This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Whilst the debate continues about the top down prepared route on Half Dome and for some its too many bolts (UKC news item) an ex-pat Brit called Paul Ross is getting some stick for too few bolts on his routes.......
...and one of his partners in crime was Sir Chris Bonington.
Read more http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/older.html?month=04&year=2008#n43965
...and one of his partners in crime was Sir Chris Bonington.
Read more http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/older.html?month=04&year=2008#n43965
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Can't trust these pensioners to stick to safe routes can you? Just shows that people with drive can do whatever they wish to if they remain fit and healthy.
Can't trust these pensioners to stick to safe routes can you? Just shows that people with drive can do whatever they wish to if they remain fit and healthy.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Nice Daily Sport headline there Mick. Which is incorrect.
I quote
"One of Paul's partners last October was Sir Chris Bonington, also climbing with Paul's regular partner Layne Potter, on a new route they called Knights-Errant a 870 feet five pitch 5.8 (around VS/HVS) on which they all shared leads; although it seems this route hasn't yet had complaints about long run outs."
So in fact, there seems to be no current evidence that Chris Bonington has been doing new routes with long runnouts. Just that he sometimes climbs with someone who does.
This seems to be a case of the journalistic tradition of attempting to increase the exposure of a story by tenuously linking in a more famous person. Paul Ross's routes should be examined and discussed on his merit and style, not Sir Boningtons.
Nice Daily Sport headline there Mick. Which is incorrect.
I quote
"One of Paul's partners last October was Sir Chris Bonington, also climbing with Paul's regular partner Layne Potter, on a new route they called Knights-Errant a 870 feet five pitch 5.8 (around VS/HVS) on which they all shared leads; although it seems this route hasn't yet had complaints about long run outs."
So in fact, there seems to be no current evidence that Chris Bonington has been doing new routes with long runnouts. Just that he sometimes climbs with someone who does.
This seems to be a case of the journalistic tradition of attempting to increase the exposure of a story by tenuously linking in a more famous person. Paul Ross's routes should be examined and discussed on his merit and style, not Sir Boningtons.
In reply to TobyT:
Cheers. I like to throw one in now and again.
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
> Nice Daily Sport headline there Mick.
Cheers. I like to throw one in now and again.
In reply to TobyT:
That's just ridiculous!
You surely can't be comparing Mick to a journalist?
>
>
> This seems to be a case of the journalistic tradition
> This seems to be a case of the journalistic tradition
That's just ridiculous!
You surely can't be comparing Mick to a journalist?
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
I love this quote..
" I understand that this is a run-out area and came here for some adventure but I had avoided the X rated climbs on purpose and still found myself in a situation where a broken hold(very likely in this friable sandstone) would mean a 90 foot ground fall onto rock."
Surely climbing is supposed to be all about the potential danger. Maybe the mercans should stick to burger eating contests.
I love this quote..
" I understand that this is a run-out area and came here for some adventure but I had avoided the X rated climbs on purpose and still found myself in a situation where a broken hold(very likely in this friable sandstone) would mean a 90 foot ground fall onto rock."
Surely climbing is supposed to be all about the potential danger. Maybe the mercans should stick to burger eating contests.
In reply to graeme jackson:
Really??
Mick
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
> Surely climbing is supposed to be all about the potential danger.
Really??
Mick
In reply to graeme jackson:
Those five words always put my teeth on edge.
Four words I much prefer:
Each to their own.
> climbing is supposed to be
Those five words always put my teeth on edge.
Four words I much prefer:
Each to their own.
In reply to graeme jackson:
Or maybe like many American climbers stick to new routes that are attempted ground-up.
Have you ever attempted to do a multi-pitch route on featureless granite from the ground up. Hard work and bold.
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
>
>
> Surely climbing is supposed to be all about the potential danger. Maybe the mercans should stick to burger eating contests.
Or maybe like many American climbers stick to new routes that are attempted ground-up.
Have you ever attempted to do a multi-pitch route on featureless granite from the ground up. Hard work and bold.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Ground up is good but I don't think that this approach should mask the fact that bolts detract from adventure climbing. Routes done in this style should not be praised so much, just because they are more adventurous than top rope bolting. See below for clarification
Best style
Onsight trad
Ground-up trad
Headpoint trad
Head point solo
Onsight solo (n.b. solo's are low in the list as if the rock offers some protection, you should be grateful enough to use it)
Ground-up bolted
Bolted from a top rope
Worst style
So as you can see, in the grand sceme of things, ground-up bolting is not very good.
cheers
Best style
Onsight trad
Ground-up trad
Headpoint trad
Head point solo
Onsight solo (n.b. solo's are low in the list as if the rock offers some protection, you should be grateful enough to use it)
Ground-up bolted
Bolted from a top rope
Worst style
So as you can see, in the grand sceme of things, ground-up bolting is not very good.
cheers
In reply to Ackbar:
>Ground up is good but I don't think that this approach should mask the fact that bolts detract from adventure climbing.
Oh yes, 100ft to the first bolt, certainly not sporting is it?
http://mountainproject.com/v/utah/san_rafael_swell/san_rafael_swell_south/1...
>Ground up is good but I don't think that this approach should mask the fact that bolts detract from adventure climbing.
Oh yes, 100ft to the first bolt, certainly not sporting is it?
http://mountainproject.com/v/utah/san_rafael_swell/san_rafael_swell_south/1...
In reply to Ackbar:
Hi Ackbar,
Are you talking from experience?
Have you ever done a new multi-pitch route ground-up on featureless granite or crumbly sandstone.
If you have, you will know that placing bolts on the lead, in a minimalist way is very much part of the adventure.
THIS MAY HELP.... it's by Duncan:
"A little history (for Americans)…
In the beginning, rock-climbing was a development of Alpinism so naturally the accepted style of climbing was ground-up. In the UK, cliffs are small, so the occasional crafty top-rope or abseil inspection is quite easy to rig up and was used on the quiet from quite early on. The fractured nature of the rock meant that most routes had some natural protection and so an anti-piton and then anti-bolt ethic arose to maintain the challenge. By the 1970s the supply of new routes was perceived as drying up and more obscure crags were developed. Frequently these had to be scraped out of the hillside (eg Goat Crag in Borrowdale). In case north American readers are not aware, it rains quite often in the UK and cliff vegetation is frequently prolific, so this required heroic gardening with crowbars and yard brushes. Not something that can be done ground-up. Additionally, the growth of sea-cliff climbing inverted usual practice: you start at the top and frequently abseil down your route to start. The effect of this was that abseil cleaning and inspection became widespread, which lead fairly rapidly to checking holds and the sneaky practicing of sections on the ab. rope. By the early 80s this kind of ‘cheating’ was widespread but frequently unacknowledged, a bit like the practice of ‘yo-yo’ ground-up ascents that were also popular at the time.
Sport climbing came along and changed the rules, ‘Cheating’ was out in the open and became codified. A certain amount practicing and pre-inspection was usual in the local traditional form, so the difference between “trad” climbing and sport climbing was perceived as being bolts. Trad = no bolts; sport = bolts. Battles raged between the bolters and non-bolters in the mid-80s but eventually everyone agreed to get along (mostly).
Head-pointing must be trad. as it doesn’t involve bolts.
A little history (for Brits)…
In the beginning, rock-climbing was a development of Alpinism so naturally the accepted style of climbing was ground-up. In the USA, cliffs are big, so top-rope or abseil inspection is usually damn hard to arrange and people generally didn’t bother. The un-fractured nature of the granite meant that many routes had no natural protection and so the use of bolts was permitted, if placed ground-up to maintain the challenge. In case our UK readers are not aware, those American cliffs are clean, blank and smooth and climbing without bolts is inconceivable. No-one has climbed El Cap without bolts (now there’s a challenge for some ethical Brit…) and no-one thought The Nose was anything less than an awesome achievement despite Warren Harding drilling over a 100 holes on the first ascent. By the 1970s ground-up climbing reached it’s zenith with fearsome routes climbed replete with epic tales of drilling from tiny stances. As standards rose, the routes got steeper and drilling ground-up got harder and harder. Ethics got stretched to permit drilling from hooks or other forms of aid, so long as it was ground-up. By the early 80s this kind of ‘cheating’ was widespread.
Sport climbing came along and changed the rules, ‘Cheating’ was out in the open and became codified. A certain amount of bolting was usual in the local traditional form, so the difference between “trad” climbing and sport climbing was perceived as being one of style. Trad = ground-up; sport = top-down preparation. Battles raged between the rap-bolters and ground-uppers in the mid-80s but eventually everyone agreed to get along (mostly).
Head-pointing can’t be trad. as it involves prior practice. "
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com) Ground up is good but I don't think that this approach should mask the fact that bolts detract from adventure climbing.
Hi Ackbar,
Are you talking from experience?
Have you ever done a new multi-pitch route ground-up on featureless granite or crumbly sandstone.
If you have, you will know that placing bolts on the lead, in a minimalist way is very much part of the adventure.
THIS MAY HELP.... it's by Duncan:
"A little history (for Americans)…
In the beginning, rock-climbing was a development of Alpinism so naturally the accepted style of climbing was ground-up. In the UK, cliffs are small, so the occasional crafty top-rope or abseil inspection is quite easy to rig up and was used on the quiet from quite early on. The fractured nature of the rock meant that most routes had some natural protection and so an anti-piton and then anti-bolt ethic arose to maintain the challenge. By the 1970s the supply of new routes was perceived as drying up and more obscure crags were developed. Frequently these had to be scraped out of the hillside (eg Goat Crag in Borrowdale). In case north American readers are not aware, it rains quite often in the UK and cliff vegetation is frequently prolific, so this required heroic gardening with crowbars and yard brushes. Not something that can be done ground-up. Additionally, the growth of sea-cliff climbing inverted usual practice: you start at the top and frequently abseil down your route to start. The effect of this was that abseil cleaning and inspection became widespread, which lead fairly rapidly to checking holds and the sneaky practicing of sections on the ab. rope. By the early 80s this kind of ‘cheating’ was widespread but frequently unacknowledged, a bit like the practice of ‘yo-yo’ ground-up ascents that were also popular at the time.
Sport climbing came along and changed the rules, ‘Cheating’ was out in the open and became codified. A certain amount practicing and pre-inspection was usual in the local traditional form, so the difference between “trad” climbing and sport climbing was perceived as being bolts. Trad = no bolts; sport = bolts. Battles raged between the bolters and non-bolters in the mid-80s but eventually everyone agreed to get along (mostly).
Head-pointing must be trad. as it doesn’t involve bolts.
A little history (for Brits)…
In the beginning, rock-climbing was a development of Alpinism so naturally the accepted style of climbing was ground-up. In the USA, cliffs are big, so top-rope or abseil inspection is usually damn hard to arrange and people generally didn’t bother. The un-fractured nature of the granite meant that many routes had no natural protection and so the use of bolts was permitted, if placed ground-up to maintain the challenge. In case our UK readers are not aware, those American cliffs are clean, blank and smooth and climbing without bolts is inconceivable. No-one has climbed El Cap without bolts (now there’s a challenge for some ethical Brit…) and no-one thought The Nose was anything less than an awesome achievement despite Warren Harding drilling over a 100 holes on the first ascent. By the 1970s ground-up climbing reached it’s zenith with fearsome routes climbed replete with epic tales of drilling from tiny stances. As standards rose, the routes got steeper and drilling ground-up got harder and harder. Ethics got stretched to permit drilling from hooks or other forms of aid, so long as it was ground-up. By the early 80s this kind of ‘cheating’ was widespread.
Sport climbing came along and changed the rules, ‘Cheating’ was out in the open and became codified. A certain amount of bolting was usual in the local traditional form, so the difference between “trad” climbing and sport climbing was perceived as being one of style. Trad = ground-up; sport = top-down preparation. Battles raged between the rap-bolters and ground-uppers in the mid-80s but eventually everyone agreed to get along (mostly).
Head-pointing can’t be trad. as it involves prior practice. "
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Aye but if the fellow learnt his trade on the granite slabs in North Conway, NH as the report suggests then runout is a fact of life. R & XR aplenty on Whitehorse.
Awesome climbing venue in my opinion.
Aye but if the fellow learnt his trade on the granite slabs in North Conway, NH as the report suggests then runout is a fact of life. R & XR aplenty on Whitehorse.
Awesome climbing venue in my opinion.
In reply to Ackbar: Thats just your opinion and to be honest its a shite ill-informed opinion drawn from little experience of knowledge of what you talk of other than an irrational hatred of bolts. Maybe you could go over to Tuolumne and show Mr Bachar how it really should be done.
Also ground up bolting is trad climbing.
Also ground up bolting is trad climbing.
In reply to Cookie:
Aye, we did a Paul Ross route there with BIG run outs. Great route. Fantastic 'crags' these...
Woukd love to go back sometime.
Davie
Aye, we did a Paul Ross route there with BIG run outs. Great route. Fantastic 'crags' these...
Woukd love to go back sometime.
Davie
In reply to JoeL 90:
Surely only for the first ascenscionist. Or do they take the bolts out and refil the holes afterwards?
> Also ground up bolting is trad climbing.
Surely only for the first ascenscionist. Or do they take the bolts out and refil the holes afterwards?
In reply to graeme jackson: Pegs and threads are in-situ on british trad climbs and on some limestone ones are the only gear. In-situ gear doesn't make a route not a trad climb. If the route is climbed ground up on first ascent then its a trad climb the second ascentionist who climbs between the spaced 1/4" bolts isn't exactly sport climbing.
In reply to graeme jackson: Check out Richard Horns Definition od Sport climbing on http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=295086&v=1#x4373804
Its seems pretty sound, ground up bolted rotes will not be like this as where the bolts are drilled depends on where the stances are.
Its seems pretty sound, ground up bolted rotes will not be like this as where the bolts are drilled depends on where the stances are.
In reply to JoeL 90: Ok, I can go with that. However, Surely the FA should be given a harder grade than any subsequent ascents as he has spent most of his time balancing on tiny holds brandishing his hilti whereas mere mortals such as you and I will just breeze up (hahahaha) with an armful of quickdraws.
In reply to graeme jackson:
Nope for repeats as well. Read Duncan's explanation above.
Some routes with bolt protection are very much traditional routes.
> (In reply to JoeL 90)
>
> [...]
>
> Surely only for the first ascenscionist. Or do they take the bolts out and refil the holes afterwards?
>
> [...]
>
> Surely only for the first ascenscionist. Or do they take the bolts out and refil the holes afterwards?
Nope for repeats as well. Read Duncan's explanation above.
Some routes with bolt protection are very much traditional routes.
In reply to graeme jackson:
Yes they it is harder for the FA.... but you won't " just breeze up (hahahaha) with an armful of quickdraws" .... take a full rack as well.
> (In reply to JoeL 90) Ok, I can go with that. However, Surely the FA should be given a harder grade than any subsequent ascents as he has spent most of his time balancing on tiny holds brandishing his hilti whereas mere mortals such as you and I will just breeze up (hahahaha) with an armful of quickdraws.
Yes they it is harder for the FA.... but you won't " just breeze up (hahahaha) with an armful of quickdraws" .... take a full rack as well.
In reply to graeme jackson: They normally aren't equipped completely free, once theyve got the bolt in they may attach themselves to it to get the hanger on. FAs are gebnrally recognised are being more significant than repeats in the climbing media. Also american grades drage the actual difficulty of the climbing and use a R or X suffix to denote seriousness so the effort of placing bolts shouldn't affect this? Although no doubt a first ascent of such a route would be considered more serious than a repeat soon after, though it wouldn't mean they climbed a different grade route.
Dear Sutty,
100ft in Sheffield is known as hovering in the air 20 foot above the top of the crag. Of course you don't need bolts.
100ft in Sheffield is known as hovering in the air 20 foot above the top of the crag. Of course you don't need bolts.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Quick question mick - Who's Duncan?
> (In reply to graeme jackson)
> [...]
>
> Nope for repeats as well. Read Duncan's explanation above.
>> [...]
>
> Nope for repeats as well. Read Duncan's explanation above.
Quick question mick - Who's Duncan?
In reply to graeme jackson:
Don't know Graeme. TobyFK may know.
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
> [...]
> Quick question mick - Who's Duncan?
> [...]
> Quick question mick - Who's Duncan?
Don't know Graeme. TobyFK may know.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Doesn't matter. just thought he was someone I should have known about.
Doesn't matter. just thought he was someone I should have known about.
In reply to graeme jackson:
Duncan Ferguson (ex Everton/ Scotland player).
He's added climbing ethics to his pigeon fancying portfolio of hobbies.
Davie
Duncan Ferguson (ex Everton/ Scotland player).
He's added climbing ethics to his pigeon fancying portfolio of hobbies.
Davie
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
True, but not as adventurous as not placing any bolts. I am talking from modest experience having done a new multi-pitch route (2 pitches) ground up on mostly featureless granite (Layback and Think of Lundy, E1, Lundy Island 2005 if you are interested). Now I must say my friend lead the crux pitch but there was potential for a deck out at the crux, and I was belaying at the potential impact zone so I think I get an adventure point for that. Plus I still have a scar on my hand from the first pitch).
But here is the thing. If it had looked too hard or too dangerous, you know what we would have done? We would have walked away. Found something else.
In context of the American ethical history, the ground up bolting thing is great. But not by British standards. So I would not critise what happens in the US, but just don't think it is anything to be praised.
Cheers
> (In reply to Ackbar)
> [...]
>
> Hi Ackbar,
>
> Are you talking from experience?
>
> Have you ever done a new multi-pitch route ground-up on featureless granite or crumbly sandstone.
>
> If you have, you will know that placing bolts on the lead, in a minimalist way is very much part of the adventure.
>
> [...]
>
> Hi Ackbar,
>
> Are you talking from experience?
>
> Have you ever done a new multi-pitch route ground-up on featureless granite or crumbly sandstone.
>
> If you have, you will know that placing bolts on the lead, in a minimalist way is very much part of the adventure.
>
True, but not as adventurous as not placing any bolts. I am talking from modest experience having done a new multi-pitch route (2 pitches) ground up on mostly featureless granite (Layback and Think of Lundy, E1, Lundy Island 2005 if you are interested). Now I must say my friend lead the crux pitch but there was potential for a deck out at the crux, and I was belaying at the potential impact zone so I think I get an adventure point for that. Plus I still have a scar on my hand from the first pitch).
But here is the thing. If it had looked too hard or too dangerous, you know what we would have done? We would have walked away. Found something else.
In context of the American ethical history, the ground up bolting thing is great. But not by British standards. So I would not critise what happens in the US, but just don't think it is anything to be praised.
Cheers
In reply to Ackbar:
If you have never climbed a new route ground up, not knowing if it was possible, or if you would get a runner in, done a move 70ft up you are not sure you can reverse then you are not able to judge how routes should be done. Being second just does not hack it, unless you followed knowing there was no belay, or a very dodgy one that may kill you both if one of you fell off.
If you have never climbed a new route ground up, not knowing if it was possible, or if you would get a runner in, done a move 70ft up you are not sure you can reverse then you are not able to judge how routes should be done. Being second just does not hack it, unless you followed knowing there was no belay, or a very dodgy one that may kill you both if one of you fell off.
In reply to sutty: sorry but I don't understand. So, are you saying that if you were 70ft up and the climbing was unpredicatable, then it's o.k to remove that danger by placing a bolt?
P.S, I don't know about you but when I climb with my friends, we climb as a team. Lead or seconding is irrelevant. In fact it is often more scary watching one of your best mates climb something dangerous than climbing it yourself.
P.S, I don't know about you but when I climb with my friends, we climb as a team. Lead or seconding is irrelevant. In fact it is often more scary watching one of your best mates climb something dangerous than climbing it yourself.
In reply to graeme jackson:
Duncan is Duncan Critchley. Well-qualified to compare British and US ethics in this regard.
jcm
Duncan is Duncan Critchley. Well-qualified to compare British and US ethics in this regard.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously: Thanks John. I thought wee davie's answer was probably TiC but you never can tell
In reply to Ackbar:
I totally disagree. Many are highly worth praise.
See Duncan's explanation above.
You have seen some of Bachar's ground-up routes - not just the Bachar-Yerian? They would elicit a huge WOW from any British climber.
We have different ethics in the UK to the USA. I honestly don''t think one is better than the other.
In fact in most situations it is hard to compare.
Mick
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
> [...]
> [...]
> So I would not critise what happens in the US, but just don't think it is anything to be praised.
I totally disagree. Many are highly worth praise.
See Duncan's explanation above.
You have seen some of Bachar's ground-up routes - not just the Bachar-Yerian? They would elicit a huge WOW from any British climber.
We have different ethics in the UK to the USA. I honestly don''t think one is better than the other.
In fact in most situations it is hard to compare.
Mick
In reply to Ackbar:
Can I have an E grade for watching "Hard Grit" then?
> (In reply to sutty) In fact it is often more scary watching one of your best mates climb something dangerous than climbing it yourself.
Can I have an E grade for watching "Hard Grit" then?
In reply to Serpico: If you don't know the outcome of the climbs then yes you can have an E point.
In reply to Ackbar:
Well I watched it twice, so obviously the 2nd time wasn't onsight.
> (In reply to Serpico) If you don't know the outcome of the climbs then yes you can have an E point.
Well I watched it twice, so obviously the 2nd time wasn't onsight.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: It's not about individual routes and it's not about how dangerous something is. It's principle. By bolting a route you are 1) damaging the rock (although the same can be said for placing and removing gear on trad) 2) not accepting the challenge that geology has set for you and 3) you are making the assumption that nodobdy will ever be able to lead it without bolts. You should watch the film about cobra crack with the Austrian guy chopping the bolts on green spit. That's amazing!
In reply to Ackbar:
Yes I know all that.... I've written thousands of words on the subject
You ever seen the Bachar-Yerian? Or any of these blank and huge faces that have been established from the ground-up.
The bolts have zero effect on the rock especially on these sparsely bolted ground-up fests; geology, that cruel and unforgiving mistress thankfully does allow the odd respite (a moment of kindness) so that you can place a bolt on the lead - and no one and I mean no one will ever establish something like the Bachar-Yerian from the ground-up, without bolts.
Ditto with my route, "Do Not Take The German People Lightly I Say" 5.11c - established ground-up......or even the bolder than life itself.... Slab Hymen... 3 pitches 5.10d (FA Walling, Ryan).
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com) It's not about individual routes and it's not about how dangerous something is. It's principle. By bolting a route you are 1) damaging the rock (although the same can be said for placing and removing gear on trad) 2) not accepting the challenge that geology has set for you and 3) you are making the assumption that nodobdy will ever be able to lead it without bolts.
Yes I know all that.... I've written thousands of words on the subject
You ever seen the Bachar-Yerian? Or any of these blank and huge faces that have been established from the ground-up.
The bolts have zero effect on the rock especially on these sparsely bolted ground-up fests; geology, that cruel and unforgiving mistress thankfully does allow the odd respite (a moment of kindness) so that you can place a bolt on the lead - and no one and I mean no one will ever establish something like the Bachar-Yerian from the ground-up, without bolts.
Ditto with my route, "Do Not Take The German People Lightly I Say" 5.11c - established ground-up......or even the bolder than life itself.... Slab Hymen... 3 pitches 5.10d (FA Walling, Ryan).
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Whew! Just another climbing debate! I thought that Jonathon Ross's prat of a brother had taken up climbing! Dont do that mick!
Whew! Just another climbing debate! I thought that Jonathon Ross's prat of a brother had taken up climbing! Dont do that mick!
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Bachar-Yerian is 500ft of 5.11c which is about 160m of E5. Without the bolts it probably goes up to E8? Maybe nobody will ever be able to onsight a new route like that. Does sound suicidal. But couldn't we just leave those faces and acknowledge that somethings we just can't have?
In reply to Ackbar: Its easy for someone with little ability like you and me to say such things but if your John Bachar looking up a perfect line with a black streak to mark the way itd be a bit harder to say bolting is wrong.
By using your argument surely all climbing and human existence itself is wrong as it damages the environment and rock? Bolting just makes sense on granite slabs the routes can still be adventurous with chickenheads to sling and monster run outs. People leave their marks on a climb however they climb it.
By using your argument surely all climbing and human existence itself is wrong as it damages the environment and rock? Bolting just makes sense on granite slabs the routes can still be adventurous with chickenheads to sling and monster run outs. People leave their marks on a climb however they climb it.
In reply to Ackbar:
Yes we could, but we haven't.
I wouldn't even attempt to put an E grade on Bachar-Yerian without bolts.
On the same wall:
http://bp2.blogger.com/_mMDe6R8uAwk/RaosiyVTK7I/AAAAAAAAAA0/5oFxYciJWtg/s16...
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com) Bachar-Yerian is 500ft of 5.11c which is about 160m of E5. Without the bolts it probably goes up to E8? Maybe nobody will ever be able to onsight a new route like that. Does sound suicidal. But couldn't we just leave those faces and acknowledge that somethings we just can't have?
Yes we could, but we haven't.
I wouldn't even attempt to put an E grade on Bachar-Yerian without bolts.
On the same wall:
http://bp2.blogger.com/_mMDe6R8uAwk/RaosiyVTK7I/AAAAAAAAAA0/5oFxYciJWtg/s16...
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: that is pretty amazing.
In reply to Ackbar:
I can remember my first trip to Medlicot, I was blown away by the rock quality, the colour, the height and the situation. It's a granite equivalent of Ceuse, except not as steep and with far far fewer bolts.
If it was in Europe it would be peppered with bolts.
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com) that is pretty amazing.
I can remember my first trip to Medlicot, I was blown away by the rock quality, the colour, the height and the situation. It's a granite equivalent of Ceuse, except not as steep and with far far fewer bolts.
If it was in Europe it would be peppered with bolts.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Back to Rossy again - always been one of my heros - with his routes in Borrowdale in the 1950's onwards
Now into his 70's and still putting up new routes near his home in Colorado - on some solid crags and also tottering towers in Utah. He ahs had a few trips to Tafraoute in Morocco with the Golden Oldies (they don't act like "Oldies" !) teams including the likes of Sir Chris; Joe Brown; Les Brown, Derek Walker etc etc - knocking off 1000 foot new routes (on sight). He emailed me a photo of a 3 pitch E3 right of Tizgut Gorge - which looked stunning - again on sight - and not a bolt in sight - done (not sure if he led) around his 70th birthday !! Dead keen guy - and brilliant climber.
I had had plans to go to El Potrero Chico (in Mexico) with some friends and was in email contact with Paul - thought Colorado isn't that far from Mexico so asked if he fancied going there (he hadn't been) - he seemed interested until I mentioned that the crag was bolted - and he said he was leaving the bolted climbs until he got old !! What a guy !!!
Back to Rossy again - always been one of my heros - with his routes in Borrowdale in the 1950's onwards
Now into his 70's and still putting up new routes near his home in Colorado - on some solid crags and also tottering towers in Utah. He ahs had a few trips to Tafraoute in Morocco with the Golden Oldies (they don't act like "Oldies" !) teams including the likes of Sir Chris; Joe Brown; Les Brown, Derek Walker etc etc - knocking off 1000 foot new routes (on sight). He emailed me a photo of a 3 pitch E3 right of Tizgut Gorge - which looked stunning - again on sight - and not a bolt in sight - done (not sure if he led) around his 70th birthday !! Dead keen guy - and brilliant climber.
I had had plans to go to El Potrero Chico (in Mexico) with some friends and was in email contact with Paul - thought Colorado isn't that far from Mexico so asked if he fancied going there (he hadn't been) - he seemed interested until I mentioned that the crag was bolted - and he said he was leaving the bolted climbs until he got old !! What a guy !!!
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...