UKC

A Chip off the Old Block: The Aesth(Ethics) of Rock

© Rachel Carr Photography

When the chips are down, where do you draw the line on chipping, gluing and reinforcement of routes and boulder problems? If a hold breaks off naturally, should it be glued back on in a reconstructive act of cosmetic surgery? What about removing that sharp, spiky nubbin that rips my skin? Can I reinforce a wobbly hold on my project in order to keep it feasible, or let nature take its toll and suffer in the knowledge that it's now 4 grades harder?

Like polishing a car, brushing your project can be therapeutic...(not on soft rock!)  © Rachel Carr Photography
Like polishing a car, brushing your project can be therapeutic...(not on soft rock!)
© Rachel Carr Photography

Recent topical issues bringing this theme to light include the Gioia controversy, Nalle Hukkataival's post-vandalism re-opening of L'Alchimiste in Fontainebleau (UKC News Report), and Ashima Shiraishi's outstanding ascent of Open Your Mind Direct 9a in Santa Linya (UKC News Report), a route whose grade was brought into question after a hold breakage.

Chip (verb), chipped, chipping: 

  • to cut, break off, or gouge out (bits or fragments):
  • to disfigure by breaking off a fragment:
  • to shape or produce by cutting or flaking away pieces.

Chipping is an artificial form of enhancement on a piece of rock, and - despite being long-practiced and dating back to the initial free attempts on The Nose - is generally frowned upon in the majority of climbing areas, with the exception of specific locations used for dry-tooling (Newtyle Quarry) or at crags where there is a history of chipping and gluing on holds with sika or other adhesives (Gorges du Loup, for example). Be it through excessive brushing and cleaning or use of force to manufacture artificial holds in the rock, chipping and gluing are certainly very contentious issues in the climbing community.

Close up of rock chipping on Peak Gritstone  © Wil Treasure
Close up of rock chipping on Peak Gritstone
© Wil Treasure

In the US, professional climber Ivan Greene was dropped by his sponsors and shamed for chipping on the boulders in The Gunks, New York in 2013. Closer to home and in the same year, a mystery chipper vandalised Cratcliffe and Robin Hood's Stride (UKC News Report) causing an outrage.

Recently, some climbers had a chip on their shoulder(!) regarding Christian Core's world-famous boulder problem Gioia 8C, which he opened in 2008. A controversy ensued after Dave Graham and Daniel Woods worked the problem and Dave found a new knee bar using an alternative foothold which subsequently broke off, making the crux on the 8A+ stand version significantly easier. The next day, Christian reportedly glued over the scar on the rock to prevent anyone from using it. 

photo
Christian Core on Gioia at Varazze
© Roberto Armando

An online blog named The Burrow Files published an entry titled "Varazze Journals: Part 1," which was written by climbers who were in the company of Dave and Daniel, explaining the situation and expressing outrage at Christian's actions:

"Christian sent us a text early the next day asking about the chipped foot!? It wasn’t the foot he used and with the “chip” he felt the problem was becoming easier. He demanded that the Americans refrain from using the foot. In fact he went so far as returning the next day to fill the foothold in with glue so that no one could use it…"

To make matters more complicated, many people are unaware of the fact that Gioia was a heavily manicured problem from the off - with up to five holds reinforced with glue before the problem saw Christian's first ascent.

"[Gioia] is on some slick small crimps on an overhanging wall that is held together mostly by glue. That is a toneless statement right there. I don’t really care about glue. Christian went through a great deal of trouble to clean the area and the line and he wanted to preserve it so he glued that problem down tight."

The blog goes on to describe their views about the situation, comparing the scenario to an indoor wall:

"I don’t care one way or the other about gluing holds for security, but that was a usable foot before it broke and after it broke. I do care that someone filled it in to make their beta the only beta. This isn’t gym climbing, holds aren’t “off” and if they are it is simply an eliminate line. There is nothing controversial about that but chipping rock to make holds better isn’t ok, and neither is filling in holds so people can’t use them."

These comments bring into question the concept of "ownership" of a particular sequence or problem. Does Christian have a right as the first ascensionist to dictate a set sequence for the problem? Due to Gioia being so reliant on its glued holds, does it make this incident less controversial - surely Christian was simply trying to uphold the status of such a historic problem with a particularly "delicate" backstory to say the least. Who has the final say? The first ascensionist, climbers repeating the problem or the public? 

Christian commented on 8a.nu: "I am very sorry for any misunderstanding and poor communication. The broken and glued hold is on the crux of Gioia stand 8A+ so I did not think it was such a big thing but important to preserve the lines. There was already invisible glue on four more holds on the 8A+."

Another problem with a murky history is L'Alchimiste 8B at Apremont in Fontainebleau, which was first opened by Marc Le Menestrel in 1997 and had until this year never been repeated due to the crux holds being maliciously hammered off shortly after his ascent by an unknown vandal. Nalle Hukkataival recently made the first post-break ascent. Despite the holds being removed, the grade of 8B has so far remained unchanged.

Nalle Hukkataival on L'alchimiste,Apremont, Fontainebleau  © Neil Hart
Nalle Hukkataival on L'alchimiste,Apremont, Fontainebleau
© Neil Hart

On the subject of grade changes, 13 year-old Ashima Shiraishi's groundbreaking ascent of Open Your Mind Direct 9a has also brought the topic of hold breakage and upgrades to the fore. Since a hold broke up high, no-one other than Ashima has completed the route and initial speculations about the grade came in at 9a+ with the missing hold, before being dismissed as a misunderstanding amongst local climbers.

When a hold breaks, it more often that not results in the route or problem becoming more difficult as opposed to making it easier, and the temptation is to render the climb possible again, sometimes without bothering to work out a sequence with the missing hold. 

Whereas most climbers will likely agree that unnecessary and in many cases unethical chipping of rock is wrong, the lines become slightly unclear (excuse the pun) when rock breaks off naturally - or as 'natural' as can be when applying bodyweight to a tiny flake of rock - and the desire to restore the original move arises, be it by gluing or further chipping into the rock to make a new hold. What about reinforcing large and potentially dangerous blocks and flakes, particularly if "gardening" or developing a new crag - is this minimising risk, defacement or simply prolonging an eventual, risky rockfall?

Many who counter the serial rock-chippers will speak of the beauty of a natural line versus the manufactured single-mindedness of chipped or glued routes or problems. By performing your very own cosmetic enhancement on a piece of rock, you limit the possibilities for others through selfishness and limit creativity and development, they argue.

It may seem like much ado about nothing, causing a fuss about the state of pieces of rock which have existed for millions of years. Yet as climbers this seemingly arbitrary discussion is important to us - ethics and aesthetics are key concepts in climbing, founding the basis of much of our history and leading by example for future generations, albeit with boundless controversy and inevitable disagreement.



Support UKC

As climbers we strive to make UKClimbing.com the kind of website we would love to visit, with the most up-to-date news, diverse and interesting articles, comprehensive gear reviews, breathtaking photographs and a vast and useful logbook system. As a result, an incredible community has formed around the site - we’ve provided the framework but it’s you who make the website what it is today. If you appreciate the content we offer then you can help us by becoming an official UKC Supporter. This can be a one-off single annual payment or a more substantial payment paid monthly or yearly which includes full access to Rockfax Digital and discounts on Rockfax print publications.

If you appreciate UKClimbing.com then please help us by becoming a UKC Supporter.

UKC Supporter

  • Support the website we all know and love
  • Access to a year's subscription to Rockfax Digital.
  • Plus 30% off Rockfax guidebooks
  • Plus Show your support UKC Supporter badge on your profile and forum posts
UKC/UKH/Rockfax logo

9 Apr, 2015
keep it natural out side , clean dirt and moss off but that is as far as it should go , if you want to make routes stay in doors. as far as whether you should use a hold that has appear due to rock breakage , yes go for it , its just a different problem , the original becomes an eliminate just don't use the new hold if you want the original grade. if the hold that's broken of was important , that's just one of those things the route has gone forever and a new route can be climbed in its place with a new grade/ the existing route should be re graded. its just one of those things.
9 Apr, 2015
The Gioia incident is made to seem much less controversial by this statement from Adam Ondra on 8a.nu (which would have been a useful detail in the article, but I digress): "I would like to put my two cents into the discussion. I would like to add my opinion and facts into the discussion. I have been in contact with Christian about this issue. Gioia has 7 hard moves in total (I exclude rather easy top out, but even up there it is possible to fall). First four moves could be like soft 8B+ on its own, stand start has three hard moves which is 8A+ and has many ascents. Gioa has a couple glued holds. But do not imagine a wall full of sika, but a few reinforced crimps with fluid super glue. I am pretty sure that unless you are told, you would never notice any glue at all. The crimps would probably hold for a certain period of time even without the glue, but in order mantain the state of the problem forever, the glue was used. And I have no problem with that. The hardest single move is the second move. And this is where Dave or Daniel found a kneebar. Good for them. Nobody has a problem with that. They found something that none of us had seen before. At the same time, I am not the one to judge how much this kneebar helps (if it changes the grade?) as I have never tried it this way. As even Henning typed above, there is absolutely no controversy about this kneebar. The linking crux of the whole boulder for me was definitely last hard move, i.e. move number 3 on the stand start. It is not very hard as a single move, but it is very spicy in the link from the start, because it is heinously powerful move. Christian used very bad right foot for this move, whereas me and Nalle we both used a smearing foot high left. The stand start has numerous ascents and nothing had ever been broken there. Until a few weeks ago. Daniel and Dave in this move used a foothold which has not been used before. Just because it was obviosly loose and fragile. Obviously you can blame Christian for insufficient cleaning, but he simply would not bother to clean it. And I would do the same. When climbing on well established route or boulder, I do not use holds or footholds which are sure be broken. And 100+ climbers who did or attemped the stand start did not use this loose foothold. The loose foothold broke and better foothold appeared underneath. A bit more solid-looking, but still very questionable. A foothold was much better than the one that Christian used and made the last move less powerful. Which is very crucial for Gioia low. Because the foothold still looked like it could break again, Christian decided to tap the foothold with sika. He could not have hammered it down, because another (possibly even better?) foothold could have appeared underneath. Which could happen even if no action was taken by Christian. If I were him, I would probably do the same. It is not chipping, it is not creating an eliminate, it is not harming the aestethics of the line. It is always hard to decide what to do with loose holds. As long as it is somewhere high in the mountains, where you are expected to climb on crumbly rock, it is not a problem if the route change after every ascent. But on famous boulder problem like Gioia? You have three options. Cover the hold (or hammer it down if possible), reinforce it or leave it as it is and wait until it breaks again (and then possibly again and again?). In all three cases, you are somehow manipulating the rock (even though indirectly in the third case) He chose the first option, because he wanted all the climbers in the future to enjoy the Gioia as it used to be. Dave and Daniel should definitely respect what he did. It is his boulder problem and local area. It is not that Christian could not stand the fact that Dave and Daniel were smart enough to find a new beta or found a new foothold. It is what happened in the second move with the kneebar and he is perfectly fine with that. Daniel and Dave used a foothold which has not used before from a reason - because it was loose. "
9 Apr, 2015
As a regular user of White Goods, it is all as far as I am aware all natural hold dry tooling. When holds break then nothing is replaced and this was confirmed recently by common consent amongst the users when a steinpull wore out. Newtyle in common with most UK tooling venues relies on drilled holes for placements.
9 Apr, 2015
All rock is being weathered constantly, either by the elements or human action, some routes will be around longer than others but ultimately they will all crumble and disappear. In fact it's this weathering that means the routes exist in the first place. Out of respect for others we should try not to speed this process more than necessary. i.e. clean your shoes, don't over brush etc. but if a hold breaks, you find a new way to climb it. If you didn't manage to climb it before the hold break then unfortunately you missed out, or have the opportunity for a new route depending what way you look at it. you're fighting a losing battle if you're trying to fight the weathering. Not wanting to sound like the voiceover to an overly philosophical (usually American) climbing film but I think there is some beauty in the fact that what we are climbing and consider to be so solid, is actually ever changing. Get out there and climb those amazing lines before they disappear so you can say "I climbed it when it was..."
9 Apr, 2015
This is a timely article as I was recently wondering why dry tooling venues are exempt from the widely accepted rule that no 'chipping' should take place? A number of the venues would have made excellent free climbing locations but were a bit too tricky, had it been known that chipping was acceptable I'm sure drilling a load of finger pockets would have made some fine routes but wasn't considered. It seems you could go and 'claim' a venue for dry tooling by artificially altering it to suit dry tooling but doing the same for sport climbing would result in outrage. I'm aware of the history of chipped holds on slate but it's difficult to imagine wholesale creation of chipped routes would be accepted these days, if it ever was (I'm pretty sure it wasn't). Maybe we could get one of these exceptions the article talks about, who gives them out? The BMC?
More Comments
Loading Notifications...
Facebook Twitter Copy Email LinkedIn Pinterest