In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Hi Mick
Now don't get all edgy on me. I never suggested that UKC was involved in some masterplan to strip bolts on the continent, get easily researched news' items and promote their advertisers' products. I suppose rule n°1 of internet scrapping is to undermine your adversary's credibility though, so fair game.
I haven't actually read the Royal Robbins article that you mention. I'm sure it's interesting but I do wonder what a 1960s, American big wall climber's opinion has to do with ethics on a French sport crag in the 21st century. I agree that historical perspectives are important but there are plenty of older climbers in the Chamonix valley who can give us that (like Jon for example
).
It seems to me that the climbing community puts way too much weight behind the idea that the first ascensionists decisions are sacred. If the first ascenionist is motivated by the experience then he shouldn't really care what happens to the route after he's done it (unless he's a local and plans to climb it regularly). If he's motivated by ego then, yeah, I can see why he would want the route to stay in it's original state as a testament to his skills and bravery. Unfortunately that means that everybody else is held to ransom by an individual's ego - not an ideal state of affairs in any community.
Take this crag in Vallorcine. It seems to me that there would be a very good case for stripping the 7b+ (that Tom impressively flashed on natural gear) of its bolts as the gear required is widely available. If consulted I'd argue this point with the locals, but would defer to the consensus judgement if it was different. In any case, I could always do like Tom and lead it on natural pro anyway (well, except I'm not good enough!). Your point of view however implies that it's fine for this particular route to be bolted because that's what the first ascensionist dictated.
Now TB is the complete opposite. The first ascensionist decided to do it on removeable protection, but suitable gear is very difficult to get hold of (I don't know anybody with a cam as big as that green one in the photo). So basically the locals are now stuffed. Shoving a large cam into a crack is not particularly difficult or clever and offers just as good protection as a bolt so why not ...er, just use bolts. The challenge doesn't really change much at all.
The idea that the first ascensionist dictates the rules for ever obviously doesn't give the best result on this crag. That's why I don't 'get it'.
However the most disturbing part of this whole episode is that it wasn't even Craig who decided that the bolts should go, but a couple of visiting Brits who were given a rack of large cams by a company which has no long-term involvement in the area.
Also, don't get the idea that Brits are the only people with a sense of rock-climbing ethics. The bolts on 'The Untouchables' - a route on the Trident - were stripped a few years back (and the route down graded from 7c+ to 7a+!). This was generally applauded because :
1) The work was so well done that you honestly can't see where the bolts have been.
2) The local ethic is no bolts next to cracks in the high mountains.
3) The gear is easily available (mid-size cams).
4) It was done by someone from the local climbing community.
None of these points are relevant to the de-bolting of Thai Boxing.
So all in all I'm not convinced that this story bucks the trend of the McDonaldisation of climbing at all. Foreign climbers backed by foreign companies impose their culture on a local community while getting a free ride on the publicity wagon. Sounds familiar?!
If Tom, Pete & Wild Country really want to buck that trend they could donate the necessary cams to Vallorcine town hall to be lent out to any climber interested in doing the route. Now that, I am sure, would be appreciated by all.
Go on, tear me apart.
All the best
Neil