, its climbs and history. I did spend most of 20 years contributing to its development so I do feel I can lend some insight here. I have over the years moved through all phases of rock climbing from the pre-harness era to current sport climbing. I have always wanted to provide something to the sport. I have been against bolts, for bolts, against top rope training and for it. There has also been a fair amount of controversy with regards to hold improvement and blatant chipping which I do not deny (but not the misrepresented extent). All of these things I wholeheartedly thought were right at the time.
Here in 2015 we still seem to have problems with accepting climbers actions, even when they are so thoughtfully explained and backed up. All I can say here in this case is that there is no actual physical or psychological difference between the threads and the bolts, except in how long they last and in some narrow minded sensitivity to history. In this routes case I just don't understand it. Neil obviously did a brilliant job with the route, it is actually a great line, why I did it in the first place and why Ron wanted to free climb it. However, it is only just now the finished product - complete; everyone should congratulate Neil on his achievement. What Neil has done, has done has changed the route; he has just finished it and improved it in my opinion. I don't believe the argument that if it was a grotty quarry it wouldn't matter; the discussion here does matter regardless. However, I believe it was the right thing to do and he correctly enlisted those who matter; firstly a lot of past and current climbers at the crag and then the 2 who historically could or may have had some objections. As I see it there were only agreements.
I look to other routes I have contributed to in similar ways, Directissima I retro-bolted, Ground Effect was my own route on nuts and threads that I extended and bolted and then Ecstasy I bolted the whole of the trad route that is the first section. They are just multi-stared routes. I firmly believe that these actions made better routes, with more history and no one went as far as removing bolts (or even talking about it) from them back in the day. I see these are completely parallel examples to this discussion about the first section of Premonition.
To conclude my ramblings, Kilnsey has some fine climbs from all flavours of rock climbing and a very long history. I truly believe that Neil's new route and subsequent actions have only added to this great place its climbs and history.
Finally, Mick it still seems you haven't learned to stop poking your nose into things you shouldn't and still talking out of your arse; but that's Showtime isn't it and this is what it all about - right?
Pete

In reply to andy farnell:



Well, seems he did a link up other people have done, bolted that, then bolted up an extension to that, then claimed a new line. (if the second reply to the thread is correct)

In reply to Offwidth:

He posted last night (or the night before) if that's what you are asking?

In reply to Steve nevers:


I read his 'explanation' as 'I did my new route then changed the original start because I thought it would be better because my line is more important'

Andy F

In reply to Andy Say:
Justified his decisions by doing this after a year of consideration, research and consultation. Pretty thorough in my eyes.

In reply to andy farnell:

Andy - Agreed.

Did the new bolts change an existing route? Yes. 'nuff sed.

Don't change existing routes should be the guiding light in all of this.

Just keep it really simple that way.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

You seem to be justifying your reputation Mick.
Si.

In reply to Pete Gomersall:

That hopefully will shut the arm chair climbers up , -

In reply to shouldbebetter:





All seems a bit silly just to add a few meters and a few grades.

Has to be more viable projects around that haven't got this amount of drama attached?

In reply to UKC News:
adding what looks like a top quality sport route to an existing line, pushing climbing and generating interest in a crag is all great stuff, here in Malta where lots of route development has taken place in the last five years there is a still a silly old guard that protect lines and histories that stunted climbing here in the past, and infact the newer generation of climbers that have equipped caves and steep rock in the last 10 years that "the old guard" will have probably driven past without a thought for route possibilities. The way i see it neil has added to the history and development of the crag, and with the convent of the previous route setters, my guess is the people threatening to chop bolts (we had that here too, and it never happened) are jelous and bitter at there lapse ability, and determination when it comes t hard climbing, keep it up neil, great work,

In reply to nbonnett:


C'mon! This is UKC.

In reply to UKC News:

More's the point - anyone know whether 'Friends in High Places' the classic and exciting trip above the chattering masses on North Buttress is still a trad route with no fixed gear?

Now that is what I call a premonition in terms of route name.

In reply to UKC News:

For Sale... Extreme Rock

In reply to Robb Bert:


Nah. it's well out of date mate.

In reply to paul mitchell:


What a load of Tosh, especially in this case.

Have you done Indian Face?

In reply to Pete Gomersall:

Hi Pete,

Thank you for your post. Obviously folk have their views - for and against - but an injection of sanity and perspective is much appreciated. And great to hear from you, across space and time.

All best wishes,

Mick

In reply to


Is this UKCs new Godwin variant, or does that remain 'Yeah, but what's he done on The Grit?'

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:


The threads weren't unsightly, you couldn't even see them from the road. They were replaced regularly and an intimate part of the route's character, as was the now reduced run-out. The original feel of the route has been destroyed by the self righteous actions of one person who thinks his route is more important than the weight of history.

The retro bolted Cave routes changed rotten old pegs for better new bolts. This has not done that, its damaged the route. How many of the people commenting on this route have actually experienced it? Yes is was a quasi-sport route, but it was all the better for it.

Andy F

In reply to andy farnell:

sorry andy but total bollocks, if this was on central wall area fair enough but it isn't .

In reply to UKC News:
Haven't done the route in any of its manifestations so don't feel I've too much right to comment but what I'd say is this... Climbing above bolts feels different to climbing above threads. I trust new bolts in good rock implicitly, but even good looking threads cast a shadow of doubt in the back of the mind. It's not the same, especially if the route is hard for you.

Furthermore, prospective climbers of Neil's route would obviously find the climbing protected by the threads total piss, so it doesn't matter either way to them (Neil put the bolts in after having completed the route for heavens sake).

I understand that threads are messy. I agree they often look awful, and was in fact rather disappointed when recently in the leap to see bright orange cord all over the west wall; but shiny bits of metal, and chalk and the rest of it aren't really that much better, merely more common these days. What I'd add to the (discussion?) is that people aught to try and replace threads with cord that matches the colour of the rock, or as near as possible, whenever possible. Minimise the visual impact. Don't change a route though and claim that nothing has changed.

I understand that on some routes it makes sense to retro bolt, especially as Andy mentions above when replacing rotten pegs; and I think each case has to be taken individually, but this time it to me feels uneccessary. And despite the rather long justification, remains in my eyes unjustified. Great effort on freeing the whole route though.

In reply to nbonnett:


Why Nige? The threads were bomber and there was no need for the bolts. Who's to say if Central wall won't become fair game in future? As for the argument about the retro bolting of Directissima, it's more run out on bolts than it was on trade gear/old bolts and pegs.

Andy F

In reply to UKC News:

Interesting article, thanks for sharing.

In reply to andy farnell:

rictus has just been retrobolted , and a bolt is next to the old thread on slab/sub culture (can't remember which is the easier one, but it's the easier one ) but no one's barking on about this or is it just that someone from down south has come to God's county n knicked a route . Bloody southerners .anyhow your a Scouser so WTF has it to do.with you lot -

I wish I owned The Tennant Arms. They are about to do a roaring trade as people go to Kilnsey to "see what the fuss is about".

In reply to nbonnett:

Oi! My dad was born and bred in Elland, so I've got Yorkshire blood running through my veins. That gives me the right to wear a flat cap, own a whippet, drink Tetley's and say 'eh up' whenever it suits me

Andy F

In reply to Michael Ryan:

Naughty step?

In reply to UKC News:
Yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever Neil Gresham. I'm in the States but if you or anyone else brings that crappy practice to my crags I can promise you those bolts will get chopped in a skinny minute. Don't destroy climbing history, bolt holes are permanent and tat is not. And quit emasculating wild cliffs into a consumable product. Boooooo! I'm younger than you Mr. Gresham by a big so don't even think it's just the old guard that are pissed by retro bolting. I hope you boys and girls across the pond remove those bolts right and do a nice patch job. Don't mess with my sport and I won't mess with yours.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

Chop that shit Mick.

In reply to Michael Ryan:


An interesting claim but can you prove it?

If not then it's no more valid than someone else claiming that this fuzzy line has NOT been crossed.

In reply to andy farnell:


The 'original feel' of the route was an aid climb that went all the way through the roof.

And the original way of doing things is not necessarily the best way. Most changes to things are done to improve them.

In reply to stp:



Has this improved it? I would argue no. All it has done is made it more consumable, less unique and less of a challenge, all because Neil, who did the route the original way anyway, wants his line to be the one.

Selfish, selfish, selfish. No one else can now have the full ER experience because of his actions. The route was fine before, there was no real and defendable reason to change it.

Andy F

In reply to UKC News:

Great to learn about the new routes that have gone up at Kilnsey.

The fuss about the threads will be short lived, but the new route is a great addition to the crag and will surely be prized in the future.

In reply to UKC News:

Premonition. What a line and what a great story from FA to FFA to FFATWTTTA (First Free All The Way To The Top Ascensionist)

I am not sure why the replacement of fixed gear with fixed gear is causing so much fuss. This process has been happening for years and is still happening now. Dominatrix, Sardine, Cave Route Right Hand and many more routes have had their fixed gear replaced with modern fixed gear. UK climbing, because of our long history of trad, semi-trad and now sport, has ended up with a heritage of routes that are a mix of fixed gear, crap fixed gear, rotten fixed great and trad. As the gear rots and changes it leaves people with a dilemma, replace with crap or put in long lasting permanent stuff. In the case of Déjà vu it was and still is a ‘sporty’ sport route with a lot of fixed gear.

I was at the crag last Saturday when Neil replaced the fixed gear and can tell everyone one concerned that the first piece is now higher than the end of the old thread. You will now have to climb just that little bit higher with just little bit more risk of breaking legs if you should fall!

In the mean-time the FA has come forward on this forum and openly supported Neil and confirmed that without prompting he advocated that the fixed gear he placed be updated with modern long lasting fixed gear. In fact, Pete Gomersall and Ron Fawcett both had an advantage over subsequent ascensionists in that they knew the provenance of the fixed gear they were using. Neil has by adding good quality fixed gear with care and thought he has preserved a quality route and ensured that anyone, can rock up on any day of the week and climb the route with the same advantage that Ron Fawcett had when he first did the FFA of the route. The ‘Extreme’ rock tick people still and always will get their tick.

The reason for Neil changing the threads is quite clear to me. He wanted to put up a quality route with proper long lasting fixed gear that will be there for the generations that follow to use and appreciate. Not a cobbled together mess that we have seen way too much of in the UK. Neil should be congratulated on many levels, he checked and canvased opinion, spoke to both the FA and FFA, establish a fantastic new route with properly placed fixed gear so subsequent ascensionists can climb it and ensured the longevity of the original line in keeping with that of the FFA.

Good job, we need more of this not less.

Seb Grieve

In reply to WuDavid:
This almost certainly only causing a fuss on UKC for a few people who enjoy making a fuss. I don't climb 7b or E5 but Neil has justified his actions in a very articulate and well thought out manner. If Ron and Pete agree with his actions then he's on the money.

There is far too much manky crap littering linestone routes in the UK and for some reason some people seem to think it's OK to have a cluster of rusty wires and worn threads but not a single discrete bolt.

I have usually ignored the nonsense that's spouted on here regarding bolts, and the fuss usually dies down soon enough.

Well done to Neil for using common sense; like you say, we need more of it, not less.

In reply to WuDavid:

That's one way of looking at it, certainly. Another way is that a respected and high profile professional climber simply smartened up a classic route according to his own aesthetic taste, without proper consultation, and to the obvious concern of a sizeable portion of the community.

There was no need to change the lower section of the wall at all. Anyone with a hope of getting up 8b+ really isn't going to struggle with an E5 access route. It seems to me like the perfect, controversy-free compromise would have been to do what Neil originally did - leave the originals alone and bolt his new extension. No-one would have been upset, everyone would have been pleased for Neil. His decision to proceed further has caused a lot of upset, and looks rather like hubris.

Maybe the new bolts lower down represent progress, maybe they represent vandalism. There's no right or wrong answer, they're just two different points of view. But we should know by now that a community with differing points of view should be given an opportunity to air them, to consult, before unilateral action is taken. And if we didn't realise that before this thread, surely we should realise it now. I accept that Neil did some consulting including, importantly, the FA and the FFA, and I'm not wanting to demonise the man, but consulting on facebook amongst an audience of friends and followers is no consultation at all. This thread looks like convincing evidence to me that further consultation would have been appropriate in this instance.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

if had put the bolts in and you removed them. you would be eating them.

In reply to UKC News:

Could I get some clarification, please - what's now the accepted procedure for placing new bolts on crags containing a mix of trad and sport?

If I want to place bolts at such a crag, for a new project which may affect existing routes, is it sufficient that I select a few people to consult, and give the matter "much deliberation"? I've always been under the impression that one should get approval, via a BMC vote, for any route-changing action which might be contentious, or fall into any grey area, and that consultation should be made before making the changes.

I think arguing the merits of any individual case after the event is interesting, but somewhat beside the main point. I'm sure most of us would agree that we don't want a country full of maverick bolters, making their own assessments and decisions, while side-stepping potential critics by avoiding genuinely democratic consultation. Are elite climbers somehow exempt?

In reply to Wicamoi: Spot on. Probably the best and most accurate post on this thread.

Andy F

In reply to Wicamoi:


So that I'm clear, can you define what you mean when you talk about "a sizable portion of the community"? In other words, can you quantify that phrase?

In reply to bpmclimb:
Ill recopy the process the BMC came up with...

The BMC position on fixed gear is as follows:

( https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-drilled-equipment-and-dry-tooling-position-sta... )

"retro-bolting proposals should be widely publicised prior to discussion, and agreed on a consensus basis.

In these discussions the following factors must be given careful consideration:

• Access, environmental and land ownership issues.
• The history of the area or crag in terms of the established climbing ethics.
• Existing drilled equipment policies and agreements in place.
• The views of the first ascensionists.
• The level of importance (i.e. local / regional / national) of the area or crag in question.
• The nature of the rock (i.e. natural or quarried) and the availability of natural protection.
• The aspirations of current and future generations of climbers.

In the case of substantive and potentially controversial proposals to use drilled equipment, wider consultation should be carried out through National Council, the BMC Area structure and the BMC’s media outlets prior to agreement. The document provides further guidance to the BMC drilled equipment policy 1992."

Neil moans about traditionalists (some of whom are very young in fact) so he aware there is opposition then canvases in a way that makes the outcome one-sided and makes a big public splash about it. He isn't an idiot so must have done this on purpose. I've still not been able to find the question he canvassed on Facebook with yet (the one from Aug 2013 was about sport routes)... I'd probably have been neutral on retrobolting from the details so my beef is really he is inflaming arguments by not attempting to follow a fair process. Like Adam on the other channel I'm not fussed about where it's done but it should have been done before the action, in public (UKC would be fine)... now though we are clearly having the proper argument after the event, that didn't occur in the canvassing.

In reply to Frank the Husky:


I suppose you would have to assume that UKC is representative of the climbing community at large, and that 'likes and dislikes' can be used to poll the opinions of that community. In which case, Michael's post at the top of the thread has, currently, 26 votes for to 92 against, roughly a ratio of 1:4 or 20% in favour of chopping the bolts.

Those are some fairly major assumptions, and I doubt they would satisfy a professional pollster. I don't feel particularly passionately about these things either way, but it does appear that there's supposed to be a process, and it wasn't followed.

In reply to Michael Ryan:


A tad arrogant dont you think?

In reply to Frank the Husky:

It's a phrase that has a pretty clear meaning Frank, and I used it in a normal and I think unambiguous way - namely, since I am unable to specify precisely the portion of the community concerned, to indicate that I believe it to be a sizeable, or significant one.

In reply to pebbles:

Yes does come over as a colossal arse...there are more appropriate and less confrontational ways of discussing things

Sure he's a nice bloke

In reply to mark s:


Nice! A threat of physical violence. If I were a moderator you'd be banned for that.

In reply to Wicamoi:


It doesn't have a clear meaning which is why I asked. Vague phrases like that are normally used to gain ascendancy in an argument when the facts don't support the position of the person using it. If you had solid facts to back up your statement you'd use them.

To prove my point (using Mr Marshall's post above yours) 20% are in favour of removing the bolts, and 80% against. In other words your statement (based on the responses on this thread) is nonsense.

In reply to UKC News:

http://memegenerator.net/instance/50093408

In reply to planetmarshall:

roughly a ratio of 1:4 or 20% in favour of chopping the bolts.

And of course those stats are from after the event. It probably doesn't reflect how voting would have gone before the event, for various reasons (not least because of the mess removing bolts can leave).

In reply to Michael Ryan:


Can we assume you'll also be dropping by weekly to remove and clean up any messy looking threads that get left there again as a result of the bolts being removed?

In reply to Matt Pycroft:


I'll see your meme and raise you this.

youtube.com/watch?v=ussCHoQttyQ&

In reply to BarrySW19:


This is done annually by a couple of local activists.

Bog

In reply to bpmclimb:


Or a threat to take Mr Ryan to a really bad restaurant. Either way, I suppose...

In reply to planetmarshall:


Just remembering three weeks ago on Jersey, worst Chinese takeaway I've ever had. I think I'd be better off with the bolts .....

In reply to Frank the Husky:

The phrase I used has a clear and well-known meaning, it is just not a precise one. Which is the reason why I used it. When precision is impossible - anything else is dishonest.

The 20% figure the planetmarshall came up with is precise, but we have no way of knowing how accurate it is, as planetmarshall himself acknowledged but you seem to have overlooked. I won't both to enumerate all the many reasons why the derived figure of 20% is untrustworthy - I'm sure you'll be able to think of enough of them yourself.

But let's say, just for the sake of argument, that 20% happens to be the correct figure. According to normal usage that would represent 'a sizeable portion'.

In reply to Wicamoi:

Whilst I would agree that 20% could be regarded as a sizable portion, I think you would also agree that 80% is commonly described as an overwhelming majority ?

In reply to all:

This is all quality viewing....typical UKC mass debate. Keep it up.

In reply to Wicamoi:



Or, depending how you look at it, a small minority.......

In reply to planetmarshall:


Likes and dislikes are about the post, for those that can be bothered with them. They are not votes for or against what was in the post. Liking an articulate post in favour of leaving the bolts in is nowhere near the same as supporting leaving the bolts in.

Far better would have been to follow due process and get concensus before bolting. Same could be said with places like garage buttress where bolts are appearing that are affecting classic easily protected trad routes

In reply to Oceanrower:

In the SI units of Proportions According To Wicamoi, 80% is a large majority (and very nearly, but not quite, 'overwhelming'), 20% is a sizeable portion, or a minority (but not quite 'small minority'). Unfortunately, both the 80% and the 20% are made up anyway.

Which is why I used an entirely appropriate phrase like "sizeable portion", which I had assumed would be incontestable. How wrong I was.

Incidentally I note that my post of 10:00 this morning has currently 10 likes and 2 dislikes. My 83.3333333% approval rating is clear evidence that an overwhelming majority of the climbing community agree with me, on this and any other loosely connected issue I may wish for support on, whilst only a small minority are foolish enough to disagree.

In reply to UKC News:
It strikes me the nearest parallel to this (that fits with my thinking) is architecture. We could modernise all buildings, ensure greater efficiency or inkeepingness with modernity or fashion. We choose not to do that, we choose to understand that it is important to accept the character and sometimes functionality of the old.

This climb could have been like an archiological dig of climbing with different sections representing the beliefs and mores of the day, instead it now much more reflects this moment and less different parts reflecting the times they were put up.

In reply to puppythedog:

Oddly enough, the owner of said buildings can modernize them, if they see fit.

And the general consensus can't.

In reply to HeMa:

I thought not if they were listed?

In reply to puppythedog:

I like that analogy and in fairness it's probably how things are working at the moment but without any bureaucracy or means of enforcement. Treat trad routes as listed buildings. Not sure how we deal with this one though as it seems to involve "hybrid" routes.

Al

In reply to puppythedog:


True.

But then again, the limiting factor isn't general consensus... but some bureaucrat somewhere.

In reply to UKC News:

Hilarious.

Now then climbers. Get a grip! What we need is to be better organised. We need a rota.

Perhaps Mick, you'd be so kind as to organise the volunteers for the de-bolting rota. People could PM you and say when they'll be in the area and you can allocate accordingly. If you could leave the ladder/static line, sika, drill and other materials at the foot of the route, it will help the logistics for the volunteers. You should however only organise visits on odd-numbered days in the month, because on even ones...

... Neil will need to organise his volunteers to replace the bolts. I'm sure they'll pay if the drill bits need sharpening and you'll have to come to an arrangement to pay for the Hilti's petrol I guess. If the removed bolts can be left with the equipping gear that would be ideal and helps our recycling targets, I expect. Alternatively, perhaps Neil could use expansion bolts and then there's no messy glue to spoil things.

I'm going up that way late Novemeber and have a bit of flexibility on dates so could do a double shift if that helps - I don't mind if I put them in first and take them out next day or th eother way round. Whatever suits Mick and Neil.

Is it OK if I actually do some climbing while I'm there? I'm not sure which of you owns the crag at the moment.

In reply to GridNorth:


It's a fairly poor analogy IMO. Not all old buildings are listed, but you're saying all trad routes should effectively be 'preserved'. Fair enough, treat the classics as 'listed' but then the 'consultees' have to be determined.

In reply to Fraser:


Then we shall have to agree to disagree but I should point out that the comparison was with listed buildings not all old buildings. Yes all trad routes should be preserved or at least that should be the starting point and over-riding principle and then each case discussed on it's own merits.

Al

In reply to Fraser:

It's the philosophy I think is analogous not the way we practice listing buildings.

That sometimes old and not as efficient or safe or beautiful by current thinking is not necessarily less valuable and in fact can be more valuable.

In reply to UKC News:

In certain ways this reminds me of the Pettifers retro fiasco at Ratho. A well meaning chap who wanted to open up the crag and widen its use bolted some excellent new sport routes in the quarry but also retro-bolted Pettifers as it hadn't been done in over a decade and has a horrible top-out. In defense of the ethics, another well meaning chap chopped all the bolts and climbed it to prove it was still a great Trad route. The only thing was he was really only defending 80% of the ethics as he enjoyed the benefits of clipping in to the bolted chain at the top (which he didn't chop?) to lower off rather than defend a 100% ethical top-out and fight his way through the chos and killer gorse bush.

So, in light of that and from what I can gather: the bottom section of Deja Vu had perma-Tat, the roof had an old bolt ladder (simply replaced when rotten) and the top section groove was bolted long ago, and it lies between a whole load of sport routes.

Seems to me that sometimes the ethics are defended admirably and honestly but at other times there is a whiff of hypocrisy in the air. I am wondering how many people have climbed Deja Vu without using any of the in-situ?

In reply to Valaisan:

No need to wonder, none have climbed Deja Vu without using in-situ gear. In fact, from what I gather, it utilizes only in-situ gear (3 tats and a number of old aid bolts).

In reply to UKC News:

George Bush was a "worrying president", so I guess you mean "precedent"?

In reply to Valaisan:
There are many good eco and safety reasons to not top out on vegetated choss and to have a bolted lower-off for a trad route is sometimes a requirement under access agreements. The route bolting and the lower off are different cases in my opinion.

As the years go by the pressure to retrobolt is growing and more and more genuine trad routes are being affected as well as the tided up peg and thread clip-ups that have become sports climb standards. From time to time there is a big row and sometimes some bolts get chopped.

I strongly agreed with the new BMC policy as it attempted to dealt with retrobolting contention in its modern context on a case-by-case basis, with open informed debate to try and calm the situation and if possible prevent bolt wars. Neil isn't the first big name climber to laugh at the idea of area meetings but in the end the BMC is our front line in access negotiations and people plain ignoring the BMC process just dont help the wider interest. Not many of us who regularly attend area meetings object to a sensible wider debate on a climbing forum first (or even exclusivly online) but facebook isn't the place unless the facebook debate is linked to a BMC or climbing forum link first. I'm sure Neil's consensus is real data but the process and evidence isnt there to see its been fair and it's not all the process the BMC agreed.

In reply to Offwidth:


I agree in general, but this doesn't apply to Ratho. There are no other lower offs at the top of trad routes there, nor access or eco reasons for having them, and the lower off at the top of Pettifers would not have been there if it hadn't been retro-bolted then chopped. The route bolting and lower off are exactly the same case, in that case, and makes the defense of trad ethics inadequate and irritating in that case, in my opinion.


I also agree with this. An open online forum first followed by an area meeting with the data from the forum would be beneficial to all it would seem.

In reply to Valaisan:

I understand the Ratho situation and still see retaining the lower off and retuning the line of route to its original trad stautus as being a valid alternative which makes the route a lot more more attractive to climb and easier to keep clean (stable growth at the top as opposed to an eroded top-out). Not all routes need this option... again case by case but I would like to see a lot more bolted lower off where trad climb exits are problematic for a combination of access, safety, erosion or ecological reasons. I know there are lots of differences of opinion but I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks this.

In reply to Valaisan:
Right that's it. Close the thread. The Ratho/Pettifer's button has been pressed. No good can come of this.

In reply to bpmclimb:

No threat, this Ryan bloke came to this thread with an attitude so I spoke in his language.

In reply to Hay:

Nice one Hay

In reply to Offwidth:

Whilst I see your point, that wasn't mine at all. My point was....oh, never mind.

In reply to Valaisan:

I could say exactly the same You yourself said the top-out was horrid. I don't believe we should be subjected to such things in what is a man-made cliff for the sake of a few ultra purists. It impacts me more directly: at Aldery (Earl Sterndale) for-instance where new static ropes were installed at some effort at common lower-offs, some of which were below dangerously loose and vegetated exits, with full permission from the landowner (BMC) and local BMC area but then removed by some nameless activist.

In reply to UKC News:

surely the most obvious way is just to now place some tat in the bolt hangers, the traditionalists who want the experience of clipping the tat and worrying about how bomber it is still can (we can even measure it to check it hangs at the same height as the old tat) the people in favour of the bolts can still just clip the bolts, everyones a winner!

In reply to UKC News:

Think I might replace the Tales of Yankee power/ Reproduction thread with a couple of bolts, looks a bit messy and there's bolts on that wall already. I'll make my decision based on the ratio of likes to dislikes this post gets. Majority wins.

In reply to HeMa:

HeMa > Oddly enough, the owner of said buildings can modernize them, if they see fit.

puppythedog > I thought not if they were listed?

HeMa > True.

So the owner of said buildings cannot actually modernise them as they see fit?

And, caller, your point is...?

In reply to Andy Say:






In the rare case the building is listed as protected on such and such reasons. Think Unesco world heritage site...

As far as I know, no climbing route has been protected by law (yet).

Oh, and if it were so, then you also couldn't replace the tat.

In reply to UKC News: Having said my piece over the Déjà Vu fiasco I had vowed not to post anything else. But after the recent spate of unpleasant attacks I've received on this forum from Mick Ryan, I am left with no choice but to expose the most extraordinary case of hypocrisy I've ever witnessed in thirty years of climbing. It is a historical fact that Mick stripped all the threads and pegs from two un-bolted routes at Trowbarrow, Grim Jim and Hoodoo Guru and fully retro-bolted them without permission from the first ascentionists, who were suitably dis-pleased. It states this clearly in the history section of the Yorkshire Limestone guide. I've just challenged Mick about this on the phone and he confessed to all and was unable to explain himself, other than saying essentially that it was alright for him but not for me. Stranger still, he actually encouraged me to bring these facts to light publicly when I asked his permission to do so (in spite of his hurtful comments, I still felt this was the right thing to do). It simply beggars belief and suggests that there was a hidden alternative agenda from the start, whatever that may be. Whilst I'm here I should quickly say that I didn't do that route for 'commercial reasons' (what a load of tosh) but because it's a belter and I love climbing as much as anybody, and also that removing those threads if anything, could have been disastrous rather than beneficial for my sponsorship in view of the slandering I've received, but I did it because I believed it was the right thing to do for the evolution of the line. So to all those of you who have offered well-judged and tactfully expressed concerns about Déjà Vu, you have my thanks and sincere respect for representing the opposition in this debate. But if there are any more of you who are taking shots at me whilst hiding a retro-bolting track record as impressive as Mick Ryan’s then may you hang your heads in shame. This is definitely the last from me on all this.

In reply to Neil Gresham:

Don't let it get you down dude , I'm just a punter yet I come across the funny side of Climbing quite often , - I'm sure the best climber is the one having the most fun not the most rules / biggest wig !
Might not be much use to us ,,,, but given time, maybe 20/30 years time will change -
, hopefully our traditional crags will be respected by the next generation and more so appreciate and update our sports crags to European standards .

In reply to Neil Gresham:
It was Trollers not Trowbarrow... Principle is the same.

In reply to is2:


The irony....

In reply to Neil Gresham: As I've said further up the thread, I'm unlikely to climb either of these lines, but you have conducted yourself well and I believe you've done the right thing. I don't think for a minute that anyone will actually remove the bolts you put into Deja Vu. When it comes down to it there are a lot of people on here who are full of anger and agression, but they rarely come to anything substantial.

Move on to your next challenge and consider this a job well done.

In reply to HeMa:

>.... Think Unesco world heritage site...

Or Extreme Rock tick.

In reply to Neil Gresham: Well done on climbing an impressive line, but as I have stated above, I believe you have done the wrong thing in changing the character of one of the classic routes on Yorkshire Limestone. I hope you see the error of judgement you have made, do the right thing and restore Déjà Vu to the condition it was when you climbed your fantastic looking extension. Then everyone can enjoy the first pitch and your new climbing exactly as you did.

Andy F

In reply to Webster:

The threads are drilled are they not?

In reply to Neil Gresham:

Really good of you to show your face, Neil.

What Mick has done is neither here nor there in the context of this discussion, and I'm not interested in his past misdemeanours, just as I won't be interested in yours in a little while. I like your enthusiasm for your new line, and I'm happy to believe your motivation is genuine rather than commercial. But you've upset a lot of people by your action. Part of the upset is the powerlessness of being simply presented with a fait accompli - probably what got Mick so riled. If you have the discussion up front before anything is done it allows everyone to feel involved in the ultimate decision, even if it doesn't go their way. Because of your talent you have a natural advantage in such a discussion, but you don't have any special rights. Despite your lengthy justification, I don't really understand why you did it, unless it was that you felt your new line somehow superseded the old one - but it's an Extreme Rock tick for chrissake! Did you think no-one would care? A little inclusive humility goes a long way in allowing a community to take to change without rancour.

All this post-hoc voting and tribalism leads us nowhere but to further division, and stupid bolting and stupid chopping and stupid bolting and stupid chopping. Proper consultation next time. Please?

In reply to Wicamoi:

Ok, one last reply. As I keep saying I had so many discussions with countless local climbers about this, including some of the so-called crag guardians. It's not fair to accuse me of not being inclusive, just because I didn't speak to every climber in the UK or because the action I took didn't suit your view. And for those who don't understand why I did what I did - go and try the Extension then hopefully you will. Surely you would then be in a better position to criticise me? And as for Extreme Rock, I refer you again to the positive restoration of the Cave Routes and the fact that we shouldn't stay stuck in the past purely for the sake of it. For goodness sake, we're talking about 2 sportingly spaced bolts here, placed with endorsements from the FAs, not an unauthorised retro-bolt of an entire route. I think some perspective needs to be restored here.

In reply to Neil Gresham: You are the one lacking perspective. You have changed a classic route (retrospectively) to suit your needs, then claimed it was the right thing to do. You have placed a bolt in the run out, that wasn't needed, and can be clipped despite your protestations, on the original line. You did your extension with the original gear. You had no real reason to place the bolts.

These are the facts.

I am disgusted at your behaviour. How you can claim it was for the benefit of climbing is beyond me.

Professional climber. Unprofessional behaviour.

Fact.

Andy F.

P.S. For everyone who dislikes this honest post, read Extreme Rock and the previous 3 real Yorkshire Limestone guidebooks. Then reconsider.

In reply to Neil Gresham:

Well, I'm sure your consultation exercise was greater than I know about, but in the case of a high profile route like DV, really the full extent of BMC guidelines would seem to be a minimum requirement. Doesn't this thread itself demonstrate that? One or two sporting bolts are nothing in the grand scheme of things of course, but it's a potent symbol of retro-bolting, and bound to rile people.

Sadly I won't be able to take up your invitation to try your new route, as I am nowhere near good enough - a lot more people did have the chance, and the aspiration, to try Deja Vu in its original form, but must now make do with your modified version. I don't really have an opinion either way, on the new bolts on DV - I haven't pressed any like or dislike buttons, but you know, your route and the original route have co-existed without any of this furore. All I'm seeking is compromise though discussion, and to avoid the sort of fiasco that has seen you being forced to write a 5,000 word essay on the subject, Mick Ryan forcibly banned, and a general increase in bitterness and resentment.

If you read my post again you will see that I have not argued that we should stay in the past, but that when we step into the future we should step together.

Anyway, I'm tired of patronising you, now. Best wishes.

In reply to UKC News:

Can someone explain something to me - genuine question; I don't get to Yorkshire much.

Am I right in thinking that Deja Vu was a route which got regular ascents and was much sought after in its present condition? (or, rather, in the condition it was before NG came along).

jcm

In reply to andy farnell:


<Psssssssst!> Franco actually bolted this thing. Neil's just a patsy... You heard it here first.

In reply to Connor Dickinson:

@cjd91 you were there in '73 when I did the first ascent and saw me drill threads or is this another example of trolls paraphrasing what they read elsewhere? By the way were you even born then? Seems to me like more of the "misrepresentation" I mentioned earlier.
For the record no threads were drilled, in fact the only drilling done were the 3 or 4 bolts I put in because I got frightened running it out on hooks and knife blades!

Unfortunately, and this is something Neil needs to bear in mind is that once you have a reputation it sadly affects everything you every did. So with regards to me, everyone thinks every route I ever did is chipped or drilled whether they were or not; something I have to live with still it seems.
Maybe I should post a list of clean v tainted routes?
Another topic for UKC forums maybe? I feel like I am just getting into this forum ranting stuff and it reminds me that I did write a few decent articles in times past.
Pete

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:




Yes. Extremely popular Yorkshire E5 which was a great extreme rock tick for many people.

Bog

In reply to Neil Gresham:

we shouldn't stay stuck in the past purely for the sake of it.

Hi Neil,
I hope you are well and that you personally do not feel too got at, remember it is your action that has people riled up and not you.

Regarding staying in the past for the sake of it; Don't forget that the flip side of that is modernising for the sake of it which as an action is often un-doable and therefor potentially a greater crime. The bolts likely make sense in the context of the whole big route to you. The suggestion is that they do not make sense in the context of the lower trad section.

Unfortunately this argument has already moved into the entrenched no-one will listen to anyone else's view position. Including Neil that you seem only to restate your views without accepting the validity of other's.

In reply to UKC News:
IF you want do the original route, dont clip the friggin bolts. Still the same route. Also IF you cant do deja vu without the bolts maybe you should train more. Well Done Neil It looks like a bloody hard route and a good achievement.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

IF they do comeback out! They Will probably go back in. Go and climb something else instead.

In reply to everyone: The facts.
Neil climbed his excellent looking extension on the original threads and bolts of Deja Vu.
He canvassed some mates on Facebook and unsurprisingly they said retro bolt it.
He then added 3 new bolts, 2 to replace the recently replaced and bombproof threads at the start, plus one higher up on the run out.
The higher bolt is clipable on the original line, even for the short of stature, changing the nature and character of the nationally and historically significant Extreme Rock route.

Is it any wonder people are angry about his actions? I may not agree with Mr Ryan about many things, but we are singing from the same hymn sheet on this one.

Andy F

In reply to jim hughes:


In all of this debate this is the most worrying comment that I've heard. And more worrying that a significant number on NG's Facebook also made the same argument. I'm hoping it was said tongue in cheek but sadly I suspect not.

Whether the new bolts going in were the right thing to do or not is another matter but at least NG understands that they have changed the route.

But anyone making this impossibly naive comment obviously has never climbed trad or fundamentally doesn't understand the nature of it, so how they feel they can comment on a debate about further bolting on traditional routes is beyond me.

In reply to andy farnell:

Shouldn't you be off picking on people for allegedly over grading routes?

And try and calm down.

It's not your route and he got permission from the FA(s)

In reply to UKC News:

I'm getting the strange feeling of having experienced this exact situation before.

In reply to UKC News:

To me the obvious thing to do is to leave things as they are for now, take this to a BMC meet and then canvas a wider audience. Once a consensus has been reached go with that...or is that too sensible?

I haven't climbed the route and have very little trad experience so maybe I'm missing something.

In reply to UKC News:

This is hillarious. I might put another bolt in it this weekend.

In reply to UKC News:

You simply cannot compare today's ethics to those of twenty plus years ago.

Deja Vu is a brilliant climb but never a classic Trad route. It was a badly protected pseudo sport route with the option to put wires in on the easy bit in the middle to make it less scary. And if Neil checked with Pete G and Ron and they were cool with it I don't see the issue. Its Ron for Christ sake!

If we remove bolts from DV, what about Frankie? Dominatrix? Directissma? The Bulge. All started life as aid routes and are now three star Sport Routes and much better for it.

Do we want our routes stuck in a museum or enjoyed?

I am 100% with Neil on this one. Mick grow up.

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:


The point is in an effort to keep climbing bold in this country by keeping bolts and threads exactly as they always were the effect is exactly the opposite. We now have a culture of stick clipping in this country. I think that is largely because there are so many poorly bolted routes here. Climbers don't want to risk sprained ankles bouldering out the start of routes above a stoney landing any more. Its more usual these days to do such boulder problems above a crash pad. But these take up much more space in car so people take use a clip stick to a sport crag.

The insistence on trying to keep routes exactly as they always were iimplies a refusal to acknowledge that equipment and attitudes change in climbing. Climber's expectations are different now to what they were 30 years ago. Many sport climbers climb abroad a lot where the bolting is usually done to a high standard. When they come back here its only natural that they want to bring our cliffs up to the same high standard.

If you go to a typical crag in Europe a clip stick is usually completely unnecessary, not even worth carrying to the crag. Occasionally a route is badly bolted and in some guides this is even described as such: the implication being that the route is due to be retro-ed in the future. Bad bolting there is seen as a mistake, something to be corrected. Over here its seen by some as almost a virtue, or as part of the character of the route and thus should never be changed.

In reply to Bogwalloper:


The UKC logbooks are quite deficient though, 1 ascent in 2012? More this year for some reason.

In reply to stp:

What is this thing you have about clip sticks? Its completely irrelevant to the ethics of sports ascents so is only an issue of convenience. All this stuff about breaking ankles is nonsense... unless the climber chooses to take that risk.

In reply to winhill:
I think UKC logbooks are comparatively deficient of those who are or were regularly leading hard trad and for all sorts of reasons.

In reply to ali k. Not too worrying to be honest. Worry about something more worthwhile like earthquakes and wars and people dieing in the med. ITs just a few bits of metal. As regaurds to me not climbing trad? F.off

In reply to andy farnell:


I'd be extremely surprised if it hasn't improved it. That's because Neil is a highly experienced climber, has climbed all over the world, and will have a very good idea about the best way to equip a route.

The idea that drilled threads improve the route seems a little ridiculous if you consider doing things the other way round. That is pick a fully bolted sport route, chop some of the bolts and replace them with threads. Certainly the route would be more unique but would that make it a better route? If you went to Spain and did that I don't think you'd get much support and you'd likely be viewed as a complete crackpot.

In reply to Bogwalloper:


In that case I don't understand why we're even having this discussion. Nothing was remotely broken so as to need fixing, bar the fact that one man's aesthetic taste was not perfectly satisfied, and he felt that his wonderful new creation might otherwise not be sufficiently magnificent and appreciated.

Let's face it, if NG hadn't wanted to draw attention to his WNC, none of this would have happened.

We would all be a lot better off if people would just on the whole leave things as they found them unless there was something that actually needed changing for the better.

jcm

In reply to stp:
>That is pick a fully bolted sport route, chop some of the bolts and replace them with threads.

God, that would be funny.

But anyway, your thought experiment is stupid of course. No doubt it would be right if we were starting with a blank sheet of paper, but we're not.

>I'd be extremely surprised if it hasn't improved it. That's because Neil is a highly experienced climber, has climbed all over the world, and will have a very good idea about the best way to equip a route.

NG doesn't think it has. He says above that he thinks he's changed very little.

And since Pete G swears blind that the threads weren't drilled, why are you repeating that they are?

jcm

In reply to Bogwalloper:

DV has some brilliant climbing but is not a classic Trad route. Right Wall is a classic Trad E5. Central Wall at Kilnsey is a classic E4 and no one is suggesting bolting those.

DV is popular because it is in Extreme Rock as an E5. Where E should stand for ego!

DV was essentially one of the UKs first sport routes.

Has anyone read the description!?

'up rightwards past a bolt, and some threads, then move up and back left (bolt). Move back right then step back left into the groove (bolts).'

In reply to Graham Booth:

>It's not your route

It's everybody's route.

jcm

In reply to Offwidth:


Ummn, no it isn't. At least not always.

There are routes all around globe, where the 1st bolt is rather high and above a not so good landing. This is where the clipstick rules.

After all, the purpose of sport climbing is, well d'uh climbing as a sport. So trying to perform near your limit (be it onsight or redpoint).

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



No,

It's Pete Gs and Rons route/creation.

In reply to PWarren:

>To me the obvious thing to do is to leave things as they are for now,

Yeah, the trouble with that is 'leaving things as they are for now' is always the default option. To me the obvious thing to do is what Mick proposes - go and take them out, and while he's at it I'd personally welcome debolting the rest of NG's WNC as a gesture.

The fact of the matter is that the likes of Neil G and Steve L will not rest until we no longer have any hybrid routes left. They see no value in them because they would suit the taste of NG and SL more if they were 'better bolted' and 'a more aesthetic climbing experience', and because of that they don't care about people who like to see and climb routes with more of a physical connection to our climbing heritage. Either we accept that or we don't. If we don't, there's only one way to stop it happening.

jcm

In reply to HeMa:

>Ummn, no it isn't.
>This is where the clipstick rules.

That was exactly Offwidth's point.

jcm

In reply to Offwidth:


It's not irrelevant at all since its now become a norm to leave the first bolt clipped without ever climbing up and clipping it from the ground. If you understand redpoint ethics and why British climbers adopted this style you'll understand the significance of this.


The way a route is equipped forces that risk on the climber. Admittedly you can always choose a different route but at Kilnsey that means excluding about 50% of the routes. I've been up to Kilnsey several times this year and the past few months I've been recovering from a very badly sprained ankle that is still not right. I don't climb that hard which cuts out a large number of the routes and I've also done quite a few of the easier ones, which limits things even more. Frankly I find the way routes are bolted there to be a stupid pain the arse. Why can't routes just be equipped normally, like almost everywhere else? What's so wrong with that? Why should I have to invest £50 for a clip stick just because the local climbers refuse to allow routes to be bolted in a responsible way? Wouldn't that money be better spent on new bolts so the routes can be climbed without such hassle?

In reply to stp:
>Over here [bad bolting] is seen by some as almost a virtue, or as part of the character of the route and thus should never be changed.

I can never work out whether you actually believe this sort of nonsense or whether you dishonestly come out with it for the sake of impressing climbers who know nothing about it.

Anyway, of course no-one defends bad bolting of sport routes. That isn't the present question.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



I don't think he'd have gone to all the trouble if he thought that.



I was told they were but makes no difference. There are plenty of natural threads on sport routes that one could use instead of bolts if one wished. The idea that using these would improve a route though would still be seen by most as utterly ridiculous.

In reply to UKC News:

And one more thing, can we please stop pretending for the sake of being all nice that the original article was either well-written or articulate? It's a self-serving torrent of cliche bingo, and everyone knows it. There's enough hypocrisy in the OP's actions already without adding more.

It also contains at least two falsehoods which it's hard to imagine weren't deliberate; ie that NG did some new climbing lower down rather than using an existing eliminate, and that the upper bolt doesn't change the character of the DV runout - at least, I'm prepared to bet any money it does.

jcm

In reply to stp:

>I don't think he'd have gone to all the trouble if he thought that.

No, I agree, of course, what he says is not what he thinks, I'm quite sure. I was just pointing out gently the hypocrisy and dishonesty which was the hallmark of the original article.

jcm

In reply to UKC News:
Shouldnt we all get together and instead of wasting Time on here go and do some charity work. Afterall whats more important? I havent posted on here for a while and its like going to kindergaten. All because of a few bits of metal, take them out, leave them in! Who cares.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Bit disingenuous of you to miss the rest of my sentence off. I'm suggesting that there should be a discussion that can be observed and understood by others rather than this back and forth shouting match.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


When Neil added a bolt to the start of his other Kilnsey project because the first bolt was absurdly high (on a 7b) someone came along and chopped it. That to me is a defense of bad bolting.

When some routes do get retroed here often times the bolts are replaced in more or less exactly the same place as before, presumably because someone feels a hard to clip bolt is part of the character of the route. To be sure not all routes are done like this but a fair proportion are. People get precious about the history of route and so are unwillingly to improve it by bolting it differently, moving the belay etc.

In reply to stp:

I still think its nothing to do with the real world redpoint or flash ethic if you clipstick the first bolt and it's all about odd personal hybrid rules (with risk, leading to some damaged ankles) and cost and convenience. Sure the bolting maybe should have been better on a sport climb but a clipstick isnt cheating in any way at all on sports ascents which was my point in challenging you.

In reply to PWarren:

>I'm suggesting that there should be a discussion that can be observed and understood by others

Should have been, certainly.

jcm

In reply to jim hughes:

It's your choice Jim: it's a public debate that people choose to contribute to and should have happened before the bolt was placed IMHO.

In reply to Offwidth:
Surely the whole clipstick thing is irrelevant to this discussion anyway - that's about whether a high first bolt is part of the challenge of the route or just a cock-up / cut corner by whoever bolted it.

AFAICT NG didn't place a bolt because the first gear on Deja Vu was too far from the ground, he placed it because he wanted to replace removable fixed gear that currently gets regularly replaced with drilled fixed gear that will last indefinitely.

In reply to Offwidth:

Yes maybe that would have been a good choice, granted! But its not so important is it!

In reply to Ramblin dave:

>he wanted to replace removable fixed gear that currently gets regularly replaced with drilled fixed gear that will last indefinitely.

Not true, maximum life expectancy of bolts is around 25 to 30 years (glue in ones, for expansion bolts, it's less). And that time is the maximum (depends on manufacturer, eg. Fixe or Petzl), naturally it can be a lot less if there's a lot of traffic on the route.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


I think when he says the route has changed very little the 'change' he's refering to the character of the route. You can completely rebolt a route and the bolts a placed quite differently to before yet the route would feel more or less the same. What would change are things like rope drag and the fact the bolts are a better placed for clipping for instance.

In reply to HeMa:

Picky, no?

In reply to jim hughes:

more like pedantic... but yes, slighty OCD

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Totally agree but just because NG didn't do that doesn't mean we have to perpetuate the problem! I'm not defending or attacking NG, just hoping some common sense prevails and we learn from this case.

In reply to Offwidth:

The essence of redpoint ascent (or onsight) is that it is totally free climbed. You clip each piece from the ground to the top without weighting it. If you weight it then its a form of aid thus the ascent is not free. It negates the old yo-yo style because that involves weighting the gear. If you want the first, or any other bolt pre-clipped you have to climb up clip and down climb again. Using a stick to clip the rope in doesn't mean you've weighted the gear but it is a form of aid. If this wasn't so then on a short route with long stick you could clip the belay, top rope the route and claim a redpoint - which would be absurd. You're not using just your hands and feet you're using a long pole to get up the route.

The tendency is this country, which is now very common, is to pre clip the first bolt, having never climbed up and back down to clip it. This is strictly not a redpoint and if you do it first try not an onsight because a form of aid has been used. But most of us aren't so bothered, we just want to go climbing without risking injury getting to the first bolt. The very high first bolts, so common at Kilnsey, thus encourage a poorer style of ascent.

This style has become normalized yet the irony is that what we now call 'free' climbing actually involves a form of aid.

In reply to stp:


I don't know the crag or route well but if what I read above is correct it isn't a sport route or a sport crag. Also isn't the bolt up by the threads therefore requiring a clip stick to clip it anyway?

In reply to Smith42: Déjà Vu was a hybrid route, climbed with threads, wires and to quote the F.A. " Bolts where I was scared". It was (and should be reverted to) a classic of it genre. Safe yet slightly spicy. Now its character has been unnecessary altered. That is why people are annoyed.

There are plenty of fully bolted routes nearby, almost full trad routes next to it. The mixed nature suited the route and the history gave it extra kudos.

Andy F

In reply to stp: The route didn't need improving. It didn't need extra bolts. It did need leaving the way it was.

Andy F

In reply to most of this thread:

http://tinyurl.com/p2r2449

In reply to pebbles:

This is more exciting. youtube.com/watch?v=tpRInymiOqE&

In reply to jim hughes and Pebbles.

Can you keep the kiddie stuff out of the thread please. There's some important stuff being discussed here. Might not be to you but to most people the history is very important and this whole debate is important so hopefully this won't happen again.

Cheers,

Bog

In reply to Bogwalloper:

Important? Guess you dont live in the real world.

In reply to jim hughes:

It's important to climbers on a climbing forum.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:

It really isn't.

In reply to Neil Gresham:

Perhaps Mick has seen the error of his ways and regrets his past actions? Unfortunately, he's been banned so we'll probably never know.

In reply to Kid Spatula:
OK I should have said some climbers but at least it's a climbing topic and IMO all climbers who value UK trad climbing should have some interest in where bolts are placed just as a matter of principle.

Al

In reply to Kid Spatula:

It clearly is, otherwise there wouldn't be 260 replies and nearly 13,000 views

In reply to GridNorth:


On a route that uses solely fixed protection, of which majority are bolts anyway? (ok, you could use nuts somewhere, but the bolts added are nowhere near there)

Seems like my understanding on trad being leader placed protection is completely wrong :shock:.

In reply to HeMa:

It is really, yes. There's lots of trad around - on linestone and slate most obviously - which uses mostly or entirely fixed protection.

In reply to HeMa:
The point I was making was about bolts in general and that IMO climbers should take an interest as a matter of principle. I suspect those objecting to the thread are operating in their own little climbing bubble and think that it does not affect them. That's fine but why they bother to post and clutter things up for people who do have an interest is beyond me.

Al

In reply to Lemony:

>There's lots of trad around which uses mostly or entirely fixed protection.

And I call it mixed protection route, if former. So neither trad nor sport.

And if it is the latter, I call it a bad route (unless the fixed protection is good bolts, in which case it can be badly bolted sport).

In reply to stp:
You could say that and or like the vast majority you can regard a modern redpoint or flash on a route with a high first bolt as being perfectly reasonable with a clip-stick as long as you don't weight the rope. A redpoint or flash is what most people regard it as, not what it evolved from in the weird and wonderful UK history of sports climbing that started with adjectival grades. Why on earth would you want to be risking ankles on a sports tick for the sake of historical grade evolution?

In reply to Offwidth:

ding ding...


preclippin' is generally considered ok on sport routes, if the 1st bolt is high or getting there is rather tricky (ie. easy to fall off).

Sure, no pre-clips is better as far as style goes. But same can be said about placing your own draws on lead (think permadraws on severe overhangs and also whilst redpointing).

Just to be on the safe side, best to solo up, butt naked without sticky rubber shoes or with chalk.

In reply to HeMa:

It's a sports climb ffs... style is only an issue in that you do the moves cleanly in one push on lead for flash or ditto following prepractice for redpoint... the rest (moaning about clip sticks, preclipped draws, etc) is made up shit being worked through as part of the healing process as trad britain slowly admits to itself in counselling that it is really engaged in sports climbing. We can all make up our own rules in our climbing games but peer pressure to take on risk on sports routes for some daft historical issue is irresponsible. Purists can even claim the old E grade if they want: onsight, sans clipstick or mat.

In reply to Offwidth:


Indeed.

But style counts... always.


And I'm not even british, nor climb in the UK .