UKC

Hi all

I am writing a discursive essay for higher english (ugh) and my topic of choice is bolting (controversial, I know).

anyways i so far have 3 arguments for and 2 against

FOR

redues environmental impact to walk off paths

opens up the sport to more people as less gear is needed to start off

provides a smoother transition from indoors to outdoors


AGAINST

scars the rock permanently and cannot be removed once placed

goes against the ethics and traditions of climbing when it was first conceived.


Basically i need at least one more argument against as i dont think my non climbing english teacher would understand if i put sacralige


i personally am not against bolting but only if done responsibly with coonsent from the general climbing community

also if anyone knows any good sources to quote it would be great. so far i have:

the podcast from the BMC international meet from here: http://blog.lwimages.co.uk/2011/05/16/the-bmc-%E2%80%98bolts-and-ethics%E2%...

the news article from here "Hwakcraig trashed" and associated forum

and the rock and run article about the great lakes bolt debate of the early 90's here: http://info.rockrun.com/articles/the-great-lakes-bolt-debate-of-the-early-9...

any other sugestions are welcome as well

many thanks

David

P.S. if anyone thinks i am trolling im not. i just need another argument and somemore sources. thanks

In reply to climbing obsessed:
Try "the murder of the impossible" (though it could be possible, yor just going to have to google it) Reinhold Messner
The idea that once bolts are placed and an area cleaned its essentially tainted its never going to be as intimidating or dangerous as it once was eliminating the possibility of a truly pure ascent. i.e onsight and the route uncleaned.

In reply to climbing obsessed:

I'm not saying you can't find arguments against, but that one as stated has so many holes in it that you essay would be blown out the water before anyone got to the reasoning.

...as for real arguments against, ask Bruce, I'm sure he could come up with plenty for you

In reply to Tiberius: Really? seems like a pretty good argument to me (assuming he expands on it in the way id guess he's going to (climbing originally about adventure, ethics in place to maintain a sense of adventure, bolting greatly reduces the adventure.))

In reply to climbing obsessed:

It's just NOT British

QED

In reply to remus:
interesting that none of your for/against reasons are really about the climbing itself. Good luck with the essay.
btw I expect your english teacher would give you higher marks if you were able to explain what you mean by 'sacrilege', I expect that's the point of the exercise.

In reply to Tiberius:


Oh no not again, I'm already told I'm posting too much, bar steward

To the OP:

There have been loads of threads on the subject on which I have contributed, perhaps overmuch, so if you use the ukc search threads function you'll find hundreds of posts. I'm trying to keep off the subject a little now as when I tell the bolt brigade (an offshoot of the chalkies) that bolting is raping the mountain and is quite likely a result of their own sexual difficulties in conflict with their superficial macho attitudes they get all hot under the collar... Even mild stuff like this has their knickers in a twist and then they become abusive and I can't get off the thread for days.

So as I said I'd really be very grateful if you could search the old thread as I'm trying to be less conflictual at present. Thanks for the two links, I know little of the old debates as I was totally out of climbing at the time.

In reply to climbing obsessed: With regard to your "for" arguments, I think you have completely missed the point of sport climbing.

Someone didn't sit down and think to themselves one day "Hmmm, climbing really does have an impact on paths, and people wishing to transition from indoor climbing to outdoors are stuffed. How can I solve this problem?"

Bolted climbing came about purely as a result of climbers wanting to explore pieces of rock out of the reach of climbers using traditional methods.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Not by me

...also I'm sure the same charge has been leveled against me too

We will simply agree to disagree on the merits of bolting...and a few other items, like congratulating people who put hard work into an area we're not personally interested in.

However, back on topic, I think everywhere should be bolted...but I accept that there are arguments against that

In reply to remus:

The first half of the statement was fine, but the expansion in the second half was patently wrong. 'Trad', in the sense of removable protection rather than fixed bolt is quite definitely not the 'original' form of climbing as stated. The bolt/trad debate was preceded by the aid/free debate many years before.

In reply to climbing obsessed:


Is this really an argument for bolting?

In reply to climbing obsessed:

I should think they wouldn't be at all impressed. It's spelt "sacrilege".

...anyway - what is the point of climbing in the first place? Why do it? For an adventure? For the pleasurable mixture of physical athleticism and mental stretch? To choose your own level of risk?

Putting bolts in removes a particular aspect of climbing, which is both the positive and the negative thing about bolts.

It removes the worry about gear and allows you to concentrate on the physical aspect, which means that you can get to climb a lot harder. However for those people who climb FOR the mental aspect, it basically removes a lot of the point of climbing in the first place.

Then there is the pleasure of finding a cunning and ingenious gear placement - one that other people might not spot, or the pleasure of selecting just the right piece of gear first time and watching as it slots into place. The enjoyment of making sure that your gear and ropes are well placed on a circuitous route, to avoid rope drag and to protect your second well. All of those pleasures become lost with the use of bolts.

The ability to choose when and where to place gear - a little nest of 7 minimal pieces below a crux, or a long run out when the climbing is easy and it is getting dark - all gone with bolts.

And route finding - with bolts is it reduced to spot the next bolt, rather than looking at the rock itself - where is the line of least resistance? What looks like a foothold? Where does the polish go? What does the guidebook say?

And then there are the routes themselves. Bolts remove the need to follow natural lines of weakness, so you tend to get very straight up and down routes, which can become a bit repetitive over time. Trad climbing, on the other hand, can, and frequently does, go all over the place.

Of course these are generalisations, and for anyone who is simply not interested in these aspects of climbing they may seem trivial arguments. But I, for one, am very happy that in the UK we have so much opportunity for enjoying a well rounded climbing experience.

In reply to climbing obsessed:


As someone else mentioned your points for sport miss the mark some what. As this is for an English essay I would structure your report around the different perspectives of the two camps and have your essay explore each perspective but ultimately defend one side or another based on evidence and referenced sources.

For example what Bruce looks for in climbing is very different to the average sport climber; one wants the wind in his hair and a sense of adventure and the other wants to rock climb.

In reply to Tru:

I would change that to "wants to rock climb as hard as they possibly can".

There is a big difference between sports climbing and bolted climbing. Sports climbing is all about maximising what you are able to achieve physically. It is about working a route, treating each section as a boulder problem, something at your physical maximum, and then finally, linking all of those hard moves together to complete the route. It is about redpointing, rather than onsighting.

Climbing on bolts is a very different thing - simply doing the climb, but with bolts rather than trad protection. It isn't about pushing your own physical limits.

In reply to climbing obsessed:

On the FOR list, you've missed one of the most obvious things:

Allows a route to be protected where no natural protection can be placed (for example on quite a few limestone routes, such as at Pembroke or Malham).

In reply to tlm:

There must be more to it than that, because what you've described could be achieved by top roping.

In reply to climbing obsessed: The above comment is good, also bolting a route gives rather more confidence to the leader, making it fundamentally safer, i guess this could be for or against!

In reply to vertigo714:

Bolting a route might give more confidence to you. However, it simply doesn't give more confidence to every leader. Confidence is a very individual thing and some people feel much happier with gear that they have placed themselves, rather than a bolt where they cannot easily see what sort of state the bolt is in, how deep it is, how solid the rock around the bolt is, if the resin has been properly mixed etc...

In reply to climbbing obsessed: I'm sure Bruce would be happy to write your essay for you. Your teacher would surely find the juxtaposition of bolting and middle east politics fascinating.

In reply to climbing obsessed:
In terms of bolting in general, haven't you basically got one argument 'for' and one argument 'against' - some people would rather climb sport routes and some people would rather climb trad routes.

You might get a better essay out of talking about one or two specific crags - maybe one where the consensus was to bolt vs one where the consensus was not to bolt - rather than a general state of the nation thing, because it saves you saying "if it's like this then this could be the case but if it's like that then that could be the case" or waffling around with sweeping generalizations the whole time. In a given case the arguments tend to break down into
For:
no good sports crags nearby
noone actually goes there to climb trad to the extent that it's getting overgrown and falling apart
it's intrinsically not a very good trad crag owing to the lack of protection
Against:
Some people do climb trad there
People might climb trad there in the future and bolting it would be permanent
Possible bjections from the landowner
'Thin end of the wedge' - if you bolt this then Stanage will be next.
Bolts might just get chopped by local militants anyway.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Don't most climbers in the UK climb both nowadays, in these days of cheap holidays to Spain? Sport to get strong for trad?

In reply to climbing obsessed:



You could try exploring the idea that traditional rock climbing is all about judgement and decision-making, which is infantilised by bolting...

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Since when were either of those good arguements for bolting?

Point 1: If it is a GREAT trad venue, then it really doesn't matter how near the nearest bolted climbing is. It is a none arguement.

Point 2: Have you seen the state of some of the high lakeland mountain routes? And yet I don't hear anyone shouting to bolt them.

It's a much broader picture than the one that you are painting.

In reply to climbing obsessed:
Interesting topic for an essay, lets hope that this thread doesn't degenerate the way every other thread that mentions bolting does ! Try and keep an open mind and don't be swayed by the zealots...

One thing that I don't think has been mentioned yet is the concept of "theft from future generations". Plenty of routes that have been declared impossible have subsequently been climbed. When areas of Cheedale were first bolted in the 80s there were cries of "what will be left for next generation" ?.

In terms of damage to the rock, don't forget that trad gears leaves scars too.

Another argument concerns convenience. Sports climbing allows you to do far more in a day, which is great in a world where everyone seems to have less and less time, but at the same time, the longer it takes, the more satisfying it is.

In reply to tlm:
I'm not saying that's the whole state of the argument, just that those are the arguments that come up on either side when someone suggests bolting some chossy vegetated quarry that noone ever goes to. I wasn't really thinking about high mountain routes or great trad venues because noone seems to have any desire to bolt high mountain routes and very few people are dense enough to seriously suggest bolting great classic trad venues.

In reply to climbing obsessed:

I think the greatest cry for bolted climbs in the UK at the moment is coming from those who learn to climb in walls, who know no one who climbs trad.

Trad assumes a cloak of mysticism and esotericism - something that is dangerous, difficult and expensive, when compared to the bolted climbing that they have become familiar with. If you've never led trad, then it really is difficult to see the point of it when compared to bolted climbing, which seems far simpler. When you first start climbing, the climbing itself holds enough challenge without wanting to add the complication and expense of placing your own gear.

It's a bit like a teenager turning up their nose at the flavour of a good wine or whiskey in favour of a alchopop.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

I know that those are the arguements which do come up. However, I personally don't feel that they are very valid arguements for the reasons that I gave above.

I do think that there ARE some good arguements for bolting some crags - just not those two arguements. Hope that makes sense!

In reply to tlm:

Lots of experienced climbers also turn to sport for the following reasons:

1) Convienience
2) Reduced risk - once you've had a few injuries you are more aware of the impact they have on your body, your family, your career etc...
3) Ability to push to your limits

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I agree - but they are looking for a different sort of route and for different reasons.

That's like having an energy bar when you are in a race, rather than a roast dinner. It's all about context.

In reply to tlm:

I agree with Chris, it's one reason, but not the only one. I started climbing in the 80s before sport or indoor walls existed really (ok, not strictly before, but they weren't very common), so it's not my route. I just prefer it for a number of reasons.

I think mainly I don't like the low ethics of trad climbers, probably similar to how the original trad climbers didn't think much of the ethics of the aid climbers, but I'm sure that's an argument for another thread really, it's not going to help much here.

In reply to Tiberius:

Do you mean that you prefer sports climbing for a number of reasons? Yes, I can think of a lot of reasons why some people may enjoy sports climbing more than trad.


What do you mean by that? I really don't understand?

In reply to tlm:

I don't know - I think "there isn't any sport climbing around here" is a pretty rubbish reason - if you want to climb in a style that doesn't exist near where you live a) get used to driving or b) move. But surely if you're discussing whether or not to bolt some random quarry with no particular climbing history then whether or not anyone actually wants to climb trad there has some relevance?

In reply to Ramblin dave:

If no one has ever climbed there in the past, combined with if no one wants to climb there in future is relevant.

If no one is climbing there at the moment, I think that is less relevent. Venues come in and out of fashion

In reply to climbing obsessed:

Try getting hold of the latest 'Rock & Ice' mag. It has a pretty good article by Andrew Bishart in which he describes a trip to Spain, where he stays with Chris Sharma. In it, he describes rather well the beauty and appeal(for some) of sport climbing.

In reply to climbing obsessed:

Here's a good source for you:

https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/674/1/Climbing_final.pdf

In reply to tlm:

To me, the pure way is to start at the bottom, then climb to the top. Trad climbers I've met all accept downclimbing without even seeming to recognise it as poor ethics. Weighting gear is another one, I like to climb, clipping in for protection, not as some place to have a rest.

Among others, but then it's a personal choice as I said. To me, if you're going to climb with low ethics then you may as well walk up the path to the top and not bother climbing at all, but that's not everyone's view, nor probably even the majority one. That's what I find wonderful about climbing, there's room for everyone.

Generally I take the approach that I won't moan about your style, don't moan about mine

In reply to Tiberius:


Could you explain what you mean here? In fact your point about "low ethics" is a bit difficult to understand.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Well, to try and put it simply, he used to climb trad but now can't/won't. Because of his ego he's a bit embarrassed to admit that he can only clip bolts, if everything was bolted he would have to suffer the torment of admitting he can no longer do something he'd still like to.

In reply to tlm:

Pembroke!!!!!?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I guess each of us takes a decision as to how we want to 'get to the top'. If you're a hill walker, then walking up the path at the side will be acceptable (e.g. if you take the train to the top of Snowdon, then you wouldn't count it).

My own view, is that I should climb from the bottom, in an uninterrupted sequence to the top. I pick a route that I can't climb, then practice until I can, from the bottom to the top, clipping in every clip along the route, without weighting any gear. That's my ethics.

As an example, there's one climb I can currently do, but only by missing the top clip. I don't count it, some people would, but to me I'm not doing the route, because the route includes the clipping.

The times I've been trad climbing, my partners have tried to convince me that it's ok to climb up a bit, put some gear in, weight it to test it, then climb back down to a ledge for a rest, then start again. That's fine to them, it's not fine to me, I see it as low ethics and that sort of climbing doesn't interest me. Thankfully we are each different in what we do.

In reply to Andy Say:

Duh! I meant Portland. Sorry for giving you a heart attack!

In reply to Tiberius:

I think that most trad climbers see weighting the gear as a less pure ascent than not weighting the gear. The whole point of trad is that it is 'free climbing' with the gear only being there as a safety mechanism, otherwise you are aiding the route.

As to downclimbing, you are right, I think most trad climbers would see that as fine.

In reply to Tiberius:

I think as well, that you can 'count' anything, including taking the train to the top of Snowdon, as long as you are honest about the style of ascent and understand that some styles require a greater climbing ability than others.

In reply to Tiberius:
As you say, everyone has their own ethics,rules,guidelines and grey areas

But I think most of us apply the same ethics with regard to weighting the gear and downclimbing to both sport and trad. To try to make out that trad climbers have lower ethical standards in this respect seems like a ploy to start a fight!

Oh, and giving the gear a good tug is not the same as weighting the gear, and downclimbing to a rest is a often a good tactic in both codes

In reply to Tiberius:


I wholeheatedly dissagree with this, I will ocationally sit on some gear for a bit of a rest due to my poor stamina (always dissapointed when I have to). That doesn't take away from the fact that I've "started at the bottom" and climbed my way to the top. Doesn't compare to walking up a path because I have still performed every move on the climb.

So have you climbed every route you have ever tried clean (no downclimbing or resting on gear or bolts)? If this is the case then maybe you're not pushing your limit's enough and those with what you call 'bad ethics' are simply reaching that bit further?

Chris

In reply to tlm:

Thoroughly agree.

Also, as far as comparing the ethics goes, from what I've seen climbing on preplaced draws or missing clips seems to be pretty much par for the course for hard sport ascents - so presumably by Tiberius' standards sport climbers also have 'low ethics'?

In reply to Tiberius:

Wow, you're actually crazy.

This "low ethics" argument doesn't make any sense at all. Sport climbers are at least as 'guilty' as trad climbers of downclimbing or making good use of rests etc.

And to include the clipping as part of the 'ethical purity' of a sports route, but decry trad climbing it just nonsensical.

I respect your preference for sport climbing, but your argmuent for it makes no sense. Either you're putting it very badly, or you're nuts.

thanks guys for all the points and sources, especially tlm for the excellent source

also thanks for not claiming trolling or for bringthe thread down to a downright argument about bolting

thanks again

David

In reply to climbing obsessed:

As others have said, your arguments for bolting miss entirely the reasons why I personally go sport climbing - I'm a trad climber by background so that negates two of them and the third (descent path erosion) is an argument that can as equally be applied to in situ threads or fixed peg anchors as it can bolts.

It goes against some traditions of climbing certainly, the UK trad history perhaps, but there's a lot of very old routes abroad which were originally done with fixed gear, chipped holds/steps, aid, human pyramids and so on which mean you could also string an argument together which said that bolts originally came as an extension of the original "get to the top somehow" ethos of mountaineering - a lot of the oldest bolt placements will have been as aid, first on mountain routes and then as training for them.

But yes, if you want to argue about whether bolts should be placed or not then one thing that's worth considering is that some routes simply make better sports routes than they do trad routes and vica versa. Another would be that placing bolts allows people to practise a very different sub sport of climbing to trad, it's mentally very different (easier some might say, but a long enough red point project is mentally difficult in a completely different way) and physically far more athletic and about exploring your limits than trad generally is.

You sound like your opinion is fairly firmly set, given use of words like sacrilege, but I don't think your arguments for bolting would be those echoed by many keen sport climbers and are about things completely unrelated to the actual climbing.

In reply to climbing obsessed:

5 minutes of googling found that - there must be loads more out there. Being able to find high quality source material is a skill that is well worth developing.

Shall I find another one?

In reply to tlm:

http://www.mcofs.org.uk/mag_sm25_page4.asp

There you go...

In reply to climbing obsessed:

I suspect somebody has already pointed this out but be careful with the'somewhat misleading' terminology.

What the UK/US call 'trad' climbing is actually a more recent development than what they refer to as 'sport' climbing & borrows some of it's rules.

In turn the invention of 'sport' was driven by the French observing visiting UK climbers using the style that was then normal in the UK.

In reply to climbing obsessed:

And another good one:

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=15&ved=0CDIQFjAE...

I'M ON FIRE!

In reply to i.munro:

What are you on about?

And there is a spare apostrophe that shouldn't be in "it's".

In reply to PebblePusher:

Well this thread wasn't really about trad v sport, but a search for the reasons why each of us do one of the other. Hence these are MY reasons. Other people will have their reasons, for whichever style they do. It may be that someone has exactly the same reasons for climbing trad that I have for climbing sport, but we can only give our own reasons can't we?


u don't seem to have read what I said, which was something like 'I take a route I can't climb, then practice it until I can.'

The difference is that I won't count a climb until I can climb it...err, as I said.

The few times I've been out with trad climbers, they've been so keen to claim and 'on sight' that they count virtually nething, as long as they get to the top.

Hopefully not all trad climbers are like that, just all the ones I've been with.

In reply to Tiberius:


Ok, now I understand, but two points: this may be done but it's not the norm, and secondly people do this on bolted climbs too. It's not really connected to the type of protection.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

You're right, it's not, it is probably more unusual on sport (there are few sport routes where it would give you much advantage). Secondly, it's one of those grey areas. Climbers who do trad and sport tend to think it's ok, those who only do sport don't.

There was some recent discussion on I believe MacLoed's climbing of a 9a? He included downclimbing in it, about half the sport community thought it counted, around half didn't. In fairness, there was no trying to hide the styly of ascent (plus I'll never climb nething like that, so I don't really care).

As a parallel, there's some interesting discussion in Rob Fawcett's biography about some of the routes he did in the 'yoyo' style that were considered fine in his day, but were later discounted due to a change in ethics.

In reply to Tiberius:

I don't know who you are climbing with, but in all my experience, if you have weighted your gear when trad climbing, then that is not seen as a clean ascent. Climbers that I know will believe that they have blown the onsight if they rest on the gear, so avoid it at all costs.

In sports climbing, it's perfectly acceptable to rest on the bolts when practicing moves, so is done all the time. However, once again, it won't count as a clean ascent until you do the climb without weighting the bolts.

However, I suspect that you already know all of this and are just poking a stick into the hornets nest for fun. Or because of that thing where you were bullied as a teenager. Or something.

In reply to Tiberius:

I know I've done it enough on bolted routes in France For some reason getting off the deck past the first bolt often seems to be the hardest bit, but once half way up climbing back down isn't much of a option. Whatever, like most climbers I've ever known this sort of problem isn't very important, I climb for myself and know if I've done the climb in good style or not - if I haven't it's because I couldn't, so I wouldn't lose any sleep about it.

All these rules about what counts as a this that or the other "red point" etc. go over my head completely. When I climbed in Britain people admired an "on sight", but by that they meant someone eying up a line from below then just doing it straight up without information, resting or practicing... the other terms hadn't been invented, or we weren't aware of them. Most of us used a guide book and rarely rested on gear.... but then we started at very easy climbs, V Diffs the first weekends, and worked up gradually. Nowadays people appear to consider that below HVS isn't worth bothering with... at least from what I read on these forums

In reply to tlm:

Wonderful, random insult normally include something like...and your breath smells

I can only go back to what I think I've said twice now. It's a thread about our reasons for climbing, not a discussion about which is best etc.

As I said, there may be people who climb trad for the very reasons I climb sport. e.g. if a trad climber went out with a 'sport' climber who clip-sticked his way up a route, then claimed the lead, he might form the option that sport climbers had low ethics, as I have done over trad climbers weighting gear and downclimbing.

The experience of a few tends to tar the rest with the same brush I'm afraid.

But, you did't take ne notice of this the last few times I said it, so I don't see why you should take ne notice this time.

In reply to Tiberius:

Glad you enjoyed it.


Wouldn't they just think that it was a few people with dubious ethics, and use their wider experience of climbing communities to understand that this was the case, rather than simply extrapolating a single person's behaviour to the whole of the climbing community? I know that I would.

You've read plenty about trad climber's views about weighting gear on here. Yet you insist that those few people that you know represent the trad climbing community. I'm listening to what you are saying, but there is a big gap between your reality and my reality. Still - each to their own. Maybe my world is just a big fluffy candyfloss sham - but I love it!