UKC

A few things:

- It has come to light that the original chockstone in the route was absent for a period in the 60's during which time it received ascents in its clean state by Mark Vallance, Al Evans and Jim Campbell and no doubt others

- It can be concluded that the the replaced chockstone which I removed was not the original used on the first ascent (or possibly in the same place)

- At the BMC area meeting on Thursday whilst the majority were (unsurprisingly) in opposition there was celebrity endorsement from Al James, Neil Foster and Mark Vallance (BMC president no less)

- A letter by myself on the subject is currently in the latest OTE

- If anyone wants to borrow my friend 5 and 6 drop me an email; refundable cash deposit required unless I know you

In reply to Simon Lee:

Good man, cuts through all the bullshit that was posted previously.

In reply to Simon Lee: "celebrity endorsement"? Ironic, I trust?

In reply to Simon Lee:
If it's not the original one and it's not always been there I tend to switch to your side. It's the 'destruction of history' argument that got me, because I'm a romantic. Afterall, someone could put another back in if they want, now we know that it is just _some stone_, not the black stone of ka'bah if you follow me.

Are there any similar routes up in yorkshire that you could de-chock because I've been thinking that it's just the sort of issue needed to get the yorkshire area sparking so that I don't have to keep driving all the way to the peak for my chips?

In reply to Simon Lee:

To remove a chockstone from a route is purely egotistical.

Hope you also remove litter on your way to the crag.

Baz

In reply to Baz47:

So how are the two things connected?

In reply to colski:

Quite agree.

Look forward to being good enough to try it one day...

In reply to Baz47:


Alternatively you could say that removing the chockstone was removing litter from the crack

In reply to Simon Lee:

That's how I thought your mind was working, hence the comment about you carrying on and clearing litter from averywhere else. Spoils the view for miles does an errant chockstone.

Baz

In reply to Baz47:

Did you know that up here in scotland, "baz" is slang for "balls", which funnily enough you seem to be speaking a lot of.

In reply to colski:

Yeh, but I've got 47 of them. How many have you got?

Baz

In reply to Baz47:

Being normal, I have 2.

In reply to colski:

Well, that pissed on my bonfire.

Baz

In reply to colski:

All this smalltalk aside, is everything that you disagree with a load of balls or do you actually have an oppinion about the removal of this chockstone?

Baz

In reply to Baz2:

Personally I see it as a storm in a teacup. Synonymous with the enduring english obsession with short "historic" climbs, and preserving them at all costs. It's good in a way though, as it keeps all the obsessives "souf of dah bordah", and off the real routes up here.

Simon's actions were completely reasonable as far as I'm concerned, and his first post above kind of pisses on all the original whingers bonfires.

In reply to Baz47:

To claim to have 47 balls is purely egotistical - and how about your opinion, smalltalk aside

In reply to Simon Lee: Simon, if it would help I am quite happy for you to copy my e-mail to you here. I wont do it though as it was sent to you as a personal communication.
Al

In reply to colski:

To be honest I couldn't care less whether the chock in in or out. I've seen chocks come and go in routes for forty years. What got me was that Simon had divided oppinion on this site and a majority against at a BMC meeting but is still adament that he is in the right. That smacks of ellitism to me.

Comming on here with the attitude (perceived) of, "look at me, I've done this route without the chock so everyone else can from now on". What an arrogant attitude. Why not just remove the chock and move on quietly as poeple have done on other routes. It will soon get put back again.

Baz.

In reply to Baz47:

I honestly don't think he expected the issue to be so hotly argued.
Anyway, Simon strikes me as a reasonable chap, I think if there were arguments that convinced him he was wrong he would have backed down, but he stuck by his convictions, and to me that smells like integrity, not elitism.

(The fact that a majority of BMC members disagreed is hardly relevant, interfering, curmudgeonly armchair pseudo-climbers the lot of them.)
And that was PSEUDO, not paedo.

In reply to Baz47:


Well I think your perception of Mr Lee is wrong. Is it not arrogant of you to think that you are right? And please don't go running to "the majority", it is pathetic.

In reply to Al Evans: Hi Al, Thanks - I wasn't sure of the etiquette on these things. Could I trouble you to copy it as I cant access my emails from my home pc at the moment.
By the way did you get in touch with Jim and the other chap you climbed RE with?

Still not found Rod or Jim yet but heres the e-mail

In reply to Simon Lee: Hi Simon
There is no doubt that Joe etc used to insert chockstones (of all imaginable
sizes), sometimes these would drop out naturally, sometimes they would be
removed deliberately, sometimes they would be replaced.
When we did Sentinel Crack, the first leader , Jimmy Cambell, on the lead,
threw out the chock that Geoff Birtles had placed because it 'got in the
way' plus we didnt know if Whillans had placed one (Sutty could help here).
This may be the case on Right Eliminate. As far as I can rember there was no
chock in Right Eliminate when we did it, I will try and get confirmation
from Jimmy, who led it the same day, and Rod Haslem who seconded me on it if
I can get in touch with them. Where exactly in the crack is this chock
supposed to be?
Al

----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Lee" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 9:22 PM
Subject: Right Eliminate Chockstone


http://www.ukclimbing.com
message

In reply to Baz47:



Hey Baz - I think that says it all - you have no opinion on the subject . All you care about in this matter is PR & image.

In reply to Baz47:

Nothing wrong with a bit of elitism - the majority is not always right (often because it isn't in possession of all the facts - see 99% of the arguments over the 'historic' chockstone!)

In reply to Simon Lee:

"Pr & image", thats a bit rich from the person who started two threads, emailed Al Evans, started a discussion at a BMC meeting and wrote to a climbing magazine, all because you took out a chockstone.

It's precisely because of all the above that I'm posting on here. Why didn't you just take it out and forget it. You've obviously made your mind up, whatever the outcome of any discussions.

Baz

In reply to Baz47:

maybe if you posted your real name, or at least a profile we may have higher regard for your comments.

Simon has been very honest and started a proper debate, which I guess comes doen to whether you think historical precident or ethical and environmental purity are more important in defining the best style of ascent.

BTW I usually carry out other peoples rubbish when I return from climbing, although this hasn't included chock stones.

In reply to coconutter:
>Well I think your perception of Mr Lee is wrong. Is it not arrogant of you to think that you are right? And please don't go running to "the majority", it is pathetic.

The majority is always pathetic when it is against you. Its the majority who dont want to bolt Stanage and Pembroke. You live by the majority, or I think it is called anarchy.

Baz

In reply to Simon Lee:


Does the size of deposit depend on whether the person concerns agree's with you or not and is said deposit refundable?

With hindsight do you not think it might have been preferable to have the discussion before taking the action?

In reply to Baz47:

Isn't that how Hitler came to power?

In reply to Horse:

But then most people would not have been arsed to take part.

At least removing a chockstone is a reversible event.

Rather than all the petty bitching it wold be nice if peple debated the underlying principals, eg my comment above.

In reply to kevin stephens:

These are my comments regardless of what anybody thinks. I'm not running for President.

I don't like anyone defining what my style of ascent will be.

I aplaud your litter collection, genuinly (sp).

Baz.

In reply to kevin stephens:
And would thus have missed their opportunity and there would have been one less stick with which to beat SL with.

I am rather ambivalent on the particular subject being more concerned with the precedent it might set for others to take unilateral action.

In reply to Horse:
I'd have thought that with hindsight he'd wish he'd just taken the bugger out and not said a word about it.... after all, that seems to have happened before, in the 60s. And Paul Mitchell took the lower ones out without getting a roasting (?)

What Simon did different was in announcing he was going to do it beforehand... and he did get a sizeable amount of support on here when he did so.

Anyway, as it wasn't teh original one I can't see why anyone should flap anymore about it... just go and stuff a new one in if it's that important to you.
(I don't mean 'to you' personally, Horse .

In reply to gingerkate:

I understand that originally there were 3 chock stones (although it now appears that it's possible that these numbers may vary). Paul took some out but left the crucial one in place because at the time such large friends did not exist.

I have spoken to alot of people about this, many of them very experienced climbers, who feel that it was wrong of Simon to remove the chockstone, something that I gather was reflected in the vote at the BMC meeting.

The other point is the arrogance with which this action was done with little or no regard or consoltation with fellow climbers. Simon seems to be completely oblivious to the other side of the arguement. What will he do next? One shudders to think.

And lastly Simon offers his large friend out to people who would wish to climb this route which is all very well, but what if I happen to be at the crag and fancy having a go at it? Do I have to drive all the way home, email Simon and wait till he gets in touch so I can borrow it or merely take a sling up which I would have with me anyway and try the route.

Simon it would appear has been off to Yosemite and been doing lots of cracks in preparation and is siutably tooled up but what about the rest of us who only occaisionally foray into the scary worlds of offwidths, should we be deprived of repeating a classic which see few ascents anyway and may see even less now.

Lastly, despite the vote last night at the BMC meeting his initial postimg makes no mention of returning the chockstone.

J

In reply to Ropeboy: From historical precedent it would appear that if you don't wish to procure yourself any large cams then you are perfectly at liberty to place your own natural chockstone and use a sling on it. And then the next climber is within his rights to remove it... ad infinitum.

Alternatively you could have a hex 15 or similar size custom made to fit...

One thought when placing chockstones - is it ethically acceptable to place them on abseil, or should they be carried up and placed on lead?

I think from Simon's original posting it was more he is planning to go to Yosemite and was looking for cracks to practise on rather than vice versa, a minor detail but pedantry seems to be a tradition here!

Not a dig at you personally, Ropeboy but I must admit I find the many people who raise the point that 'I don't have any large cams and might fancy trying RE on day with just the chockstone' rather unbelievable. Come on - how many of you are being completely honest here? I bet most of you would go to the bottom of the route, look at it and slink quietly away... I suspect 99% of people who would have a serious go at RE will be offwidth loving deviants with plenty of previous and will be suitably tooled up.

Incidentally - why should the vote at a BMC meeting make any difference as to whether the chockstone goes back in? The vast majority of climbers are unconsulted on this issue - for one I couldn't make the meeting but I hope to climb RE one day, surely if you want a valid consensus we should have a national referendum consulting all interested climbers rather than a parochial 'local' vote!

Anyway we all the know the only way a chockstone's going to go back in is if someone gets off their arse and does it! It's got nothing to do with votes at the BMC or even Simon who stirred it all up by taking the thing out. Sooner or later someone will put another rock in and then someone else will take it out as has apparently happened several times before, but hopefully next time it'll happen quietly and there won't be all the damn row because it's not an even remotely important issue!!!

In reply to Simon Lee:
Well done Simon Lee.
never in the history of climbing in the UK as such a mediocre climber gained so much media time as you.

respect

The Ent

In reply to chris j: I think the fact that Simon has started yet another thread on the subject indictates that he is enjoying his 15 mins of fame.

In reply to chris j:

Darn it, I was just about to go to bed.


Good point, I'm off hunting chockstones. I'll be at Stoney as I believe that the 'original' chockstone was a limestone one. Maybe Simon could tell us what sort of chockstone he has? Maybe it was removed from time to time but left at the foot of the crag and was replaced/removed according to the climbers choice?

Mmm, I think I've got an old spare wheel off a mini, maybe that will do.

Lol, so they can still get the on-sight tick I take it.

I'm not sure if he's been or is going but I take your point. I gather it was in preparation for Yosemite that he climbed these routes as many other aspirant British climbers do for Yosemite.

Strangely enough I've done most of the other offwidths there and was summoning up the courage to have a go. Unfortunately we don't often go and as you will know venues can change at short notice due to a wide variety of reasons. Granted most people will slink off but surely removing it will only cause even more people to slink off?

Exactly! And did Simon consult with anyone at all (aspirant climbers or parochial 'locals') when he removed it?

Not an important issue! :-p (I wouldn't say that around these parts)

J

In reply to Ropeboy:


Dammit you beat me to that one - I just made that joke on the BMC thread...

In reply to chris j:
Just a quick point: the vote at the meeting was just a sounding of opinion... I don't think anyone there regarded it as otherwise.

In reply to Simon Lee: I think its all aload of bollocks. A chockstone is an excellent way of protecting a climb - that what willans and brown used to do back in the day so whats the problem with it now?

In reply to Rory Shaw:

Nothing so long as it doesn't become an extra hand hold?

In reply to Simon Lee:

I think the thing that pissed most people off is not that you removed a chockstone, but the manner you went about it.
I personally would have said leave it in, I'm not saying id have got up it with the chock, but having no protection will definitely put me off a bit (story of my life...), and I really can't afford the monster cams, so I can understand people saying you may have prevented them attempting the route, which you dont have the right to do.
However, I have to ask why did you originally announce you would do it if there were no objections, then when people objected, you did it anyway? And I do believe that you are loving this attention, and if your not then stop putting bloody updates on the web, and writing letters to the mags like your some kind of climbing authority. Your not, your better than a lot of people, but your still not the elite, which, I guess, is why your seeking so much attention.
And colski, stop bloody whinging about how much better and harder scotland is blah blah, we've heard it all before, and yes it is fantastic but we dont need to hear the same repetitive bollocks ALL THE TIME.
Give it a rest you lot.

In reply to bomb:

In answer to the only real question in your post I would remind you of my original post...

Did Right Eliminate yesterday. Enjoyed it but thought that the chockstone spoilt the route...... . Anway I am seriously thinking of taking it out - unless there is some justification for it that I am missing

ie I never said I wouldnt take it out if there were objections - I was genuinely searching for a reason to justify it staying in that I may have overlooked.

Also in replying to your post I am assuming that you are not the same person as 'bomb a left on the fascists' whose abusive posts were removed by the moderators

In reply to bomb:
and I really can't afford the monster cams, so I can understand people saying you may have prevented them attempting the route, which you dont have the right to do.


Oh yes and another thing for traditionalists to chew on - the clean chockstoneless ascents by Al Evans, Mark Vallance et al would have pre-dated friend protection

In reply to bomb:


You're, you're, you're, you're, you're and you're. Thanks!

[Sorry, I can normally manage to ignore such things but six times is pushing it.]

In reply to bomb:

And a final thing for a wet sunday afternoon

- If, as the evidence suggests, the stone in my possession is not the original holy Joe Brown chockstone then it is virtually devoid of historical merit

- Also the chockstone I removed was a poor fit for the crack

- It therefore follows that it doesnt matter what piece of rubble goes back in the crack (although ideally it should fit better)

- Consequently it is open to anyone with the inclination and an abseil rope to take corrective action if they desire

- In conclusion the future responsibility is no longer mine and I can happily remove myself from the spotlight whilst reserving the right to defend my actions (typically construed as attention-seeking, egotism, arrogance etc etc)

In reply to Simon Lee:


Yawn.....................

In reply to Anonymous:

If you think that's boring you should try sitting through a BMC area meeting - its a real eye opener (closer)

In reply to Anonymous:

Why bother commenting if you are not interested?

Or are just tired after a hard day?

In reply to Simon Lee:


Let them eat cake Simon.

I think, whatever your motivations, you have injected some healthy debate into some uk climbing circles and hopefully made some question their long-held romantic beliefs about the great traditions of uk climbing. Some may even begin to view the past through clear lenses rather than rose-tinted spectacles.

Mick R

In reply to Ropeboy:

Why don't you read the thread? As Simon has pointed out with evidence, the 'original' configuration of the chockstones changed years ago and there was probably a long period since JB's first ascent and now when there were no chocks at all.

In reply to welldone: Are you Mick? And also Royal Robbins who pronouced it 5.9 but I suspect that was american gamesmanship. Surely the point is its a classic gritstone offwidth, Joe did a superb first ascent, however he did it, but today we should be moving on to modern styles of ascents, climbing moves on, there is better ways of protection available now. I think Simon was right in what he did.
Al

In reply to eliminatechockstones:

It's old news, what's happened has happened. The chock aint going back even if it was the original placed by Joe Brown so what's the point of bringing it all up again? The issue was flogged to death on here weeks ago. Either Simon is trying harder to justify his actions (why he would do this I don't know as he clearly had no intention of replacing the chockstone, perhaps for his peace of mind and greater acceptance from the climbing community?) or he likes the publicity............

In reply to sweaty:

Err, why don't you read the reply you quoted from?

I cleary state that it's "possible...these numbers.. vary".

Short of having a continous log of the chockstones on RE it's hard to say how often they have come and gone and how many there were at any given time, eg from zero up to about three.

John

(not sweating in Sheffield, although the bad weather that was forecast has finally arrived although it's still not as bad as they said)

In reply to Ropeboy: Hey John, why dont you come out and do some new routes with me

In reply to Al Evans:

I'd love to, but it'll have to be next year now, I've run out of leave.

j

In reply to Simon Lee:

I think endorsement from Mark Vallance and Al Evans is interesting, as they are the only other people in the debate who appear to have climbed the route in both states. Then again MV does have a vested interest in the sale of Friends !!

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Does he still? I thought that he had severed his ties with Wild Country. Unless of course he gets a cut from every Friend sold.

Bob

In reply to Chris the Tall:
Then again MV does have a vested interest in the sale of Friends !!

But so does Joe Brown.

In reply to Simon Lee:
There are two schools of thought regarding this issue. Those that care and those that don't. The latter group's opinions are not heard because they don't care. They don't go to the trouble of posting on here because they don't care. I'm an anomoly - I don't care and I'm posting on here. I don't care whether it stays in or is taken out. Maybe there are more climbers out there who don't care than those who do. Maybe it's only a tiny tiny percentage of climbers who care at all whether it stays in or not.

In reply to Simon Lee:

Not going to re-hash anything about the stone removal itself, but...


You are unsuprised that there was a majority, so do you not care about the opinions/rights of other climbers to have a say in their environment? Since you obviously were prepared to knowingly go against it when you removed the stone.

You do make a certain impression, with posts like that.

I was also unaware the BMC was run as an auotocracy? Why should the BMC Pres' or "celebrity" opinion count for more? Or are you trying to mitigate any second thoughts by qualifying the vote to yourself?

One of the things that "outlaws" chipping, bolting trad areas etc. is the understanding, that the majority of the climbing community is against it. You do set a dangerous precedent

In reply to Al Evans:

Yes Al.


Or perhaps just gamemanship (Americans don't have a monopoly on such fun), or perhaps an honest assessment of its difficulty.

In reply to Paul Saunders:


But this isn't chipping paul?

In reply to appleshaped:

Morning Mick,

No it's not and it's certainly not a "crime"... but neither is chipping, it's just an action that's frowned upon by the climbing community in general.

It's a balance between personal freedom and accountability to the rest of the climbing fraternity isn't it? IMO if only because the subject has caused such a debate it falls to the accountability side of this ""balance". That the majority opinion is that it should not have been removed indicates that Simon was wrong to do so.

The ethical reasons not to chip make sense, but faced with an excellent problem if there was "just one tiny hold just there" people can (and do) rationalise that a little chip won't matter. One of the thing that minimises this is a consistent message from the climbing media, community and the BMC that this is selfish and wrong and that climbers in general don't want it to happen.

Not to mention voluntary bird bans and environmentally sensitive no go/limited access areas. IIRC you were involved with some negotiating access to some areas, and managing impact in the States. Or were you just well informed of others hard work?

I won't belabour the point anymore, as is my wont to do sometimes but it's a poor precedent from Mr Lee.

In reply to Al Evans:



I know it was a long time ago, but presumably you’d remember because without any chocks it would have been completely unprotected, wouldn’t it?

In reply to Paul Saunders: Oh, come on....

You don't really believe that there's a comparison between taking a stone out of a crack and chipping, ignoring bird bans, access to environmentally sensitive areas etc??

In reply to Paul Saunders:


Chipping = Permanent alteration of route to reduce difficulty
Chockstone = Non-permanent alteration of route to reduce difficulty
Filling in Chips = Attempt to return route to it's original state and level of difficulty, but the scars remain
Removing Chockstone = Returning route to it's original state and level of difficulty

Quite how you can equate Simon's action with chipping is beyond me.

In reply to Simon Lee:


If they soloed it in the sixties, I’m impressed with their climbing and lack of self publicity, in contrast to a more recent shunted ascent surrounded by massive hype.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Chipping is only a 'crime' in the eyes of climbers so despite one being more serious to most climbers than the other, yes the two activities overlap. What Simon did was alter the character of a route without consulting widely first: this is simply a very bad precendent. There of plenty of things on routes with various degrees of ethical justification that some people would like to see changed, for instance: new chips, chips filled in, pegs replaced by bolts, blank gritstone slabs gaining bolt protection, removing trees or vegetation from routes.

Not only has he changed the character of the protection he's also altered the nature of the climbing. Imagine how you'd feel if you'd been working up to a clean lead of this route for years.

Some people here seem very adept at mouthing off against the 'fogies' of the BMC and their area meetings but I suspect would be pretty upset if the excellent (and normally voluntary) efforts to defend access to many of our crags was lost. Issues that Simon and others must sadly find boring since it took most of the time from the last peak meeting. Its also boring but true that people who go round making crag and route improvements of their own volition often cause access problems for everyone.

Is the route better without the chock?: probably yes.
Does it improve the availability of true offwidth climbing to UK gritstone climbers?: yes but only marginally.
Has it really affected anything historic?: probably not.
Has it increased or improved debate?: yes but I supect breifly for the former but hardly much for the latter.
Are any of the above points important compared to trying to persuade individuals not to act without consultation?: no.

In reply to Offwidth:
>. Imagine how you'd feel if you'd been working up to a clean lead of this route for years.

Oh come off it! It's a placed lump of rock! If you care.... if anyone has been working up to a clean-but-with-chock lead of this route... just please go and stuff another one in. It surely can't be THAT hard to place a chockstone?????????

The reason it is totally different from chipping, bolting, retro-bolting etc etc etc is that it is an action that is easily reversible.

This is just getting silly.

In reply to Offwidth:
>There of plenty of things on routes with various degrees of ethical justification that some people would like to see changed, for instance: new chips, chips filled in, pegs replaced by bolts, blank gritstone slabs gaining bolt protection, removing trees or vegetation from routes.

And these are all in a different league from taking a bl**dy stone out of a crack!



And now you can do the clean lead instead of aiding off an artificially placed chockstone - ethically no different from pulling on a friend, hex or rock you've placed while leading...

In reply to gingerkate: Dammit, I should type faster...

In reply to Simon Lee:

I've not posted on this subject previously, but would probably have posted against the OP.

But, on reflection, with more of the facts to hand, I must side with him!

If the chocks have come and gone(and continue to do so), then surely they should be classed as 'Leader Placed Protection'???

Therefore they are in the same catergory as Wires/Cams/Hexes? No???

I know if I come across a wire in-situ, then I will try and remove it. Same as anything (except pegs/tat) leader placed that looks like it shouldn't be there.

If I can't remove it on lead, I ask my second to try, If they can't then often I'll do it on abseil.

I have a drawer full of wires, cams and hexes that I've removed from Grit, Pembroke, Lakes and Nth Wales.

I also remove all litter I find on route to crag/car!

It's not fair on nature to leave things there that weren't previously there!

My opinion doesn't count for much in the grand scheme of things, but it does show that we can all judge too quickly!

I have wanted to do this route for sometime, and was enraged that I wasn't able to do it in it's natural state!

Guess I was wrong!

Looks like I'm going to have to buy some more cams now, Oh well!!!

Luv Barra! xx

In reply to bomb:

Arguments such as "...having no protection will definitely put me off a bit (story of my life...), and I really can't afford the monster cams, so I can understand people saying you" are rather empty when you consider what to do should the stone have fallen out 'naturally'.

If we put this chockstone back in, shouldn't we put the other two in? Who decides how many chockstones a route should have in? What if the replacement is 'better' in terms of lowering the grade by being easier to hold/thread - do we then start getting stone masons involved to make sure that each chockstone in a given route is the same as its predecessor?

Ethically Simon has raised the bar by removing artificial aid from a route (the chockstone was not placed there by 'nature').

The only way you can ruin a crack is by filling it in.

In reply to Simon Lee:

Well done for doing all this. You've made yourself about as famous as that woman off driving school who kepot failing her test, or the camp bloke out of airport. I look forward to seeing you more as you get more bit parts and give out awards to people you've never heard of.

Pete

In reply to Simon Lee:

I don't remember too many people saying the stone should have remained becasue it was the original stone, touched by the hands of Joe. Nor do I recall too many thinking it had always remained in place. Of course chockstones have come and gone.

My memory of the mid to late 70s is of a chock in the obvious place, and one a bit above it. According to a friend that was the case in the late 60s and early '70s as well. At a later date it appears that the higher one was removed or fell out, and one or more stones were inserted lower down, which were in turn removed (by Paul Mitchell). So, all in all, the norm had been for there to be a stone in the place from which you removed one, while others had come and gone.

Most of the polls conducted seem to show that most people were happy to leave it as it was: they had come to regard the chock as normal, viewing it as both protection and a welcome break. Of course, there is a tradition of removing aid points (and sometimes insitu protection) without asking people; but people tend to view this differently, as proven by the fact that some had done it without in the past or soloed it while it was in, without thinking that they should shout about it or remove it.

Your principle argument seems to be that you think it is a better route without and that people should try it using large Friends instead. What if a majority continue to disagree with you--will you keep popping out and removing it anyway?

In reply to gingerkate:

I'm amazed that you dont understand that climbers can be this obsessive. I worked a long traversing boulder problem on Nottinghams "The Arches" outdoor wall on-and-off for 2 years before success, this was then removed a week later much to my dismay (but not as much dismay if it had been a few weeks earlier).

The chockstone could now end up going in and out for years, changing the character of the climb and potentially damaging the route in the process. Hence, despite being unhappy about the action I'd certainly vote that it doesnt get replaced.

In reply to Chis J

What we perceive as major and minor crimes will often be viewed differently by landowners, the peak park and the general public whereas access can rely on keeping them all happy. Its all shades of grey really and trying to get a consensus helps climbing through organisations like the BMC protect its interests and makes sure the climber hasnt overlooked something.

Here's some individual viewpoints Ive heard: chipping helped me climb a route I really wanted; selective chipping can link excellent sections of climbing removing a disproportionately hard move; cutting trees down at Rivelin will help reduce lichen spoiling the routes; cutting down trees next to the base of Gardoms will improve climbing there no-end; retrobolting hardly climbed trad limestone routes in Yorkshire will rejuvinate climbing on those crags; wirebrushing some grit routes is the only way to keep the lichen at bay. Its all shades of grey.

Someone else mentioned 'raising the ethical bar': well I hope they dont go round filling in ancient chips which are spoiling great potential harder lines removing established easier lines based on past ethical blotches.

In reply to Simon Lee:

Perhaps we should arrange a right eliminate day, and get as many folk as possible who own friend 6's to meet up.

Should then be able to sew it up quite nicely.

Anyone not possessing this size cam can still climb it however only after giving a donation to a local children's hospice.

????????????

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Perhaps I'm not communicating well? Offwidth has picked up the thrust of my argument though...


I'm not equating it with chipping! I'm simply pointing out that neither action is against any law and therefore neither action is banned in any real sense.

One thing that helps to stop chipping is an adherence to a voluntary code of conduct which reflects the wishes of climbers in general.

If the wishes of the majority are deemed moot in this case then what is to say they are not moot in the case of chipping? If Simons' individual action, justified only in his own mind, was acceptable then why not the actions of excessive wire-brushers and chippers, who obviously felt justified at the time of their actions?

If lower-off points at the Cromlech (sp?) MAY be the thin edge of the wedge in terms of bolting. Actions like Mr Lee's MAY similarly be the thin edge of the wedge in terms of maintaining any consensus in how we treat "our" rock.

Interesting how many people suggested that Simon should have just removed it without drawing any attention to the matter. To my mind this is simply stating "Do it on the sly, who cares what the views of the community are on this matter".

Simon of course didn't do this on the sly, so he either a) really believes in his actions, b) is monumentally arrogant, c) is courting controversy and publicity, or d) some/all of the above.

Even if his motive was "a" it still says a lot about the value he places upon the opinions of other people.

In reply to Simon Lee:
Im not sure what my opinion on this topic as a whole is, although im leaning against the OP if the route was originally climbed with the chock - whether its natural or not.
My main point to make is that the argument of "this is easily reversible" is complete bollocks - you would have to find the exact size and shape of chock that fitted in the right place in the crack, then sit there on a top-rope or something trying to get a heavy piece of rock (assuming its relatively large, ive never climbed the route) in to a tight gap in the correct orientation etc. Sounds like a horrible job to me.

In reply to SidH:
finding a bit of rock to fit the crack should hardly present a problem. Also how long would it take to put it in a rucksaxck and ab down and place it ? 15 mins including finding the chock ?

In reply to Offwidth:

I'm sorry (must be being thick today) but this has what exactly to do with a stone (placed by man) being removed from a crack?

As we've said before, chipping, retrobolting, removing vegetation - all bad (dependent on circumstance) but lets play devil's advocate, follow your argument and say that whoever last put the stone there (apparently not joe brown) had no consensus approval for doing so, therefore the stone shouldn't be there.

In reply to Offwidth:

Pardon? How you come to that conclusion is mind-boggling in its apparent twisting of logic. I'm as obsessive a climber as anyone else, in my own sad way, thank you very much.

What I'm amazed at is people wetting their knickers instead of just putting a new chock back in. Not hard to do. I think you're all just enjoying raging about something new for a change... none of you actually give a toss. If you did, the chock would be back by now.

In reply to SidH:
I can't see it's significantly harder than taking it out... it's only fitting a big bit of gear. If it was that hard a job, the chocks wouldn't have this history of being taken in and out.

Simon Lee: how long did it take you to get the chock out, might I ask?

In reply to gingerkate:

It might be if people where on the bloody crack it was taken from, but all those who wanted to climb the route in it's chockstone state, but haven't yet don't know this.

So many proponents of the historical argument are screwed.

In reply to Paul Saunders:
Well I'm quite sure if you ask nicely on here, you'll find some people (John Cox?) who have indeed climbed it and know where it went. Does it have to go in exactly teh same place?

Anyway, I suggest one of you posts a thread, forms a chockstone replacing party made up of eager hands and those who have done the route before removal, and puts one back in.

And if none of you can be arsed to do that I can only assume it's sound and fury.....

In reply to Paul Saunders: Dare I suggest...

Go and abseil down the route, look and see where you would find a chockstone useful and then insert said chockstone. I suspect you would probably put it, to quote Extreme Rock, 'just where you need them... where the niche narrows into the final overhanging crack'.

In reply to chris j:

Which is in fact well below where the contentious chockstone was situated. The two (lower) chockstones mentioned in the Mick Fowler article about RE would seem to be the ones that Paul Mitchell removed in the 80s.

Al Evans:


Witkacy:

I know it was a long time ago, but presumably you’d remember because without any chocks it would have been completely unprotected, wouldn’t it?

Bump

In reply to would-be chockstone replacers:
Apparently the upper chockstone needs to be blocking the jug to be where the old one was.

And it took approximately one second to remove.

So now you know.

In reply to tobyfk: Fair enough.

The point I meant to make was that would be chockstone replacers should stop whining, use some intiative and place the stone where they think they need it. It will probably be close enough to the old position as makes no odds...

In reply to Witkacy: Not quite, I had this massive alloy 'tube chock' that I think was from the states, but I really cant quite remember where I got it from, I may even have made it myself. However, I still have it

In reply to Al Evans:

Excellent - very interesting.

In reply to Witkacy: I removed the lower chocks because they were easily replaced by hex 11's and 10's and/or Friend 4's,so the majority of climbers could do the route,as they had this gear in their racks.I left the top chock in because I knew that most people would not have or ever would be able to afford,bigger cams.The chock always did wobble but plenty of terrified climbers have lowered off it.

Simon Lee has made a statement of his beliefs but he has effectively removed the possibility of leading the route from many climbers,while being able to protect the
route himself with his own large gear.Hardly an achievement to write home about.

He went through the motions of asking people's opinions on this forum,but I get the impression he was going to do it whatever people said.

The route is no harder as an offwidth now he has removed the gear.There are good jugs at that point,which were usable even with the chock resting on them.He has removed a
piece of fixed protection from this one route.Was his intention to get us to debate removing ALL fixed gear in the U.K.? I understand he likes to do sport routes,which all have fixed gear.Hypocrisy?

PM

In reply to Simon Lee: If it was climbed in the 60's then this would have been WITH OUT FRIENDS. Then for Right Eliminate to be done clean meens that friends are not allowed?

Yes/No

In reply to paul mitchell:

With all due respect, he hasn't. Because another chockstone can be placed.

In reply to paul mitchell:

ie its OK to remove chockstones

I left the top chock in because I knew that most people would not have or ever would be able to afford,bigger cams.

Your opinion on affordability which you seem fixated on

The chock always did wobble but plenty of terrified climbers have lowered off it.

Which chock though - the Joe Brown chock, the one I removed, is terrifying climbers some kind of justification

That affordability thing again - they can be borrowed as well as bought and nobody has taken me up on my offer yet

while being able to protect the

I never claimed it was a great climbing achievement

That's your impression but you are wrong

I would contest that - it gets in the way

He has removed a

Your guessing at my intentions again - answer again - no

I understand he likes to do sport routes,which all have fixed gear.Hypocrisy?

Fixed gear on sport routes do not obstruct the climbing or used as handholds (well sometimes used as handholds!)

In reply to gingerkate: Good point

In reply to Bigpete: Of cpurse friends are allowed + see Al's comment on his tube chock

In reply to paul mitchell:



I've kept out of this but that is ridiculous - whatever the rights and wrongs of Simon's action few would argue that the presence of fixed protection on limestone sport routes has anything to do with the rights and wrongs of fixed protection on gritstone.

In reply to Offwidth: "Someone else mentioned 'raising the ethical bar': well I hope they dont go round filling in ancient chips ...." - take a look at Rollerwall at Burbage South. There are some massive chips that have been filled in (by JM I think), although I am sure that already you are on your way out there to remove the cement. I wouldn't have tried to undo this damage, 'cos basically you can't.

In pure climbing terms SL has raised the ethical bar. In terms of the wider political issues then things are less clear cut.

All rock is being eroded - get used to it. There is little point in trying to glue holds and flakes back in to place once they come off. All we can do is to stem OUR influence on the rate of erosion.

Defoliating a route is not so bad as it will grow back, but I understand that this will also affect the rock in the long term.

The chockstone has been removed and I am sure chucking chockstones back in to RE will only cause damage, so why don't we leave it out? Modern protection (that SL is willing to lend out), is available.

In reply to gingerkate:

My main point is that people should consult a lot more widely than Simon did before changing the character of a well established route. Putting a chockstone back is encouraging tit for tat removal and possibly damages the rock. Hence, I'd rather let the debate continue for a while and see what the consensus is. One of the things that is so annoying about this is many of us may have supported Simon's case given the circumstances of this particular route but dont like the precedent of the way it was done.

There are loads of cracks with chockstones in on grit. I suspect many if not most were added for protection. Should we remove them all now since virtually none are needed with modern cam protection? Most of these routes will be very different without chockstones and harder to climb. This will anger the climbers that enjoy them or want to enjoy them, so on sound and fury expect Dave Gregory's to be multiplied a bit.

In reply to Ian Patterson:


I think the first ascentionist should, within the guidelines applicable to that area and time, decide on whether any fixed pro is to be used, and afterwards the route should be maintained, not retro-bolted or chopped/de-chocked. Hence the tradition in traditional. Anyone climbing on fixed pro but disapproving of this one (which was about as pure as they get in terms of sparseness, aesthetics and rock damage) is indeed hypocritical.

It’s no wonder that when the chock fell out or was removed in the sixties it soon got replaced – those “tube chocks” must have been even rarer than size 6 Friends.

In reply to Offwidth:
I can't see anyone else being fussed enough to take a new one back out. And I can't see that carefully placing/removing a loose chockstone does any more damage than any other placing of gear, which goes in and out all the time? If Simon could lift it out in one second, how can that have damaged the rock? A wedged in chockstone maybe, but not a loose one.

I do agree that he's a cheeky bugger, I just don't agree that it's the end of RE as we know it, which is how people are acting. I also don't agree it'll set a precedent.

In reply to Witkacy:
Exactly. In my opinion the route is put up by the first ascentionist and that is how it should be climbed in future. Removing a chockstone is changing the nature of the route, which should have been left as it was.

In reply to SidH: So whoever took out the peg from Happy Eater (a route that a million miles away from RE) was a bad boy then and should have left it in. Naughty Chris Plant go and put the peg back where it belongs.

In reply to Offwidth: get all the chockstones out now, only leader placed chockstones should be allowed.

In reply to Simon Lee: I'd love to borrow your friend 5 & 6 when i'm good enough to have a go at Right Eliminate. I need to get some practice in first though what routes on grit should i get under my belt first?

In reply to Jon Greengrass: Try Great Slab at Frogatt, its got small crack at the top so should give you some practise

In reply to graeme alderson:
Pegs are just for protection, whereas a chockstone alters the actual climbing - a completely different kettle of fish IMHO.

In reply to SidH:



Erm, I'm not sure about that. Cry Freedom for instance is surely finer as a free route than the original aid route.

There's no need to use pegs for aid on eg Eagle Ridge as the first winter ascentionists did.

Following your logic, any route put up using aid should be done using aid. I'm sure that's not what you meant tho.

As far as I can see, there is no real justification for fixed gear except on Sports routes.

In reply to graeme alderson: I'd probably find that a bit too easy.

In reply to SidH: Not all pegs are for protection, in fact many placed by a certain Joe Brown were used for aid.

In reply to SidH: whereas pegs alter the nature of the climb

In reply to Dave Hunter, Rock + Run:
But when you free an aided route, you are effectively putting up a new route since it is climbed in a different way. Im sure Simon Lee doesnt want to be the first ascentionist of "Right Chockless Eliminate" or similar, so I believe the route should have been left as it was.

In reply to SidH:

LOL, that's the best post on this thread

In reply to SidH:

But what about routes with only a couple of points of aid? You can hardly claim that routes of that sort are completely different.

On a slightly different tack, I think Point Five Gully for instance would be vastly improved by removal of the fixed belays. There is no doubt that doing so will make the route better, but will also be an inconvenience for those expecting fixed stances. The scottish Winter ethic is anti-bolt and really should be extended to all fixed gear.

In reply to gingerkate:

"I can't see anyone else being fussed enough to take a new one back out."

Well we'll have to disagree there. Anyone know the last in and out count for the Tippler thread?

"And I can't see that carefully placing/removing a loose chockstone does any more damage than any other placing of gear, which goes in and out all the time? "

Thats just plain silly. Lumps of rock are not convenient to carry on lead so unlike cams you need to ab and place it very carefully and might need several rocks to get one that fits well. You also may not be as lucky with the placement as an established chock which has taken lead falls. On the damage side I've removed one chockstone (by accident) it broke an edge off the crack and left a dent in a slab below. Not major damage but a lot more than many cam placements in a vertical crack.

" I just don't agree that it's the end of RE as we know it, which is how people are acting."

Who said its the end of RE? I say its a bad precedent and according to PM affects the protection more than the climbing. This is healthy debate, not life and death matters.

" I also don't agree it'll set a precedent."

So again we disagree. If you read much climbing 'history', its littered with spats like this that would have been much better decided by seeking consensus first (or even by keeping quiet rather than someone knocking things into the rock and someone else bashing them out again), unless of course you like to watch a good fight (thats human nature afterall).

In reply to Offwidth:
But don't you understand, there will NEVER be any consensus! Not on this, not on bolting, not on nothing. It's not politics, it's climbing, and people will keep going their own sweet way.

Thank god.

In reply to Dave Hunter, Rock + Run:


I think the aid argument is a red herring. Any gear, fixed or not, can be used as aid. You could aid the route better with cams than a single chock. I was referring to the amount of fixed protection.


Of course there is. For example, on central European sandstone they use fixed pro placed sparsely on lead because it damages the rock less than removable pro but enables you to avoid dying.

RE is now a much better route and jugs or no jugs I am now much more likely to fail on it when I eventually get round to doing it. Out of interest how many people on this thread were or are now intending to climb it?

Leave the chock out, it probably was nearer 'just VS' with all the original chocks in. And I'll also loan out my #5 and #6 cams to anyone nearby who wants to do that or similar.

In reply to Witkacy:

But why not go the whole hog and bolt them properly?

The Czechs/Germans can obviously do as they please but sparse bolting to me seems a bit bizarre.

Surely ability can stop you dying better than bolts 10m apart.

In reply to Dave Hunter, Rock + Run:


Sparse bolting looks better, does less damage and reduces traffic. It also makes for exciting routes with big fall potential but without a high risk of death. This is what I’ve read, badly translated from the Czech, and it makes sense to me at least. I suppose traditional climbing means you follow the tradition for that area, not your own idea of ‘traditional’.

In reply to Dave Hunter, Rock + Run:
what Tom Patey using pegs on FWA of Eagle Ridge - surely some mistake?. Always thought this was one of the Tricuni Tricksters finest ?
Think the aid reference you are making was the FWA of Parallel Buttress.

In reply to apache:

You are quite right. My head's a bit fuzzy today. Apologies.

In reply to Witkacy:

Having climbed (briefly) on the Czech sandstone, I agree that it's exciting despite the bolts.
Maybe it does look better though that's a question of degree.
Does less damage- climbing damages the rock. A few more or less bolts won't make much difference.
Reduces traffic- certainly. But if that's good (and I think that it's certainly not a bad thing) then removing all bolts would reduce traffic even further, logically better still.

I still fail to see though how one can disapprove of the placement of new fixed gear and yet be happy about old fixed gear remaining in place 'because it's traditional'.

In reply to Dave Hunter, Rock + Run:


I agree, and haven’t disapproved of anyone placing fixed gear on a new route or replacing rotten fixed gear on an old route.

I don’t agree that there should be unlimited fixed gear in some areas and zero fixed gear in other areas, creating an artificial division of climbing into ‘sport’ and ‘trad’.

In reply to Witkacy:

What about (a subject close to my heart) Scottish winter routes. The overwhelming ethic is onsight, no fixed gear. Surely the stripping of old pegs etc from routes makes sense given the strong anti fixed gear ethic?

In reply to Offwidth:

Sounds good. Lets go for that one then. Can you provide a list as I'm not sure in many cases which chockstones are placed by man and which are natural. Then I can get on with the job in my spare time...







;-p

In reply to gingerkate:

Again history proves you wrong. There are plenty of cases where consensus was acheived, bolts or otherwise, following well advertised meetings and despite strong contrary views. Full agreement is impossible but thats not the same thing.

On the thank god point I suspect you mean we should celebrate climbing diversity and dont want formal committee applications, to clean a problem or replace some tat, with rules and levels of punishment for offenders (with which I would completely agree); but equally we dont want bolts on Froggatt slabs (do we?)

In reply to Dave Hunter, Rock + Run:

No idea I’m afraid. I just don’t like the effects of unlimited bolting, wherever I see it. To me it looks hideous, but then so does unlimited construction of ski facilities, via ferrate and so on. This doesn’t mean I would ban all ski developments, via ferrate and expansion bolts. I’m not really into climbing ethics. I think the average climber prefers the type of climbing that’s exciting, but where they’re not going to deck in a fall.

In reply to Offwidth:
Funny, but I did have the distinct impression I was at a meeting about retro-bolting on friday, but must've been an illusion. Silly me, eh?

I don't think there's ever consensus, there's more a sort of batting back and forth... if whenever someone bolts a particular route another person comes along and debolts it, eventually the bolter will give up... because it's a lot of work. But if they don't come along and debolt it, then eventually the bolter will bolt another route... and so it goes on. Not consensus, more like a colony of guillemots vying for territory I'd say.

So maybe you are right, and the chockstone will pop in and out for ever more.

As to my 'thank god': yes, you understoon me correctly.

In reply to Simon Lee:

>It has come to light that the original chockstone in the route was absent for a period in the 60's during which time it received ascents in its clean state by Mark Vallance, Al Evans and Jim Campbell and no doubt others

No doubt, no doubt.

Or, of course, putting it a different way, some ethical zealot took the thing out in the 60's and it was then replaced, possibly because the majority, then as now, wanted it that way?

>At the BMC area meeting on Thursday whilst the majority were (unsurprisingly) in opposition there was celebrity endorsement from Al James, Neil Foster and Mark Vallance (BMC president no less)

Those against were all nonentities who therefore don't count, I take it?

JCM

In reply to gingerkate:

>he has effectively removed the possibility of leading the route from many climbers

>With all due respect, he hasn't. Because another chockstone can be placed.

Kate, the one thing EVERYBODY is agreed about is that the thing should not be put in, out, in, out and so on. So your point is a bad one.

In reply to gingerkate:

>I can't see anyone else being fussed enough to take a new one back out.

Time will tell.


This argument is fallacious and has been dealt with before - the point is not so much about damaging the rock as the security of the chock itself, avoiding the possibility of people setting off and finding it's not there, and that kind of thing.

In reply to tobyfk:

>>Go and abseil down the route, look and see where you would find a chockstone useful and then insert said chockstone. I suspect you would probably put it, to quote Extreme Rock, 'just where you need them... where the niche narrows into the final overhanging crack'.

>Which is in fact well below where the contentious chockstone was situated.

I must say I don't read it like that. This sounds exactly like the one that was there to me, and indeed the (lower) one that other witnesses say was there in the early 1970's.

Anyone who's done the route will agree that it's a ludicrous idea that there was ever a time when there were chocks in it, but they weren't at the obvious narrowing of the crack where the present one was. Indeed it must have been difficult to get them to stick in the lower crack at all - and I say this with authority having once tried to place one in the lower crack on lead, only to see it fall straight out and narrowly miss crushing my toes on its way to the floor.

jcm

In reply to Anonymous:

And surely, as a matter of historical interest, the famous limestone chock was in Lone Tree Groove at Cratcliffe, was it not?

jcm

In reply to jcm:
OK OK. But look.... is there anyone reading this thread who would take the chockstone back out again if a stone was carefully placed where the other one was?

I know lots of people back Simon taking it out, but do any of them feel so passionately about it that they'd take it out again?

If so, then you are right, and replacing it will just lead to the in-out scenario.... but if not, then someone could just put one in, and things would be almost back where they were.

Only.... whatever happens now, you are quite right.... how is anyone setting off up that route going to be sure there's a stone there now?

In fact... there must be plenty of people who don't read the mags or chat on here and who haven't heard it's gone.

In reply to gingerkate:

>but if not, then someone could just put one in, and things would be almost back where they were.

Oh yes, indeed. I thought you were suggesting that anyone who wants to do it with the stone can just put their own in, and anyone who wants to do it without can take it out, and so on. This is not a good idea.

The solution is, as I pointed out a while ago, for a stone to be placed further back in the crack so that it is easier to climb past.

As to your other question, one of Mr Lee's more enthusiastic fans did swear to remove any replacement. It was pointed out to him that in all likelihood the result would eventually be a stone sikaed in place: whether he grew up or not after that I couldn't say.

jcm

In reply to Anonymous:


Getting closer?

In reply to jcm:


That's feasible? Then it sounds like the closest thing there can be to a compromise.

In reply to gingerkate: There are two schools of thought regarding this issue. Those that care and those that don't. The latter group's opinions are not heard because they don't care. They don't go to the trouble of posting on here because they don't care. I'm an anomoly - I don't care and I'm posting on here. I don't care whether it stays in or is taken out. Maybe there are more climbers out there who don't care than those who do. Maybe it's only a tiny tiny percentage of climbers who care at all whether it stays in or not.

In reply to Andy S: I don't care either. The reason I don't care (probably like many others) is that I don't think I'm ever likely to have enough energy to "light Sheffield for a week" (see the relevant guidebook) regardless of whether the chockstone's in or out.

If however it's easier with it in, and I was climbing at a level to have an ascent in sight (but only just in sight), then I probably would be very bothered.

In reply to Andy S:
I wouldn't say I don't care, exactly... but I certainly don't mind either way what happens. I've not been arguing about what has happened, just about what seems to me an over-reaction, when people compare it to chipping etc., and a vague irritation that people get all worked up instead of what seemed to me the obvious solution of just putting a new one in. But I do see (thanks jcm) that it isn't quite as simple as that.

But anyway, the fact you don't care what happens and I don't mind what happens is irrelevant..... because the future of the route will obviously be decided by those who do care what happens.

But I'm puzzled.... why bother posting when you don't care?

In reply to gingerkate: I think most people arent overly bothered by RE.

Its just the one bloke deciding to change the character of a route situation. I havent climbed RE so cant comment, maybe he was right, but what if next time he isnt, or a guy who hasnt climbs much changes another route.

Remember recently fiedn admitting he chipped a route?

I know its different but its still a one man acting alone, I just feel a dangerous precedent was set, and believe such matters should be dealt with by groups.

I also think its strange that one man would go back to alter a route, did he want to be infamous?

why once youve done it climb something else.

In reply to Iain Ridgway:
Fiend chipped a route? Never!
I can't imagine that, I've climbed with him... he's a good partner and serious about his ethics. Or was this when he was a kid or something?

In reply to gingerkate: yeah it was years ago, couldnt do a route so chipped a foot ledge or something, he was just having a confessional.

But all my point is that people do things they think are OK, sometimes they are sometimes they arent? but if actions are taken by groups after debating, then we can at least reduce teh chances of negative actions.

In reply to Iain Ridgway and gingerkate:

A couple of pocks on the top of a southern sandstone crag.
Screwdriver if I remeber correctly.

In reply to Iain Ridgway:
Yes, I agree with you.

In reply to Anybody:

The difference in grade that the removal of this chockstone has made will depend on whether you used the chock as protection only or as a handhold.

Having done the route 3 times pre-friends I would suggest that it is now going to be easier (on the brain). Instead of having to sling a chock I would now be able to quickly place a friend and then move the friend up with me.

People have probably been using both types of pro of late, but now the fixed gear has gone the crack will get more wear and tear. Of all the types of fixed gear, the chockstone is arguably the most accepted.

Everywhere I have seen a fixed piece of gear removed, I have seen the rock deteriorate. How many time have you put in a nut that was too small and pulled it through along with some grains of rock?

Whether we should place or replace fixed gear is going to be an endless discussion, but for the rock's sake, I think we should hold on to the long term fixed stuff that we already have.

Baz

In reply to gingerkate:
I'm just posting to say what I've said, that's all.

In reply to Anonymous:


What sort of bizarre historic re-enactment had you embarked on? I like to think that someone watching you from the base of the crag muttered 'prat' at that moment ...

In reply to Anonymous:



An excellent put-down, John, in the style that you have made your own. The only flaw is that - as far as I can see, having searched on 'sika' and scrolled up and down the relevant threads - in this instance your opponent existed, Don Quixote like, only in your mind.

In reply to tobyfk:

Perhaps he means this one, although the sika comments appear on that long thread. (I thought sika was a type of deer.)

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=99440&v=1#1353685

In reply to Witkacy:

Ah, I see. The point made in one debate was responded to in an entirely seperate one. OK, perhaps more George Bush than Don Quixote ...

In reply to tobyfk:

Presumably this is how the legal mind works. It is a fact that the chock was removed. This is deemed unconstitutional; thus said chock or nearest equivalent (hereinafter “the Chock”) shall be replaced. Should the Chock be removed again, such remover shall be deemed childish and the Chock shall be superglued in place.

In reply to Witkacy:

Simon seems to think that affordability of large cams is not a valid issue.It is precisely to enable those without large cams to do the route that I left the large chock in over the roof.

If a new chock were to be placed a bit deeper in the crack,then it could provide pro without impeding the jug.

PM

In reply to Anonymous:


John, are you really saying that in the 60's there was a full debate and the majority consensus was that there should be a chockstone in place?

Isn't it more likely that some punter back then decided to lead it, saw there was no chockstone and, knowing Joe had used one (or several) on the first ascent decided what was good enough for Joe 10 years earlier was good style then and so unilaterally chucked a stone back in. Without consultation etc...

As an aside, if the stone had eroded and fallen out naturally (or with a falling climber on the end of it) instead of being removed by Simon, would everyone out there still be screaming for it to be replaced? Be honest now.

One last thing - majority, you do still mean more vocal minority, don't you since as Andy says the majority is silent and really couldn't care less...

In reply to paul mitchell: Big bro's or similar tube cams such as Al used on his chock free ascent are still available and a damn sight cheaper than friends - if people really want to do the route then the options are there.

In reply to paul mitchell:


Surely a new chock would have to be in a significant distance to really allow people to get past it without using it? But if so, the chock is going to be hard to thread for pro and would be likely to accumulate yards of stuck tat. And realistically most people who do the route will probably take large cams up with them anyway ...

In reply to tobyfk:

>... realistically most people who do the route will probably take large cams up with them anyway ...

In this battle of ego-driven wills, nobody seems to have mentioned that climbing RE armed with large cams - which reduces the problem to top-roping - is a much easier mental proposition than trying it with normal gear and the pre-existing chockstone.

Does the original publicity-seeker responsible for this thread have shares in an equipment company?

In reply to Anonymous:
>a much easier mental proposition than trying it with normal >gear and the pre-existing chockstone.


Errrm, no!

In reply to Anonymous: Could not be arsed to wade my way through the hundreds of responses on this and other related thread but here's my 2p ...

The removal of the chock stone was a selfish act by a selfish individual to serve his own individual needs. Said individual has been repeatedly told that the majority of climbers feel he should not do this but unbothered by this he went ahead.

The chockstone WILL be replaced in the near future and we can all forget about Mr Selfish until his next act of crass stupidity.

In reply to Tim Gardener:

If you had been bothered you may have posted a more considered response that would have been worth considerably more than 2 peeees.

In reply to Tim Gardener: What you (or someone else) went around and solicited the views of the 100,000+ climbers that exist in the UK then did you. Are are you talking about the few dozen people that post on here.

In reply to Tim Gardener:
>Said individual has been repeatedly told that the majority of climbers

Said person has been told that, but by a vocal minority, not by anyone who actually knows the views of the majority. Now if you'd like to make a considered response, read the thread(s)!

In reply to Tim Gardener:

As you cannot be arsed to wade thru and at the risk of repeating myself -

I selfishly wanted to make it a better crack to climb. A lot of people selfishly agree with me. Other selfish people want to deny us the pleasure of climbing a pure off-width. Selfish is always other people.

Best regards, Mr Selfish

In reply to graeme alderson:


I agree that this forum is a meaningless pimple on the arse of British climbing - it's 'just a bit of fun!', after all - but then, that argument goes both ways, doesn't it?

The originator of this entire debate chose initially to air the issue here; after the ensuing kangaroo court he then took his action.

Somebody less up his own backside might simply have removed the chockstone and said nothing.

Equally, somebody else can put it back.

Could make for some fun crag-side punch-ups ...

In reply to Anonymous:
Maybe it's already back and we're all too busy arguing about it being gone to have noticed

In reply to gingerkate: I keep thinking we've all been wound up by one of the greatest trolls ever.

TBH though I think this argument has ran its course, its been removed, which most people who have done the route now say its improved the climb.

Even though I disagree with the one man action philosophy, it may have improved the route, so may well be a positive action. only time will tell.

In reply to Anonymous:
You have these 3 events in the wrong order.

Enty

In reply to chris j:

>Big bro's or similar tube cams such as Al used on his chock free ascent are still available and a damn sight cheaper than friends

My impression was that BigBros are actually more expensive than friends. Anyone know?

In reply to Anonymous:

>nobody seems to have mentioned that climbing RE armed with large cams - which reduces the problem to top-roping - is a much easier mental proposition than trying it with normal gear and the pre-existing chockstone

I believe they have, actually. You must somehow have overlooked one or two - or a dozen - of the threads.

jcm

In reply to tobyfk:

>Surely a new chock would have to be in a significant distance to really allow people to get past it without using it?

Works perfectly fine on Goliath.

In reply to Anonymous:

.. and of course it was also pointed out that when the chockstone was there a lot of affluent climbers climbed it with the chockstone and one or more large cams.

In reply to chris j:

I've no idea. I didn't say that at all. I just said that the fact that someone has previously done what Mr Lee did and the thing was then put back cuts both ways.


That would have been different. What's your point?


Majority of those who care enough to express an opinion, obviously. There are many climbers who don't care either way, just as there are many non-climbers who don't care either way, but there doesn't seem any sensible reason to consider them. I don't see this as a terribly interesting point.

jcm

In reply to tobyfk:

What's the matter with you, Toby? The fellow was called Boy, I think, and he was participating on all the threads at the time, with more enthusiasm than sense it is true. He may well have said his piece on one thread and I on another, but so what?

jcm

In reply to tobyfk:

I wanted to do the route. I didn't have any large gear. I didn't fancy making it as far as the chock without gear so I thought I'd try and place a chockstone. Our plan was for the second to take it out, but this didn't prove necessary. I think the only observation my belayer made was, "Hey, watch out", or something along those lines, as he skipped out of the way.

In reply to Anonymous:


Toby will be posting his response on another thread at a random time in the future. He will, however, presume you to have read it ...

In reply to Simon Lee: Glad to see you are still checking in on the chaos you have left. Are you seriously telling me that the majority of climbers support your action. It was a selfish act for your own selfish reason, absolutely nothing to do with ethical purity, we've seen your ethics at High Tor, you remember, the 'bolt free' classic limestone crag ???

Never mind Simon, the chockstone will be replaced soon and you can move on to your next project, which we will probably have to sort out later aswell.

In reply to Tim Gardener: Here here ! about time someone told him what a prat he has been. Let us know when this route had been de-vandalised !

In reply to David Peters: I haven't done the route myself but my friend Graham has done it on several occations and tells me that it would be ruined if the chockstone was removed ... so I guess its ruined ;-(

In reply to gingerkate:

Are you planning on doing a clean lead of this route. If not, then why oh why are you stirring up something you know absolutely nothing about?

In reply to Anonymous:
No I'm not going to lead it. Don't see that I'm stirring.... as I said up thread I'm not fussed whether it goes in or out... I'm just interested in what people think, and why they think it. And why it's such a big deal to the people it's such a big deal to (because it seemed to me so easily reversible that I couldn't understand why people were so bothered... and now I see why they are... well, more than I did).

In reply to Anonymous: Mr Mouse. Maybe you could provide a difinitive answer?

In reply to jcm:

Me:

jcm:

Ok, thanks. I haven't read all the threads, but I am pleased that the point is made.

Leap-frogging 'Super-Size' (tm) cams up an off-width seems a fair tactic when you're fighting your way up a big wall, but on a single pitch crag route in Britain - what's the f*cking point?

In reply to Anonymous: Practice for when yo are on a big wall?

Fun?

In reply to Richard Bradley:


If you want practice in free-climbing off-widths you may as well top-rope this route. This will achieve the same final result as continually leap-frogging those large cams above your head and then claiming an ascent.


Fun? Fun?! FUN???!!!

<northern irish accent>Begone! Ye SPAWN of SATAN!</northern irish accent>

In reply to Anonymous:

I think "practice for shunting cams before visiting Yosemite" was part of the motivation for removing the chockstone, as it got in the way

In reply to Anonymous: I am sorry but this last post is some of the worst bull I have read on RT for a long time (and thats saying something). Leap frogging cams (or any other runners) is not a true ascent then. But presumably buying 12 size 6 cams and putting them in without leap frogging is ethically pure. What about only having one cam and shunting it uop, where does that come in your ethical heirachy.

So my ascent of the File at Higgar a couple of years ago is invalid because I reached below me, took out a cam then re inserted it above my head because I only had one cam of the correct size.

Are you going to produce a hierachy of what is a true ascent then. Will it be based on number of runners or even type of runners then. I did Insanity using hexes therefore my ascent is better than yours because you used cams.

In reply to graeme alderson:


Why thank you.


I don't care about your ascents, and I don't expect you to care about mine. Nor do I see mileage in a reductio ad absurdum. But I hope you _might_ agree that, in this climbing game we play, the style and purity of any ascent does matter?

So if you're asking whether I think an 'adventurous' approach to protection provides a better climbing experience - then yes.

In reply to Anonymous: I do agree that the style and purity of ascent is important, I just disagree that clipping an in-situ piece of gear is automtaically a better style (and therefore) purer than shunting or frogging cams up a crack.

In reply to graeme alderson:
agreed nothing wrong with shunting or leapfrogging cams at all.

Shunting sounds like top roping until you fall in between placements, hit the ground and die.

In reply to Woker:But a sensible person would have two,and move one cam and then the other cam,personally i think if the stone that's been taken out by Simon Lee wasn't the origional stone placed by Joe Brown then it's almost being sentimantal rather than having a regard for history by leaving the second stone in place,surely if the oringional stone has been removed years ago and dissapeared then that's that,people should leave it without a chockstone and climb it cleanly? Just my opinion.
Tim

In reply to Timmd:I don't advocate moving cams up as you climb either though,i think that's cheating on a route like Right Eliminate.

In reply to Timmd:PS,i don't really mind either way,but as everybody else seems to have had thier say i thought i might as well.Enjoy your climbing folks.
Tim

In reply to Timmd:
have you ever been in the situation where you could see that leap froggiing cams would help prevent a massive runout but didn't as your ethics stopped you ?

Also stopping to leap frog cams can be tricky firslty you need to climb only so far that you can still reach the lower cam, and then you need to be able to stop in this new postion remove it and place it, often when climbing stoping in a arbitrary positions can be tricky, especially as you move up the grades, quite often a preferable way of climbing would be to stop to place pro where convienient which can be more like every 10 feet or so.

In reply to Timmd: it certainly is cheating when you put your hands through the slings and pull on them

1. Shunting cams up a crack is much more strenous than leading a route on a single threaded chockstone, so it is physically hard to lead it FACT

2. Just using one slung chockstone or cam is going to give you a longer runout, so the route is going to be mentally harder to lead FACT

Which is more important? in my opinion the 1st is the better climber, they have better technique strength and stamina, all the second climber has is a tiny dick.

In reply to Jon Greengrass:

You cannot be serious.

In reply to Woker amd John Greengrass.No need to shout.
()

I just think there's something asthetically nicer about placing a cam and leaving it rather than leap frogging two cams,aside from which is more difficult.

I have been in a situation where it would have helped to leapfrog cams or runners and didn't as you don't have as much of a 'flow' when climbing.I suppose you could always place a cam where the chock stone is when you climb and leave it at that,i'd rather trust my own cam than a chock stone that wasn't the origionaly one that wobbled anyway.

Cheers
Tim

In reply to Greengrass and Woker:Though i'm not trying to force my opinion on anybody else,people can climb it how they want to.

Cheers
Tim

In reply to Anonymous:


Can't quite place your accent - Sixmilecross? Beragh? somewhere near there?

In reply to Simon Lee: A cynical thought maybe, but could any of those celebrities supporting removal of chockstones possibly have a relationship with climbing equipment companies such as those selling large protection devices?
I hate needing big cams - they wear a hole in your rucksack and hurt when you sit on them!

In reply to matthew:


But you will find them very useful on El Cap.