This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Did Right Eliminate yesterday. Enjoyed it but thought that the chockstone spoilt the route. Pure off-widths in the UK are very rare. With large cams it cant be justified for protection anymore. So effectively it is a pre-placed artificial hold. It rocks so much I am sure it would be easy to take out - mind you replacing it the right way again might be a different matter. Anway I am seriously thinking of taking it out - unless there is some justification for it that I am missing
In reply to Simon Lee:
I vaguely recollect that this has been discussed on here before? Not sure whether any useful conclusion was reached.
Your reasoning seems spot on to me. Removing the chockstone would improve the route (and I still wouldn't be able to do it). I guess a pedant might want to establish whether it was actually placed, or exists there naturally, in which case removing it is arguably chipping! Personally I don't think that matters.
BTW: did you face right or left?
I vaguely recollect that this has been discussed on here before? Not sure whether any useful conclusion was reached.
Your reasoning seems spot on to me. Removing the chockstone would improve the route (and I still wouldn't be able to do it). I guess a pedant might want to establish whether it was actually placed, or exists there naturally, in which case removing it is arguably chipping! Personally I don't think that matters.
BTW: did you face right or left?
In reply to tobyfk: I read in extreme rock that there was controversy at the time about the chockstone. There is no way that it arrived there naturally. Faced left.
In reply to Simon Lee: I agree, take it out, it's an aid point and the route would be much better without it. No one would think twice about it's removal if it was a bolt on hold, or a piece of limestone or a stuck hex, all of which are obviously alien and so is a lump of grit which belongs on the floor.
In reply to Simon Lee:
Chockstoning was an important stage in the development of protection that leaves the rock relatively unscathed (eventually leading to the use of nuts and friends). Any chockstones still remaining in classic routes should be left in place, if that is how they were originally climbed. Removing the chockstone(s) could damage the rock, and would undoubtedly alter the route.
Chockstoning was an important stage in the development of protection that leaves the rock relatively unscathed (eventually leading to the use of nuts and friends). Any chockstones still remaining in classic routes should be left in place, if that is how they were originally climbed. Removing the chockstone(s) could damage the rock, and would undoubtedly alter the route.
In reply to Witkacy:
The way the chockstone rocks about each time you hang on it damages the rock more. It would causce no damage to remove it. Yes it would alter the route - for the better.
The only grounds I can see for for leaving it in would be of a heritage / historical nature - but personally I think they are far outweighted by the advantages.
The way the chockstone rocks about each time you hang on it damages the rock more. It would causce no damage to remove it. Yes it would alter the route - for the better.
The only grounds I can see for for leaving it in would be of a heritage / historical nature - but personally I think they are far outweighted by the advantages.
In reply to Simon Lee:
I tend to agree. I hope this is not because you are setting up in business to rent large cams for the day?
I tend to agree. I hope this is not because you are setting up in business to rent large cams for the day?
In reply to Simon Lee:
i guess its similar to the thread on the tippler, but thats not used for aid.
i guess its similar to the thread on the tippler, but thats not used for aid.
In reply to Simon Lee:
Leave it for tradition's sake. Everyone else who does the route leaves it in - just accept it as a historical curiosity.
Leave it for tradition's sake. Everyone else who does the route leaves it in - just accept it as a historical curiosity.
In reply to Simon Lee:
I say leave it in. You're more likely to do more damage extracting it. It is heritage whether you like it or not. There are plenty of better 'pure' offwidths in the states for you to play on if that's your thing.
I say leave it in. You're more likely to do more damage extracting it. It is heritage whether you like it or not. There are plenty of better 'pure' offwidths in the states for you to play on if that's your thing.
In reply to kevin stephens: What do you think would be an acceptable commercial rate?
In reply to Simon Lee:
What a daft troll.
Why remove THE ONLY RUNNER it was originally done with? if you could not do it with just a sling threaded round it you have CHEATED.
What a daft troll.
Why remove THE ONLY RUNNER it was originally done with? if you could not do it with just a sling threaded round it you have CHEATED.
In reply to Boy: What if its all thats holding the crack apart?
In reply to sutty:
That's a completely fatuous point. Clearly no one does routes of that vintage in their first ascent style. Are you suggesting everyone discards their cams and sticky boots everytime they do The Rasp, Sloth, Unconquerables, etc? If so, applying the same logic, we should still be pegging our way up the routes at Millstone or High Tor.
Reality is that styles change, sometimes actually improving on the past.
That's a completely fatuous point. Clearly no one does routes of that vintage in their first ascent style. Are you suggesting everyone discards their cams and sticky boots everytime they do The Rasp, Sloth, Unconquerables, etc? If so, applying the same logic, we should still be pegging our way up the routes at Millstone or High Tor.
Reality is that styles change, sometimes actually improving on the past.
In reply to sutty: If we're shouting then IT ALSO WAS AND IS A POINT OF AID. Points of aid are eliminated when they are no longer needed.
It DOES damage the rock around it due to the fact that it rocks around when you pull/stand on it.
It is the best example of an offwidth in the peak and is spoiled by a runner/aid point which is now totally defunct.
Joe Brown eliminated points of aid used by previous generations of climbers, why should we not remove points of aid used by Joe Brown.
I for one feel cheated of the true challenge of this bit of rock. Why should historical conservatism be put ahead of quality climbing and normal ethics?
It DOES damage the rock around it due to the fact that it rocks around when you pull/stand on it.
It is the best example of an offwidth in the peak and is spoiled by a runner/aid point which is now totally defunct.
Joe Brown eliminated points of aid used by previous generations of climbers, why should we not remove points of aid used by Joe Brown.
I for one feel cheated of the true challenge of this bit of rock. Why should historical conservatism be put ahead of quality climbing and normal ethics?
In reply to Simon Lee:
I know this is a troll, but if you took out the chock then there'd be no choice but to use cams for protection, sooner or later someone's going to place one too near the edge, fall on it, and break a big chunk of the flake off...
I know this is a troll, but if you took out the chock then there'd be no choice but to use cams for protection, sooner or later someone's going to place one too near the edge, fall on it, and break a big chunk of the flake off...
In reply to Simon Caldwell: What flake!? It's a large offwidth crack FFS!
In reply to Boy:
I stand corrected as usual, I thought there was a flakey bit half way up but obviously I've only seen it from the ground and probably had a bit of grit in my contact
I stand corrected as usual, I thought there was a flakey bit half way up but obviously I've only seen it from the ground and probably had a bit of grit in my contact
In reply to Simon Lee:
What effect would it have on the route when someone replaces the chockstone (which they inevitably will), possibly in the same place, but probably not.
What effect would it have on the route when someone replaces the chockstone (which they inevitably will), possibly in the same place, but probably not.
In reply to Simon Caldwell: If by Troll you mean a wind up then I assure you I seriously intend to take it out (unless persuaded otherwise). It is currently a three star route - with the chock out it will be four stars and therefore be Derbyshires rival to that other four star route at Almscliife whose name currently escapes me.
In reply to Simon Lee:
Aside from any ethical considerations, if you take it out, then somebody will put one back in, so why bother?
Aside from any ethical considerations, if you take it out, then somebody will put one back in, so why bother?
In reply to Simon Caldwell: Why are you so convinced that will be the case?
In reply to Simon Lee:
Go ahead then if you’re that obsessed with the idea and don’t care a toss that so many object. Meanwhile, I’ve found a nice chockstone which I believe will fit nicely in Goliath.
Go ahead then if you’re that obsessed with the idea and don’t care a toss that so many object. Meanwhile, I’ve found a nice chockstone which I believe will fit nicely in Goliath.
In reply to Simon Lee:
If you try to change something that has been around for a few decades then people will inevitably want things preserved as they are, particularly if it's something as high profile as this.
That's irrespective of whether removal is a good or a bad thing, it's not something I feel particularly strongly about as I'll never be able to climb this route with or without it.
But if, for instance, someone decided that the chockstone in RH Crack at Brimham was inserted artifically and took it upon themselves to remove it, I'd be a bit miffed.
If you try to change something that has been around for a few decades then people will inevitably want things preserved as they are, particularly if it's something as high profile as this.
That's irrespective of whether removal is a good or a bad thing, it's not something I feel particularly strongly about as I'll never be able to climb this route with or without it.
But if, for instance, someone decided that the chockstone in RH Crack at Brimham was inserted artifically and took it upon themselves to remove it, I'd be a bit miffed.
In reply to Witkacy:
what thread are you reading ? i don't see that many people objecting ! btw Simaom - why not ask JB himself ?
what thread are you reading ? i don't see that many people objecting ! btw Simaom - why not ask JB himself ?
In reply to Bored:
On this thread three have supported the OP, five have objected.
> what thread are you reading ? i don't see that many people objecting !
On this thread three have supported the OP, five have objected.
In reply to Witkacy: Simon,you ENJOYED R Eliminate?!!
Rhino skin genes in the family?
I took the two lower chockstones out of the route about 10 years ago,as I thought they were aid and modern pro is available.Naturally,I then led the route.However,I did leave the biggest chock in as pro for the majority of climbers who can't afford the huge sums needed for the biggest cams.I don't own any myself.There are good jugs inside the crack where the chock is and one can have fun avoiding using the chock.Anyway,the crux is getting to that point,even though the finish can seem nightmarish if you're pumped.That is a good reason to leave the chock as pro,as not everyone is going to have the cams to make that top bit safe.
Bancroft gave me earache over my actions,but I still defend them on the grounds that we DO need real offwidth practice in the UK( Even if it is possible by other means).
cheers,
paul mitchell
Rhino skin genes in the family?
I took the two lower chockstones out of the route about 10 years ago,as I thought they were aid and modern pro is available.Naturally,I then led the route.However,I did leave the biggest chock in as pro for the majority of climbers who can't afford the huge sums needed for the biggest cams.I don't own any myself.There are good jugs inside the crack where the chock is and one can have fun avoiding using the chock.Anyway,the crux is getting to that point,even though the finish can seem nightmarish if you're pumped.That is a good reason to leave the chock as pro,as not everyone is going to have the cams to make that top bit safe.
Bancroft gave me earache over my actions,but I still defend them on the grounds that we DO need real offwidth practice in the UK( Even if it is possible by other means).
cheers,
paul mitchell
In reply to Witkacy: i think that's called bias counting - the point it tho that the thread invites people to give reasons why not to take it out not offer support - of the many many people that have read this thread only 4/5 have objected. having said that i do think that the above point with regard to affordability of big cams is quite relevant.
In reply to Bored:
I don't. Judging by the new kit of all kinds you see people with, I don't believe that most adult UK climbers couldn't afford a large cam or two if that was their priority. I haven't bought a new rucksack since the early 90s and my walking boots are the same ones I used for a base camp approach in Nepal in 1985. But I do have Camalots #4 and #5.
> (In reply to Witkacy) having said that i do think that the above point with regard to affordability of big cams is quite relevant.
I don't. Judging by the new kit of all kinds you see people with, I don't believe that most adult UK climbers couldn't afford a large cam or two if that was their priority. I haven't bought a new rucksack since the early 90s and my walking boots are the same ones I used for a base camp approach in Nepal in 1985. But I do have Camalots #4 and #5.
In reply to Bored: Good point.
I dare say if Joe had had a rack of friends he would have climbed it without the rock.
Take it out, bring it home and if the backlash is excessive you can always put it back in (but make sure you leave it out for a couple of weeks so I can climb it as nature intended first).
Here's some history - Many years ago some quarrymen cleaved this piece of gritstone and unwittingly created one of the finest faces of rock in the peak. On this face was a clean blank and uncompromising offwidth crack.
Here's some more history - Some time later Joseph Brown put a bit of rock in this crack to protect and assist in the climbing of said crack.
Question - Why should the latter piece of history take precedant over the former?
I dare say if Joe had had a rack of friends he would have climbed it without the rock.
Take it out, bring it home and if the backlash is excessive you can always put it back in (but make sure you leave it out for a couple of weeks so I can climb it as nature intended first).
Here's some history - Many years ago some quarrymen cleaved this piece of gritstone and unwittingly created one of the finest faces of rock in the peak. On this face was a clean blank and uncompromising offwidth crack.
Here's some more history - Some time later Joseph Brown put a bit of rock in this crack to protect and assist in the climbing of said crack.
Question - Why should the latter piece of history take precedant over the former?
In reply to paul mitchell:
That's fascinating. How much difference did the the two lower chockstones make to the actual moves?
> (In reply to Witkacy) Simon,you ENJOYED R Eliminate?!!
> Rhino skin genes in the family?
>
> I took the two lower chockstones out of the route about 10 years ago,as I thought they were aid and modern pro is available.
> Rhino skin genes in the family?
>
> I took the two lower chockstones out of the route about 10 years ago,as I thought they were aid and modern pro is available.
That's fascinating. How much difference did the the two lower chockstones make to the actual moves?
In reply to Boy:
Or indeed vice versa, since the whole place is artifical anyway
> Question - Why should the latter piece of history take precedant over the former?
Or indeed vice versa, since the whole place is artifical anyway
In reply to tobyfk:
yeah but most adult climbers climb HVS, a lot of the climbers going at this are more likely to be tight-as. there's def a correlation between grades climbed and tightness....i know only one or two people who have the big cams required. but i still think it should come out - if someone really wants to do the route they can always borrow the cams of a mate
yeah but most adult climbers climb HVS, a lot of the climbers going at this are more likely to be tight-as. there's def a correlation between grades climbed and tightness....i know only one or two people who have the big cams required. but i still think it should come out - if someone really wants to do the route they can always borrow the cams of a mate
In reply to paul mitchell: If you can't afford the friend, do what i did and borrow one off a friend (pressuming you aren't friendless in both senses). Failing that ab down and place a chock (or place on lead) then remove when finished.
In reply to Simon Lee:
I'm very much against the removal of this chockstone. It's always been there, its part of what RE the route is, even if it didn't appear naturally.
I'm very much against the removal of this chockstone. It's always been there, its part of what RE the route is, even if it didn't appear naturally.
In reply to Tyler: It has not ALWAYS been there.
I guess you think the route would be better if the other two stones were still in too?
It is part of the history of RE granted, but it is NOT part of the route, it is as artificial an addition to the rock as a bolt on hold. Why is it any more valid because it was done in the good old days, than if I bolted a hold onto a new route tommorrow? Removing the chock would not erase the history of it's use, but would free up the route to be enjoyed in its true form. What the hell, put the rock in a climbing museum if it's that important to you, but don't try to turn the crag into the museum.
A route is first and foremost a line of holds up a piece of rock. It's history is secondary, we'd still be aiding up London wall and kicking the shit out of the rock with our nailboots.
I guess you think the route would be better if the other two stones were still in too?
It is part of the history of RE granted, but it is NOT part of the route, it is as artificial an addition to the rock as a bolt on hold. Why is it any more valid because it was done in the good old days, than if I bolted a hold onto a new route tommorrow? Removing the chock would not erase the history of it's use, but would free up the route to be enjoyed in its true form. What the hell, put the rock in a climbing museum if it's that important to you, but don't try to turn the crag into the museum.
A route is first and foremost a line of holds up a piece of rock. It's history is secondary, we'd still be aiding up London wall and kicking the shit out of the rock with our nailboots.
In reply to Boyast line should read:
A route is first and foremost a line of holds up a piece of rock. It's history is secondary, otherwise we'd still be aiding up London wall and kicking the shit out of the rock with our nailboots.
A route is first and foremost a line of holds up a piece of rock. It's history is secondary, otherwise we'd still be aiding up London wall and kicking the shit out of the rock with our nailboots.
In reply to Simon Lee:
I am lead to believe that if you want to change the way a route is protected then you should ask the person who did the first ascent, what their thoughts are.
Personally I don’t think you should remove the choke. For example, someone wishes climb the route, but has no cams large enough, but knowing that there is a choke present, feels comfortable going for the ‘onsight’. Removing the choke will then effect the seriousness of the route. Something that the onsighter (?) is aware of, but something that you as an individual should not have the right to influence.
I am lead to believe that if you want to change the way a route is protected then you should ask the person who did the first ascent, what their thoughts are.
Personally I don’t think you should remove the choke. For example, someone wishes climb the route, but has no cams large enough, but knowing that there is a choke present, feels comfortable going for the ‘onsight’. Removing the choke will then effect the seriousness of the route. Something that the onsighter (?) is aware of, but something that you as an individual should not have the right to influence.
In reply to Boy:
that argument could be use either for or against the chockstone though
> A route is first and foremost a line of holds up a piece of rock. It's history is secondary
that argument could be use either for or against the chockstone though
In reply to WB: The chock is clearly visible from the deck and it's absence would be very apparent to any would assentionist well before they got into any position of danger. This is a large block in a wide crack.
I do agree that it would be polite to ask Joe fisrt. But it's not a necessity, since when has it been the norm to seek permission to free an aid move?
I do agree that it would be polite to ask Joe fisrt. But it's not a necessity, since when has it been the norm to seek permission to free an aid move?
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
How? Introduced foreign bodies eg pegs, bolts, stuck wires or chockstones do not constitute legitimate holds on a peice of rock. Or is that common sense rule waived if said foreign body is placed in the year dot by some venerated old rock god?
> (In reply to Boy)
> [...]
>
> that argument could be use either for or against the chockstone though
> [...]
>
> that argument could be use either for or against the chockstone though
How? Introduced foreign bodies eg pegs, bolts, stuck wires or chockstones do not constitute legitimate holds on a peice of rock. Or is that common sense rule waived if said foreign body is placed in the year dot by some venerated old rock god?
In reply to WB: No one would expect to ring a first ascentionist to ask if it was OK to free their aid point - which to all intents and purposes is what the chockstone is. Also the chockstone is easily visible (or not) from the ground for on - sighting. The route is well protected with a friend 5 and a friend 6
In reply to Simon Lee:
Why remove it. Obviously some people want to keep it and some dont.
If you feel it is aid then simply dont use it and leave for those people that want to keep it there.
Would it change the grade with it not being there? Or is that a whole other can of worms?
Why remove it. Obviously some people want to keep it and some dont.
If you feel it is aid then simply dont use it and leave for those people that want to keep it there.
Would it change the grade with it not being there? Or is that a whole other can of worms?
In reply to Del:
simply not using it, does change the character of the route from it's natural state (assuming it was placed) in which case it should be removed.
If it's a natural chock then are eveyones thoughts still similar ?
simply not using it, does change the character of the route from it's natural state (assuming it was placed) in which case it should be removed.
If it's a natural chock then are eveyones thoughts still similar ?
In reply to Del: It would be awkward and artificial to avoid using the chock due to the fact that the climber wriggles up the sectio of crack in which the rock sits.
If some people really want to do it with a point of aid then they can use a friend as such or put in a chock and remove it afterward.
If some people really want to do it with a point of aid then they can use a friend as such or put in a chock and remove it afterward.
In reply to Boy:
'A line of holds up a piece of rock'. The chockstone is one such hold.
'It's history is secondary'. How it got there is just part of that history.
If the chockstone had fallen in during quarrying (I take people's word for it when they say that JB placed it) then I assume you'd be the first to complain if it was removed? All very arbitrary, surely, on a man-made route.
> How?
'A line of holds up a piece of rock'. The chockstone is one such hold.
'It's history is secondary'. How it got there is just part of that history.
If the chockstone had fallen in during quarrying (I take people's word for it when they say that JB placed it) then I assume you'd be the first to complain if it was removed? All very arbitrary, surely, on a man-made route.
In reply to Boy:
I’m sure Joe Brown would have a good chuckle reading this thread. Meanwhile, in his 70s, he’s still more interested in new routing than agonizing over whether to pull old chockstones out of cracks. Apparently these recent routes “are not written up, and left with no visible trace of their passage so others can rediscover them in the future,” according to his website.
> I do agree that it would be polite to ask Joe fisrt.
I’m sure Joe Brown would have a good chuckle reading this thread. Meanwhile, in his 70s, he’s still more interested in new routing than agonizing over whether to pull old chockstones out of cracks. Apparently these recent routes “are not written up, and left with no visible trace of their passage so others can rediscover them in the future,” according to his website.
In reply to Witkacy:
What is his web address?
What is his web address?
In reply to Witkacy:
You're probably right. But then again, he has better things to do with his life than reading Rocktalk
> I’m sure Joe Brown would have a good chuckle reading this thread.
You're probably right. But then again, he has better things to do with his life than reading Rocktalk
In reply to Witkacy: Have emailed the great man and will post a reply if I get one
In reply to Witkacy: I dare say you're right.All the more reason to take the chock out and throw it away. Just say 'bugger it' to all this overweaning reverence, I imagine that's what Joe might say if circumstances had put him in Simon's position.
In reply to Simon Lee:
I'd leave it in Simon... for now!!!
Because although it's sort of aid, and we normally don't require permission to free a route, it's not so high a grade that you will be the first to repeat it with modern gear and to consider freeing the route. Effectively this means that over the last 25yrs with modern climbers freeing route after route on modern gear the community has not so far seen fit to remove this chockstone after 100's (1000's??) of ascents.
Kinda gives the chockstone a legitimacy now and indicates it is accepted by the community. It suggests a level of arrogance on your part to dismiss this, which I hope isn't so? The way to circumvent this historical acceptance/legitimacy is to ensure that you consult the climbing community as a whole (that doesn't just mean these forums) since that legitimises your case equally, and avoids accusations of vigilante actions.
I think you should present a case at the BMC area meeting. There are some good ethical arguments you can employ, parallels with chipping to bring a route down to your level etc. and I wish you luck. Eventually I think it should be removed too, but not as your individual action. I hope I've persuaded you to wait.
If you aren't prepared to go this longer route, then I'd question your commitment and motivation, and I'd certainly question whether you can claim you are doing this for the benefit of the climbing community.
I'd leave it in Simon... for now!!!
Because although it's sort of aid, and we normally don't require permission to free a route, it's not so high a grade that you will be the first to repeat it with modern gear and to consider freeing the route. Effectively this means that over the last 25yrs with modern climbers freeing route after route on modern gear the community has not so far seen fit to remove this chockstone after 100's (1000's??) of ascents.
Kinda gives the chockstone a legitimacy now and indicates it is accepted by the community. It suggests a level of arrogance on your part to dismiss this, which I hope isn't so? The way to circumvent this historical acceptance/legitimacy is to ensure that you consult the climbing community as a whole (that doesn't just mean these forums) since that legitimises your case equally, and avoids accusations of vigilante actions.
I think you should present a case at the BMC area meeting. There are some good ethical arguments you can employ, parallels with chipping to bring a route down to your level etc. and I wish you luck. Eventually I think it should be removed too, but not as your individual action. I hope I've persuaded you to wait.
If you aren't prepared to go this longer route, then I'd question your commitment and motivation, and I'd certainly question whether you can claim you are doing this for the benefit of the climbing community.
In reply to Simon Lee: Ahhh the irony..............
Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients.
Subject: Chockstone
Sent: 31/08/2004 15:40
The following recipient(s) could not be reached:
joe@joebrown-online.co.uk on 31/08/2004 15:40
The e-mail system was unable to deliver the message, but did not report a specific reason. Check the address and try again. If it still fails, contact your system administrator.
< smtp.enta.net #5.0.0 X-Postfix; Name service error for joebrown-online.co.uk: Host not found>
Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients.
Subject: Chockstone
Sent: 31/08/2004 15:40
The following recipient(s) could not be reached:
joe@joebrown-online.co.uk on 31/08/2004 15:40
The e-mail system was unable to deliver the message, but did not report a specific reason. Check the address and try again. If it still fails, contact your system administrator.
< smtp.enta.net #5.0.0 X-Postfix; Name service error for joebrown-online.co.uk: Host not found>
In reply to Simon Lee:
An interesting question that struck me is what people would say if, rather than publicise this, you'd just gone ahead and removed the thing secretly? Leaving people guessing as to whether the culprit was some natural event, a falling climber or whatever.
My bet is that consensus opinion would then be 'how much better Right Eliminate is now' ....
An interesting question that struck me is what people would say if, rather than publicise this, you'd just gone ahead and removed the thing secretly? Leaving people guessing as to whether the culprit was some natural event, a falling climber or whatever.
My bet is that consensus opinion would then be 'how much better Right Eliminate is now' ....
In reply to tobyfk:
another interesting question (for those that have done it) is would it be considerably more serious without the stone - maybe even a grade ?
another interesting question (for those that have done it) is would it be considerably more serious without the stone - maybe even a grade ?
In reply to Simon Lee:
I can't say I feel very strongly about this, but I did feel like a bit of a cheat when I did this route earlier in the year and stretched up for the chockstone so as to end the difficulty of the crux section as soon as possible.
I think the point Paul Mitchell made about needing two big cams is a valid one though. You don't have to pull on the chockstone and can just thread it for protection. I'd leave it in.
I can't say I feel very strongly about this, but I did feel like a bit of a cheat when I did this route earlier in the year and stretched up for the chockstone so as to end the difficulty of the crux section as soon as possible.
I think the point Paul Mitchell made about needing two big cams is a valid one though. You don't have to pull on the chockstone and can just thread it for protection. I'd leave it in.
In reply to tobyfk:
Possibly you're right. Or possibly someone would thing "oh dear it's fallen out I'd better replace it", like they did with Trapeze Direct a few metres away.
Possibly you're right. Or possibly someone would thing "oh dear it's fallen out I'd better replace it", like they did with Trapeze Direct a few metres away.
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
A kilometre away .. surely?
> Or possibly someone would thing "oh dear it's fallen out I'd better replace it", like they did with Trapeze Direct a few metres away.
A kilometre away .. surely?
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
Have they changed the metric system again?
> Possibly you're right. Or possibly someone would thing "oh dear it's fallen out I'd better replace it", like they did with Trapeze Direct a few metres away.
Have they changed the metric system again?
In reply to Paul Saunders:
'Sort of aid'? There's no 'sort of' about it, it's an aid point on grit.
Grade is not of issue here, neither is the significance of the the FFA and I very much doubt Simon would be writing to the mags to trumpet his acheivements.
This'kinda' legitimacy, is no legitimacy at all. I think it results more from the long delay between the FA and the common ownership of very large cams, plus a lack of desire to take unilateral action on the part of most climbers, than it does to any considered wish to retain the point of aid.
There is a very good case for removing it. I very much doubt however if review by the BMC would lead to anything but maintainance of the status quo regardless of how good a case was put forward. I think the only way that you can find out what most people think is to remove the thing and see what people do/say. This is an entirely reversible action and will actually bring some sort of resolution to the issue , something that internet chat and BMC area meetings will probably never acheive.
> (In reply to Simon Lee)
>
> I'd leave it in Simon... for now!!!
>
> Because although it's sort of aid, and we normally don't require permission to free a route, it's not so high a grade that you will be the first to repeat it with modern gear and to consider freeing the route. Effectively this means that over the last 25yrs with modern climbers freeing route after route on modern gear the community has not so far seen fit to remove this chockstone after 100's (1000's??) of ascents.
>
> Kinda gives the chockstone a legitimacy now and indicates it is accepted by the community. It suggests a level of arrogance on your part to dismiss this, which I hope isn't so? The way to circumvent this historical acceptance/legitimacy is to ensure that you consult the climbing community as a whole (that doesn't just mean these forums) since that legitimises your case equally, and avoids accusations of vigilante actions.
>
> I think you should present a case at the BMC area meeting. There are some good ethical arguments you can employ, parallels with chipping to bring a route down to your level etc. and I wish you luck. Eventually I think it should be removed too, but not as your individual action. I hope I've persuaded you to wait.
>
> If you aren't prepared to go this longer route, then I'd question your commitment and motivation, and I'd certainly question whether you can claim you are doing this for the benefit of the climbing community.
>
> I'd leave it in Simon... for now!!!
>
> Because although it's sort of aid, and we normally don't require permission to free a route, it's not so high a grade that you will be the first to repeat it with modern gear and to consider freeing the route. Effectively this means that over the last 25yrs with modern climbers freeing route after route on modern gear the community has not so far seen fit to remove this chockstone after 100's (1000's??) of ascents.
>
> Kinda gives the chockstone a legitimacy now and indicates it is accepted by the community. It suggests a level of arrogance on your part to dismiss this, which I hope isn't so? The way to circumvent this historical acceptance/legitimacy is to ensure that you consult the climbing community as a whole (that doesn't just mean these forums) since that legitimises your case equally, and avoids accusations of vigilante actions.
>
> I think you should present a case at the BMC area meeting. There are some good ethical arguments you can employ, parallels with chipping to bring a route down to your level etc. and I wish you luck. Eventually I think it should be removed too, but not as your individual action. I hope I've persuaded you to wait.
>
> If you aren't prepared to go this longer route, then I'd question your commitment and motivation, and I'd certainly question whether you can claim you are doing this for the benefit of the climbing community.
'Sort of aid'? There's no 'sort of' about it, it's an aid point on grit.
Grade is not of issue here, neither is the significance of the the FFA and I very much doubt Simon would be writing to the mags to trumpet his acheivements.
This'kinda' legitimacy, is no legitimacy at all. I think it results more from the long delay between the FA and the common ownership of very large cams, plus a lack of desire to take unilateral action on the part of most climbers, than it does to any considered wish to retain the point of aid.
There is a very good case for removing it. I very much doubt however if review by the BMC would lead to anything but maintainance of the status quo regardless of how good a case was put forward. I think the only way that you can find out what most people think is to remove the thing and see what people do/say. This is an entirely reversible action and will actually bring some sort of resolution to the issue , something that internet chat and BMC area meetings will probably never acheive.
In reply to Boy:
Just think of how Grond would have been ruined if the Rock and Ice had been able to lace that with chockstones
Many folk are quoting historical value in ignoring ethics and purity, in that case why isn't the peg for aid compulsry on Tensor?
As a matter of interest, does anyone know if the Pudding Stone on Cenotaph Corner is natural?
Just think of how Grond would have been ruined if the Rock and Ice had been able to lace that with chockstones
Many folk are quoting historical value in ignoring ethics and purity, in that case why isn't the peg for aid compulsry on Tensor?
As a matter of interest, does anyone know if the Pudding Stone on Cenotaph Corner is natural?
In reply to Simon Lee: It'll be very good for your ego to remove it & follow that by filling in the peg scars on London Wall & what about the shot hole on Masters Edge, you could recreate the peak within a few weeks & won't we be impressed.
In reply to Removed User: It has to go, the ethical standpoint is unanswerable. When Ed Drummond freed Shrike, Ken Wilson of all people in Mountain magazine questioned whether "ordinary climbers" would deny themselves the opportunity of ascending a classic route because it now had one desperate move. History proved this to be nonsense, the average climber now can't even see where they would benefit from some historic piece of aid. Times and standards move on, and gear has improved. Tonight I did Lone Tree Groove at Black Rocks. The (limestone) chock has now long gone since my ascent in 1972. I never considered replacing it - I put in a Friend #4. RIP
In reply to Removed User: Don't be so quick to judge others by your own lowly standards. Some people actually think in a broader context than their own ego.
In reply to Simon Lee: I totally disagree with any suggestion to remove the chockstone and am getting very angry at the thought. RE is high on my list and I do not want it to be altered by you or anyone else. I am just about managing to prevent myself from writing offensive abuse. I hope for your sake this is a troll.
In reply to Boy:
It is NOT neccessarily aid. It is only aid if it is used to climb the route. If it is only used as protection as I suspect the FA used it (no cams in those days) then it's gear NOT aid.
Yes it is in the context of the number of repeat ascents as I stated above. You are either missing or changing my argument.
If the first ascent was done using the chockstone only as gear then it's already freed.
It is still a greater legitamacy than that of you or Simon acting on their own opinions without any consultation. So your point is moot.
That is still not a reason to bypass such an approach. Until you try you have no grounds at all for individual action and it is also for your benefit. Perhaps if there's a 50% split and the issue's undecided you may go ahead feeling somewhat justified, but not with a 90% against I'd hope.
I still say consult first.
> 'Sort of aid'? There's no 'sort of' about it, it's an aid point on grit.
It is NOT neccessarily aid. It is only aid if it is used to climb the route. If it is only used as protection as I suspect the FA used it (no cams in those days) then it's gear NOT aid.
> Grade is not of issue here...
Yes it is in the context of the number of repeat ascents as I stated above. You are either missing or changing my argument.
> Neither is the significance of the the FFA and I very much doubt Simon would be writing to the mags to trumpet his acheivements.
If the first ascent was done using the chockstone only as gear then it's already freed.
> This 'kinda' legitimacy, is no legitimacy at all. I think it results more from the long delay between the FA and the common ownership of very large cams, plus a lack of desire to take unilateral action on the part of most climbers, than it does to any considered wish to retain the point of aid.
It is still a greater legitamacy than that of you or Simon acting on their own opinions without any consultation. So your point is moot.
> There is a very good case for removing it. I very much doubt however if review by the BMC would lead to anything but maintainance of the status quo regardless of how good a case was put forward.
That is still not a reason to bypass such an approach. Until you try you have no grounds at all for individual action and it is also for your benefit. Perhaps if there's a 50% split and the issue's undecided you may go ahead feeling somewhat justified, but not with a 90% against I'd hope.
I still say consult first.
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
The rock face has been artificially exposed by quarrying - the crack itself is natural.
> (In reply to Boy)
> [...]
>
> Or indeed vice versa, since the whole place is artifical anyway
> [...]
>
> Or indeed vice versa, since the whole place is artifical anyway
The rock face has been artificially exposed by quarrying - the crack itself is natural.
In reply to Paul Saunders:
Hmmm... approaching RE as an off-width jamming test and not touching the chockstone would be interesting to watch. I'd be very surprised if the FA didn't make as much use as possible of the chockstones. And was there more than one back then as well as in the 70s and 80s? Tradition shades into myth here: people most likely aren't climbing in the traditional style with one chockstone in.
Personally, I'd like to have the finger strength and stamina to climb it in the style recommended by Neil Foster on here a while ago: crimps on the edges all the way up. About F7c he said if I remember right.
> (In reply to Boy)
> [...]
>
> It is NOT neccessarily aid. It is only aid if it is used to climb the route. If it is only used as protection as I suspect the FA used it (no cams in those days) then it's gear NOT aid.
> [...]
>
> It is NOT neccessarily aid. It is only aid if it is used to climb the route. If it is only used as protection as I suspect the FA used it (no cams in those days) then it's gear NOT aid.
Hmmm... approaching RE as an off-width jamming test and not touching the chockstone would be interesting to watch. I'd be very surprised if the FA didn't make as much use as possible of the chockstones. And was there more than one back then as well as in the 70s and 80s? Tradition shades into myth here: people most likely aren't climbing in the traditional style with one chockstone in.
Personally, I'd like to have the finger strength and stamina to climb it in the style recommended by Neil Foster on here a while ago: crimps on the edges all the way up. About F7c he said if I remember right.
In reply to tobyfk and coconutter:
er ok I somehow forgot to type the word 'hundred' between 'few' and 'metres'. or maybe nick's random censorship engine deleted it
er ok I somehow forgot to type the word 'hundred' between 'few' and 'metres'. or maybe nick's random censorship engine deleted it
Simon Lee:
My vote is for leaving the choke-stone in. 3 reasons:
1 don't know a friend who owns a 6 Friend (thanks for the gear beta Simon Lee)
2 tradition
3 I am rubbish at off-widths and would be greatful for something positive to grab hold off
Cheers,
My vote is for leaving the choke-stone in. 3 reasons:
1 don't know a friend who owns a 6 Friend (thanks for the gear beta Simon Lee)
2 tradition
3 I am rubbish at off-widths and would be greatful for something positive to grab hold off
Cheers,
In reply to simon cox:
surely if three is your problem then either improve at offwidths or climb something more fitting to your style.
Not that I really care or will ever lead the route, but I say take it out.
surely if three is your problem then either improve at offwidths or climb something more fitting to your style.
Not that I really care or will ever lead the route, but I say take it out.
In reply to Simon Lee: Leave it in. Its a part of the routes history. Not that many people have lots of large cams (or even one).
In reply to Woker:
Well you never know but I might just be able to climb E3 5d (current deffinitive grade?) but could fail if the grade goes to 5e!
Having recently tussled with a 5+ off-width in the Kaisergebirge I am keen to hone the technique, though I assume NOT wearing shorts helps...
In reply to Simon Lee:
Do you know Paul Newman? If so any chance of borrowing the 6 Friend and you timing the removal of the chockstone for after my attempt?
Cheers,
Well you never know but I might just be able to climb E3 5d (current deffinitive grade?) but could fail if the grade goes to 5e!
Having recently tussled with a 5+ off-width in the Kaisergebirge I am keen to hone the technique, though I assume NOT wearing shorts helps...
In reply to Simon Lee:
Do you know Paul Newman? If so any chance of borrowing the 6 Friend and you timing the removal of the chockstone for after my attempt?
Cheers,
In reply to simon cox:
PS the UK grading system only has the letters a,b,c after the number.
PS the UK grading system only has the letters a,b,c after the number.
In reply to David Evans:
I really don't get this 'nobody has big cams' argument. People who feel they need to climb wide cracks will get the gear. If you ever plan to go on long crack routes on, say, granite or desert sandstone in the US - and if you don't aspire to that, you should - then you're going to need some big cams. Likewise if that's your plan you'll need to get some wide crack practise, which is difficult to come by in this country. The fact that our most accessible long offwidth is spoilt by a chockstone is tragic.
I really don't get this 'nobody has big cams' argument. People who feel they need to climb wide cracks will get the gear. If you ever plan to go on long crack routes on, say, granite or desert sandstone in the US - and if you don't aspire to that, you should - then you're going to need some big cams. Likewise if that's your plan you'll need to get some wide crack practise, which is difficult to come by in this country. The fact that our most accessible long offwidth is spoilt by a chockstone is tragic.
In reply to Simon Lee:
Just out of interest, what gives you the right to alter a route just because YOU want to? Do you think your some kind law unto yourself? Ok so maybe the chockstone was artificial, but i seem to remember a classic in the alps being stuffed full of wooden stakes for gear, and even the french havent removed them. For christs sake whats wrong with people, why cant you just leave things as they are? Chipping, retro bolting, altering routes, if you dont like it, or cant do it, then bloody well go and do something else, theres thousands of routes out there. If you really want to create or change routes, go work at a climbing wall.
Just out of interest, what gives you the right to alter a route just because YOU want to? Do you think your some kind law unto yourself? Ok so maybe the chockstone was artificial, but i seem to remember a classic in the alps being stuffed full of wooden stakes for gear, and even the french havent removed them. For christs sake whats wrong with people, why cant you just leave things as they are? Chipping, retro bolting, altering routes, if you dont like it, or cant do it, then bloody well go and do something else, theres thousands of routes out there. If you really want to create or change routes, go work at a climbing wall.
In reply to kevin stephens:
Not sure about the natural bit, but I took it out when I went up it. I put it back in!
> As a matter of interest, does anyone know if the Pudding Stone on Cenotaph Corner is natural?
Not sure about the natural bit, but I took it out when I went up it. I put it back in!
In reply to Simon Lee:
Leave it in, its been there for decades and's part of the route now. If you start doing things like that where do u stop, you might as well start knocking the wooden wedges out at millstone (e.g GNR), why?
Leave it in, its been there for decades and's part of the route now. If you start doing things like that where do u stop, you might as well start knocking the wooden wedges out at millstone (e.g GNR), why?
In reply to simon.a:
he already took it out and posted a thread about it... (John cox also has a thread going at the mo about it...)
he already took it out and posted a thread about it... (John cox also has a thread going at the mo about it...)
now come on children ...
leave the chockstone where it is or you will be in big trouble
leave the chockstone where it is or you will be in big trouble
In reply to hans:
can you read ?
can you read ?
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...