UKC

David Lama is back in Patagonia and is once again attempting Cerro Torre.

Is this year's trip as controversial as last year's?

Some people think so.

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=60034

In reply to UKC News:

Ironic.

In reply to bull2010face:

i'm not going to spend another penny on this website till they stop reporting on red bull sponsored climbers....

seriously though, shame on ukc for selling out. i'm sure their younger selves would be very disappointed.

In reply to Tobias at Home:

This about sums up how rock and roll UKC is.

In reply to UKC News:

Personally, while not impressed at the proposed Lama ascent I think it is a very fair response by UKC and I don't think as a business they should have to boycott Red Bull or Mammut. They have highlighted the issue, which is more than a lot of media sources would do and it is up to us as consumers to make our views known.

In reply to Tobias at Home: UKC is a commercial organisation I don't think they should be ashamed for running a business and making some money from it. The more money they have coming in the better the content of this site is likely to be and the more features they can develop.

I have no problem with them taking red bull or anybody else's money. As consumers we can choose to boycott a brand and easily find a replacement, that is not so easy for a commercial organisation.

In reply to Sargey: Yes, better to highlight and condemn it rather than keep it out of the news. I think Mammut should be made to suffer though for associating with this douche.

In reply to gcandlin:

integrity is rarely easy.

In reply to UKC News: There is plenty of criticism of him on his FB page, how official it is I don't know, however he still lacks the face to put any counter argument supporting his actions.

In reply to bull2010face:

Indeed, especially as several posts stating the argument (that Red Bull should not sponsor climbers) being referred to (in a reasoned, non-defamatory, polite manner I might add) were deleted almost as soon as they were written. I didn't write them but I, and I guess, others, read them. I am a realist, it has always been so in the media "he who pays the piper -" I don't have a problem with the advertising revenue and keeping advertisers happy - that's the game after all - but the censorship doesn't sit well. It would be better out in the open, if UKC said in the rules "do not criticise our advertisers (legitimately or otherwise) or we will delete your posts" then fine. As it is the perception is, it is a bit underhand. For me at least.

In reply to Mowglee:

I am interested; are your thoughts here based on this latest trip?

If so, is it the issue of rap-bolting that prompts this sort of response?

Alan

In reply to IceKing:

The posts you refer to were removed for a different reason.

There are plenty of posts highly critical of Mammut and Red Bull that are still in place so we appear not to be carrying out this policy you accuse us of very well. I should also add that Red Bull are not, and have never been, advertisers at UKClimbing.com

Alan

In reply to UKC News: Just had a look at the blog and theres a report and photos from the guy who chopped some of the bolts that lama and crew left behind. Fair enough if you diagree with the bolts being placed in the first place, but is any point in chopping them? From the photos it look much worse than if they were just left there?

In reply to UKC News: I honestly don't understand how rap-bolting is less ethical than placing bolts on lead. I understand that bolting a trad line or a previously climbed bolted line that had fewer bolts is really bad form, but rap bolting a new line is grotesquely unethical compared to lead bolting it? could someone please explain?

PS: I'm a trad climber so my knowledge of bolting is really limeted.

In reply to Tobias at Home: Indeed, that must be why I have so little of it . I suppose the bigger question is does the money from these big sponsors generally benefit the sport more than it damages it?

For example with the exception of this particular cock up has the money from these brands not done more good than bad?

I genuinely don't know the answer to that question

In reply to Double Knee Bar:

Try placing a bolt, whilst hanging on an abseil rope. Then try and place another, whilst balanced in a strenuous position 15m above your last runner.

Which takes more skill, experience and judgment?

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide: So the ethics in question are debating the style of ascent rather than littering the rock with bolts?

In reply to UKC News:

Yes it is less acceptable - even more so in the US. There, the ground-up approach is fundamental to what they considering 'trad' climbing to be and placing bolts presents no quandries providing its on lead.

This is a similar issue to the bold new route established by (minimal) rap-bolting on the back of half dome and the ensuing debate covered here: http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=43935

In reply to Double Knee Bar: Placing bolts on lead is a considerably more arduous task that rap bolting.

I think much of the stink over this is around the fact that by rap bolting it (a style many see as out of place in that type of environment) he is bringing the climb down to a level that he is capable of climbing it and denying somebody who may be able to do it in a better style the opportunity. I think there is also the issue of while he and his crew of guides, fixed ropes and camera men are on the mountain they will detract somewhat from the experience of other out there on nearby routes at that time .

I woud imagine from a non climbers point of view the issue of style and ethics probably seems utter ridiculous but I think with the odd exceptions, having these generally agreed styles and ethics for certain areas is a positive thing.

In reply to Alan James - UKC: Fair enough and thanks for your answer.

In reply to Double Knee Bar:

you must remember that the point of reference for the team in question is an american one not a british one. bolts are not "yes or no" in the USA, there is a transition zone and they are widely accepted on trad climbs however...

when "growing up" was rap bolted on the back of half dome the key points of the american argument summed to "bolts are bolts - how you place them is not relevant" vs "pre placing bolts in a situation that is currently not climbable without them reduces the value of the ascent and removes a project for a new generation of climbers who may one day have the skill to do it unassisted." its like pulling over a roof to try and find gear vs pulling over a roof when you know there will be gear because you have already placed it.

this situation is a bit more complex because some of the bolts were redundant and some were use for "non climbing aims." none of this is helped by the history of the peak.

so you have two major areas of concern if you are a UK climber or a self respecting american (like Jim Donini).

a potential project has been further ruined by people who are not brave enough to do it with out the pre placement and over use of a highly controversial bit of kit.

and the need for a alot of the new equipment was either not related to climbing the route or was redundant when in situ gear is considered (along with the yosemite style training that people are now undertaking for routes such as this).

they deem the bolts and there method of placement necessary because of the non technical challenge of the peak ie: weather and situation which although holds merit doesn't give them the right to damage something that will one day go cleaner. they also argue that the chance for a real clean push is gone so it may as well be really safe (which is a common USA argument that rarely works over here)

its also complex because we are talking about this from a UK perspective and the attitude towards bolts in the USA and further afield is massively different.


HTH

for the record I am very pissed off with the sponsors which may affect any further purchases but how UKC deals with it is up to them - its not my site and my opinions don't matter. Lama is being a bit young in thinking and thats coming from a 25 yr old.

In reply to shark:

Maybe it is, but it is far from a clear-cut issue, and there are plenty of examples of routes which have been rap-bolted which no-one criticises. It is like everything to do with bolts - accepted by some, vigorously opposed by some, clipped by many.

But ... it is a big jump to go from an issue being "less acceptable" to some people, to using it to advocate a universal community boycott of brands, which appears to be what some people are trying to suggest in this case.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

I suppose my thoughts are based on his previous trip, where he made a mess, and the rumours of his current plans, where it seems he will make even more mess. I can see how rap bolting is viewed to be 'worse' than bolting on lead, but in my (humble, punterish) opinion, Patagonia should not be bolted all. Especially not when they are placed next to natural gear placements.

In reply to Double Knee Bar:


The two go hand in hand (sort of*), you won't be able to "litter" the rock with bolts drilling on lead as it will take forever, drilling on lead means placing bolts only where crucial and possible to place. Drilling on an ab line means you can drill where you like and pick out a line, on lead you will be hoping there is an end to your sequence.

So drilling on lead is also more ethcial because it requires more skill etc.

*the only thing that makes drilling on lead worse, would be if he drilled a bolt ladder. But there wouldn't be any point in that would there? Mammut, Red Bull etc would just ask him why he made a new compressor route...

Dunc

In reply to Alan James - UKC: Alan James - UKC:


It definitely is - explain to me how rap bolting can be more or similarly acceptable than placing bolts on lead when establishing a new route on a mountain.

What mountain routes are you refering to that are similarly rap-bolted but uncontentious? I ask genuinely as my knowledge of mountain routes is minimal.

In reply to Mowglee:

Well let's not base our policies on rumours.

Also, his previous trip was a mess but since then those concerned have made efforts to clean things up. I think we should give them a chance to let his climbing do the talking.

My knowledge of Patagonia is not that great but I suspect there are a number of routes with bolts on them.

Alan

In reply to Jack: I've got to pick you up on a few comments in your piece which I really don't think paint the full picture. You say 'His intentions for this year are undeniably better, and if it wasn't for the baggage of last year's debacle, I suspect wouldn't raise much of an eyebrow from the world climbing community.' I strongly disagree. Whilst its true that he was bound to be under the spot light after his teams behaviour last season, anyone wanting to rap bolt on Cerro Torre would raise up a massive stink.

Again you say 'It is also worth noting that Lama's suggested style for this season, whilst flying in the face of 'pure alpinism', and perhaps being out of place on Cerro Torre, isn't really anything new. Ground-up bolted routes have been climbed on relatively small faces and rap-bolted routes have been climbed on very large faces.' The key thing is pure mountain terrain and this sort of thing hasn't been done before on proper wilderness mountains (even when its been done on European mountains it's been highly controversial) - in fact Cerro Torre is regarded by many as the ultimate mountain - perhaps the most beautiful expression of what a mountain could be and if it hadn't been defiled by Maestri Cerro Torre would represent the cutting edge in terms of technicality as one of the most difficult mountains to climb - It's voie normale is after-all the stunning West Face!

I suspect you are falling into the problem that many Brits have, of not understanding what the difference is between rap bolting and ground up bolting. The difference being at the very heart of what defines true alpinism which is 'confronting the unknown'. Whether either approach creates a better route or not is not the issue here, the issue is Lama repeating Maestri's atrocities and as Messner wrote in response 'murdering the impossible'

In reply to Ian Parnell:


Ian,

What stance are you taking with Red Bull branding? The last edition of Climb had several images of the Pou bros sporting Red Bull logos on their hats.

Rgds, Simon

In reply to shark:


A route with a few well-placed bolts done on rappel, is arguably ethically better than a route with a lot of badly drilled bolts placed on lead.

However this isn't my point really. All I said was that it isn't a black and white issue so extrapolating the issue to boycotting seems to be pushing it too far in my opinion.


Ian has obviously got more knowledge than me on this one so I am happy to accept his judgement.

One route that did spring to mind though is Leo's route The Prophet - rap bolted, featured a fair amount of sponsorship and is in an area where there is debate over ground-up and rap bolting.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

i'm fairly sure every one is upset by the reports coming from Patagonia this season regarding rap-bolting rather than the debacle from last year (although obviously having prior we should be less willing to give them the benefit of the doubt)

In reply to Alan James - UKC:
No it's not, it always best style to climb from the ground up.


That's a route on El Cap and I didn't get the impression that it was rap bolted, from watch Psyche 2.

Anyway, El Cap a big crag, Cerro Torro is the most impressive mountain in the world.

Tom

In reply to Alan James - UKC:


Which was? I caught some of them and they seemed pretty uncontroversial.

In reply to shark: Hi Simon, we take no stance. We aim to publish the best shots we can of what is happening out there, we don't edit out shots that have sponsors logos on them. The Pou brothers wear those same clothes, hats etc when they go climbing - its what they wear at the crag - so that's what we publish. Similar with Dave MacLeod with Gore Tex on his T shirt, or Steve Mac with his Marmot top.

It's interesting to see how different climbers respond to big brand sponsorship, the Pou Bros and the likes of Will Gadd seemingly going about their normal climbing with great results...

In reply to Ian Parnell:

Which is why I (and lots of others it seems) am confused by Colin Haley writing

It is reasonable, however, that Lama is bringing the bolt kit, because on the headwall they will likely attempt a different line than the blank rock Maestri bolted, and the line they attempt will likely be terrain on which any climber would use bolts

In reply to Ian Parnell:

Very well said.

In reply to Tom Briggs: Tom I think its Colin's American background, quite a lot of American (in fact many countries) alpinist's in the past have brought bolt kits to the mountains - almost always as a last resort for abseil anchors on descent, although quite a few were tempted when things blanked out. Where as for most Brits as soon as you've packed a bolt kit you're in the gutter already.

In reply to Tom Briggs:

Except of course all those climbers who would see bolts on the Cerro Torre headwall as the murder of the impossible and refrain from climbing it rather than place bolts.

(also from Colin Haley's blog) "If he adds bolts to the Salvaterra variation it would be totally out of line, as Salvaterra climbed the variation in 1999, and already placed all the necessary bolts."

The term "necessary bolts" always seems absurd. Necessary for whom? Necessary to bring it down to the level of a partricular climber? The best climber in the world? My feeble level? What arrogance to say they are necessary, presumably for oneself. It is not actually necesary to climb the thing at all.

I wish the project a few years ago to strip the Maestri route of all bolts had gone ahead. It would have been a magnificent statement of pure alpinism to restore the world's most spectacular and iconic mountain to a state in which it could only be climbed by the very best.

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Fine, if DL returns from Patagonia without having placed bolts then I'll be willing to consider buying Mamut again. I'd even consider buying Mamut now if they told DL not to bolt Cerro Torre. It doesn't sound like an unreasonable thing to expect of them.

In reply to Ian Parnell:
(In reply to shark) Hi Simon, we take no stance. We aim to publish the best shots we can of what is happening out there, we don't edit out shots that have sponsors logos on them.

With all respect Ian, that is a stance.
Unless you're an unthinking automaton , you've chosen to select photos for climb magazine based on their technical and aesthetic quality; and you've chosen not to filter photos out if they contain the image of a brand which is rapidly becoming a by-word for arrogance and bad style amongst a large section of the climbing community.
I'm not judging, just saying (as a top-roping, summer route climbing-in-unrimed winter, media attention-grabbing, style vacuum).

In reply to petejh: OK Pete you are probably right we take a stance not to single out Red Bull logos for censorship.

In reply to UKC News:

Bad news all round.
Does Lama not have any sensible mates to point out how this farce will taint eveything he ever achieved in climbing?

I was quite disappointed to read Colin Haley's view that bolts on lead would be ok for Lama & co.

In reply to Wee Davie:


Why?

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

What has that got to do with ethics (in the classical, hard sense of the word) - ie what are the real-world bad consequences (harms) of placing a bolt on rap. vs on lead?

It seems that style has become an ethical issue only because people say it is so and that, in such cases, 'ethical' is used in a soft sense - one that is conflated with 'style'.

The problem then comes when people start to confuse the soft sense - (style) with the hard sense (morally good/bad).

A false equivalence is then assumed where bad style = unethical (soft sense) = unethical (hard sense) = morally wrong.

That said, if the issue is really about someone trashing an iconic mountain by unnecessary bolts and leaving behind fixed ropes or other detritus, as per the reports of his Lama's last visit to Patagonia - then the ire is perfectly understandable.

(I just don't get this idea that bad style = an offence to morality.)

In reply to UKC News: A bolts a bolt at the end of the day regardless of which Red Bull is a can of shite

In reply to hakey:

American Alpine Club definitions

Our “ethics” guide us in how we affect other people and the environment; our “style” defines how we like to play our climbing games, for personal reasons—light or slow, free or aid, single-push or bivouac, pink pants or brown.


Dictionary definition:

Ethics - a set of moral principles
Style - the manner in which something is done.

Yes, I know that there is a difference - it seems that others don't. The rap-bolting vs lead-bolting seems to me to be a question of style, whereas others appear to be implying that it is one of ethics, and are then getting worked up about the issue on that basis.

That was more-or-less the point of my (admittedly laboured) post.

And, like I said, the more obvious issue of physically despoiling an iconic mountain (and for dubious motives) seems far more worthy of vitriol.

In reply to hakey:
I very rarely read or reply to these news streams, but I have to applaud Hakey for his intelligent comment (a rarity I find). I won't add my own opinion on the bolting, but agree with Hakey about the amount of ridiculous spouting of OPINION about style presented as if said opinions are natural laws or clear ethical principles. By all means everyone argue your point of view but keep those arguments rational, intelligent and in perspective. I see many similar denegrating comments about top-roping; just because others are capable of leading a particular climb does not automatically make someone else bad/wrong to toprope it. Climbing isn't just about impressing or bettering others.

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Sorry Alan, but i don't think you can compare this with the Prophet. It is well documented that Leo tried the route ground up a number of times and the intention was to do it in this style. There were many occasions where he was going into the unknown on atrocious gear. Lama however seems to be going with the intention of rap bolting it from the outset which is clearly a much worse style.

What also bothers me is that this expedition comes across as though it is primarily to produce a film for red bull than to try and accomplish any particular laudable mountaineering aim. It just doesn't seem a very honorable venture.

In reply to brunomarks:


Thanks (and, fair-dos, the occasions when I manage to make an intelligent comment are indeed rare!)

In reply to hakey:

Ground-up bolting, or bolting on the lead, especially using a hand drill is more adventurous and harder than bolting from a rope from the top down. I've done both. Bolting on the lead is for some defined as 'fair means' especially if the climber is talented (bold as well as technically good) and they place bolts only when absolutely necessary, rather than a bolt ladder.

I think this type of route on Cerro Torre would be applauded. It wouldn't be a tightly bolted sport route.

I think the fear is that if someone goes to an adventurous peak like Cerro Torre with a sport climbing approach - like Maestri!!!! - the challenges would be taken away from future generations of climbers. So ethically it could be regarded as wrong. I'm not sure the National Park would be happy with sport climbs all over the granite in that area! Style and ethics may then effect others.

As regards Maestri's route, Zack Smith and Josh Wharton eliminated many of the bolts a few years ago, and others have plans to attempt it without most of them - an improvement in style!

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

Okay Mick, I understand what you are saying.

My original question was slightly more hypothetical - is there really an ethical difference between placing a bolt on lead, or placing the same bolt on rap? Which had been prompted by this exchange:



(The rather bizarre implication being that actions that require 'skill, experience and judgement' are more ethically correct than those that don't.)

But, that's by the by, I can see that Lama's jolly might conceivably set a precedent, which might then have the real-world consequences you mentioned. So there may be some ethical issues to consider there - on top of the more obvious concerns regarding despoliation of an iconic wilderness area.

In reply to hakey:

The point is not whether this is an issue of ethics or style. It is primarily a matter of style, although not entirely, in the sense that rap bolting eliminates the adventure of doing the thing ground up and so deprives others of an experience which is intrinsically there before the mountain has been artificially modified.

But let's stipulate that it is a matter of style. In climbing, style matters. It matters a lot. As an American who has always held UK climbers in the highest regard, I'm surprised this would have to be explained.

There is a veritable chasm between heading up into unknown territory with a hand drill, unsure of where and when one will be able to stop and get in a bolt, and rapping down, sampling and planning the moves, finding the best clipping stances, and putting a bolt in just the right place. I think this is almost as true if one drills from hooks, at least on granite, where hook placements cannot be taken for granted.

The difference is between a style that pays homage to exploration, to uncertainty, and yes, to risk, and one that simply seeks to crank up the technical difficulty of individual moves in a preplanned and, let's face it, manufactured environment. The latter approach belongs to sport climbing. The former to trad climbing and alpinism. Climbing gains nothing from a trend to homogenize these different aspects of the sport into a universal plaisir climbing mold.

I think part of the outrage may come from the fact that Lama is pretty obviously capable of better. He's fully up to the challenge to doing his proposed route in a ground-up style. But the uncertainties involved, the much higher potential for failure and retreat (all intrinsic parts of the game), are not acceptable for a commercial production, and so style becomes subservient to commercial expedience. Cerro Torre gets top-roped (because that's what rap bolting is) and Red Bull gets an exciting video to show teenagers who will mostly never leave their video games and play-stations and who will be jazzed for maybe a minute or two and hopefully will buy some Red Bull on their next trip to the store. That's what this is all about in the end.

All that said, I think the climbing world asked for this one. The Maestri route has got to be among the worst places in the world to take some kind of "ethical" stance. It should have been chopped as soon as it was put up. Then we could have a meaningful conversation about appropriate style.

Instead, legions of climbers, many of them well-known and highly respected, climbed the route while complaining about what an abomination it is. Yes, they did it in a better "style," but they still clipped a bunch of Maestri's bolts.

The route basically became a classic, and all those who did it and wrote about it and promoted their own ascents of it legitimized the whole sorry enterprise and set the stage for the logical next step in a process of degradation already well under way.

In reply to James Moyle:


No, it isn't a great comparison, and I certainly didn't want to make any ethical point about the prophet.

Alan

In reply to rgold:


I don't think anyone could put this a better way - well said!


This is the thing that bothers me the most. Red Bull can't really be blamed for their ignorance with regards to style in the mountains (Mammut should obviously know better, and until they drop Lama I personally won't be buying any more of their gear). It's up to the mountain guides involved in the production and, most importantly, David Lama himself to get a backbone and tell RB what's acceptable and not, and moderate their actions on Cerro Torre. If not, they are sell-outs - in it just to make a bit of cash for themselves at the expense of the mountain and other people's experience on it.

In reply to rgold:

Nice post mate. That kind of bolting discussion doesn't really exist over here because we lack the venues where it is relevant, and many don't venture to the sorts of places where it is relevant.

In reply to Mowglee:

How many times have you been to Patagonia?

In reply to rgold:

Excellent post.

What do Mammut sell anyway, apart from ropes? Just so I can be sure I won't be buying any of it.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

They're pretty good. I've got quite a bit of mammut gear. Nice ropes, packs, clothes, hardware, most things really.

In reply to rgold:

You put your point across with some eloquence, and I wouldn't want to trivialize your sincerely held feelings - it's just that, for someone who doesn't share your particular perspective, the issue doesn't seem to carry anything like the strength that it apparently does for you.

And, with respect, much of your argument kind of verges on emotive rhetoric. For example:


- a nice turn of phrase, but it is, in essence, an appeal to emotion. What does it really mean to pay homage to exploration, uncertainty and risk? It's kind of meaningless.

The argument here seems to come down to 'the style issue is important because a group of people believe it to be important'. Maybe that is enough in itself - the ethical consideration thus being 'of what importance do we assign abiding by recognised custom'?

A more general point: I imagine that for many climbers, including myself, one of *the* reasons to go into the mountains is as an escape from the petty bureaucracies of everyday life. It is then surely an irony that those looking for freedom, having found it immediately set about constructing a set of rules, many of which, to the casual observer, seem inconsequential and utterly bizarre, the whole as Byzantine as anything found in the valleys and towns below!

That's not to say some of the ethical principles we adhere to do indeed seem quite sensible, almost self-evident - 'tread light'. But others, 'rap-bolt vs lead-bolt', are perhaps closer to the 'Big-Endian, Little-Endian' arguments in 'Gulliver's Travels'.


A good part of which, I presume, would be the experience of claiming the first ascent? To which 'Omnia Vanitas' might be one response.

In reply to hakey:

"A more general point: I imagine that for many climbers, including myself, one of *the* reasons to go into the mountains is as an escape from the petty bureaucracies of everyday life. It is then surely an irony that those looking for freedom, having found it immediately set about constructing a set of rules, many of which, to the casual observer, seem inconsequential and utterly bizarre, the whole as Byzantine as anything found in the valleys and towns below!"

Interesting that you attack rgold's post for emotion then post that. In your emotion lies exactly the murder of the impossible. Lets think of a blinkered bolt climber's perspective on a bold grit route: why are we restricting his freedom by silly rules that prevent bolts.

I'd say ground up is a bit more than a style in parts of the US. Style often overlaps with ethics.

In reply to Offwidth:


Funnily enough, my first edit of that post had the words 'here's my bit of emotive rhetoric' before that paragraph. I took it out just for the sake of shortening the post a bit.

But, yep, that is my own romantic take on the thing. I just really don't go for all these arbitrary rules and vanishingly fine distinctions - that does seem to run contrary to what I value about the experience of being in the mountians.

And I wouldn't call my post an attack (I quite deliberately used the phrase 'with respect' as well as complimenting him for his eloquence), it was more a counter view.

In reply to hakey:


On the contrary, those 'arbitrary rules and vanishingly fine distinctions' are what define our freedoms in the mountains and crags. Without them climbing would be very different....it would be a free for all defined by the lowest common denominator.

In reply to Offwidth:

It's a pretty fair point; all climbing is anarchy after all. The only real 'rule' we like each other to use when climbing is the golden rule aka "don't be a c***".

The only real no-nos are lying about what you've done and affecting the experiences of those who follow you by in some way changing the route. Placing bolts is a permanent statement that leaves something very different to what you found, hence the difficulty.

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:


With respect, if they are *arbitrary* (without good reason), say based upon notions of style, rather than more widely accepted ethical precepts, then they are just arbitrary restrictions - and it is perfectly reasonable to question them as such.

If it were the case that local style dictated that climbers in the Lakes had to wear tweeds and hobnails and use hemp rope (paying homage to the history of climbing in the area), I would question such an imposition precisely because of it's arbitrary nature - arbitrary in this case, because contradicting it would have no obvious bad consequences.

Similarly this notion that, all other things being equal, a bolt placed on lead is okay, whereas the same bolt placed on rap is bad, isn't an arbitrary distinction, seems open to question.

After all, if that notion - 'style really matters' - is indeed sufficiently robust, and not arbitrary, it should withstand the rigours of a little investigation.

In reply to hakey:
If you're going to get all Latin on us... then 'When in Rome' might be another response. As in, it's a well-accepted principle of our unregulated pastime that climbers makes themselves aware, and try to abide by, the customs of the particular area in which they operate (tell me I'm wrong). Going outside the boundaries might be acceptable, indeed visionary, but you need to be able to at least try to justify it, or else be treated with, at minimum, the lack of respect you've shown everyone else.

Lama is going outside the customs of the area, he's doing so for the bottom line of making a marketing film for a fizzy drink, which won't benefit anyone else except Lama, Red Bull and Mammut commercially, and he's failing to justify his actions with a blatant lack of communication towards large sections of the climbing world who happen to think what he's doing is plain wrong - his comment of 'I can take it' in relation to the controversy he's creating is analogous to sticking two fingers up and saying I'm not listening. It's the attitude of Callum the drytooler, on one of the world's most iconic mountaineering objectives.

What's to admire? Discussions on how much importance we should attach to ethics is an abstract argument in the face of a real problem. I don't wish the guy any harm but I sincerely hope he fails, his camera crew fail, and his guides fail in all their objectives and that someone pro-active chops the compressor route to make Lama's version of climbing impossible on Cerro Torre in the future (and after that if he wants to come and rap bolt The Diamond on the Little Orme I'd be psyched for him).

In reply to UKC News: I think that this is all getting a bit "wood for trees".

My feeling is that Lama's stated goal of improving on the style in which the Compressor route can be climbed is based on the idea that free = better. However, in order to do this he has decided to ignore some other stylistic considerations, such as the "no bolting from abseil in the mountains" rule that many subscribe to in the US.

This rule itself is subject to its own transgressions (as mentioned elsewhere by Tom Briggs) where people do things like drill a rivet to hang from so that they can place a bolt on lead. This is clearly not in the spirit of doing routes ground up in order to preserve adventure and minimise drilling, but it is not forbidden by the only drilling on lead rule.

Blanket application of these rules without prior thought as to what you're trying to achieve or why the rule was invented is what gets us into this mess.

I disagree with Mick that without these rules climbing ethics and style would reduce to the lowest common denominator. We all want to climb things in a "good" way. Climbing ethics are not formally enforced, and bar the odd confrontation when somebody upsets other climbers, we generally manage to preserve the vast majority of the mountains and cliffs we visit in a state where climbing can still feel like a fair game.

When I first started climbing I had no knowledge of terminology beyond what leading, seconding and top roping meant, or even any idea that there was such an entity or body of literature on climbing ethics and style. We would still try to climb routes without resting on the rope, or pulling on gear. We knew that doing a route "first try" was harder and more of a challenge than needing several attempts. We also eliminated things like pegs and bolts when we felt it was appropriate, as they can detract from the challenge. We picked these things up first hand by thinking about what we wanted to achieve, as I sure many others have, and continue to do.

I think that the black and white authority statements that are now so often repeated in climbing circles (onsight is always best, free is always best, top roping is always bad, bolts are always bad) push us into a bit of a corner. The rules are followed without thinking about why they are there. Grey areas are found and exploited to allow people to play by the rules while contradicting the reasons behind the rules being invented (e.g. pretty much every "is it onsight if..." thread you've seen). I think that abbing down a route in a wild, adventurous mountain setting in order to prepare it for a free ascent would feel wrong to most people if they thought about what they actually wanted to achieve by freeing the route. But if "free is always better" overrides everything, then "free by any means necessary" can wind up becoming the rule that is applied.

Very few people out and out ignore the rules, not because everybody reads the rule book and sticks to it, but because they have evolved from what makes climbing satisfying. In fact, maybe having a rule book causes people to focus on the rules rather than feeling honestly happy with the way in which they climb the things they climb.

Ironically, I feel that is our obsession with ethics and style that has contributed to the mess that we have going on on Cerro Torre right now.

I think that the marketing/placing bolts and fixing ropes to safeguard camera crews/leaving rubbish and gear in the mountains thing is a separate argument (and much more about ethics than style). By the sound of some of the blog posts on this subject, the issues with these last year have been addressed to a great extent by Lama and co. this season.

Apologies for the rambling post.

In reply to petejh:


A hypothetical justification might be 'the boundaries set are arbitrary (without good reason), trangressing them would not lead to any bad consequences (harms)'.


The discussion I was having was not about 'how much importance we should attach to ethics'. Ethical considerations are always of relevance (within or without the world of climbing.) What I was questioning was the received wisdom that 'style really matters'. (And, in passing, drew a distinction between style and ethics, which I think you may have missed.)


This is the bit I kind of agree with (I said as much before) - he left a mess last year and he's back again and it's all for some dubious motive, filthy lucre etc..

But reading Colin Hayley's latest, his behaviour last year is not the concern, neither is the film making, or the involvement of Red Bull:


And I do think that this notion that style matters (and matters so much!) is worth testing.

In reply to hakey:



How would you test it Hakey? What is the acid test? Could you, or someone, refer to real life climbing situation where style matters, where it has a real life negative or positive consequences.

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:


Well, that is pretty much my point...

If style has no real world consequences, then it really doesn't matter all that much, does it?

In reply to hakey:

Not a lot of point going down that road but I'll bite.

It's personal and relative to what matters to you. If I think style matters than, a priori, it matters - in my world at that time; and as has been proven by the number of people who are pissed off by Lama's approach to climbing Cerro Torre, style matters to them too; at least it does at one level of their existence, the bit that's concerned with 'climbing', and on the myriad of other levels it doesn't matter one bit, say the level that's concerned with a loved-one being ill.
Try to prove that anything, your existence for example, 'matters', and I'll find you a philosophical counter-point which says it doesn't.
But that doesn't help much in the real world, and Lama's still a tool for being prepared to go so strongly against customs and piss off so many people on such an important place, for money and vanity. Bottom Line.

In reply to petejh:


And in a previous post I said:

"The argument here seems to come down to 'the style issue is important because a group of people believe it to be important'. Maybe that is enough in itself"


I pretty much agree - I do he think he's daft to piss so many people off. But personally I find the reports of his last visit way more damning than the concerns with style (which, the more I think of it, the more I find to be trivial, bemusing, bizarre even).

In reply to UKC News:

Who here has even been to Patagonia

In reply to hakey:

And you have the word of an arrogant little shit, barely out of adolescence, that it won't happen again.

In reply to jon:

Weren't we all young and arrogant once? Some of us still are!

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

Well, good point. But not so young though, Mick. And that's important, as you and I have a more balanced view of things now, compared with when we were Lama's age.

In reply to bull2010face:

Yeah, why?

Do I need to have been there to have an opinion? No.

Are you one of these muppets that believes the myth that UKC is completely populated by armchair non-climbers? Yes.

Whats your point bull2010face - and what is going on with that name of yours? Are you trying to make us think you're Lama? He's in Patagonia, keep up.

In reply to UKC News:

For what it's worth, the latest post on his website (28 Jan) says "I’ll refrain from bolting in rap-style".

In reply to James B:

Well that IS good news, then. Maybe pressure does work.

In reply to James B: Personally, if he's hand drilling bolts on lead where there's no suitable natural gear, then I haven't got any problems with him doing that.

In reply to jon:

I'll definitely sleep easier tonight.

In reply to all:

I dont know if I am missing the point but the essential difference to me between rap bolting and ground up bolting is that the later is done in a minimalist way whilst the later is generally done to produce some safe sports route. The former typically leave adventures for people to dream about and when climbed be very proud of (the backer yarin perhaps); the latter more of a physical exercise, that grumpy traditional climbers never remember the names of. But seriously the challenges of the great mountain ranges should not be turned into pre-packaged bolt routes.

Cheers,

In reply to simon cox:

Absolutely. Colin Haley's blog of 27 Jan puts it very well:http://colinhaley.blogspot.com/

In reply to simon cox:

I think I understand...