UKC

Has the thread been locked due to the "acrimony" or did it just get too long for UKC to cope? (in which case continue here........)

In reply to Robert Durran:

Retro-bolting, thin end of the wedge, selfish trad elitists, just don't clip the bolts, angry angry.

That should save everyone reading the other thread to catch up.

In reply to Andy Moles:

Nice summary, dude. Although if I was to take a crack, it would be:

Two or three 'Extreme Whiney Traddie Bitches' selfishly claim a piece of rock that they had ignored for decades for themselves, and try to retroactively justify it as a matter of ethics. In a quarry. Anyone that points out their conceit is called a moron in a plethora of colourful insults.

In reply to gurumed:

And vice versa...

In reply to gurumed:
Anyone that points out their conceit is called a moron in a plethora of colourful insults.

No. Not anyone. I only called you and Bechae morons. The others who argued against me intelligently I did not call morons (because they are not). But you just don't get it do you? (because you are). Glad you appreciated the colour though.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Oi Rob what do you think you're doing hijacking my thread? I thought I was going to win a prize there for the most amount of views! Right, Shear Fear is getting it tomorrow!

In reply to Robert Durran:

Rob, I saw you on the auto-belay today... Do you think Petifers would benefit from the addition of a new Tru-Blu Auto-Belay installation? Buz has got a spare one in the store we could use.

If you want to maintain the mental aspect of trad climbing with the auto-belay... just replace the wire with shoe string?

I've been eyeing up Dalriada as a potential new via farrata to take blind donkeys on an adventure... Thoughts?

On a more serious note, can I have a prize for the most amount of views/replies/foul language/racism ever witnessed on a UKC thread?

In reply to buzby78: I must have missed the racism. Think that title goes to one of the countless middle east threads. Spunkymunkey was trying to help you out with the foul language but may have been the reason the thread was closed.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Could just rename this one 'Colorful Insults Thread', scrap the veneer of ethical debate, and really go for it?

Because let's face it, no one cares THAT much.

In reply to buzby78:

I didn't hijack it; I just revived it!

In reply to Robbie_Phillips:

Yes, it was very boring. However, now that everyone hates me and I don't have any friends due to my ethical stand on the retro-bolts, it looks like it might be the future of my training, so please could we have routes with no fiddly technical cruxes on it better suited to endurance training plodding.


That's actually quite a good idea; the spineless sport climbers could play on it, keeping it clean for when us "extreme whining elitist traddie bitch dick-heads" (or whatever it was) come along to climb it properly with our rack of RP's, micro-cams and huge balls. Everyone will be happy. I'm all for it.


No, it's frightening enough as it is......

In reply to gurumed:

Against 2 people. One that thinks climbing is too dangerous and has quit anything but sport, and another who climbs trad but the route is too hard for him.

In reply to Robert Durran:

We have a maximum limit for 'total thread size' which that thread reached so it closed automatically.

I did have a look at it though and there were some petty comments cropping up. It would be nice if people kept it to discussion if it is to continue.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Just wondering, what number of views/replies does a thread reach before it is automatically closed? That thread appears to have had 799 replies before it was closed, so is it 800 posts?

In reply to FreshSlate:

It's a memory thing so long replies count as more than short ones, hence there isn't a set number or replies, it is measured in how much server memory it is using up both storing it and serving it.

It was 798 replies but we have had longer threads in the past, this one just had more long replies. The number of views is irrelevant since it only had 15,000 views and we have gone way beyond that before.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax: Ah okay, thanks for that. Clears it up a little. Yeah I remember quite a few long posts. Interesting.

In reply to Robbie_Phillips:

I say go for it. Robert has convinced me to go bolt Indian Face.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Calling you out bluntly on your greed might wind you up because the truth hurts, but it doesn't make us morons.


The "extreme.." quote is actually your creation. It gets longer and cruder each time you use it, is this a symptom of some sort of subconscious self loathing?

As a connoisseur of profanity, I might suggest that "bitch dick-heads" doesn't flow off the tongue nicely. Try putting a vowel sound after 'ch' phonemes. "bitch-ass dick-heads", is much more mellifluous, for example.

In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

The route is definitely too hard for me as trad, for now. But having onsighted the route placing 'draws whilst the bolts were there, I'm not arguing for the bolts to stay so that I personally can do the route. If anything the removal of the bolts give me a route to grow into, despite that I still think the bolts should have stayed.

In reply to gurumed:

Why did you mention placing the draws? Just curious. So robert has climbed the route in traditional style too yet you call him greedy? Seems weird, both of you have climbed the route, yet he is greedy and you 'have nothing to gain'. Having onsighted the route 'placing the draws' as you say, why can you not climb the route trad with the resultant beta, I mean why is it too hard now?

In reply to Robert Durran:


And when you come to trad it, you can just let the krab on the autobelay go so it gets pulled up to the top, and then put it back again when you've finished by using it as a quick way down.

In reply to Robert Durran:

From the thread o'doom:


Yeah I was surprised how good it was - almost no moves below 5b!

This area would benefit a lot from some tree clearance or branch pruning, a bit of block moving at the bottom, and one of the bolts at the top is in a dodgy block.


More like, I have no stamina nor fitness but quite like fiddling in clusters of peenuts and offsets .


FWIW I didn't get a free burger so I'm taking E5.

In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

I just meant climbing it as a sport route.


It seems greedy to me because rock hadn't been touched for decades, Buz cleaned it up and bolted it for the benifit of hundreds, then a couple of guys decide that their pleasure takes precedence over the hundreds that would have enjoyed it. Because the route was left in such disarray for so long it doesn't really seem like retrobolting to me, more like recycling.


When looking up the route before starting, I thought that there would probably be gear (and good holds) the whole way up the crack. I was surprised at how shallow that crack is in the top two thirds. Maybe Fiend and Robert have cleaned out placements I didn't find, but I remember thinking when up there that I couldn't see anywhere to place even the smallest of brass offsets.

In theory because if you onsighted something, you should be able to solo it, but we both know it doesn't work like that in practice. I'd need to be a much better climber to have the error margin to justify the risk. Having that skill and fitness, I'd probably choose to exercise it elsewhere. Which is what climbers better than I have done for the last 20 years. That's why I feel it was fine left as a sport route.

In reply to FreshSlate:


In the particular context of Ratho and a landowner operating a climbing centre it's not just about risk to the individual climber, it's also about the overall risk of accident in the whole quarry if it starts to be more heavily used.

In reply to gurumed:


Calling me greedy is possibly one of your more defensible points and certainly not why you are a moron. Though the whole argument, as anyone capable of seeing the debate in the context of the history and evolution of climbing will know, is rather more subtle than that. I could equally call you greedy because you want a trad route bolted rather than taking the time to develop your skills to the point when you can do it as a trad route.

What makes you a moron (in fact virtually amoebically submoronic in intellect) is the fact that you persist in claiming that I am calling you a moron simply because you disagree with me; lots of people disagree with me but I don't call them morons (HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT?). I am calling you a moron because of your monumental ignorance and inability to follow arguments without spouting ridiculous irrelevant and illogical shite.



Except that you've already blowwn the onsight of course

In reply to FreshSlate:


Because the gear is almost entirely small and fiddly, requiring care and experience to place adequately, and there are several technical and insecure moves (poorly suited to gurumed's neanderthal climbing style) which it would be a good idea not to fluff even with good protection skills.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

That's why they have notices up pointing out that you climb in thr quarry at your own risk. No different, I presume, from climbing on any other land (except that without the notices some people might not realise so).

In reply to gurumed:

I didn't clean anything out. Don't know about Fiend.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I'm trying my best to keep out of this thread; I really didn't enjoy taking part in the last one, but, like you Robert, I felt it was a kind of duty.

But I will share this link, which I think is interesting and relevant (apologies it's a bit of a long read):
http://www.psmag.com/politics/why-even-your-best-arguments-never-work-64910...

In reply to Robert Durran:

You are very comfortable with repeatedly calling me a moron, so I assume you must be a man of great intelligence. If that is the case, you are deliberately ignoring what said. Having already done the route, I didn't want the bolts to stay for myself, but for the greater good. How can that be greed? Fiend and yourself did want the changes made for your own (and only your own) benefit to the detriment of many others, that's why I feel it's fair to call it greed.


True.


Continuously insulting my intelligence is one thing, but demeaning my climbing style is simply below the belt, dude

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Heavily used? So you're against the new bolted routes? As they will increase traffic for sure. Think the presence of sport routes will increase the usage more than an e4 with a lower off...

In reply to gurumed:

Yes, but even a man of modest intelligence reading the thread would see what a moron you are.


No less greedy than me, having done the route, wanting the route to remain unbolted (and that is setting aside the whole thin end of the wedge argument)


Total f*cking bollocks; yet again the tedious, ignorant shite about trad climbing being elitist. Buzby has rejuvenated a great trad route that will be there as a fine challenge for those who are up to it for the foreseeable future. Yes, it will need a regular brush, but that would have been the case even if it was bolted.

In reply to gurumed:
Okay.

But that was a problem to do with the earth cornice which appeared during construction of Ratho. The damage to the route was not done by 'neglect' but was the by-product of a construction job. The logical solution is the one that is in place, a lower off.

That's okay, gear placing gets better with more experience.


A lot of people are more comfortable with lower margins for error than you are, that's fine too. Some people can operate in that way, those climbers that prefer bold routes.

In reply to gurumed:

In response to this:

Robert has climbed the route. Do you Robert, want the route to stay like it is? Even though you have already climbed it? If the answer is yes? Which we all know it is, it is not for Robert's sake, as he has already climbed it but for the greater 'good'.

In reply to FreshSlate:

Of course, but Gurumed, as usual, either through stupidity or in the hope that we wouldn't notice (again stupid) asserted something obviously untrue just to suit himself.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I would have preferred the route to be in a style that makes sense the context of the quarry and serves the vast majority.

You want it in a style that doesn't make sense (it was ignored to decades), that only serves a tiny minority. It seems more like you want this route to remain an E4, rather than "just a 6c" for the satisfaction of your own ego. The word 'elitist' was brought up by you, and it certainly seems to fit.


What Buz did was unearth a long ignored piece of rock and put in the hard work needed to make it of use to hundreds. Then a very vocal minority managed to make enough of a ruckus to force Buz to pull the bolts.

I sincerely hope that I am proven wrong and that it gets tons of trad ascents, so that his hard work is not squandered. But if history does indeed repeat itself, it's going to be soon forgotten and will go back to its former decrepit state.

In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

Why does he want the route to remain without bolts? The answer is quite simple; vanity.

In reply to gurumed:

A quarry which has always been overwhelmingly trad.


Oh for f*cks sake. So bolt up every f*cking route in the f*cking country you f*cking dick-head to serve the overwhelmingly vast majority of people who find any given piece of f*cking rock easier to climb on f*cking bolts than placing f*cking gear.


It was ignored because of the earth cornice. Thanks to Busby it now has a chain and the problem of the earth cornice is no longer there. It will get about as much traffic as most good quality bold E4's I'd imagine. What's the f*cking problem.


Ok. So continue making up my own motivations to suit your own tiny f*cking head.



Nobody forced Buzby to reconsider. Maybe you should discuss it with him as I did on Saturday. Maybe he now thinks it was a mistake to retro-bolt the routes.


Have you actually read the thread? Oh yes, I forgot: you have, but are too f*cking stupid to understand anything you read.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Relax, dude. You'll live longer.

In reply to Robert Durran:


I visited Ratho many years ago as an alternative to a wet weekend in the west and it was....well, less than great. Dirty routes, choosy, just generally bad. That was pre wall days. We carried on to Northumberland.

I don't know what it's like now but 15 years ago if a bomb had hit Ratho quarry it would have been a service to climbing.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

It was good up to at least twenty years ago. It is good again now largely thanks to Buzby's efforts.

Lol! A break from the forum...tea?

In reply to estivoautumnal:


Poor Ratho, it's a great place...I like it! Must be because there are some good climbs there

In reply to sebrider:

I've just uploaded a few photos of last weekend's big ascent, currently awaiting approval by the mods. Unfortunately, I missed the money shot as I had to leave before Robert ticked it, but I'm glad he did so. Well done that man!

In reply to gurumed:


Why for vanity?

He climbed the e4 without bolts and will have always done that. We all know what the grade would be with bolts so whats the difference?

If anything if it's 'too dangerous' to be a trad route and it is bolted then that would serve his vanity more, no?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Robert. I have a great deal of sympathy with your stance on this issue. But bear in mind this is a new thread. And so far I would say that 'gurumed' has been fairly well-behaved. It would be cool to try to keep this thread on a 'better' level? So maybe for new readers accusations relating to intelligence etc might be kept to a minimum?

If 'spunky' comes along it might be difficult: but there you go.......

In reply to andyathome:

Just read the subsequent posts. I was too late obviously.

In reply to andyathome:


Sometimes people just need to be told how it is. Gurumed is on of them; his posts make me genuinely angry. But point taken. I'll just ignore him from now on

In reply to andyathome:


I know "spunky". He's alright really. I would never have a go at anyone for spelling or grammar on here (unless, of course, it is "txtspk" which is a greater crime than retro-bolting Cloggy). As a teacher I am very well aware that dyslexia has nothing at all to do with intelligence.

In reply to beychae:

If I may also interject with a link -

http://xkcd.com/386/
http://xkcd.com/438/

and to help this thread continue -

why worry about bolting it, instead just smash in a bunch of pegs making your ascent safe. But which will shortly rot out letting subsequent trad climbers enjoy the spice once more. Everybody wins.

Gurumed, et al. - Confining this answer to one of Gurumed's USP's for bolting - cleaning the route made PW more accessible to hundreds, not just bolting it. Without bolts it is (in many people's eyes) a real, and not synthetic, climbing experience. These hundreds (whomsoever they are) still have access to the route, they just have to hone their skills to make it an acceptable and / or justifiable challenge for them. PW has been accessible to anyone that wanted to try it, it just needed cleaning; and will do again in the future irrespective of what happens to it, as Robert and others have pointed out. The stroke of genius, from reading this and previous thread, is the addition of the lower off - truly making it available to the masses.

In reply to Kemics:

Why bother when its fine with neither?

In reply to Kemics:
Nah - this is the one that defines our relationship with UKC

http://xkcd.com/162/

XX Mwah XX

In reply to gurumed:
It seems more like you want this route to remain an E4, rather than "just a 6c" for the satisfaction of your own ego.


I sounds to me quite different.

Robert does come across rather angry, while being protectionist. But you come across as rather selfish.
Your argument seems to be:
"I don't feel safe on the route as an E4, therefore i want it to be bolted, so I climb the route within my personal comfort zone."
While Roberts seems to be:
"Arrgggghhhhhh! Stop sticking bolts in Trad routes you ar*e!"
I think Robert you do need to relax a bit, your anger really isn't helping you here much, and Gurumed, can i suggest that its ok to just accept that there are some routes you might never get to climb, theres plenty of routes i would love to do, some maybe i'll be good/strong/insane enough to get up one day, others i never will. Thats fine with me.
Both of you agree your just both too polarized in your views here.

Regardless of the argument between the two of you, i've just seen that the route in question is a 2 star Trad route. With, from what i can gather from the previous thread, unclimbed rock around it in the quarry.

Can i first ask why a two star trad route should be bolted when there is room around it to create new f6c sport routes on the blank space around it?
I can understand it the route had become dangerous or changed somewhat due to rockfall etc, but seems like the only problem was caused by an oversight in management, which has, with the lower-off in place, been managed in the best comprise possible to protect what seems to be an almost-classic judging by the 2 stars.

I'd go as far as saying that the route with bolts in place (and all retro-bolted routes in fact) automatically loses whatever stars it has.
Simply put, the nature of the route is changed. I personally have to agree with Robert here. a lower off maintains it an as E4 6a**, whereas with bolts, it IS 'just another 6c' sport route in a quarry. I'd say the head game of placing thin protection on 6a UK tech and the head game of linking 6c french moves are totally different beasts. As i say, the very 'feel' of the route has totally changed.

Sounds like there is more space in the quarry, and looking at the Logbook page on here the Trad does outweigh the Sport currently, surely a better solution would be focusing everyone energy on bolting totally fresh lines while maintaining the Trad that exists?

Seems to be the best balance all round really, not just in this quarry, but pretty much everywhere.
I guess that reads as i'm on the side of the "Protectors of Trad", but i am supportive for the establishing of routes of all kinds, Sport/Trad/Bouldering etc, as long as any existing routes/problems are respected, especially starred ones.

Chasing the tick is fun, but so is Climbing itself quite frankly. Shouldn't be all be working on raising our game to the challenge of the climbs level rather than lowering it to ours?
And having lots of fun in the process of course.

(I am aware the last bit makes me sound like some kind of rock-hugging hippy...)

In reply to Steve nevers:


Hi, Steve. I've already did the route, so it doesn't personally affect me if the bolts stay or go. My arguing for them to stay has been a matter of principle. If Pettifer's had been clean, and was getting ascents I wouldn't have been for bolting it, but it had been ignored for decades. I think "use it or lose it" is a pretty fair rule of thumb when we're talking decades. The route would have sat for another 20 years untouched if Buz hadn't have bolted it. No potential trad ascentionists had thought of putting chains up because there was no interest in the route.


I've already climbed the route. That's not my motivation. I wouldn't ask for Blade Runner or Nijinski to be bolted, for example.


Because it was ignored for decades.


Only if the stars are derived from boldness rather than the quality of the movement. There's plenty of sport routes that get justified stars.


I agree that a bold E4, and 6c sport route have different feels. But, that doesn't justify a couple of guys getting their E4 experience over hundreds enjoying a 6c after they've been disregarding it for decades.

In general I'm not for retro-bolting, but Ratho Quarry is a special case.

"....but it had been ignored for decades."


A couple of mouseclicks to logbooks and this entry from May last year.

Pettifer's Wall

Got it clean on my 3rd attempt today but did struggle lol. Good route and the wet wall at the bottom forces you left which is good. Soil at the top is a shame but could be removed. Abseil the route before you climb it to brush it and wear helmets. I do not know if it is an E4.

I did post this very early on in the previous thread, but for some reason it seems to not have been picked up on!

In reply to Turfty:

We don't want facts here. Just go away, will you?

jcm

In reply to Turfty:

The logbooks have 3 entries from the same person top roping it in 2012 and one person leading it in 1989. The rest are after the bolts and lower off went in including a couple of trad ascents after the bolts came out again. That meets the definition of 'neglected' when you consider there's a climbing centre with probably 50 to 100 customers climbing at any time its open just 50m away.

In reply to gurumed:



Yet it seems by the people logging it it hasn't. Plus theres the special case of X number of years that the soil at the top of the route made it a deathwish.

Also you aren't considering that people may have tried it, failed and then not logged the attempt. Then add the number of climbers that don't use UKC.

also plenty of other route and problems have 'been ignored for decades' then they see a state of repeats, or in some extreme cases an FA.

Seems daft just to bolt stuff because of one personal view that its not climbed, by that criteria we might as well bolt anything thats to hard for the average punter. Which of course we shouldn't because that would be bloody silly, and in my mind disrespectful to the history of the sport/hobby/pastime.

In reply to Steve nevers:

also plenty of other route and problems have 'been ignored for decades' then they see a state of repeats, or in some extreme cases an FA.

Didn't UKC do an extensive series of articles on such a route very recently. Think it was called 'Indian Face'...

In reply to MJ:

Well, it could have been 'Indian 6c+' by now if we all followed some peoples policy.

In reply to Steve nevers:

I haven't ever made the argument that everything should be bolted.


Nobody in this thread, or the previous 800 post thread has wanted to bolt Indian Face. Comparing Ratho Quarry to Cloggy is ridiculous. Also despite being much harder, Indian Face has receive more attention and ascents than the route in question at Ratho Quarry.

This is an internet forum, so how about a nice car analogy?

There was a rusted burnt out car that was left for decades. Buz found it, fixed it up and put in an automatic transmission so it'd be easier for everyone to enjoy. Now that the car is running, a couple of guys come along and demand that the auto gearbox is taken out and replaced with a manual one for a "more authentic driving experience".

If these guys had truly cared about the car they would have maintained it themselves. They didn't. But they some how still expect that their desires should have priority. This to me seems unreasonable and selfish.

If Buz had cleaned up this route, bolted it and told no one it probably wouldn't have been noticed for years. Certainly not by Robert and Fiend.

In reply to gurumed:

To make your analogy more accurate, the car needs to have been run over by a bull-dozer during the process of building an automatic transmission factory, rendering it undrivable.

In reply to Steve nevers:


I've only been angry with gurumed and one or two others who have spoiled a good debate by diluting it with their ignorance and the inability to construct a coherent argument (I refer you to the other 800 post thread).


To be fair, I don't think that is quite what gurumed is saying; his argument seems to me that more people would get to do/enjoy a 6c than a bold E4.


That is indeed a fair summary, though I've only been rude to the arses who deserve it (not because they disagree with me but because they are arses).


Point Taken, though I think everyone probably has their snapping point when faced with the gurumeds of this world.


No I'm not. As I've said repeatedly, I'm aware that the growing demand for "punter" sport routes is not going to go away (unfortunately, but there you go). It needs to be sensibly accomodated, but retro-bolting is NOT the way forward.


No reason at all.


Absolutely. Final outcome is clearly totally sensible.


The central belt quarries, yes in my opinion. The Dubh Loch - go anywhere near there that with a Hilti and the bolts will end up in the bolter's head. and quite rightly so.

In reply to gurumed:

Maybe you would climb it again? Maybe you have mates who missed out. You've already called someone else who has done the route greedy for keeping it bolt free so why are you immune?


It's been climbed, recently. So you're done for a few decades? End of thread?


Someone cleaned it, and solved the top out problem and now it is seeing traffic again. Result right? What do you think about an escalator up a unclimbed peak. Why is volume of traffic the only important thing to you? I could clean an 8c and chip it down to 5a and that would of course be fine to you. Why deny hundreds of climbers? How selfish. Number of ascents = better right?

This happens, there's rock across the world that's being 'ignored', if this is a massive concern to you, you should fly off and get developing. You could reduce the amount of that heinous virgin rock I hear about.

An 8c and a 5a have different feels. But that doesn't justify a couple of guys getting the 8c experience over hundreds enjoying a 5a.


In general I'm not for chipping but in general 8c and above are special cases.

In reply to Turfty:

That was a top-roper!

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Correction: The logbooks.........including a couple of "trad" ascents after the bolts came out again.

In reply to Robert Durran:
some of the climbing at Ratho Quarry actually looks rather good, should have checked it out when I was local!

In reply to gurumed:


Can I seriously suggest that you go and discuss this with Buzby to get his perspective.

If Buzby had initially only cleaned it and put the chain on (same final outcome), would you be so upset? If yes, then I think your "use it or lose it" bolting argument falls apart. If no, then your "maximum utility" selfishness argument falls apart.


The route actually has some graet moves on it, the overall experience of soing them massively intensified by the boldness (or at least just about adequate but not bomber gear).

I think this is the reason I've stuck at this argument for so long: there are clearly people out there who don't think it should just be a special case but would prefer it to be the thin end of the wedge.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Anyway I'm off training at Ratho now. if I don't reply to gurumed'd next post it will almost certainly be not because I've blown a bold E4 but because he and his cronies have beaten the shit out of me and dumped me under a pile of rubble in the quarry.

In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

That is clearly not my position.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I have done this a couple of times throughout this debate.


If Buz had only cleaned it up and put in lower offs then that would have been fair enough; he was putting in the graft so it's his shout. This would be the same if any other potential trad-ascentionist had cleaned it up and added chains.

Buz went the extra mile for the benefit of more than the few trad climbers who'll ever do this route. Because the route was abandoned I don't think the bolts were hurting anyone. I do feel that you and Fiend getting the bolts taken out did hurt people, though. It's given the two of you a great experience (my goal is not to deprive you of great trad experiences), but at the cost of a fun sport route that would have been enjoyed by many more people.

In this specific case it seems more like retro-trad than retro-bolting.

In reply to Robert Durran:

If you don't make it back from Ratho it will be because Robbie has bolted you to something before you could do the same to him!

In reply to gurumed:
Not until relatively recently.

Here's another one, guy next door has a classic car, hasn't drove it for twenty years because someone placed a large earth cornice blocking his garage. Someone breaks in, smashes it windows in and drives it to a garage to have go faster stripes painted on it. Owner is mad and and makes the vandals fix the damage and is now able to drive his classic car again. Happy ending.

The man still cared about his classic car, and was justified in restoring it. He lets who ever wants to drive it but if doesn't have airbags like some newer cars and isn't restricted to 30mph.


But he did, no one has noticed I just chipped a 3 star 8c and probably wont for some time.

In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

Your analogy is predicated on ownership of the car. Are you saying Fiend and Robert own the route? I don't recognise this.


I don't acknowledge a vocal minority having ownership of the route.


We both know chipping is not the same as bolting, it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

In reply to gurumed:

Why not? Please explain why this doesn't fit your more traffic = better stance?

So I clean a sport route I can chop it? Niceeee.


You seem to have difficulty acknowledging the reasons it was neglected and instead but it down the the 'selfish whims of trad climbers' rather than a very physical and real block another party put in place. Not really the trad climbers fault, now its been put right there's no reason to further punish the set of climbers who have been deprived a quality route due to a very real barrier to climbing it.

It clearly hurt people, did you not see that 800 post thread? Are you talking about a death on the route? Or the emotional hurt of having to walk up and set a top rope up if a non trad climber wants to climb it?

... what does that even mean?

In reply to gurumed:


Then why are you (presumably) in favour of the retro-bolting of wally 2?

In reply to gurumed:


So it's nothing to do with "maximum utility"; more people gettting more fun then. Good, that's one of your argumants disposed off.


Ah, so now we're back to "maximum utility". A bit muddled aren't you?



Surely the analogy of retro-bolting would be chopping a route which has always been accepted as a sport route up to that point.

In reply to gurumed:


It is very unlikely he would have told no-one. Certainly someone would have become aware of it anyway. I'm sure I would have got to know about it and been keen to get on it.

I worked my way through quite a few of the routes at Ratho when I was a relatively inexperienced climber in the early eighties. I never did Pettifer's because it always seemed a bit too hard and intimidating at the time, but it has always been in the back of my mind. Yes, I hold my hands up to the fact that the ease, as a car owner, of going further afield and more recently the easy delights of the EICA for training and the earth cornice meant I never got around to doing it. Yes, I could have cleaned it and put a chain onn it myself, but I never did. I am now very grateful that Buzby has done that, giving me, Fiend and others in the future an excellent climb back.

In reply to Grahame N:


Not yet (still in today), but I think it may be imminent. There is not even the spurious earth cornice/dirt/chain excuse to leave them in

In reply to buzby78: yeah man, Sheer Fear was great. Easier than it looked, scarier than it needed to be. Jimb

In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

When you invent positions that I haven't taken, the onus is not on me to defend them.


If it hasn't had any attention for 20 years, I don't see who you're hurting.


So what are you saying? Only Buz was capable of cleaning the route and all trad climbers had to wait on him to exercise his god-like powers?


Totally the trad climbers fault, if you ignore something for decades you lose any claim to it.


No, that one must have passed me by. It did hurt all the people who could have enjoyed a nice 6c sport route. Even with the chains, I doubt that anyone other than Fiend and Robert are going to enjoy the route.


I mean that the rock was so long ignored and in such disrepair that the work Buz did practically makes him like a first ascentiont. It would be like me putting up a new sport route and some guys wanting to chop the bolts and trad lead it because "they were going to get round to cleaning it, honest 'guv!".

In reply to Robert Durran:

Because it's been ignored the same way Pettifer's has been. Nijinski receives tons of attention.


You can't just claim that my argument is disposed of, you have to actually disprove it first. Buz put in the hard work and chose the style for the rock that opened it up to lots of. You and Fiend didn't do any work, despite having decades to get round to doing it. Unfortunately it'll go back to being disused and being of no service to anyone.


No, you're just trying to attribute a facile maximum utility argument to me that I didn't make. If my position was that simplistic I would indeed be for retro-bolting everything. For someone so willing to negatively judge the intelligence of others you demonstrate poor reading comprehension.

In reply to gurumed:
Okay, the classic car is owned by the community. Obviously the route is trad and changing it is obviously taking away from someone.

You have no proof if this, we could easily take this thread, and just about you're the only one on this side. You are the vocal minority. Even Buz has shifted somewhat, as he has met people and watched some hard trad ascents.

Yes, I'm pretending their both the same... Obviously not.

In reply to gurumed:


You clearly have taken this stance, if you have not then will you please drop the 'has not been climbed for x years argument', except last year and perhaps more unlogged of course.


I thought you didn't care about traffic, you have just told me that getting more traffic is not your stance. Are you feeling okay?


Yes clearly that's what I'm saying. Obviously had there been a meeting trad climbers could have easily done it. Maybe you should have organised a clean up as you're very concerned about these routes being climbed regularly but you did nothing either. Buz I think in hindsight would say he should have organised something before retroing any routes.
The chains are a compromise, ideally you would be able to top out and the earth cornice be gone. One person said in the last thread that they were simply waiting for nature to take it's course and undo most the damage caused by the climbing centre i.e the earth cornice that's still there. But of course unknown to anyone else but you is the 'time between ascents rules'. Why would anyone compromise, when they can just wait? Obviously no one was consulted that anyone else wanted the route or desired to see it climbed right now. Which is why there has been a problem.


What's the trad climbers fault? Ratho putting a large earth cornice above the route? The lack of consultation that this route was at any risk? The diligent work that climbers across the country cleaning up quarries and lines up? One route becomes dirty for a few years and you scream neglect. As I have mentioned before, there's nothing instrinsically wrong with rock not being climbed for a few years. There's loads of virgin rock in the world and no one is shedding a tear for them or talking about how they're neglected and alone.


I get the feeling it really did pass you by. Sorry, I don't describe not climbing something as being 'hurt' by it. If anyone is broken up about not climbing it can but put a rope up on it. Anyone who can't be bothered is obviously not 'hurt'.


It doesn't matter whether anyone was going to clean it, cleaning it doesn't give anyone the right to change it in any other way without consultation and discussion. What is disrepair on a route? Was it falling down? Or harmed seriously apart from being a bit dirty?

Someone climbed and cleaned it last year, so even by your standards Buz isn't the first ascentionist


You didn't do any work either, Buz has removed the bolts. Maybe you shoukd respect his decision? Obviously fiend and robert can keep talking as they don't hold that cleaning anything gives anyone extra rights. Trad climbers clean routes all the time no one has ever taken that extra step to the chip/bolt/peg/graffiti/claim/alter the route to their whims down to the fact they cleaned it once. Everyone who bolts anything puts work into it, but we don't condone retrobolting regardless of the effort put into it.


Well, it's your main argument here. To serve the greater number, it isn't our fault that you find it has unacceptable consequences when extended else where. When you present a simplisitic argument by arguing for the masses missing out on the route, what are people to assume other than the fact you think that the more ascents a climb gets the better? If there is some sort of nuance to your argument you're going to have to explain it.

In reply to gurumed:

All potential future ascentionists and less directly those who value it's existence just as I value the existence of many, many routes i'll never climb.


Of course not. It just happens he got around to doing it.


Keep asserting this as much as you like. It doesn't make it any more true. As a matter of interest, how long does a route have to be ignored for before you consider it fair game for retro-bolting?


Me not bolting every other route in the quarry also hurts everyone who might have climbed them as a sport route but are not up to doing them as trad route. It's a complete non-argument.


I doubt it, but so what if that's the case. I doubt anyone apart from Dave Macleod is ever going to enjoy Echo Wall; it's probably filthy already. Should that be bolted up so that capable sport climbers can enjoy a good 8c?


Fiend wants to do it. I might even do it myself (though I may not be brave enough). Others might too. All the same arguments for chopping as for Pettifer's.


Please could you clarify in general terms, without specific reference to the Ratho situation, where you stand on the maximum utility thing. It really isn't clear to me. You seem to have back-pedalled quite some way from your earlier (and I suspect now quite embarrassing) "you don't need to clip the bolts" stance.

In reply to FreshSlate:

There is loads of virgin rock in the world and there's even plenty of it in Scotland if you go far enough from the main cities. Undeveloped rock close enough to Glasgow and Edinburgh that people can drive there easily is in shorter supply. Ratho is pretty much the most convenient possible crag in Central Scotland not only because it's close to the M8 between Glasgow and Edinburgh but because it has a big car park and cafe and in particular a climbing centre where lots of people go regularly right next door. The accessibility changes the cost of leaving the rock unused - it's more like a gap site in a city centre than a field in the country.

There are competing factors to be balanced and there are costs no matter what decision is taken. I think what is clear though is that the situation now is better than it was a few months ago.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Yes, and this can be sensibly done by cleaning trad routes and bolting new sport routes.


It certainly will be once the remaining retro-bolts are removed; this furore will hopefully have raised people's awareness of the good work Buzby has done and of the good climbing available in the quarry (both trad and sport) so that traffic will increase and routes remain in a good state.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

There appears to even be undeveloped rock in ratho quarry. Buz has more new routes to put up in the quarry whom few will have a problem with. I'm not sure what the cost you speak of is, I feel like people should be free to visit and climb where they want as they're not damaging the rock, breaking access restrictions etc. I don't think we should be trying to maximise the use any particular routes whether it is in a quarry or cloggy. The rock can still be climbed, in my local trad quarry plenty of people turn up with there families and put ropes on things. The problem seems to be that there is a climbing centre next door and people can't be bothered. But that's up to them right?



I generally agree, I think if I could magic that earth above away it would be even better.

In reply to gurumed:

Are you on a complete wind up, or are you really just a total prat?

In reply to Robert Durran:


I think this is a good solution, restore a few trad routes and maybe bolt a dozen new sport routes. Win-win right?

In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

Have you actually been in Ratho Quarry?

In reply to Robert Durran:

I'm not back-pedaling, perhaps you're just calming down enough to be able to listen?

In reply to Gurumed:

gurumed:

Robert:
>All potential future ascentionists and less directly those who value it's existence just as I value the existence of many, many routes i'll never climb."

This is really important as far as I'm concerned. Believe it or not people aspire to routes they cannot yet do. And yes, people even aspire to dirty routes in quarries. I may not have desires on PW but there are climbs locally that haven't been done for beards that I do intend doing. Some of these are in very underused quarries, and will need cleaning before I give them a go. But these routes, these aspirations, they motivate me to improve. But it takes time.

So if someone came along and took that away by transforming it into a 6c or whatever under some false assumption that no-one cares because it's not had a tick on UKC for 10 years or so then I'd be devastated - and the longer I've strived for it the more it's going to hurt.

In reply to Calder:

In the specific case of the retro-bolted routes at Ratho which are now getting sport traffic maybe a sporting solution would be an understanding the bolts will come out as soon as a trad climber with a specific intention to climb them on a stated day (rather than a general aspiration to potentially climb them) asks. It was great the way Pettifers Wall was publicly reclaimed with Robert's trad ascent and this would be in the same spirit.

In reply to Calder:

>"there are climbs locally that haven't been done for beards"

Awesome. Where's Mick Ryan when you need him?

jcm

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


I think that's a bit silly.

There are plenty of people out there who might a spire to wally 2 (Perhaps myself, Fiend, clearly, for instance) I really don't think he has to state a day to justify Buzby, me or anyone else removing the bolts.

In reply to gurumed:

You initially lost all credibility with anyone who knows anything at all about climbing with your "you don't have to clip the bolts" stance and then a long series of absurd and daft and ignorant posts.

You have, admittedly, now upped your game a bit (though still seem to be struggling to get a coherent argument together).

I actually now genuinely wonder whether you were initialy trolling. Or maybe you've now employed a more switched on proxy to post on your behalf.

.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Odd, isn't it. I still can't get past that anybody prepared to use to word 'mellifluous' can be so objectionably dense, however.

In reply to victim of mathematics:

He also used "phoneme" in that post while suggesting how I might improve my insults. It was this post which initially made me wonder whether he had a literate accomplice.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Does this mean they havn't yet been checked for the next edition of the SMC guide?

In reply to Robert Durran:

The main reason I suggested stating a day is so people who have an interest have a chance to watch and make the trad ascent an event everyone can feel good about. I wasn't trying to argue that it would be unjustified to do it any other way.

In reply to Robert Durran: Almost certainly.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

What an appalling idea - doing a chop route with a crowd of rabid pro-bolters baying for my blood. It was pressure enough doing Pettifer's with Buzby wathing and Fraser photographing.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I guess Buzby can keep the ashes of British trad climbing in a jar in his office until someone is ready to claim them back

Robert, if you weren't so unremittingly crotchety I would have grown bored of this thread long-ago.

In reply to victim of mathematics:

Perhaps the posit that I must either agree with you or be an imbecile is a false dichotomy?

In reply to gurumed:


I see what you've done there. I would applaud you if you weren't such an irritating waste of space x

In reply to Calder: & Robert:

Say a local council had a swimming pool that was only getting 10 visitors a month. They decide to turn it into a park, and the park then has dozens of people use it every day, office workers eating their sandwiches in the sunshine, parents taking their kids to play at the weekend, etc.

Obviously the people who did use the swimming pool would be upset. There would even be people who couldn't swim, but planned to learn in the future, who might be upset (although I'd see that as a pretty tenuous argument). But would you really think the council had done something unjustifiable?

>> If it hasn't had any attention for 20 years, I don't see who you're hurting.
>> All potential future ascentionists and less directly those who value it's existence just as I value the existence of many, many routes i'll never climb."

It's really important as far as I'm concerned too. Why is it better to preserve something for people who might use it in the future than to change it so many more people will use it now?

It would be very different if E4s in Scotland were an endangered species, or even if E4s in driving distance were, but that just isn't the case.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Wonder if there should be a geographic/population algorithm to factor in when trying to assess popularity? If this was near Gr Mcr, would have got many more views I think.

In reply to beychae:

That doesn't make sense. If you 'change it' the ascents will still come in the future, not 'now'. And the number of people isn't a good argument either.



I take it you've already done most of the central belt 6c routes?

In reply to Grahame N:

Good contribution!

In reply to gurumed:


Nobody ever said it was a true on; a lot of people disagree with me and only one or two are imbeciles.

In reply to beychae:

We're talking about climbing here with its rich and wonderful heritage and intrinsic and essential elitism (no, it's not a dirty word) and NOT council politics.


See above. Because I don't believe climbing should be part of the convenience culture dumbing down so much of our everyday non-climbing existence.


Ok. Tell me how many good (one or more stars) E4's there are within sensible evening cragging distance (one hour's drive say) of Edinburgh.

In reply to beychae:

Except this swimming pool has a massive park next door already with regularly changing attractions, that is always stays dry and safe.


Yes, it's a massive shame, because no one in that community will learn to swim, and of course if it set a precedent of no one learning how to swim in the country then we will have lost something important. I'm not sure if the future argument is tenuous, if kids were upset from being deprived of the chance to swim, I'd listen. Obviously we're ignoring the brownfields that are also next door and will accept another park but it's just a little easier to build over the community swimming pool. Seem's a bit pointless to me.

Didn't Tom Randall just put up two new e7s? How many ascents are they going to have in the next 20 years? Have you asked him to kindly ab back down to bolt them? Here's his twitter: https://twitter.com/TomRandall2

Please write back what he says!

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I like the sentiment here, and it's the freeing of routes that trad embraces. There's the fa and the ffa. It's about the taking that next step to a pure ascent, no pegs, no points of aid, no side runners and onsight if it's possible. Such an event that climb was that people bothered to wittness it, take pictures and document it and its been discussed a fair bit since. I feel the route deserves more than a no star sport grade. I'm not sure all retroed routes restored would have be announced in this same way though.

However, the reason I wouldn't really accept this is that unilateral decisions shouldn't be upheld, or be given any weight to by having to fulfil certain specific criteria first before correcting them.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Not quite sure I've understood this. Any decisions you make can only ever impact on future events.

Perhaps it would be better if we looked at it from the point-of-view of the state of Pettifer's Wall 3 months ago: if it stayed as a trad climb you might expect it to get 1 ascent over the next two years, and as a sport climb you might expect it to get 100 ascents over the next two years.


Why not?


Why is this relevant?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Here your argument seems to be that trad climbing has a long history, so even if most trad climbers would consider a particular route to be better as a sports route, they shouldn't be allowed to bolt it because people haven't bolted trad routes in the past.


There are 33 E4s by my count, which compares to 2 6c sports climbs. And trying to change my point by limiting it to starred routes is an underhand tactic -- sports climbers in the UK definitely don't have the luxury of only choosing starred routes.

(Ratho: 3, Thorntons: 4, Fourth : 3, Wolfcrag: 2, N Queenferry: 2, Rostyh: 1, Limekilns: 6, Benarty Hill: 2, Roslin: 10
Sports: N Berwick Law: 2)

In reply to FreshSlate:

So do you think outdoor sports climbing, on rock, is the same as indoor lead climbing?


The problem with that response is that I'm not saying people shouldn't learn trad climbing! I just think that it's an unfair division of limited resources if they're reserved for one thing, but hardly ever used for that, when other people could and would make use of it otherwise.

I do however worry that beginners are always pushed into trad climbing in this country (and I'm even guilty of having done that myself :$), although it won't really suit all of them. It's easy to say "well you can start on a diff, we'll even have you on a top rope too, it's absolutely safe", without mentioning that trad climbing is a version of a slightly different sport, but with extra risk added purely so the participants can get a thrill out of that risk.

Also - Ratho quarry is really not a good place for peple to learn trad, there are only a handful of sub-E1 routes in it.


This is a long way from the topic of Ratho. However, I think it would be pretty presumptuous of me to ask someone to bolt a route I wasn't capable of climbing!

In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

Given that Tom Randall didn't put up these new E7s up in Ratho Quarry your question isn't pertinent. Besides, I don't remember anyone here asking first ascentionists to bolt their trad routes.

In reply to Robert Durran:

If you believe that elitism is an essential component of climbing, then your position is most definitely a selfish one. It certainly explains your vainglorious desire to have the rock be kept in a state in which only a tiny minority will ever enjoy it.

If you want Pettier's to be a chop route in order to give yourself a supercilious ego boost, that isn't particularly laudable but it is a genuine motivation. If this is the case, at least have the decency of expressing your position honestly and spare us sanctimonious arguments of trad ethics.

In reply to beychae:


"Better" or "more popular" or "more accessible". Not by any means the same thing.
Anyway, who are these "trad climbers"? Those who only climb trad or those who do trad and sport?

But yes, I basically think that routes should not be retro-bolted unless their is an overwhelming concensus amongst all climbers.


I think 6c is a much "narrower" band than E4; probably fairer to include 6c+ as well. But whatever. Tough. There are more trad routes (and 33 including the crap ones is not many anyway) than sport routes. Deal with it or move to France or wherever. Or find some new lines or quarries to bolt.

In reply to gurumed:

By elitism I simply mean that you have to accept, as I do, that some routes are too hard for you. Others with more talent and/or determination will do them but you will not. The alternative, taken to it's logical conclusion, is wholesale bolting and chipping; the destructiuon of all the challenge that makes climbing so great. As such, I think elitism is absolutely essential to climbing.


Yup (not vainglorious though)


Pettifer's is not a chop route. I was refering to wally 2.


I don't. I wanted the fine challenge it offers and which others can now also take up.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I think I mean anyone who climbs any trad. Could even include myself in that, I'm not planning to sell my trad rack, and have very little objection to good multi-pitch mountain V Diffs.


OK, I think you're right, actually


I'd be quite happy to accept that if I thought I was the only person who wanted a better balance between trad and sports routes. But I suspect it's a sizeable minority of outdoor climbers.

In reply to beychae:

Just trying to understand your position here. Feel free to correct me but I think you're saying better as a sport route because more people will do it?

In which case this is a complete non-argument as you could say the same thing for most E4s.

In reply to gurumed:


This argument above is utterly stupid. If this particular piece of rock is too hard for you to climb in its natural state - either because the gear isn't good enough or because you are too weak or lack the technique or whatever, then that is no argument to bring the route down to your level by bolting it if it is an already established trad route of quality. That's not being elitist, it's being humble. It is accepting that some things are beyond you at the moment (although with practice they may not always be). Retroing established quality trad routes is generally an arrogant game. It's not about supply and demand, it's not about making things accessible. Almost everything worth having in life requires struggle and effort, and if the struggle and effort or commitment of a particular route is too much at that point in time then so be it.

In reply to beychae:
I'm saying it's much closer to sport climbing than trad is. I'm saying that the guy who can lead 6c can find a nice sheltered place with refreshments to do that. He can get his fix, with a world class venue next door.
I think it's sad that we're talking about division of resources, especially as Buz says there's loads more new routes to bolt in the quarry. The resources are there, people just haven't bothered putting the legwork in yet to bolt new lines. I guess as there is a massive climbing centre next door, people haven't had felt compelled to do so. Must be because they're getting their fix already.


I've never pushed anyone into anything in my life. I have never failed to explain to people the risks (and of course teach people to avoid them). You fail to grasp climbing, trad climbing is just climbing, no one has decided to put more 'spice' into things. People see a line and then climb it, they climb it and make it as safe as possible with the gear they have. They can do this all over the world with first ascents on isolated spires, towers and unclimbed big walls. Trad climbing can be safer than sport and often is, it's not a convoluted attempt to 'spice things up' as you seem to think, it is just climbing. People die and are injured in sport climbing, there are spicy bolts that are way more run out than you would place gear. There are bolts that are pointless because you're crashing and breaking your legs on a massive ledge anyway. People casually lower others off the end of the rope, and there has been bolt failures that have lead to deaths.


Obviously. Though one of your previous arguments was that bolting e4's would help people get into trad...

Can you climb the e4?

In reply to beychae:
>

Life's not always fair. And that's not a bad thing. As LakesWinter said, it's good to have to work hard, or step outside your comfort zone, or confront your fears to attain something because it's satisfying, and you value it more. Something possibly evident in the fact that for well over a week there have only been two people arguing for the bolts in this case. And several, if not many, arguing against.

Of course, if you still think it's unfair there's not enough 6c's then you could go and establish some new ones couldn't you - just think of all these hundreds of folk that are crying out for more sport climbs that would do it and thank you for it. Or is that too much like hard work?

n reply to LakesWinter:

This piece of rock had been ignored for decades and was buried under a bank of earth. None of the climbers in the area capable of doing a route like this had bothered cleaning it because they were too busy climbing other lines of higher quality in better areas. The recent trad ascents that have been made were only done to make a point.


Are you arguing for the chains to be removed from the top?

In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

Are you saying Ratho Quarry is a world class venue? You either haven't been there or you're off your meds, dude.

In reply to Calder:

I agree; I'm not arguing for retro bolting of all bold or hard trad. What I'm talking about is this specific scrappy route in this particular scruffy quarry. Nobody is or was aspiring to do this route. Nor will anybody once this thread is forgotten. That's why chopping the bolts was a waste. The rock is essentially being chucked in the bin so that a couple of guys could play hero on it.


I think if you took a count in terms of locals, you'd find the only two people arguing for the bolt chopping have been the guys who wanted to trad lead it. This thread is a continuation of a tedious 799 post thread.

In reply to gurumed:

Just go on the climbing wall and shut up please.

In reply to gurumed:

True to an extent (obviously).
Also because it is an excellent ** route at a grade which gave me a fine challenge.
Also to draw attention to the fact that Pettifer's wall is an excellent route in the hope that it and other routes in the quarry get more traffic and stay cleaner.


FFS


Of course he is. Better sport than Ceuse, better trad than than The Dubh Loch. Pity the crappy climbing wall next door detracts a bit from it though.


It is an excellent route in a pretty good quarry. have you climbed in many quarries?


This is complete bollocks. Has your proxy brain with their mellifluous phonemes abandonerd you? The intelligence of your posts seems to be returning to it's former depths.


This is also complete bollocks and you know it (unless you are even less intelligent than I have been giving you credit for). Many have posted on this and the other thread. Several othere have emailed me privately in support; the tip of the iceberg.

In reply to gurumed:

Wow. Robert was right in his sweary phase, you are a spectacular f*cking imbecile. How you can be so utterly stupid yet somehow use a keyboard and even the quote function, I don't know. If there's a time UKC needed some auto-IQ-filter for posting, this is it.

He was also right in his sweary phase that your cretinous trolling isn't worth replying to - in fact it's so facetious that it's scarcely possible to reply to it. But the last thing this debate needs is more lies, so just to make a couple of corrections:


Complete shit - I'd ask why bother to write such lies about people's motivations but I don't expect a comprehensible answer. My ascent was solely because I wanted to do the bloody route (obviously!!), especially since it was now clean, chalked, and lower-off installed, and looked really cool and inspiring - which, if you'd bothered to read both Robert's and my report on climbing it, it was.

And in case anyone else wants to come out with any other lies about why I hadn't cleaned and done it before, I'll reiterate the clear truth that "I haven't done it because I've been exploring the rest of Scotland and have saved it for a short local day" - and the other week was that short day, with a mate who had never been to Ratho Quarry before and was keen to check it out.



More complete shit. Again, more lies about people's motivations. Hero?? WTF. It's climbing. And to be honest, it's not hard climbing either. There's loads of normal climbers I know who could do it and probably will now.

And if you or anyone else thinks Robert's or my motivations for standing up for UK trad climbing principles and a sport/trad balance are solely based on wanting to climb the routes, you are even more moronic than I thought (quite a feat in itself). The same with a load of other climbers arguing against un-contested retrobolting on here (and loads I know expressing the same view offline) - we're obviously primarily arguing for a principle we believe in, and in some - but obviously nowhere near all - cases with extra motivation from wanting to climb the routes in question.

Hopefully you will manage to grow enough brain cells to get into double figures and realise your time to STFU and stop posting has long passed (I believe it was the point where you started your non-contributions with "a bunch of whiney bitches" and then swiftly proceeded to berate others for "ad hominem" attacks), but in the unfortunate event that you don't, I trust others with stronger stomachs will keep on correcting your nonsensical fallacious drivel.

In reply to Fiend:

I see, the rock should sit for decades doing nothing waiting for you while there are hundreds of people that would like to sport climb it? I can understand why that is desirable to you, but it's undeniably selfish.


I didn't say that you were heroes (certainly not mine), but that you were playing at hero. If proving your bravery for an ego boost wasn't the goal you could've just not clipped the bolts.


I hope you're right. It doesn't look like it'll pan out that way if the last twenty years are any indication, unfortunately.


You were being whiney bitches: "Waaa! Why'd Buz bolt the route? It's only been twenty years, we were going to get round to cleaning it eventually! Waaa!"


Insulting me personally to say that my view is not worth hearing instead of facing the points head on is pretty much the definition of an ad hominem.

In reply to gurumed:


So, if all these peole were so keen to sport climb it, why didn't they clean and bolt it years ago? Good at shooting yourself in the foot, aren't you?


For f*ck's sake. I've clearly been overestimating your intelligence in every single one of my previous replies to your pathetic crap. After nearly a thousand posts on the combined threads you return yet again to an argument which everyone, absolutely everyone, who has any knowledge about climbing and the tiniest of brains at all thinks is total, utter, complete shite.


Your views are not worth hearing. Many people have made that clear to you. The vast majority of the people who support the retro-bolting must squirm when they read your brainless piles of stinking shit. You are a moron. Sorry, but you are. Someone emailed me, supporting my position, but suggesting I pulled back from the name calling. He had a point. But facts are facts. You are moron. You are a dick-head. You are a pointless f*cking idiot.

In reply to Robert Durran:

You are moron. You are a dick-head. You are a pointless f*cking idiot.


Yes I think that about covers it.

In reply to Robert Durran:

They weren't aware of it because it was a untouched dirty wall in the quarry. Buz cleaned it up and bolted it, basically putting it back on the map as a new route. Then you started moaning to get the bolts removed. Try to keep up.


"you [...] ignorant idiot?"
"...such moronic arguments..."
"...such a moronic dick-headed..."
"...a moron and a dickhead."
"Ypou are an idiot."
"Gurumed's views are founded on such an ocean of ignorance, stupidity and gross assumption"
"the stinking shite you spout"
"[your] lack of intellectual capacity"
"your daft incoherent rantings"
"...you are too stupid..."
"...gross, ignorant, stupid and in this case really pretty offensive..."
"You really are a complete dick-head aren't you?"
"...just aren't bright enough..."
"...Gurumed, whose pathetic apology for a neural network..."
"I only called you and Bechae morons. [...] (because you are)."
"What makes you a moron (in fact virtually amoebically submoronic in intellect)"
"I am calling you a moron because of your monumental ignorance"
"even a man of modest intelligence reading the thread would see what a moron you are"
"...Gurumed, as usual, either through stupidity..."
"your own tiny f*cking head."
"[you] are too f*cking stupid to understand anything you read"
"You are moron. You are a dick-head. You are a pointless f*cking idiot."

If my intellegience is lower than your previous estimations then I must have an IQ comparable to that of a glass of water.

In reply to Fiend:

I'd quote all that, but suffice to say, I agree!

In reply to Calder:

Do you think that the prospect of being subjected to a prolonged and vicious personal attack might, perhaps, put some of the pro-bolters off replying to this thread?

In reply to gurumed:


'Ocean of Ignorance' would be a great name for a route, it's almost poetic.

"To myself I am only a child playing on the beach, while vast oceans of truth lie undiscovered before me." Isaac Newton.

In reply to gurumed:


If they were serious about putting some actual effort into finding more sport routes (rather than expecting them to be handed to them on a plate) they would have been going round looking for dirty "untouched" walls in quarries.


Of course a lot of people started moaning about the almost universally unacceptable retro-bolting of a route without proper consultation.


No, a glass of stale piss.

In reply to beychae:


I have only subjected gurumed to a prolonged and vicious personal attack (the one on you was not really prolonged). The reasons for this will be self evident to any intelligent person reading the threads (as will the fact that serious posters will be taken seriously).

In reply to beychae:

Has anyone been attacked? (except gurumed of course) who is reveling in it. He's baiting the insults and feeding off the attention. I'm not a fan of swearing, but then again I have laughed out loud a few times at some of them. Some people enjoy the kick of winding people up, it's verging on a bit sad now but harmless.

In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

I'm just putting on a brave face, dude. In reality I cry myself to sleep each night over the hurtful things Robert says about me.

In reply to gurumed:

Good. You deserve it.

In reply to Robert Durran:
I'm quite sure that the thought of genuinely hurting my feelings makes you positively tumescent. Fortunately for me, I find your bawdry rebukes to be an absolute lark.

In reply to beychae:

Most of the pro-bolters are too busy having fun climbing somewhere. The anti-bolters leave routes like pettifer's unused for decades waiting for someone else to clean them, so they have tons of time to post here.

In reply to gurumed:

Somewhere a long way away hopefully.


I don't really have time and am suffering from a certain amount of sleep deprivation in order not to comproimise my work, training and climbing. I just consider it an important battle which needs to be fought.

I cannot believe this is actually still being discussed, get over it.

On a side note, I am considering creating a few dry tooling lines, always thought Ratho Quarry was an ideal place for it. Some dry tooling first ascents coming my way!

In reply to gurumed:

You have posted 67 times in these two threads compared to three times on any other topic. You are literally on this forum to post endlessly in these two threads. You do appear to be going out of your way visiting this forum to post about these 3 routes. Robert posts here anyway.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Dont know the crag. Just a question.

Is there an existing agreed drilled gear policy for the crag/area? If so, what is it?

In reply to Choss:

The MC of S guidelines:
http://www.mcofs.org.uk/climbing-code.asp


This paragraph is the critical one:

"Retro-bolting (the addition of bolts to established climbs without them) should only be considered with the permission of the first ascensionist and after wide consultation with interested climbers at local and national level"

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

In reply to Robert Durran:


It is, but neither the MCofS, nor any other body in Scotland, support any process or mechanism for such consultation to take place.

In reply to Mark Bull:

Indeed, and this sorry incident perhaps suggests that one is needed. Or at least guidelines on carrying out an appropriate consultation.

Meanwhile, common semse needs to be applied. In this instance perhaps a well publicised open meeting and/or even just a UKC thread BEFORE the retro-bolting might have sufficed. What is certain is that the guidelines were not met and this is why the remaining retro-bolts must be removed.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Again, i dont know the crag, or local situation. Just say if Im out of my depth.

Would it not be possible to organise a regional meet on the issue, possibly through MCofS, get all interested groups and people there, and hammer out a consensus agreement?

Gotta be better for the local climbing than trading forum insults?

In reply to Choss:


Yes, and I know Buzby is pretty keen on the idea. However, such a discussion must obviously take place only after the removal of all the retro-bolts.


At least the heated debate on here has shown the need for such a discussion and might have helped set the agenda.

In reply to Robert Durran:

That seems a little short-sighted. If the consensus was that the bolts on these routes should stay it would be a waste of time removing them.

In reply to Robert Durran:

forget preconditions surely.

Organise meet with status quo (not the band), reach regional consensus then proceed accordingly.

As long as all sides agree to abide by consensus agreement no worries.

In reply to gurumed:


The presumption is clearly against retro-bolting. That is the starting point for discussion and I believe it should be the physical starting point too. Allowing the bolts to remain sets a dangerous precedent of "bolt now, discuss later".

In reply to gurumed:

If it ends up being my time, then I'd be quite happy to "waste" it; don;'t worry on my behalf

In reply to Robert Durran:

That is your own biased assumption. You're a dude who loses his temper and insults people at the drop of the hat; impulse control doesn't seem to be your strong suit. I fail to see why your personal whims should be indulged just because it would make you feel all warm and squishy inside. The first ascentionists were fine with the retro-bolting in these cases, surely that would be the starting point?


Tell us, what terrible thing happened that made you into such a grinch? Are you really so desperate to stop people enjoying the rock that you'd go through the effort to take the bolts out, if only for a couple of months?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Robert - here you've just offered to re-bolt the routes, if the decision goes in favour of retro-bolting.

And obviously you're not a man to make a mistake*, or go back on his word, so I'll just say that's very gallant of you

* If the decision goes against the retro-bolting, and the bolts have already been removed, no one will have wasted any time.

In reply to beychae:


No I have not.


Indeed not. Gurumed wrote "it would be a waste of time removing them" and I replied that I would not mind "wasting" my time doing that. In fact it would not be a waste of my time; it would be an excellent use of my time and I might well do so if Buzby doesn't remove them soon.

If I did remove them, I would certainly never ever be volunteering to replace them in any circumstances even if the whole world were in favour of them being replaced.

In reply to Robert Durran:

very difficult to de-bolt a route without damaging the rock, and hence the original route.

Better everyone stops further bolting/chopping, and organise a consensual crag/area drilled gear policy that everyone abides by.

In reply to gurumed:


An assumption based on all precedent.


No I only lose my temper after careful consideration and ample justification (for example after reading one of your idiotic posts).


They were not fine with it.

The starting point was unbolted routes. Surely even you can understand that. Oh, of course, I forgot, you are really thick.....so probably not.


The terrible retro-bolting of these routes.


The motivation is not to stop people enjoying themselves, but, yes, I would take them out because of the principle at stake.

In reply to Choss:

The bolts on Wally 2 are the same type as on Pettifer's and can be removed very cleanly with a crow bar with absolutely no further damage to the rock. The damage to Pettifer's by the bolting is surprisingly minimal - I hardly noticed it.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Gurumed said:

I think it's pretty obvious in this case that the time would be wasted because they would have to be put back in again. And you replied saying you were happy with it being your time that was wasted.

I do know that wasn't what you meant to say - you'd be quite happy forcing someone else to have to put the time in, just to spite all the pro-bolters. It's a very similar mentality to chopping the lower-off from Pettifers would be.

In reply to beychae:


I said precisely what I meant. If you choose to twist my words then that > is entirely your problem.


The last thing I would ever do is force anybody to retro-bolt a route.


It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with spite. It is entirely about the principle of not retro-bolting routes.

In reply to beychae:

The routes should be in their original state before any discussion, as otherwise we are condoning unilateral actions before proper consultation in the future. That could go both ways. No one would force anyone to do anything, if someone desires to bolt the route after an agreement to allow the retrobolting then they may, but no particular person will be forced the do the work. Just like Buzby was not forced to do any of the work he did. Perhaps you and gurumed can rebolt them if necessary, you two are the most vocal pro bolters but are you all talk?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Fine. You say that the rock should be exactly as it was before any action was taken. In that case, if you de-bolt Wally 2 prior to the meeting, you'd better remove the lower-off on Pettifers as well. And ideally then pour a load of mud down it.

I've been challenged to take action - so, if you de-bolt anything but leave the Pettifers lower-off, I'll remove it myself.

In reply to beychae:

Ok, if you want to be so f*cking petty then go ahead. First you might like to consider that lots of people object on principle to the bolts on Wally 2, but I havn't heard anyone object to the chain on Pettifer's except as sour grapes - yes, I'll call it spite in your case, because that is clearly all it is.

In reply to Ian Paterson:

>I cannot believe this is actually still being discussed, get over it.

Nor can I. Robert, these two are a waste of time. Just take the 'kin bolts out.

jcm

In reply to Robert Durran:

Petty it is. But I prefer to think of it as lowering myself to your standards.

If it was purely principle that's at stake, why would you want to de-bolt Wally 2, but not remove the lower-off? Maybe the principle isn't simply "drilling holes in the rock", or "making changes to a climb prior to consultation".

I think your criteria really is, "what's best for Robert".

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

They are indeed. Quite frighteningly clueless - which is why I fear for the future.


I probably will.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Wow, dude. Coming from you, that is rich!

In reply to beychae:

It always has been, but he doesn't want to admit it. That's why he goes off his nut when you highlight that.

In reply to beychae:

Or, and I'm going out on a big limb here, it's the fact that the lower-offs are apparently totally uncontentious. If somebody has a serious issue with the lower offs, then fine, we can have this argument. Until such a time, maybe stop being such an epic prick just for the sake of it x

In reply to beychae:

You'll have to learn to climb in more than one way to get anywhere near my standards.


Th principle is to preserve the routes in as near their original state as makes any sense to any reasonable person, not to unreasonable dickheads.


I am deeeply passionate about climbing and it's rich heritage and it's future. My criterion is "what is best for climbing". As a climber that probably does, incidentally equate to "what's best fro Robert".

In reply to Robert Durran:

Hi Rob, I am planning on taking the bolts out of Wally 2. I'm pretty busy over the next couple of weeks so not sure if I can do this that quickly. You're more than welcome to borrow the crow bar that's in the climbers office.

I'm not yet fully convinced that Slow Strain should be de-bolted. Although if you really feel that strongly that it should, you know where the crow bar is! Speak soon, buz

In reply to gurumed:

Coming from you, that is, as always, based on monumental ignorance and stupidity. Arsehole.

In reply to buzby78:

Thanks buz. Does Robert get immunity from mob lynchings too??

Once again I want to reiterate that that (current retro-bolt removal) is the only "anti-bolt" (a weird concept as as an all-round cragger I am "pro-bolt") action we want. There is no-one suggesting making the bolt removal wedge any thicker at all!!

In reply to buzby78:


Ok. Thanks. I might well do so. I think the sooner they go the better.

In reply to Fiend:

I'm sure big Bob will be fine!

In reply to Fiend:


I doubt it.

Do you fancy Wally 2 on Sunday? If I remove the bolts tomorrow, I'll have already, in a public spirited display of self-sacrifice, have blown my own onsight, so I'd happily give you a belay!

In reply to Robert Durran: Seems settled.

The lower-off was actually left in place with the agreement of the FA, buz, and sounded out on the previous thread. It has been the most informed and open decision on this matter to date.

In reply to FreshSlate:

Will you be attending this debate that is to eventually be had?

In reply to Robert Durran:

I'm terribly worried for your safety; if you chop the bolts I may have to chip in some extra gear placements in order to be able to sleep at night.

In reply to beychae:

Sorry, I just heard "if I can't climb it, no one can". Robert taking out bolts has been his stance the whole time. You talking out bolts would be completely against everything you have argued this whole time. Hypocritical and spiteful. It's lucky you don't like getting your hands dirty.

In reply to beychae:


I assume you'll also be removing all the uncontentious bolts on the new routes Buzby has bolted then.

In reply to beychae:

If a public meeting is held at EICA there's quite likely a majority for equipping every route with top ropes, so the lower offs might come in handy

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Indeed. I think that, say, an impromtu meeting held at the EICA on a Tuesday evening might result in a concensus extremely unrepresentive of Scottish or Central Belt based climbers. A well publicised meeting at a neutral venue would be needed to produce a representative concensus. I am absolutely confident that such a concensus would be against the re-retro-bolting of the routes.

The onus would, I think, be on the pro-retro-bolters to take the initiative in organising such a credible meeting; after all, it is they who want to change the status quo and overturn all precedent.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Isn't Ratho the best place for a meeting to find out what people who climb at Ratho think?

My guess is that in central Scotland trad climbing has fallen in popularity relative to sport and bouldering because the indoor options are world class and there are limited outdoor options within easy driving distance.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I see the logic here, but out in the quarry? What if it rains? .

In reply to Robert Durran:


No it doesn't. Plenty of reasonable people that enjoy trad and sport think there are some routes originally climbed trad that should be bolted. The argument for this is to have what they consider is a better balance between the two.


Really your criterion is what you think is best for climbing, which (with I suspect little incidence) equates to what's best for Robert.

In reply to Donnie:


Not just Robert I assure you. I have still yet to speak to another climber about this situation who agrees with the retro-bolting... this thread just me proves just how many people out there don't give a flying f*** about the history and uniqueness of the climbing scene in this country.

Funnily enough I don't seem to know any of them though...?

The crunch statement is this. Why do you need to retro-bolt existing trad routes, when there are ample sport routes already in the quarry (and the scope for more apparently)?

Trist

In reply to Smelly Fox: I actually agree about Ratho (I went and had a shot on the sport routes the other week) and I realise Robert's not alone in his general views re retro-bolting.

What I find a bit annoying is branding everyone that disagrees with him unreasonable idiots, and the idea that he knows what's 'best for climbing' and isn't at all self interested in his views.

RE the uniqueness and history of the GB climbing seen... it'd be a shame if they 'bolted everything' or really good trad routes. I just think there could be a better balance between sport and trad without turning us into Europe, destroying trad climbing for ever etc.

In reply to Robert Durran:

So now that you've had time to reflect and realise that it's unlikely to go 100% your way a meeting isn't good enough?


You mean you'd like a crowd who don't already find you to be cretinous?


So you think you deserve a veto on what happens but everyone else should do the work? Who crowned you king of Ratho?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Totally, dude. And it is only right that it's the locals who should have the say.

In reply to Donnie:

Absolutely. 90% of the climbing I do is trad and I felt the bolting was fine. There are few people I've met as egoless as Buz, and he thought it was a good idea.


It's always been what's best for Robert. He's the kind of guy who leaves his rope up on a route for half an hour while he climbs something else, or on walking up and seeing that half a dozen people are working a boulder problem, will still jump on and do 15 minutes of endurance laps.

In reply to Donnie:


Maybe, but my comment which you were replying to ("The principle is to preserve the routes in as near their original state as makes any sense to any reasonable person, not to unreasonable dickheads") was referring to the reason why the chain has been left on Pettifer's. I was simply stating a principle. Please try to read and understand posts before replying to them


In that there is something I really love which I passionately do not want to see destroyed, you can look at it like that if you want.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Yes, but this goes way beyond the just the people who climb in Ratho quarry; there is a much bigger principle at stake.

In reply to Donnie:


For f*ck's sake. If you had actually bothered to read the thread, you would know I have only branded two people idiots (because by any normal standards their posts stink of idiocy). I have gone out of my way repeatedly to emphasise that I am not branding other pro-bolters with the same brush. So your statement above is at best ignorant and at worst a rather nasty lie.


Of course I have my own views on what is best for climbing, as I'm sure everyone else does to a lesser or graeter extent.


Pettifer's is, for a start, a really good trad route. I have no objection to "a better balance" but it must be achieved through proper consultation and certainly not by retro bolting routes.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Sorry I am up with Aberdeen friends this weekend as they'd originally planned. Could meet you one evening early in the week if it's still light enough?? Assuming there's stuff you still fancy...

We could also trim down the trees over-shadowing Wally 1 / Gruel Brittania, hone one of the stumps down into a spike, and mount gurumed's head on it??

In reply to gurumed:


Please stop making stuff up. Any meeting resulting in a credible decision should of course , as far as is possible, reflect a representative range of views, as far as is possible reflecting the balance of views out there.


Oh please do just f*ck off.


Just what the f*ck are you on about?


Except that he has now changed his mind.


If I leave a rope, I always say to those around to pull it if they want or to tell anyone else who looks like they want the line to pull it.


That is a blatant lie. I would always work on a basis of give and take. The vast majority of people at Ratho manage to coexist in a friendly and mutually accomodating way. Maybe it is you that has a problem.

In reply to buzby78:


I borrowed the crow bar this evening and went to remove the bolts and chain from Wally 2. The chain's bolts and three of the six bolts on the route sheared off neatly flush with the rock when levered with the crow bar (as expected). However, the other three bolts (first, third and sixth) just rotated and are still there. Obviously I am anxious to finish the job. I presume the remaining bolts will need to be cut (or perhaps there is a way of applying sufficient force to pull them out directly). I am no expert on the appropriate tools or methods, so would welcome any advice or help. I also intend to go back and attempt to scrub off the remnants of glue around the bolts to leave as neat a job as possible.

In reply to Robert Durran:

If anyone needs to borrow a grinder, i can bring one in next week.

Disclaimer: I don't mind either way about the bolts, for what its worth. But would if they are removed, id like it done properly. Hence the offer of grinder to tidy up.

In reply to Fiend:


Tuesday would work for me, weather permitting. I could be there by 4.30, giving two and a half hours of daylight if you can make it. However, wally 2 is unfortunately not yet fully restored to it's rightful state. It looks good though - worth waiting for; bring your full rack of micro-offsets I won't give anything else away......


Sounds like a plan.

Shall be in touch.

In reply to Fiend:

Cleaning up the East Bay would be a nice way to give something back, seeing as you both got to climb Pettifer's after Buz did all the work of cleaning it up.

In reply Robert Durran:

So your desperation to pull the bolts before anyone else could enjoy the route was so great that you've rushed it and done it badly? Good job. That's some noble work you're doing.

In reply to Adam Lincoln:

Is a grinder is what is needed to cut off the remaining bolts, that would be great. Thanks. I can be there from 4.30 Tuesday and Thursday. Get in touch.

In reply to gurumed:


Not desperate. Just the sooner the wrong is put right the better.

Correction: I have not done it badly; it just turned out to be more difficult than anticipated following Buzby's experiencre of removing the bolts from Pettifer's. The job is just not finished yet; I fully intend it to be finished well.

In reply to Robert Durran:

The boulderers at Ratho that I know are reading this thread will be laughing; this is one of the things you are famous for doing.

In reply to Fiend:


Stump? A small twig would be amply strong enough to support the weight of Gurumed's cranium.

In reply to gurumed:

If I'm doing endurance sets of problems, I might sometimes ask to go quickly in front of someone else who is making well spaced attempts on a problem. If it is a problem for them, they could always say no. In the reverse position, I would always be accomodating. It's just a bit of civil give and take.

In reply to Robert Durran:
Robert. If you need more leaverage can I suggest that you put a one inch thick piece of timber under the fulcrum of the crow bar and slide a piece of scaffoldind tube (or similar) over the bar to increase its length.
When you extend the length of the bar then you'll increase the moment applied to the bolt. I'd be amazed if that does not pull them.
B.

In reply to Hay:


Thanks. If I understand you correctly, the piece of wood is just there to protect the rock - I didn't try levering against the rock this evening because I didn't want to damage the rock. The extension might not be needed. If I get to Ratho tomorrow, I'll give it a go. failing that, Tuesday.

In reply to gurumed:
Good point, you climbed Pettifer's too, what work are you doing?

In reply to Robert Durran:
Not sure of the physics but the block of wood will help increase the amount of leaverage. Must be something to do with the position of the fulcrum. A longer bar will make things immeasurably easier though.
Good luck.
B.

In reply to Robert Durran: Hi Robert, I thought you meant any one that didn't agree with the principle was an unreasonable idiot. Clearly you meant anyone that didn't understand the principle. So apologies on that count.

RE the rest - implicit in what I said is that I think a bit of retro bolting would help achieve a better balance. Given that there's not loads of undeveloped central belt rock retro bolting's pretty much necessary achieve it here.... Obviously you think preserving trads more important that getting a better balance.. fair enough, but too me you come across a bit arrogant in the way you argue for it. Obviously hard to judge tone on an internet forum though!

And, for what it's worth, now I've been out to try the sport stuff at Ratho I think leaving the trad routes trad is probably the right thing to do.

In reply to Hay:

using wooden blocks (preferably hardwood) under 'point' end of jemmy wont only protect rock from direct damage.

The more parallel to rock your Jemmy when you start levering, the more direct the pull on the bolt placement will be, if that makes sense?

Easier extraction and less enlargement of bolt hole edges.

I know what i mean anyway.

In reply to Donnie:

The thing is, 'better' is open to debate. Better for whom?

I think retro-bolting is only the 'better' way when the route in question would be a better quality sport than trad route. Obviously you'd also need permission from the FA and the general consensus to be in favour of it.

In reply to Donnie:

Not nearly as arrogant as expecting loads of sport climbing on your doorstep. If you want to clip bolts and there are none around or you have done everything at your grade, travel. It is what has always happened in the past.

There is way more trad than low grade sport in the Peak District. With that attitude we should retro a few grit crags to counter the balance.

Trist

In reply to Smelly Fox:

I'm not expecting 'loads of sport climbing on my door step'. I'm just giving my view - that there should be a bit more at the expense of some trad - in a debate. I'm not saying my views any better than anyone else's view, I'm just calling for people to agree somewhere in the middle of the range of views.


If the majority of local climbers wanted that, then yes.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Indeed. I think a better balance overall taking into consideration the wants of all climbers. That's just my view though, as some one that does both.


Generally a good rule of thumb, but I don't think looking at it on a route by route basis is the best way forward. I think you need to look at the available rock in the area and agree a reasonable balance. Weighted a bit in favor of what was there first, what the FA thinks etc. but not no retro bolting unless absolutely everyone agrees. The FA climbed it first they don't own it.

In reply to Donnie:
And you are of course entitled to your view.

How would you define local then. Less than an hour drive? Less than 2, 3? Who gets the say? I live in Glasgow, do I? What about those living in Aberdeen or Newcastle? Well within a (long) days commute from those places too. I would argue that it should be a national concensus, not a local one, as everyone is free to enjoy the routes.

My money is on the majority being against the retroing anyway at this moment in time. But I know that sadly this will change in the near future.

Trist

In reply to Donnie: Even if you felt that their was an imbalance (and that's not to say that there is) don't you think it's arrogant and selfish to bolt over existing routes, when there is room for developing brand new sport routes? As Buz has said, there are loads of bolts yet to go up in the quarry.

Fair enough with most of what you say though.

In reply to Donnie:

No-one 'owns' a route but I'm not sure I'd ever envisage a situation where I'd be for the bolting of something without the permission of the FA. It would be disrespectful of the route's history (which they are obviously an important part of) and a complete slap in the face for the FA.

In reply to Donnie:

I don't see why not? If something makes a better trad route than sport it doesn't make sense to bolt it.

In reply to Robert Durran:

You could try using a puller. Should be able to get one from a tool hire place.

In reply to Robert Durran:

A grinder will make mess. Please leave them and I'll get them out on Wednesday.

In reply to Smelly Fox:


My money too.


I desperately hope not.







All the above comments from today's posts show that there is certainly a wide range of views out there. I don't think anybody seriously thinks that retro-bolting withour proper consultaion is acceptable. The only nationally "agreed" guidance to go on at the moment is from the MC of S:

"RETRO-BOLTING (THE ADDITION OF BOLTS TO ESTABLISHED CLIMBS WITHOUT THEM SHOULD ONLY BE CONSIDERED WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE FIRST ASCENSIONIST AND AFTER WIDE CONSULTATION WITH INTERESTED CLIMBERS AT A LOCAL AND NATIONAL LEVEL"

Clearly there are some people who think that less exacting standards should be required for retro-bolting (perhaps particularly the "national" bit).

I am unaware of another example of retro-bolting in Scotland comparable to the Ratho situation (anyone think of one?), and I have never before heard people seriously suggest that large scale retro-bolting to achieve a changed "balance" might be justified; it seems quite unprecedented and, from my point of view, a thoroughly frightening situation, which I believe must be fought to the last retro-bolt.

I really don't think I am scaremongering when I say that I am now of the opinion that this could be a pivotal point in the development of climbing in Scotland and, as such, should be debated through the MC of S at a national level.

In the meantime, any retro-bolt that does not meet the MC of S guidelines should be removed as soon as possible.

In reply to whispering nic:

I managed to lever two of the remaining bolts out this evening using the crow bar and a wooden block. The only remaining bolt is the first one reachable from the ground. It came about a third of the way out, but resisted my best efforts to remove it. I think a series of blocks of increasing thickness might do the trick. If you are happy to give it a go on wednesday, I'll leave it in the meantime. I'll drop the crow bar off on Tuesday.

Coventional scrubbing clearly wasn't going to remove excess glue. Maybe it could be chipped off, but I don't want to damage the rock. Any suggestions?

In reply to Robert Durran:


I am therefore minded to remove the retro-bolts from Slow Strain, but would rather only do so with Buz's unequivocal approval.

In reply to Robert Durran:

It came about a third of the way out,

Couldn't you hacksaw it and knock the remainder back into the hole?

In reply to MJ:

Would a hacksaw cut readily through a bolt? If so that would certainly work.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I think you are right to be concerned the argument is changing to the retro-bolters demanding / needing a 'balance'. The 'lowest common denominator' arguement would be worrying too, if it wasn't against every spirit of climbing I can think of, but lack of logic has never been a bar to an argument being repeated and gaining ground.

I take some comfort that both arguments are being put forward by so few people and hopefully do not represent the majority of climbers, whatever their favourite type of climbing.

I would be more than happy to go to any meetings / consultations where this is being discussed and add my views.

Cheers,

Lex

Don't bother then!

In reply to Robert Durran:

Yup. The weighting of a persons opinion on the bolting of a route should be the inverse square of their distance from the route.

In reply to gurumed:


Things spreading out on a 2-d surface usually do so simply inversely. Inverse square is the natural way in 3-d.

Anyway, your proposal would mean that I could effectively buy a total veto on all bolting at Ratho by living close enough. It would also be very convenient for training. Maybe I could buy and convert some of that unused space in the EICA into a flat.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I thought you'd already assumed a total veto by taking actions into your own hands before having any meeting?

In reply to gurumed:


Please f*ck off. I'm not going over all that again just for your retarded benefit. The debate had much more intelligent tone in your absence today.

In reply to Robert Durran:



What is being discussed is bolting in a quarry in the back garden of a climbing centre whose customers are primarily sport climbers, top ropers and boulderers. It's not a mountain, it's not a sea cliff and it's not a place that people would travel hundreds of miles to climb at. It is a completely atypical location which shouldn't be a test case for national policy.

If there is to be a meeting IMHO it should be at EICA and start with a visit to the quarry so everybody can see what is actually being discussed.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Could you dissolve this glue? I usually use meths or something.

In reply to gurumed:

Dear gurumed

I can understand how you enjoy teasing Robert Durran: he's easy prey for you isn't he, because you're just messing, while his heart and will are focused on a matter that's truly serious for him. Easy isn't it? Just the kind of thing adolescents do: but you're clearly not adolescent any more. Aren't you even a little ashamed?

Anyway, I'm here to remind the readers of this thread that Robert is far from alone in taking his really quite reasonable stance: retro-bolting should not take place 'without a wide consultation with interested climbers', as per MCoS guidelines.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Personally, I think that is completely irrelevant. Anyway Ratho quarry existed as a climbing venue for decades before the EICA was built. Incidentally, of the non top-ropers and boulderers at the EICA, I think you might be overestimating the proportion who only climb sport.


I think you are missing the point. The MC of S statement on retro-bolting applies to all rock. Judging by some of the comments I quoted in my earlier post there are probably a significant number of pro-retro-bolters who would like the retro-bolting to spread to achieve their "balance". Ratho quarry is at the very least a test case for Central Belt quarries in general.


No problem with any venue so long as the choice does not skew the representation of views away from reflecting at the very least Central Belt climbers in general.

In reply to Wicamoi:

I am working on the assumption that he isn't messing but is in fact a genuine idiot. Either way, he is very tedious and I just sincerely wish he would f*ck off.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

No it shouldn't be a test case but it seems that it kind of has become one.

I don't share your opinion that it's not an important crag, it's far more then some backyard to a climbing center! Some of us were climbing there long before EICA was built, my 1st E2 and E3 leads were there. It was a very important crag for me as I could get there on public transport before I owned a car.

It's such a shame that this has been played out the way it has, I'm all for filling in the gaps with bolted routes and maybe adding lower offs where necessary but, although no one owns a route, it's FA should be respected as that is the ethics of our sport...

In reply to Robert Durran:


I disagree. He's no idiot: clever, but somewhat dishonest. What our forbears would have described as "lacking in bottom."

PS. Thanks for your spirited and protracted defence of the trad ethic on these threads, and for removing the bolts on Wally 2. Much appreciated.

In reply to Wicamoi:


Do you know him, or just basing your assessment on his posts?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I'm not sure those who haven't visited the venue or had no intention of ever doing so should really have a say. Surely those who know the place well should have the most say?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Much point in a debate then? The guidelines seem quite clear already. What would you hope to achieve? If folk want to ignore established guidelines they'll do so.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


I'm perfectly happy with the guidelines. If people ignore the guidelines, I and others will remove the bolts. However, if people want the guidelines changed (and, from comments on this thread, some clearly do), they will need to lobby for a debate at national level to get the MC of S guidelines changed.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


This is not just about 3 retro-bolted routes at Ratho. It is clear from comments on this thread that there is a demand from some people for a significant amount of retro-bolting at least in the Central Belt to achieve what they see as a "better" balance between sport and trad. They would like to have seen the Ratho routes as the thin end of a wedge.

Anyway, the MC of S guidelines are clear that ANY retro-bolting should involve consultation at a local AND national level.

In reply to Robert Durran:

That's true - I'm just guessing, there's no way to tell just by looking (apart from a few obvious cases) whether someone climbs trad as well as sport.

What is clear is that the quarry wasn't used much for about 10 years from when EICA was built to when the bolts went in.

I also think there's an opportunity to use the quarry to get beginners and indoor climbers, including the competition climbing kids that frequent Ratho, on real rock in a relatively controlled environment.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


I don't really know whether usage (once access was clarified) went up or down from the time before construction of the EICA began. It certainly seems higher now, probably due to the bolted routes.


Indeed. But that is no excuse for retro bolts.

In reply to Robert Durran:


How much does a route need to change before bolting it is no longer retroing? In amongst all the noise, I do not recall a discussion of the history of Slow Strain on here. The current Lowlands Outcrops guide does not list the route (it just mentions its previous existence) on the grounds that it was substantially altered by rockfall during the M8 blasting works. Certainly the old grade of E2 6a would not seem to apply any more: it's neither that techncially hard, nor that safe! Could someone please post the description from the 1994 edition?

In reply to Mark Bull:

Interesting point!


If the route is substantially different, there could, I agree, be a case for not removing the retro bolts (I've not done it in it's original state or it's bolted state).

In reply to Michael Gordon:

For example, if a significant majority of interested climber wanted to bolt it but the FA said no..

In reply to Michael Gordon:

As I climb both that'd make sense for what I want. If you have people who a have a real preference for trad or sport and live in an area where the rock predominately suits the other one, I'd say it'd be fair to have some bolting of good trad routes or vice versa

Obviously if you had a steep limestone crag right next to Ratho you'd bolt that and leave Ratho.

In reply to Smelly Fox:

Interesting question - but something could be done. Maybe just those with an interest.

I would argue that it should be a national concensus, not a local one, as everyone is free to enjoy the routes.

I'm not sure. Depends on the crag - for example, is it the kind of place people travel to? But so long as consensus doesn't mean everyone and the FA has to agree for retro bolting to occur then fine.

I'd agree you need something weighted in favour of keeping trad. Say 70% or something.


Probably it is. And if that's the case we shouldn't retrobolt. It would be nice in future if interested climbers could consider all central belt crags and pick out some routes for retro bolting.

It'd be really sad if eventually there's so many more 'sport only' climbers that most trad gets bolted. I don't think that will happen though. I don't think even the most pro-retro want that just now...

In reply to Smelly Fox:


At the risk of repeating myself: in England and Wales, this type of discussion comes under the remit of the BMC Local Area committees. No such equivalent exists in Scotland, but perhaps there is a need for it. The MCofS would be the natural body to provide such a forum.

In reply to Mark Bull:


And do these committees carry weight or do people still go rogue?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


And what would these obvious cases be?
A trouser bulge indicating huge balls?
Numptys with big hexes on their harnesses when top-roping indoors?

In reply to Jamie B:

I'm sure there would always be the odd rogue, but at least the subsequent chopping carries the weight of the committee (just as the removal of the rogue retro-bolts at Ratho carries the weight of the MC of S guidelines).

In reply to Donnie:


I don't either, but we must acknowledge that alongside an increased "demand" for easier bolted crags we also see a shift in trad climbing tastes. It seems that fewer folk want to go to the more marginal venues and there is a tendency to honeypot to the tried-and-tested where a full day without gardening, choss-dodging and abstract grading is more likely. I am certainly guilty of this and ironically it's almost the same mindset as sport climbing - guarunteed activity with less danger and unpredictability.

If you put these two factors together you get an inevitable situation whereby trad crags delineate into clean/sustainable and forgotten/manky. Can anyone really blame the sporties for looking towards the latter? For a spaceman viewing the situation dispassionately it would seem like the logical fix. But the "rights" of first ascenscionist and others to maintain the route in the state it was originally climbed are not unimportant either.

The circle needs to be squared. Everybody should be kept happy. But how do we do so? This is not going to go away, we need to get it figured. Suggestions?

In reply to Jamie B:


I have no direct experience, but I suspect the answer is yes to both!

The BMC appears to be currently working on an agreed statement and process - this is the latest draft I could find: http://community.thebmc.co.uk/GetFile.ashx?did=1634

It's quite interesting to have a poke around in the Local Area committee minutes which can be found from here http://community.thebmc.co.uk/ListEvents.aspx to see the type of things which are going on. The South Wales area in particular seem to have a lot of discussions about bolting/retrobolting and have set up a wiki where proposals to bolt crags/routes can be posted in advance of meetings.

In reply to gurumed Wicamoi:

You think my heart isn't in this? I'm utterly dejected that Buz's good work has been undone.

If Robert is easy prey it is due to his hubris. You'll have to forgive me for being acerbic with someone who haughtily disparages my intellect simply for having a different view.

Not even slightly, no.

In reply to Jamie B:

True. Important but not preeminent. In the case of these routes neither the FA or others maintained the rock; it was abandoned for decades.

In reply to Robert Durran:
>

Obvious signs:

50 something
Beard
Rope carried on the back in coils
Bleached out goretex coat and ancient leather hillwalking boots
Bleached out large rucksack
Mud on the gear
Weatherbeaten complexion
DMM bug and/or fig 8 clipped to harness

And most importantly:
Two ropes.

In reply to gurumed:


I don't disparage your intellect for having a different view; I have told you this over and over again. Many intelligent people have a different view to me. I disparage your intellect because your posts repeatedly reflect your inability to understand virtually anything anybody says or to string two thoughts together to produce a coherent argument.

The fact that you still don't get this illustrates the above perfectly and simply confirms how monumentally thick you obviously are.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Are you plagued with doubts about the quality of your own mental faculties? You seem inordinately pertinacious in your attacking of me in this regard. It's more than a little reminiscent of the behaviour of a fiercely closeted person.

In reply to gurumed:

Please stop winding up people up. I'd quite like to have a bit more central belt sport climbing one day...

In reply to gurumed and Robert:

This is getting tiresome. There are serious issues to be discussed on this thread, but it is now dominated by your unwinnable slanging-match. Why don't you both accept that you will never convince the other to change their views, move on and deal with the matter in hand.

In reply to gurumed:

F*ck Off.

In reply to Jamie B:

Indeed. Although it is not gurumed's views as such that are the problem.