This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
When the chips are down, where do you draw the line on chipping, gluing and reinforcement of routes and boulder problems? If a hold breaks off naturally, should it be glued back on in a reconstructive act of cosmetic surgery? Can I reinforce a wobbly hold on my project in order to keep it feasible, or let nature take its toll and suffer in the knowledge that it's now 4 grades harder?
A discussion about the aesthetics and ethics of rock.
Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=7206
1
In reply to UKC Articles:
keep it natural out side , clean dirt and moss off but that is as far as it should go , if you want to make routes stay in doors.
as far as whether you should use a hold that has appear due to rock breakage , yes go for it , its just a different problem , the original becomes an eliminate just don't use the new hold if you want the original grade. if the hold that's broken of was important , that's just one of those things the route has gone forever and a new route can be climbed in its place with a new grade/ the existing route should be re graded. its just one of those things.
keep it natural out side , clean dirt and moss off but that is as far as it should go , if you want to make routes stay in doors.
as far as whether you should use a hold that has appear due to rock breakage , yes go for it , its just a different problem , the original becomes an eliminate just don't use the new hold if you want the original grade. if the hold that's broken of was important , that's just one of those things the route has gone forever and a new route can be climbed in its place with a new grade/ the existing route should be re graded. its just one of those things.
Post edited at 10:56
2
In reply to UKC Articles:
The Gioia incident is made to seem much less controversial by this statement from Adam Ondra on 8a.nu (which would have been a useful detail in the article, but I digress):
"I would like to put my two cents into the discussion. I would like to add my opinion and facts into the discussion. I have been in contact with Christian about this issue.
Gioia has 7 hard moves in total (I exclude rather easy top out, but even up there it is possible to fall). First four moves could be like soft 8B+ on its own, stand start has three hard moves which is 8A+ and has many ascents.
Gioa has a couple glued holds. But do not imagine a wall full of sika, but a few reinforced crimps with fluid super glue. I am pretty sure that unless you are told, you would never notice any glue at all. The crimps would probably hold for a certain period of time even without the glue, but in order mantain the state of the problem forever, the glue was used. And I have no problem with that.
The hardest single move is the second move. And this is where Dave or Daniel found a kneebar. Good for them. Nobody has a problem with that. They found something that none of us had seen before. At the same time, I am not the one to judge how much this kneebar helps (if it changes the grade?) as I have never tried it this way. As even Henning typed above, there is absolutely no controversy about this kneebar.
The linking crux of the whole boulder for me was definitely last hard move, i.e. move number 3 on the stand start. It is not very hard as a single move, but it is very spicy in the link from the start, because it is heinously powerful move. Christian used very bad right foot for this move, whereas me and Nalle we both used a smearing foot high left. The stand start has numerous ascents and nothing had ever been broken there. Until a few weeks ago.
Daniel and Dave in this move used a foothold which has not been used before. Just because it was obviosly loose and fragile. Obviously you can blame Christian for insufficient cleaning, but he simply would not bother to clean it. And I would do the same. When climbing on well established route or boulder, I do not use holds or footholds which are sure be broken. And 100+ climbers who did or attemped the stand start did not use this loose foothold.
The loose foothold broke and better foothold appeared underneath. A bit more solid-looking, but still very questionable. A foothold was much better than the one that Christian used and made the last move less powerful. Which is very crucial for Gioia low. Because the foothold still looked like it could break again, Christian decided to tap the foothold with sika. He could not have hammered it down, because another (possibly even better?) foothold could have appeared underneath. Which could happen even if no action was taken by Christian. If I were him, I would probably do the same. It is not chipping, it is not creating an eliminate, it is not harming the aestethics of the line.
It is always hard to decide what to do with loose holds. As long as it is somewhere high in the mountains, where you are expected to climb on crumbly rock, it is not a problem if the route change after every ascent. But on famous boulder problem like Gioia? You have three options. Cover the hold (or hammer it down if possible), reinforce it or leave it as it is and wait until it breaks again (and then possibly again and again?). In all three cases, you are somehow manipulating the rock (even though indirectly in the third case)
He chose the first option, because he wanted all the climbers in the future to enjoy the Gioia as it used to be. Dave and Daniel should definitely respect what he did. It is his boulder problem and local area. It is not that Christian could not stand the fact that Dave and Daniel were smart enough to find a new beta or found a new foothold. It is what happened in the second move with the kneebar and he is perfectly fine with that. Daniel and Dave used a foothold which has not used before from a reason - because it was loose. "
The Gioia incident is made to seem much less controversial by this statement from Adam Ondra on 8a.nu (which would have been a useful detail in the article, but I digress):
"I would like to put my two cents into the discussion. I would like to add my opinion and facts into the discussion. I have been in contact with Christian about this issue.
Gioia has 7 hard moves in total (I exclude rather easy top out, but even up there it is possible to fall). First four moves could be like soft 8B+ on its own, stand start has three hard moves which is 8A+ and has many ascents.
Gioa has a couple glued holds. But do not imagine a wall full of sika, but a few reinforced crimps with fluid super glue. I am pretty sure that unless you are told, you would never notice any glue at all. The crimps would probably hold for a certain period of time even without the glue, but in order mantain the state of the problem forever, the glue was used. And I have no problem with that.
The hardest single move is the second move. And this is where Dave or Daniel found a kneebar. Good for them. Nobody has a problem with that. They found something that none of us had seen before. At the same time, I am not the one to judge how much this kneebar helps (if it changes the grade?) as I have never tried it this way. As even Henning typed above, there is absolutely no controversy about this kneebar.
The linking crux of the whole boulder for me was definitely last hard move, i.e. move number 3 on the stand start. It is not very hard as a single move, but it is very spicy in the link from the start, because it is heinously powerful move. Christian used very bad right foot for this move, whereas me and Nalle we both used a smearing foot high left. The stand start has numerous ascents and nothing had ever been broken there. Until a few weeks ago.
Daniel and Dave in this move used a foothold which has not been used before. Just because it was obviosly loose and fragile. Obviously you can blame Christian for insufficient cleaning, but he simply would not bother to clean it. And I would do the same. When climbing on well established route or boulder, I do not use holds or footholds which are sure be broken. And 100+ climbers who did or attemped the stand start did not use this loose foothold.
The loose foothold broke and better foothold appeared underneath. A bit more solid-looking, but still very questionable. A foothold was much better than the one that Christian used and made the last move less powerful. Which is very crucial for Gioia low. Because the foothold still looked like it could break again, Christian decided to tap the foothold with sika. He could not have hammered it down, because another (possibly even better?) foothold could have appeared underneath. Which could happen even if no action was taken by Christian. If I were him, I would probably do the same. It is not chipping, it is not creating an eliminate, it is not harming the aestethics of the line.
It is always hard to decide what to do with loose holds. As long as it is somewhere high in the mountains, where you are expected to climb on crumbly rock, it is not a problem if the route change after every ascent. But on famous boulder problem like Gioia? You have three options. Cover the hold (or hammer it down if possible), reinforce it or leave it as it is and wait until it breaks again (and then possibly again and again?). In all three cases, you are somehow manipulating the rock (even though indirectly in the third case)
He chose the first option, because he wanted all the climbers in the future to enjoy the Gioia as it used to be. Dave and Daniel should definitely respect what he did. It is his boulder problem and local area. It is not that Christian could not stand the fact that Dave and Daniel were smart enough to find a new beta or found a new foothold. It is what happened in the second move with the kneebar and he is perfectly fine with that. Daniel and Dave used a foothold which has not used before from a reason - because it was loose. "
5
In reply to UKC Articles:
As a regular user of White Goods, it is all as far as I am aware all natural hold dry tooling. When holds break then nothing is replaced and this was confirmed recently by common consent amongst the users when a steinpull wore out. Newtyle in common with most UK tooling venues relies on drilled holes for placements.
As a regular user of White Goods, it is all as far as I am aware all natural hold dry tooling. When holds break then nothing is replaced and this was confirmed recently by common consent amongst the users when a steinpull wore out. Newtyle in common with most UK tooling venues relies on drilled holes for placements.
1
In reply to UKC Articles:
All rock is being weathered constantly, either by the elements or human action, some routes will be around longer than others but ultimately they will all crumble and disappear. In fact it's this weathering that means the routes exist in the first place. Out of respect for others we should try not to speed this process more than necessary. i.e. clean your shoes, don't over brush etc. but if a hold breaks, you find a new way to climb it. If you didn't manage to climb it before the hold break then unfortunately you missed out, or have the opportunity for a new route depending what way you look at it. you're fighting a losing battle if you're trying to fight the weathering. Not wanting to sound like the voiceover to an overly philosophical (usually American) climbing film but I think there is some beauty in the fact that what we are climbing and consider to be so solid, is actually ever changing. Get out there and climb those amazing lines before they disappear so you can say "I climbed it when it was..."
All rock is being weathered constantly, either by the elements or human action, some routes will be around longer than others but ultimately they will all crumble and disappear. In fact it's this weathering that means the routes exist in the first place. Out of respect for others we should try not to speed this process more than necessary. i.e. clean your shoes, don't over brush etc. but if a hold breaks, you find a new way to climb it. If you didn't manage to climb it before the hold break then unfortunately you missed out, or have the opportunity for a new route depending what way you look at it. you're fighting a losing battle if you're trying to fight the weathering. Not wanting to sound like the voiceover to an overly philosophical (usually American) climbing film but I think there is some beauty in the fact that what we are climbing and consider to be so solid, is actually ever changing. Get out there and climb those amazing lines before they disappear so you can say "I climbed it when it was..."
3
In reply to UKC Articles:
This is a timely article as I was recently wondering why dry tooling venues are exempt from the widely accepted rule that no 'chipping' should take place? A number of the venues would have made excellent free climbing locations but were a bit too tricky, had it been known that chipping was acceptable I'm sure drilling a load of finger pockets would have made some fine routes but wasn't considered. It seems you could go and 'claim' a venue for dry tooling by artificially altering it to suit dry tooling but doing the same for sport climbing would result in outrage. I'm aware of the history of chipped holds on slate but it's difficult to imagine wholesale creation of chipped routes would be accepted these days, if it ever was (I'm pretty sure it wasn't). Maybe we could get one of these exceptions the article talks about, who gives them out? The BMC?
This is a timely article as I was recently wondering why dry tooling venues are exempt from the widely accepted rule that no 'chipping' should take place? A number of the venues would have made excellent free climbing locations but were a bit too tricky, had it been known that chipping was acceptable I'm sure drilling a load of finger pockets would have made some fine routes but wasn't considered. It seems you could go and 'claim' a venue for dry tooling by artificially altering it to suit dry tooling but doing the same for sport climbing would result in outrage. I'm aware of the history of chipped holds on slate but it's difficult to imagine wholesale creation of chipped routes would be accepted these days, if it ever was (I'm pretty sure it wasn't). Maybe we could get one of these exceptions the article talks about, who gives them out? The BMC?
Post edited at 14:31
In reply to UKC Articles:
The 'mystery chipper' you refer to at Cratcliffe/RHS almost certainly wasnt a climber or a chipper: several areas of commonly chalked holds were hammered by a vandal. Something similar happened at Joe's Slab on Froggat and possibly at a few other eastern edge venues. There was an earlier mystery chipper at Cratcliffe/RHS but the culprit admitted the misdeeds and that story had a happier ending. The most recent peak grit damage I'm aware of is at The Woolpacks where listed problems are getting trashed after only 8 months in a guidebook just because the rock surface is too gritty and soft to cope.
The 'mystery chipper' you refer to at Cratcliffe/RHS almost certainly wasnt a climber or a chipper: several areas of commonly chalked holds were hammered by a vandal. Something similar happened at Joe's Slab on Froggat and possibly at a few other eastern edge venues. There was an earlier mystery chipper at Cratcliffe/RHS but the culprit admitted the misdeeds and that story had a happier ending. The most recent peak grit damage I'm aware of is at The Woolpacks where listed problems are getting trashed after only 8 months in a guidebook just because the rock surface is too gritty and soft to cope.
1
In reply to UKC Articles:
I was standing under Parthian Shot last night (I had mainly being doing VBs and V0s down in the valley below, so as you can guess, I'm not considering an attempt on PS!). The famously broken flake is easily visible but it looked like there were some other spots where bits have broken off. Is this the case? Or is it maybe just some holds are very well cleaned against the mainly quite dark rock and its not actually scarring at all where stuff has come off.
I was standing under Parthian Shot last night (I had mainly being doing VBs and V0s down in the valley below, so as you can guess, I'm not considering an attempt on PS!). The famously broken flake is easily visible but it looked like there were some other spots where bits have broken off. Is this the case? Or is it maybe just some holds are very well cleaned against the mainly quite dark rock and its not actually scarring at all where stuff has come off.
In reply to UKC Articles:
If a hold breaks off naturally, should it be glued back on in a reconstructive act of cosmetic surgery? Absolutely not.
Can I reinforce a wobbly hold on my project in order to keep it feasible, or let nature take its toll and suffer in the knowledge that it's now 4 grades harder? Either climb carefully or suffer in the knowledge that it's now 4 grades harder.
My ethics for this are very simple. Don't chip, glue or re-inforce holds.
If a hold breaks off naturally, should it be glued back on in a reconstructive act of cosmetic surgery? Absolutely not.
Can I reinforce a wobbly hold on my project in order to keep it feasible, or let nature take its toll and suffer in the knowledge that it's now 4 grades harder? Either climb carefully or suffer in the knowledge that it's now 4 grades harder.
My ethics for this are very simple. Don't chip, glue or re-inforce holds.
8
3
In reply to UKC Articles:
Climbers seem to get especially pious about the subject of manufacturing holds on routes. I don't agree with this attitude. I would not want to see established routes altered as it would rob future generations of the opportunity to pit themselves against old test pieces nor would I like to see chipping of holds where there is a possibility that the rock could be climbed by someone in its current state but the stock attitude that chipping is always bad just doesn't hold weight for me.
Other sports manipulate the environment to make it better suited for it's use (mountain bike parks, golf courses, ski resorts). We also change the face of our cliffs by using them for climbing no matter how careful we think we're being, this impact on the environment is rarely brought into question but the mere whisper of chipping brings instant condemnation. Of course many had a similar disdain for sport climbing and the use of chalk in the 80's but how many refrain from clipping the odd bolt or using chalk now?
I fail to see why hold manufacturing is so different from the other ways in which we manipulate the rock. I remember climbing brilliant route in the Verdon Gorge called March du Temps that climbs the whole height of the gorge at 7a except for a 5 to 10m section that is blank and steep. There's a series of bolts that are used to aid past this section. What would be the problem with drilling some pockets to make the whole route go free? You could even make this section the crux if you so wished. You're already drilling holes in the rock to place the extra bolts anyway!
I really don't think that the attitude that rock should never be altered in anyway holds any weight. I also used to be the first to jump on the 'chipping is bad' band wagon but then when I thought about it the stance just didn't seem logical. I also realised that some amazing climbs that I've enjoyed have been chipped and it didn't take away from my experience of the route in fact in some cases it just added to the charm and history. One such route is Rose et la Vampire in Buoux, the worlds first 8b steeped in history, brilliant climbing and brilliantly chipped, an absolute classic. Hopefully I'll have the pyche to get strong enough to get to the top next time I'm back!
I you hold the attitude that rock should never be altered in anyway then stop using chalk, stop placing gear, stop drilling bolts, stop brushing holds. stop cleaning new routes, stop abseiling, stop pulling on holds and stop climbing full stop!
If you're not swayed by my argument give the article below from Rock and Ice a read. It's a very interesting read whatever your view. Using practical ethics it argues that: 'popular attitudes about hold manufacturing are unreasonable and out of sync with other common attitudes and practices in rock climbing.'
http://www.rockandice.com/lates-news/making-the-grade
Climbers seem to get especially pious about the subject of manufacturing holds on routes. I don't agree with this attitude. I would not want to see established routes altered as it would rob future generations of the opportunity to pit themselves against old test pieces nor would I like to see chipping of holds where there is a possibility that the rock could be climbed by someone in its current state but the stock attitude that chipping is always bad just doesn't hold weight for me.
Other sports manipulate the environment to make it better suited for it's use (mountain bike parks, golf courses, ski resorts). We also change the face of our cliffs by using them for climbing no matter how careful we think we're being, this impact on the environment is rarely brought into question but the mere whisper of chipping brings instant condemnation. Of course many had a similar disdain for sport climbing and the use of chalk in the 80's but how many refrain from clipping the odd bolt or using chalk now?
I fail to see why hold manufacturing is so different from the other ways in which we manipulate the rock. I remember climbing brilliant route in the Verdon Gorge called March du Temps that climbs the whole height of the gorge at 7a except for a 5 to 10m section that is blank and steep. There's a series of bolts that are used to aid past this section. What would be the problem with drilling some pockets to make the whole route go free? You could even make this section the crux if you so wished. You're already drilling holes in the rock to place the extra bolts anyway!
I really don't think that the attitude that rock should never be altered in anyway holds any weight. I also used to be the first to jump on the 'chipping is bad' band wagon but then when I thought about it the stance just didn't seem logical. I also realised that some amazing climbs that I've enjoyed have been chipped and it didn't take away from my experience of the route in fact in some cases it just added to the charm and history. One such route is Rose et la Vampire in Buoux, the worlds first 8b steeped in history, brilliant climbing and brilliantly chipped, an absolute classic. Hopefully I'll have the pyche to get strong enough to get to the top next time I'm back!
I you hold the attitude that rock should never be altered in anyway then stop using chalk, stop placing gear, stop drilling bolts, stop brushing holds. stop cleaning new routes, stop abseiling, stop pulling on holds and stop climbing full stop!
If you're not swayed by my argument give the article below from Rock and Ice a read. It's a very interesting read whatever your view. Using practical ethics it argues that: 'popular attitudes about hold manufacturing are unreasonable and out of sync with other common attitudes and practices in rock climbing.'
http://www.rockandice.com/lates-news/making-the-grade
5
2
In reply to colesy:
The big, big difficulty is, of course: who has the right to make the decision ? I'm sure there are plenty of outdoor centres that would like nothing more than to see a convenient line of 'routes' side by side at a roadside venue nearby. And why not by your argument ? its their view as to what's better over someone elses.
Its a far bigger and nastier genie we are letting out the bottle than the bolts for all lobby.
The big, big difficulty is, of course: who has the right to make the decision ? I'm sure there are plenty of outdoor centres that would like nothing more than to see a convenient line of 'routes' side by side at a roadside venue nearby. And why not by your argument ? its their view as to what's better over someone elses.
Its a far bigger and nastier genie we are letting out the bottle than the bolts for all lobby.
7
In reply to GrahamD:
I agree to some degree but the same argument could be applied to suggest a blanket ban on bolting. I'm primarily a trad climber and would hate to see bolts cropping up in Pembroke or on the grit stone but this doesn't happen because the consensus is that it's not allowed in these area's. I don't agree with the stance that all chipping is bad but I've never chipped a route and I don't imagine that I will ever have the inclination to do so in the future. I'd like imagine that the majority of people who were thinking of chipping routes would be passionate new routers that are well aware of the issues surrounding chipping and would be able to make a good judgement call after consulting other of users of the crag in question. I would have no problem with climbing new routes created as a result and certainly wouldn't be calling for the heads of those who were opening these routes as long as it was done in a responsible way. The overwhelming opinion on chipping seems to be that it's always wrong. Personally I've never heard any other opinion viewed amongst the many climbers that I know, yet chipping still continues. If everyone thinks that it's such a bad why are people still manufacturing or overzealously 'cleaning' routes? Ferocity wall has glue on it (and I think evidence of chipping in the past?) yet it's still a popular venue because it hosts some great hard routes. Would it be better if no one had bothered to open up these routes in the first place?
In regard to the differing views of separate user groups it's often tricky when there are opposing views but surely there is space for both? There are already exists examples of outdoor centres creating 'convenient routes'. In the Cheddar Gorge a line of bolt on holds have used to create an easy line for exactly the purpose you suggest. I see this as a positive thing though as it keeps the beginner groups and their top rope monopoly of routes away from the main part of the crag.
If attitudes towards chipping changed I really don't think that there would be a rush of people going out to vandalise and chip existing routes or make manufactured paths up existing crags. I think that as a community we are more responsible than this but if this did happen it really would be a crying shame so I can understand the concern.
I agree to some degree but the same argument could be applied to suggest a blanket ban on bolting. I'm primarily a trad climber and would hate to see bolts cropping up in Pembroke or on the grit stone but this doesn't happen because the consensus is that it's not allowed in these area's. I don't agree with the stance that all chipping is bad but I've never chipped a route and I don't imagine that I will ever have the inclination to do so in the future. I'd like imagine that the majority of people who were thinking of chipping routes would be passionate new routers that are well aware of the issues surrounding chipping and would be able to make a good judgement call after consulting other of users of the crag in question. I would have no problem with climbing new routes created as a result and certainly wouldn't be calling for the heads of those who were opening these routes as long as it was done in a responsible way. The overwhelming opinion on chipping seems to be that it's always wrong. Personally I've never heard any other opinion viewed amongst the many climbers that I know, yet chipping still continues. If everyone thinks that it's such a bad why are people still manufacturing or overzealously 'cleaning' routes? Ferocity wall has glue on it (and I think evidence of chipping in the past?) yet it's still a popular venue because it hosts some great hard routes. Would it be better if no one had bothered to open up these routes in the first place?
In regard to the differing views of separate user groups it's often tricky when there are opposing views but surely there is space for both? There are already exists examples of outdoor centres creating 'convenient routes'. In the Cheddar Gorge a line of bolt on holds have used to create an easy line for exactly the purpose you suggest. I see this as a positive thing though as it keeps the beginner groups and their top rope monopoly of routes away from the main part of the crag.
If attitudes towards chipping changed I really don't think that there would be a rush of people going out to vandalise and chip existing routes or make manufactured paths up existing crags. I think that as a community we are more responsible than this but if this did happen it really would be a crying shame so I can understand the concern.
1
In reply to colesy:
The problem is that for every Rose & Vampire there is a multitude of offensively drilled routes that might have provided much more rewarding challenges if left alone. If chipping or drilling had become accepted in the UK in the 80s what are the odds that the impossible roof of Hubble would have had a few convenient holds added so as to be able to get to the climbable rock above?
I agree it's not a black and white issue though. In the UK there isn't enough good rock to make mistakes so it's good that a very conservative approach has evolved, whereas in some other places there are fantastic features only accessible by passing effectively blank rock. I remember a route in Spain that used a few bolt-on jugs to easily cross a blank roof and access a magnificent tufa; although far from ideal that seemed a much better solution to me than drilling buckets, or even worse, manufacturing a man-made crux to suit your own personal ability level.
I'm equipping a crag close to our place in Ariège at the moment and in sections where the rock isn't perfect it's really not easy making decisions about which rock to 'clean' and which to leave; some loose blocks clearly have to be removed, as they would be pulled off by a climber anyway so are just hazards, some are hollow or friable to differing degrees and may or may not stay in place for many years - is it better to remove them and make sure, or leave them in place and potentially leave an unnecessary hazard? And does the decision change when it's a crux and removing rock may make it harder or maybe easier?
The approach I tend to take is to remove anything I think is likely to be pulled off anyway or that is suspect and large enough to cause serious danger if it were to break off anyway, but there is no right answer for all cases.
The problem is that for every Rose & Vampire there is a multitude of offensively drilled routes that might have provided much more rewarding challenges if left alone. If chipping or drilling had become accepted in the UK in the 80s what are the odds that the impossible roof of Hubble would have had a few convenient holds added so as to be able to get to the climbable rock above?
I agree it's not a black and white issue though. In the UK there isn't enough good rock to make mistakes so it's good that a very conservative approach has evolved, whereas in some other places there are fantastic features only accessible by passing effectively blank rock. I remember a route in Spain that used a few bolt-on jugs to easily cross a blank roof and access a magnificent tufa; although far from ideal that seemed a much better solution to me than drilling buckets, or even worse, manufacturing a man-made crux to suit your own personal ability level.
I'm equipping a crag close to our place in Ariège at the moment and in sections where the rock isn't perfect it's really not easy making decisions about which rock to 'clean' and which to leave; some loose blocks clearly have to be removed, as they would be pulled off by a climber anyway so are just hazards, some are hollow or friable to differing degrees and may or may not stay in place for many years - is it better to remove them and make sure, or leave them in place and potentially leave an unnecessary hazard? And does the decision change when it's a crux and removing rock may make it harder or maybe easier?
The approach I tend to take is to remove anything I think is likely to be pulled off anyway or that is suspect and large enough to cause serious danger if it were to break off anyway, but there is no right answer for all cases.
10
In reply to john arran:
Even though Hubble wasn't chipped it was glued, possibly this has taken away a future 9a+/b?
The bolt on access you refer to is possibly Arome's De Montgrony, one of the best 8a+ tufa lines around. The bolt ons do not take anything away from its quality. It is very easy to return a piece of rock back to its former state bar a 10mm hole compared to glueing or chipping.
Even though Hubble wasn't chipped it was glued, possibly this has taken away a future 9a+/b?
The bolt on access you refer to is possibly Arome's De Montgrony, one of the best 8a+ tufa lines around. The bolt ons do not take anything away from its quality. It is very easy to return a piece of rock back to its former state bar a 10mm hole compared to glueing or chipping.
2
In reply to colesy:
Let's also not forget that climbing has a strong history and ethic of not bringing the rock to your level, and of aspiring to climb something in the best style possible. Wouldn't it be a massive shame if people had chipped their way up many of our great hard routes a century ago because they couldn't foresee that people could ever climb E3, E4...E10?
In the UK at least, if it can't be climbed in its current state, leave it be. You may be robbing a future generation of climbing an impressive natural line, and you're almost certainly admitting that you're not good enough to climb the rock in its current state. It's essentially small-scale 'Maestri-ism'.
Let's also not forget that climbing has a strong history and ethic of not bringing the rock to your level, and of aspiring to climb something in the best style possible. Wouldn't it be a massive shame if people had chipped their way up many of our great hard routes a century ago because they couldn't foresee that people could ever climb E3, E4...E10?
In the UK at least, if it can't be climbed in its current state, leave it be. You may be robbing a future generation of climbing an impressive natural line, and you're almost certainly admitting that you're not good enough to climb the rock in its current state. It's essentially small-scale 'Maestri-ism'.
7
In reply to gaz parry:
Thanks Gaz. You're spot on with Montgrony, an amazing route despite the bolt-ons, and I say that even though it spat me off!
Didn't know Hubble was glued but it isn't surprising. That's a difficult area since so many Peak limestone routes lose holds, but more so after the first ascent rather than before it. Generally I'd say that if it breaks before it's climbed then tough luck - it should have been cleaned better in the first place!
Thanks Gaz. You're spot on with Montgrony, an amazing route despite the bolt-ons, and I say that even though it spat me off!
Didn't know Hubble was glued but it isn't surprising. That's a difficult area since so many Peak limestone routes lose holds, but more so after the first ascent rather than before it. Generally I'd say that if it breaks before it's climbed then tough luck - it should have been cleaned better in the first place!
1
In reply to tehmarks:
Agreed. The whole point of climbing is pitting your own skills against the rock. Do you measure up? If not, then work away at a sequence, get better or do a different route. Otherwise you're spoiling it for someone else in the future.
If an existing route loses a hold I'd say it's just too bad. It will still either make a good harder route or a future challenge for someone.
> Wouldn't it be a massive shame if people had chipped their way up many of our great hard routes a century ago because they couldn't foresee that people could ever climb E3, E4...E10?
>Agreed. The whole point of climbing is pitting your own skills against the rock. Do you measure up? If not, then work away at a sequence, get better or do a different route. Otherwise you're spoiling it for someone else in the future.
If an existing route loses a hold I'd say it's just too bad. It will still either make a good harder route or a future challenge for someone.
3
In reply to Michael Gordon:
I agree that it would have been a shame if people had have chipped routes that go at E4 because the standards of their era led them to believe that it would never be possible. However, bar a friction slabs, chimneys or corners there are no E3 to E10's that I know of that have no holds. I'm not advocating the chipping of rock 'to bring the route down to 'your level' but there are many sections of rock that no matter how strong you are or whatever imaginative sequence you dream up will never be climbable by humans because there are just no holds. This can be a especially frustrating if there's a few meters of good climbing followed by a few meters with no holds followed by a further 20 meters of great climbing. Maybe far from spoiling a future challenge for someone else in the future you would be giving them the opportunity for them to do battle with another route that would otherwise not exist or be possible?
I agree that it would have been a shame if people had have chipped routes that go at E4 because the standards of their era led them to believe that it would never be possible. However, bar a friction slabs, chimneys or corners there are no E3 to E10's that I know of that have no holds. I'm not advocating the chipping of rock 'to bring the route down to 'your level' but there are many sections of rock that no matter how strong you are or whatever imaginative sequence you dream up will never be climbable by humans because there are just no holds. This can be a especially frustrating if there's a few meters of good climbing followed by a few meters with no holds followed by a further 20 meters of great climbing. Maybe far from spoiling a future challenge for someone else in the future you would be giving them the opportunity for them to do battle with another route that would otherwise not exist or be possible?
Post edited at 22:28
3
In reply to tehmarks:
How can we say that we have such a strong history of not bring the rock to our level when there are so many examples of chipped routes that are universally enjoyed by the climbing community?
I don't agree that we should be chipping routes to bring them down to our level either in fact I totally disagree with this approach. If there's a natural line with holds on that you're not able to climb then yes leave it for someone who might be able to but there are sections of rock that will never be climbed by humans no matter how good they are.
How can we say that we have such a strong history of not bring the rock to our level when there are so many examples of chipped routes that are universally enjoyed by the climbing community?
I don't agree that we should be chipping routes to bring them down to our level either in fact I totally disagree with this approach. If there's a natural line with holds on that you're not able to climb then yes leave it for someone who might be able to but there are sections of rock that will never be climbed by humans no matter how good they are.
1
In reply to colesy:
There have been many instances of 'hold improvement' through chipping though, when the line might well have been climbable in the future using the holds as they were originally. Not sure blank sections in the middle of otherwise hold-plenty lines are that common in the UK. The dilemma may be more true for big walls when features just don't quite join up? Although I can see it could be frustrating, sometimes perhaps we should also recognise the beauty in some things that will never be climbable.
There have been many instances of 'hold improvement' through chipping though, when the line might well have been climbable in the future using the holds as they were originally. Not sure blank sections in the middle of otherwise hold-plenty lines are that common in the UK. The dilemma may be more true for big walls when features just don't quite join up? Although I can see it could be frustrating, sometimes perhaps we should also recognise the beauty in some things that will never be climbable.
In reply to UKC Articles:
Just to confirm, White Goods has never been chipped or drilled. A couple of blocks have been glued but mainly in the interest of safety, there has been significantly sized blocks come away whilst climbing. The crag is bolted like any sport venue and the climbing is on natural holds.
Just to confirm, White Goods has never been chipped or drilled. A couple of blocks have been glued but mainly in the interest of safety, there has been significantly sized blocks come away whilst climbing. The crag is bolted like any sport venue and the climbing is on natural holds.
1
In reply to john arran:
John,
It sounds like you're taking a sensible approach to equipping the new crag that you talk about. I can't speak for other posters on this thread but other than being lucky enough to get the first accent of a couple of trad lines I've never put in the effort to develop new routes so practically speaking your opinion on the subject is more important than mine. I'm glad to hear that you don't think that chipping is a completely black and white issue. The practice has been employed by new routers for years and I'm sure it will be for years to come but because as it seems to be such an off limits subject I doubt if anyone would be willing to openly speak about chipping in public for the fear of being lynched. Maybe it would be a positive thing if attitudes shifted slightly to allow open discussion on the subject and therefore hopefully help to prevent the offensive drilled routes that you mentioned?
I too agree that creating your own crux that is much harder than the rest of the climbing on the route is not a good idea and I think it would be a bit egotistical too. However Marc Le Menesrtel was very good at this you must admit?! Personally I'd rather see drilled holds on routes as opposed to bolt ons, I don't know why but I just prefer to climb on rock rather than plastic! I can see that it's easier to bring the rock nearer to it's natural state again by removing the holds if required though, but lets face it in the grand scheme of things it's all going to fall down soon anyway!
Thanks for all of the efforts on the developing front, always appreciated.
John,
It sounds like you're taking a sensible approach to equipping the new crag that you talk about. I can't speak for other posters on this thread but other than being lucky enough to get the first accent of a couple of trad lines I've never put in the effort to develop new routes so practically speaking your opinion on the subject is more important than mine. I'm glad to hear that you don't think that chipping is a completely black and white issue. The practice has been employed by new routers for years and I'm sure it will be for years to come but because as it seems to be such an off limits subject I doubt if anyone would be willing to openly speak about chipping in public for the fear of being lynched. Maybe it would be a positive thing if attitudes shifted slightly to allow open discussion on the subject and therefore hopefully help to prevent the offensive drilled routes that you mentioned?
I too agree that creating your own crux that is much harder than the rest of the climbing on the route is not a good idea and I think it would be a bit egotistical too. However Marc Le Menesrtel was very good at this you must admit?! Personally I'd rather see drilled holds on routes as opposed to bolt ons, I don't know why but I just prefer to climb on rock rather than plastic! I can see that it's easier to bring the rock nearer to it's natural state again by removing the holds if required though, but lets face it in the grand scheme of things it's all going to fall down soon anyway!
Thanks for all of the efforts on the developing front, always appreciated.
In reply to colesy:
These are quite artificial environments though, not like a cliff. A quarry would be more similar, but even then the 'holds' haven't been created specifically for climbing, so there is a significant difference. I'll admit that there could be an argument for chipping a few holds in a genuinely blank section within an otherwise good quarried feature.
>
> Other sports manipulate the environment to make it better suited for it's use (mountain bike parks, golf courses, ski resorts).
>
> Other sports manipulate the environment to make it better suited for it's use (mountain bike parks, golf courses, ski resorts).
>
These are quite artificial environments though, not like a cliff. A quarry would be more similar, but even then the 'holds' haven't been created specifically for climbing, so there is a significant difference. I'll admit that there could be an argument for chipping a few holds in a genuinely blank section within an otherwise good quarried feature.
In reply to:
For the record no hold at white goods has been chipped nor shall be chipped if the ethic set be upheld. One or two holds have been glued however to avoid serious accident. The crag is a loose quarry afterall, hence the dry tooling allocation .
Please reframe from using sweeping statements
For the record no hold at white goods has been chipped nor shall be chipped if the ethic set be upheld. One or two holds have been glued however to avoid serious accident. The crag is a loose quarry afterall, hence the dry tooling allocation .
Please reframe from using sweeping statements
2
In reply to Michael Gordon:
Again I agree that hold improvement on lines that could be climbable by others should be avoided if possible. Having said that if there was a route in an quarry, in an area with limited access to rock climbing that Adam Ondra would struggle to get up I would see it as a positive thing if a hold was improved so that local climbers were able to realistically have a go at climbing a new route. If it was a route in a pristine area with
lots of climbing to go at locally I would have a different opinion
I can only speak of areas that I know about but there are certainly blank sections of rock in the Avon Gorge and Cheddar Gorge that would not be climbable as they are blank. It's certainly not just a problem restricted just to big walls although the nose would never have gone free without chipping and it's one of the most celebrated achievements in rock climbing.
In terms of the beauty of things that will never be climbable, there will always be things that are not climbable to marvel at. If you're talking of the ascetics of a piece of rock then I do have some sympathy but then surely pegs and bolts damage rock, chalks leaves for more visible marks than chipped holds and placing protection can potentially damage rock. If the rock is to be preserved in its natural state then surely we should not clean and prepare routes either? if this is your argument then maybe you should be hanging up your boots as your climbing does have an impact on the rock? I've heard people argue about the replacement of old drilled pegs with new bolts in the Avon Gorge on the grounds of ethics and aesthetics. I just don't get it. There are huge metal rock stabilisation anchors in the gorge and the ramp was only recently exposed in the late 70's when Bristol city council blew have the cliff away with explosives, why so precious about all area's? This is not to say that I don't care about the Avon Gorge, I do. To me climbers seem very confused with certain ethical practices.
Going back to the original article I have sympathy with Christian Gore. If he had not dedicated years of his life to climbing that problem, gluing the holds and working out a sequence nobody would give two hoots about that boulder and Dave Graham and co would certainly not be there trying it now. Although it's been manufactured surely it's a good thing that now people care about that piece of rock and want to have some kind of interaction with it? You talk of preserving challenges for the future generation, by artificially filling in the new foot hold is that not exactly what Christian is trying to achieve?
Again I agree that hold improvement on lines that could be climbable by others should be avoided if possible. Having said that if there was a route in an quarry, in an area with limited access to rock climbing that Adam Ondra would struggle to get up I would see it as a positive thing if a hold was improved so that local climbers were able to realistically have a go at climbing a new route. If it was a route in a pristine area with
lots of climbing to go at locally I would have a different opinion
I can only speak of areas that I know about but there are certainly blank sections of rock in the Avon Gorge and Cheddar Gorge that would not be climbable as they are blank. It's certainly not just a problem restricted just to big walls although the nose would never have gone free without chipping and it's one of the most celebrated achievements in rock climbing.
In terms of the beauty of things that will never be climbable, there will always be things that are not climbable to marvel at. If you're talking of the ascetics of a piece of rock then I do have some sympathy but then surely pegs and bolts damage rock, chalks leaves for more visible marks than chipped holds and placing protection can potentially damage rock. If the rock is to be preserved in its natural state then surely we should not clean and prepare routes either? if this is your argument then maybe you should be hanging up your boots as your climbing does have an impact on the rock? I've heard people argue about the replacement of old drilled pegs with new bolts in the Avon Gorge on the grounds of ethics and aesthetics. I just don't get it. There are huge metal rock stabilisation anchors in the gorge and the ramp was only recently exposed in the late 70's when Bristol city council blew have the cliff away with explosives, why so precious about all area's? This is not to say that I don't care about the Avon Gorge, I do. To me climbers seem very confused with certain ethical practices.
Going back to the original article I have sympathy with Christian Gore. If he had not dedicated years of his life to climbing that problem, gluing the holds and working out a sequence nobody would give two hoots about that boulder and Dave Graham and co would certainly not be there trying it now. Although it's been manufactured surely it's a good thing that now people care about that piece of rock and want to have some kind of interaction with it? You talk of preserving challenges for the future generation, by artificially filling in the new foot hold is that not exactly what Christian is trying to achieve?
Post edited at 00:22
2
In reply to Michael Gordon:
Hadn't noticed this post until just now. That was exactly the point I was trying to make that sometimes in certain situations chipping may be acceptable and that it's not necessarily as black and white as it first appears.
Citing golf courses and mountain bike trails is starting to stretch the point I know! Mountain bike trails do often go down mountains and through woodlands though so they are part of our countryside and they have definitely been changed to make them more amenable for their users!
Hadn't noticed this post until just now. That was exactly the point I was trying to make that sometimes in certain situations chipping may be acceptable and that it's not necessarily as black and white as it first appears.
Citing golf courses and mountain bike trails is starting to stretch the point I know! Mountain bike trails do often go down mountains and through woodlands though so they are part of our countryside and they have definitely been changed to make them more amenable for their users!
Post edited at 00:35
In reply to colesy:
To stand under Smiling Buttress as a punter who can climb English 5c on a good day, it looks to be entirely devoid of holds useful enough to climb what is essentially an overhanging piece of mostly blank grit. It'd have been a massive shame if those who'd failed on it in the past hadn't given Tyler Landman the chance to climb it as-is because they'd decided it was impossible and created their own artificial way up it.
People back at the turn of the 20th century no doubt could never have imagined that in 80 years time, people would be climbing E9. If someone in 1900 had stood at the bottom of Cloggy and gazed up at Indian Face, what do you think their thoughts would have been?
I don't understand why anyone thinks they have the right to alter the rock in the name of climbing. If you can't climb it in its natural state, give up and move on. No single person has the right to decide that something is too hard to climb naturally and thus should be altered. If we start doing that, we're giving up on one of the key principles that makes climbing in the UK such a special experience. We have such a great history of strong ethics, we should be striving to uphold that rather than giving up on it.
To stand under Smiling Buttress as a punter who can climb English 5c on a good day, it looks to be entirely devoid of holds useful enough to climb what is essentially an overhanging piece of mostly blank grit. It'd have been a massive shame if those who'd failed on it in the past hadn't given Tyler Landman the chance to climb it as-is because they'd decided it was impossible and created their own artificial way up it.
People back at the turn of the 20th century no doubt could never have imagined that in 80 years time, people would be climbing E9. If someone in 1900 had stood at the bottom of Cloggy and gazed up at Indian Face, what do you think their thoughts would have been?
I don't understand why anyone thinks they have the right to alter the rock in the name of climbing. If you can't climb it in its natural state, give up and move on. No single person has the right to decide that something is too hard to climb naturally and thus should be altered. If we start doing that, we're giving up on one of the key principles that makes climbing in the UK such a special experience. We have such a great history of strong ethics, we should be striving to uphold that rather than giving up on it.
1
In reply to colesy:
I'm certainly not saying that historic chipped routes don't exist but they're few and far between, and I'd love to know if they created the same controversy at the time as they would now.
I'm certainly not saying that historic chipped routes don't exist but they're few and far between, and I'd love to know if they created the same controversy at the time as they would now.
In reply to colesy:
I'm not talking about 'leave no trace' aesthetics but more just seeing a beautiful blank wall and knowing that it will (probably!) never be tamed. Neither pegs or bolts are at all aesthetic, though I do admit there is an aesthetic quality in seeing a line of chalk (not tons of it obviously) up an impressive line of natural holds, particularly if it's your own!
> In terms of the beauty of things that will never be climbable, there will always be things that are not climbable to marvel at. If you're talking of the ascetics of a piece of rock then I do have some sympathy but then surely pegs and bolts damage rock, chalks leaves for more visible marks than chipped holds and placing protection can potentially damage rock. If the rock is to be preserved in its natural state then surely we should not clean and prepare routes either? if this is your argument then maybe you should be hanging up your boots as your climbing does have an impact on the rock?
>
>
I'm not talking about 'leave no trace' aesthetics but more just seeing a beautiful blank wall and knowing that it will (probably!) never be tamed. Neither pegs or bolts are at all aesthetic, though I do admit there is an aesthetic quality in seeing a line of chalk (not tons of it obviously) up an impressive line of natural holds, particularly if it's your own!
1
In reply to tehmarks:
Most climbers that have the ability or vision to attempt up a line like Smiling buttress would be well aware that it is possible to free climb and hopefully would be well aware that it should not be chipped. I think that Ben Moon had done all the individual moves years ago and yes I agree it would have been awful had he improved the holds, I'm sure that he would have been rightly lambasted for it if he had.
Re the Indian Face. I'm think that they would have been very impressed that someone had managed to climb it free! They might have regarded it as an invalid ascent due to their code of ethics though. Working a route on top rope before climbing it in a oner was certainly not the norm and many would have regarded it as bad form and cheating. That was the ethics of the day, it doesn't mean one particular view is right or wrong but just different? Did you also know that the Indian Face has had a bolt placed on it, been chipped, and then subsequently glued?
I too do not want to see chipping on brilliant lines that may go free one day but this is not what I'm arguing for in fact I'd happily argue against it with you. Climbing standards have risen hugely over the last 40 years ago mainly due to the improvements in technology which have allowed people to push themselves in relative safety. The rate of improvement in climbing standards will slow down though and there are plenty of bits of rock that are steep (unlike Indian Face or Smiling Buttress) that have sections of rock with no holds, these sections will never be possible for humans to climb no matter what standard is reached. It's like saying that because standards have improved so much in swimming one day we'll be able to walk on water, it's unlikely in the near future!
To me your last point is doesn't make sense and is full of contradictions.
If you don't understand how anyone can alter the rock in the name of climbing then you really shouldn't be climbing on rocks full stop. If you do then to minimise your impact you should be soloing bare foot and without chalk. When most new routes are opened the person that opens the route has to prepare it first. Sometimes this will involve removing vegetation or removing dirt from cracks but sometimes this involves literally prying and hammering off bits of suspect rock. Surely this is just as unnatural? Preparing a new route is likely to result in the removal of a lot more rock than a chipping ever will.
If the argument that no single person has the right to decide if something's too difficult to climb naturally holds then standards wouldn't have risen and climbing wouldn't be as popular as it is today. Initially it was individuals and certainly a minority that started bolting routes. Bolting is used because people are too scared to face the 'natural' challenge of climbing that particular route (quite rightly so too!). I don't think we'd ever see many routes in the 9s without bolts and bolting does permanently alter the rock. We do have a strong history of ethics and I find myself subscribing to them more than heavily than a lot of my friends do but that doesn't mean that the way I approach my climbing is any better than the way they approach theirs we just come from different viewpoints. Although I subscribe to most of our British climbing ethics I do also realise that they're just self imposed silly rules that wouldn't make sense to anyone not versed in British climbing history. The other point is that our climbing ethics have not been stagnant over the last 100 years they've evolved and changed. Maybe chipping would be one step too far for most though!
Most climbers that have the ability or vision to attempt up a line like Smiling buttress would be well aware that it is possible to free climb and hopefully would be well aware that it should not be chipped. I think that Ben Moon had done all the individual moves years ago and yes I agree it would have been awful had he improved the holds, I'm sure that he would have been rightly lambasted for it if he had.
Re the Indian Face. I'm think that they would have been very impressed that someone had managed to climb it free! They might have regarded it as an invalid ascent due to their code of ethics though. Working a route on top rope before climbing it in a oner was certainly not the norm and many would have regarded it as bad form and cheating. That was the ethics of the day, it doesn't mean one particular view is right or wrong but just different? Did you also know that the Indian Face has had a bolt placed on it, been chipped, and then subsequently glued?
I too do not want to see chipping on brilliant lines that may go free one day but this is not what I'm arguing for in fact I'd happily argue against it with you. Climbing standards have risen hugely over the last 40 years ago mainly due to the improvements in technology which have allowed people to push themselves in relative safety. The rate of improvement in climbing standards will slow down though and there are plenty of bits of rock that are steep (unlike Indian Face or Smiling Buttress) that have sections of rock with no holds, these sections will never be possible for humans to climb no matter what standard is reached. It's like saying that because standards have improved so much in swimming one day we'll be able to walk on water, it's unlikely in the near future!
To me your last point is doesn't make sense and is full of contradictions.
> I don't understand why anyone thinks they have the right to alter the rock in the name of climbing. If you can't climb it in its natural state, give up and move on. No single person has the right to decide that something is too hard to climb naturally and thus should be altered. If we start doing that, we're giving up on one of the key principles that makes climbing in the UK such a special experience. We have such a great history of strong ethics, we should be striving to uphold that rather than giving up on it.
If you don't understand how anyone can alter the rock in the name of climbing then you really shouldn't be climbing on rocks full stop. If you do then to minimise your impact you should be soloing bare foot and without chalk. When most new routes are opened the person that opens the route has to prepare it first. Sometimes this will involve removing vegetation or removing dirt from cracks but sometimes this involves literally prying and hammering off bits of suspect rock. Surely this is just as unnatural? Preparing a new route is likely to result in the removal of a lot more rock than a chipping ever will.
If the argument that no single person has the right to decide if something's too difficult to climb naturally holds then standards wouldn't have risen and climbing wouldn't be as popular as it is today. Initially it was individuals and certainly a minority that started bolting routes. Bolting is used because people are too scared to face the 'natural' challenge of climbing that particular route (quite rightly so too!). I don't think we'd ever see many routes in the 9s without bolts and bolting does permanently alter the rock. We do have a strong history of ethics and I find myself subscribing to them more than heavily than a lot of my friends do but that doesn't mean that the way I approach my climbing is any better than the way they approach theirs we just come from different viewpoints. Although I subscribe to most of our British climbing ethics I do also realise that they're just self imposed silly rules that wouldn't make sense to anyone not versed in British climbing history. The other point is that our climbing ethics have not been stagnant over the last 100 years they've evolved and changed. Maybe chipping would be one step too far for most though!
1
In reply to colesy:
In preparing new routes there is a significant difference between removing loose rock and chipping new holds. I don't think it is fair to compare the two or infer that the former is in some way 'wrong', except perhaps from a strict ground-up perspective (though that is a separate debate entirely).
In preparing new routes there is a significant difference between removing loose rock and chipping new holds. I don't think it is fair to compare the two or infer that the former is in some way 'wrong', except perhaps from a strict ground-up perspective (though that is a separate debate entirely).
In reply to colesy:
You keep mentioning chalk, but for many of us that really isn't "altering the rock". I've gone from living in total climbing backwater to being close to probably the most popular cliffs in the UK, and in both places the rain seems to make very short work of the chalk!
You keep mentioning chalk, but for many of us that really isn't "altering the rock". I've gone from living in total climbing backwater to being close to probably the most popular cliffs in the UK, and in both places the rain seems to make very short work of the chalk!
In reply to Franco Cookson:
can you expand on that please Franco? (caveat: genuine question)
> That comment from Ondra is sickening.
can you expand on that please Franco? (caveat: genuine question)
In reply to GuyVG:
The idea of "preserving a route" in some artificial state so that your experience and line can be preserved for ever is rank.
I've never got the idea of First ascentionists owning lines. At a push you might own the concept of a line, but you don't have any more say over how the rock should be treated than any other ascentionist (or any other non-ascentionist for that matter).
Should I go back and fill in the gear slots on Psykovsky's to reclaim "my" H10? What a load of nonsense. Probably the hardest part of new-routing is the fact that things evolve whilst you're on them and after you try them/do them. You can't approach the rock as a possession open to manipulation.
How scary that one of the best sport climbers in the world is so utterly detached from the process of the rock.
The idea of "preserving a route" in some artificial state so that your experience and line can be preserved for ever is rank.
I've never got the idea of First ascentionists owning lines. At a push you might own the concept of a line, but you don't have any more say over how the rock should be treated than any other ascentionist (or any other non-ascentionist for that matter).
Should I go back and fill in the gear slots on Psykovsky's to reclaim "my" H10? What a load of nonsense. Probably the hardest part of new-routing is the fact that things evolve whilst you're on them and after you try them/do them. You can't approach the rock as a possession open to manipulation.
How scary that one of the best sport climbers in the world is so utterly detached from the process of the rock.
5
In reply to Michael Gordon:
I have no problem with the removal of lose rock I'm just trying to illustrate the point that chipping is not the only way that we change our cliffs through climbing.
I have no problem with the removal of lose rock I'm just trying to illustrate the point that chipping is not the only way that we change our cliffs through climbing.
In reply to TobyA:
I have no problem with the use of chalk and in the UK you're right the rain does wash it away pretty rapidly but this is not the case for many crags on the continent. Often the line of chalk is the most noticeable feature of a cliff. Like Gordon I often find it quite aesthetically pleasing. My point is more that we're all willing to over look other practices that have an impact on the rock but not chipping!
I have no problem with the use of chalk and in the UK you're right the rain does wash it away pretty rapidly but this is not the case for many crags on the continent. Often the line of chalk is the most noticeable feature of a cliff. Like Gordon I often find it quite aesthetically pleasing. My point is more that we're all willing to over look other practices that have an impact on the rock but not chipping!
In reply to Franco Cookson:
Franko I also agree that a first ascentionists should not have ownership of a line but I have sympathy with someone who has invested so much energy in something and that means a lot to them. What are your thoughts on the Redhead, Dawes chipping and subsequent gluing story?
Franko I also agree that a first ascentionists should not have ownership of a line but I have sympathy with someone who has invested so much energy in something and that means a lot to them. What are your thoughts on the Redhead, Dawes chipping and subsequent gluing story?
In reply to Franco Cookson:
Why is he so utterly detached from the process of the rock? Just because he has a different opinion to you about the actions of someone else on a boulder problem? Why is his opinion less valid than yours Franco?
Why is he so utterly detached from the process of the rock? Just because he has a different opinion to you about the actions of someone else on a boulder problem? Why is his opinion less valid than yours Franco?
In reply to colesy:
Well one is temporary and washes away in the rain, the other is forever. Seems a big difference to me! I chip huge bloody holds out of ice climbs. No one cares about that as it heals over night, not the same with rock.
Well one is temporary and washes away in the rain, the other is forever. Seems a big difference to me! I chip huge bloody holds out of ice climbs. No one cares about that as it heals over night, not the same with rock.
In reply to TobyA:
Is it really that climbers ultimately care about the rock or do the majority care about leaving their mark on it, for example if the North Face of the Eiger fell off one night, there may be an even more epic climb beneath it, un-climbed and ready for a new generation of heroes. Therefore it could be argued that climbers as a whole don't really care about the rock or the planet as they drive here and there or fly burning fossil fuels just to get radical. And they have lost the real connectivity with mother Earth.
Is it really that climbers ultimately care about the rock or do the majority care about leaving their mark on it, for example if the North Face of the Eiger fell off one night, there may be an even more epic climb beneath it, un-climbed and ready for a new generation of heroes. Therefore it could be argued that climbers as a whole don't really care about the rock or the planet as they drive here and there or fly burning fossil fuels just to get radical. And they have lost the real connectivity with mother Earth.
Post edited at 21:18
1
In reply to John Simpson:
I don't really think that's true, I think just like everyone else in the modern world make huge compromises (driving on roads etc) to do our hobby, but still for many people climbing is a really good excuse to- and a challenging way of being- outside in the fresh air, often in places with a bit more space and quietness than the urban environments where most of us live.
I was bouldering in the Burbage Valley boulders a couple of nights ago, just doing the Rockfax beginner's circuit. On lots of those blocks I presumed it was chipped holds that I was climbing (Pock Wall etc) but read somewhere on here today that it could be bullet scarring. Does anyone know if thats true? Was military training done there at some point?
I don't really think that's true, I think just like everyone else in the modern world make huge compromises (driving on roads etc) to do our hobby, but still for many people climbing is a really good excuse to- and a challenging way of being- outside in the fresh air, often in places with a bit more space and quietness than the urban environments where most of us live.
I was bouldering in the Burbage Valley boulders a couple of nights ago, just doing the Rockfax beginner's circuit. On lots of those blocks I presumed it was chipped holds that I was climbing (Pock Wall etc) but read somewhere on here today that it could be bullet scarring. Does anyone know if thats true? Was military training done there at some point?
1
In reply to TobyA:
Bullet scars but often subsequently trashed by poor practice, especially aggressive brushing.
Bullet scars but often subsequently trashed by poor practice, especially aggressive brushing.
In reply to UKC Articles:
Very interesting and thoughtful debate. When younger I was firmly in the camp that chipping is always wrong. As one gets older things become less clear.
I once filled in a hold I accidentally chipped (I tapped the rock with a nutpick and the thin limestone crumbled to leave a good pocket. I filled it in believing I was being ethical at the time. Looking back I was probably more motivated by not wanting the line to be too easy. I don't think anyone else would have cared either way as the pocket would've been at least semi-natural.
I also remember abbing the line of what is now Cafe Libre at LPT. There is a blank section near the top that at first glance might appear impossible. But on the ab rope I worked out a sequence of moves that I could see would be possible - but probably at least english 7a and thus far too hard for me and probably that generation of climbers. I left it for the future wondering who would do it and when and at what grade. But shortly after the line was chipped and made to go at 6c. I always felt that was a shame as well as unfair. Of course I could have chipped the route down to my own ability and got the first ascent if I'd played by the same rules.
In the old days if someone couldn't free climb a section of rock they'd just pull on some gear and declare an aid point or two. A modern version of this would simply be a bolt on hold - the Tea/Free Monster is a good example of this ethic. This approach is at least honest.
Very interesting and thoughtful debate. When younger I was firmly in the camp that chipping is always wrong. As one gets older things become less clear.
I once filled in a hold I accidentally chipped (I tapped the rock with a nutpick and the thin limestone crumbled to leave a good pocket. I filled it in believing I was being ethical at the time. Looking back I was probably more motivated by not wanting the line to be too easy. I don't think anyone else would have cared either way as the pocket would've been at least semi-natural.
I also remember abbing the line of what is now Cafe Libre at LPT. There is a blank section near the top that at first glance might appear impossible. But on the ab rope I worked out a sequence of moves that I could see would be possible - but probably at least english 7a and thus far too hard for me and probably that generation of climbers. I left it for the future wondering who would do it and when and at what grade. But shortly after the line was chipped and made to go at 6c. I always felt that was a shame as well as unfair. Of course I could have chipped the route down to my own ability and got the first ascent if I'd played by the same rules.
In the old days if someone couldn't free climb a section of rock they'd just pull on some gear and declare an aid point or two. A modern version of this would simply be a bolt on hold - the Tea/Free Monster is a good example of this ethic. This approach is at least honest.
In reply to John Simpson:
Yeah agreed. Hold chipping is nothing to do with despoiling the natural environment. For non climbers it's a non issue, no one else would ever notice. But as climbers we want to have challenges that are created by nature rather than someone who has created something that suits them. There's a fairness about challenges
I think as a society that's largely based in cities we've all lost our connection to the natural world. By going out and climbing there we at least get some of that back but of course that's at the expense of burning fossil fuels and causing climate change. My impression is that climbers are a bit more environmentally aware than average.
Yeah agreed. Hold chipping is nothing to do with despoiling the natural environment. For non climbers it's a non issue, no one else would ever notice. But as climbers we want to have challenges that are created by nature rather than someone who has created something that suits them. There's a fairness about challenges
I think as a society that's largely based in cities we've all lost our connection to the natural world. By going out and climbing there we at least get some of that back but of course that's at the expense of burning fossil fuels and causing climate change. My impression is that climbers are a bit more environmentally aware than average.
In reply to John Simpson:
We live in a modern world fully dependant on transport... tell us to give it all up and return to the subsistence localism if you want to be honest (with the obvious health and security consequencies). Complaining about people driving to crags is daft given the infrastructure we have. Climbers are way more likely to lift share, use alternative forms of transport, support enviromental access limitations, support green politics than the average citizen. The extra enviromental costs of climbing are pretty trivial.
We live in a modern world fully dependant on transport... tell us to give it all up and return to the subsistence localism if you want to be honest (with the obvious health and security consequencies). Complaining about people driving to crags is daft given the infrastructure we have. Climbers are way more likely to lift share, use alternative forms of transport, support enviromental access limitations, support green politics than the average citizen. The extra enviromental costs of climbing are pretty trivial.
In reply to Offwidth:
I'm not complaining, I make my living from the automotive sector. I said the point could be argued, not that I was arguing the point just highlighting it.
I'm not complaining, I make my living from the automotive sector. I said the point could be argued, not that I was arguing the point just highlighting it.
In reply to stp:
Hardly true with regard to the various bucket steps hacked out gritstone slabs and boulders in various places. Fair enough, this was generally done by the very early generations of climbers, but they are still easily noticed!
> Hold chipping is nothing to do with despoiling the natural environment. For non climbers it's a non issue, no one else would ever notice.
Hardly true with regard to the various bucket steps hacked out gritstone slabs and boulders in various places. Fair enough, this was generally done by the very early generations of climbers, but they are still easily noticed!
In reply to Offwidth:
But if we weren't climbers we wouldn't be clocking up all those extra miles and CO2 driving, and often these days, flying all over the place.
Walking or biking to the local indoor wall is probably the most environmentally friendly option for most climbers these days.
> Complaining about people driving to crags is daft given the infrastructure we have.
But if we weren't climbers we wouldn't be clocking up all those extra miles and CO2 driving, and often these days, flying all over the place.
Walking or biking to the local indoor wall is probably the most environmentally friendly option for most climbers these days.
In reply to stp:
Why? Does not being a climber really make one that much more likely to stay at home?
Why? Does not being a climber really make one that much more likely to stay at home?
Post edited at 15:55
In reply to TobyA:
You've seen a step cut out of the grit that's as big as a bucket, where is it?
> Hardly true with regard to the various bucket steps hacked out gritstone slabs and boulders in various places. Fair enough, this was generally done by the very early generations of climbers, but they are still easily noticed!
You've seen a step cut out of the grit that's as big as a bucket, where is it?
In reply to John Simpson:
Off the top of my head
The Chipped Steps (M)
Men Only (f3+)
But I'm pretty certain there are chipped routes at Stanage, Brimham, Wimberry and probably others too.
Off the top of my head
The Chipped Steps (M)
Men Only (f3+)
But I'm pretty certain there are chipped routes at Stanage, Brimham, Wimberry and probably others too.
In reply to TobyA:
I think you missed my point you said bucket steps, I've seen a lot of chipping, Just not one as big as a bucket got to be 5 liters deep even for a small bucket.
I think you missed my point you said bucket steps, I've seen a lot of chipping, Just not one as big as a bucket got to be 5 liters deep even for a small bucket.
In reply to John Simpson:
Bucket steps are what you kick in softish snow, so I mean big footsteps like that. I've never stepped in an actual bucket, but then I've never slipped on a banana skin or been blown up by a barrel of gunpowder with "ACME" written on it either.
Bucket steps are what you kick in softish snow, so I mean big footsteps like that. I've never stepped in an actual bucket, but then I've never slipped on a banana skin or been blown up by a barrel of gunpowder with "ACME" written on it either.
In reply to colesy:
O yeah, they certainly have my sympathy.
I'm not too clued up on the Indian Face thing. I thought Redhead pulled a flake off and it was left off? I don't understand why you'd glue anything. If you want to climb natural rock, then that surely has to be rock that can withstand your weight? Before you climb anything you give all the holds a good kicking to check they'll stay in place and then you do it. Would you reinforce wires with cement to make sure they stayed in properly?!
O yeah, they certainly have my sympathy.
I'm not too clued up on the Indian Face thing. I thought Redhead pulled a flake off and it was left off? I don't understand why you'd glue anything. If you want to climb natural rock, then that surely has to be rock that can withstand your weight? Before you climb anything you give all the holds a good kicking to check they'll stay in place and then you do it. Would you reinforce wires with cement to make sure they stayed in properly?!
In reply to colesy:
I'd have thought modifying the rock was a red line for most climbers in the UK. If you're chipping or gluing on holds to create an artificial climb, then the process becomes entirely based on personal performance. Why bother climb on rock at all? I'm sure you could make something more perfect with concrete.
You might struggle for your whole life to find something right at your limit and never actually find it. That's part of new routing.
I'd have thought modifying the rock was a red line for most climbers in the UK. If you're chipping or gluing on holds to create an artificial climb, then the process becomes entirely based on personal performance. Why bother climb on rock at all? I'm sure you could make something more perfect with concrete.
You might struggle for your whole life to find something right at your limit and never actually find it. That's part of new routing.
In reply to TobyA:
I've never heard the term either in snow, I've dug bucket seat belays, but I always described them as either kicked or cut steps not bucket steps, never heard that term till today. Hence why I asked the question. Also you're also talking to the wrong man RoadRunner5 (beep beep) is the one closer to the ACME bombs who nearly keeps getting blown up!
> Bucket steps are what you kick in softish snow, so I mean big footsteps like that. I've never stepped in an actual bucket, but then I've never slipped on a banana skin or been blown up by a barrel of gunpowder with "ACME" written on it either.
I've never heard the term either in snow, I've dug bucket seat belays, but I always described them as either kicked or cut steps not bucket steps, never heard that term till today. Hence why I asked the question. Also you're also talking to the wrong man RoadRunner5 (beep beep) is the one closer to the ACME bombs who nearly keeps getting blown up!
Post edited at 18:57
In reply to TobyA:
Yorkshire was blighted by chippers once... Widdop, Ilkley, Caley and much more on top of the ones you mentioned. Also plenty of buckets at Black Rocks in the Peak.
Yorkshire was blighted by chippers once... Widdop, Ilkley, Caley and much more on top of the ones you mentioned. Also plenty of buckets at Black Rocks in the Peak.
In reply to Franco Cookson:
I still agree with you. I can't see any justification for chipping these days.
I still agree with you. I can't see any justification for chipping these days.
In reply to Offwidth:
Do you think old school chippers are nu skool bolters perchance?
> Yorkshire was blighted by chippers once... Widdop, Ilkley, Caley and much more on top of the ones you mentioned. Also plenty of buckets at Black Rocks in the Peak.
Do you think old school chippers are nu skool bolters perchance?
In reply to Franco Cookson:
Wasn't that Tormented Ejaculation? He broke the flake off trying the line, and put a bolt in at his high point? Then painted a mural on the rock scar in washable paint (so not meant to be permanent). Something along those lines anyway.
> I'm not too clued up on the Indian Face thing. I thought Redhead pulled a flake off and it was left off?
Wasn't that Tormented Ejaculation? He broke the flake off trying the line, and put a bolt in at his high point? Then painted a mural on the rock scar in washable paint (so not meant to be permanent). Something along those lines anyway.
In reply to John Simpson:
Most yorkshire rock chips are ancient so I know it's not the same folk, as do you.
Most yorkshire rock chips are ancient so I know it's not the same folk, as do you.
In reply to Offwidth:
Hypothetically speaking, I thought a educated man such as yourself wouldn't need it spelling out.
Hypothetically speaking, I thought a educated man such as yourself wouldn't need it spelling out.
1
1
2
In reply to TobyA:
It washes away in the UK but not on many of the European crags. How about dry tooling, bolting cleaning routes, polish from overuse, exploding gear placements.... they all permanently change the rock. I have no objection to any of these but they all have a permanent effect on the rock too. If you care about the rock so much Toby why are you willing to turn a blind eye to these things?
It washes away in the UK but not on many of the European crags. How about dry tooling, bolting cleaning routes, polish from overuse, exploding gear placements.... they all permanently change the rock. I have no objection to any of these but they all have a permanent effect on the rock too. If you care about the rock so much Toby why are you willing to turn a blind eye to these things?
1
In reply to Franco Cookson:
It would take a lot more effort to build a concrete route and it would not be very environmentally friendly either! I completely understand and respect your position Franco (I too find it much more appealing to climb a natural line and I certainly would hate to see chipping become commonplace) but maybe not everyone's motivations are the same? I have personally never chipped a route and don't have the inclination to do so either but I have really enjoyed climbing on routes that have been chipped. I struggle to see why chippers are deemed to be the lowest of the low when their actions often open up brilliant new lines for the climbing community which are often also very popular. I also don't see why chipping impacts the rock more than cleaning, bolting etc...
It would take a lot more effort to build a concrete route and it would not be very environmentally friendly either! I completely understand and respect your position Franco (I too find it much more appealing to climb a natural line and I certainly would hate to see chipping become commonplace) but maybe not everyone's motivations are the same? I have personally never chipped a route and don't have the inclination to do so either but I have really enjoyed climbing on routes that have been chipped. I struggle to see why chippers are deemed to be the lowest of the low when their actions often open up brilliant new lines for the climbing community which are often also very popular. I also don't see why chipping impacts the rock more than cleaning, bolting etc...
Post edited at 22:53
1
In reply to Franco Cookson:
I seem to remember there being a story about a gear placement being improved by chipping or aggressive cleaning and then it being subsequently filled in with glue. Maybe I have this wrong though?
I seem to remember there being a story about a gear placement being improved by chipping or aggressive cleaning and then it being subsequently filled in with glue. Maybe I have this wrong though?
In reply to John Simpson:
Surely by placing gear or bolts you're also bringing down the natural challenges to you're own selfish level too? Maybe there should be a blanket ban on ropes in climbing surely this would be more ethical?
Surely by placing gear or bolts you're also bringing down the natural challenges to you're own selfish level too? Maybe there should be a blanket ban on ropes in climbing surely this would be more ethical?
In reply to Michael Gordon:
I don't agree, I think that there exists a very blurry line between chipping and cleaning but I've certainly not argued that cleaning is wrong ( I'm very grateful to the people that invest their time and energy into cleaning new routes). Some people enjoy climbing on chos though, are you not taking a potential challenge away from them by cleaning the route of loose holds? You're taking away one persons natural challenge to suit your own preferences or skill levels maybe?
I'm just trying to highlight that both activities have an impact on the cliff. In terms of environmental and visual impact cleaning probably leaves a bigger footprint than chipping does.
> In preparing new routes there is a significant difference between removing loose rock and chipping new holds. I don't think it is fair to compare the two or infer that the former is in some way 'wrong', except perhaps from a strict ground-up perspective (though that is a separate debate entirely).
I don't agree, I think that there exists a very blurry line between chipping and cleaning but I've certainly not argued that cleaning is wrong ( I'm very grateful to the people that invest their time and energy into cleaning new routes). Some people enjoy climbing on chos though, are you not taking a potential challenge away from them by cleaning the route of loose holds? You're taking away one persons natural challenge to suit your own preferences or skill levels maybe?
I'm just trying to highlight that both activities have an impact on the cliff. In terms of environmental and visual impact cleaning probably leaves a bigger footprint than chipping does.
Post edited at 23:05
2
In reply to colesy:
I would think the purists apply this ethical standards by only soloing without ropes, but for the average person using trad gear carefully leaves the smallest footprint nothing at all like bolting or hammering in fixed gear.
> Surely by placing gear or bolts you're also bringing down the natural challenges to you're own selfish level too? Maybe there should be a blanket ban on ropes in climbing surely this would be more ethical?
I would think the purists apply this ethical standards by only soloing without ropes, but for the average person using trad gear carefully leaves the smallest footprint nothing at all like bolting or hammering in fixed gear.
In reply to John Simpson:
it still renders it an unnatural challenge though. We should all be soling in the buff really I suppose.
it still renders it an unnatural challenge though. We should all be soling in the buff really I suppose.
In reply to colesy:
Yes and no, it provides a margin of safety so people can gain access into areas which may not be possible without ropes, but it does slow the process down and whilst making the moves somewhat less free it also means mistakes are rarely fatal.
You could always naked solo if it floats your boat and look down on mere mortals like myself in some form of god like innocence.
Yes and no, it provides a margin of safety so people can gain access into areas which may not be possible without ropes, but it does slow the process down and whilst making the moves somewhat less free it also means mistakes are rarely fatal.
You could always naked solo if it floats your boat and look down on mere mortals like myself in some form of god like innocence.
In reply to John Simpson:
Let's not forget I'm the only person here arguing that chipping is not always a bad thing, I'm sure that not many would agree that I'm innocent! Sorry for resorting to sarcasm in the last couple of posts!
Let's not forget I'm the only person here arguing that chipping is not always a bad thing, I'm sure that not many would agree that I'm innocent! Sorry for resorting to sarcasm in the last couple of posts!
In reply to Dave Foster:
yep that's the impression I got too
> Melodramatic, conceited drivel. JR = Twit.
yep that's the impression I got too
1
In reply to colesy:
I'm not particularly for bolting but it doesn't make a blank wall easier to climb. It only murders the impossible if you use aid, unlike chipping. But really bolting is not about the holds; it's a separate debate entirely.
And if you can't see the fundamental difference between removing loose rock in cleaning a route and chipping new holds then I give up!
I'm not particularly for bolting but it doesn't make a blank wall easier to climb. It only murders the impossible if you use aid, unlike chipping. But really bolting is not about the holds; it's a separate debate entirely.
And if you can't see the fundamental difference between removing loose rock in cleaning a route and chipping new holds then I give up!
In reply to Offwidth:
Not stay at home but certainly less likely to travel so often or so far. There are plenty of climbers these days who take 2 or more trips abroad each year, often flying to climbing destinations, and far fewer who get around by public transport or by hitchhiking. This is by far the biggest environmental impact of climbing and shouldn't be underestimated.
> Does not being a climber really make one that much more likely to stay at home?
Not stay at home but certainly less likely to travel so often or so far. There are plenty of climbers these days who take 2 or more trips abroad each year, often flying to climbing destinations, and far fewer who get around by public transport or by hitchhiking. This is by far the biggest environmental impact of climbing and shouldn't be underestimated.
In reply to stp:
2 trips abroad a year is not uncommon for many non-climbers! But I agree in general that climbers are probably worse than average. I suspect not many others (in percentage terms) are happy to drive nearly as much for day/weekend trips.
2 trips abroad a year is not uncommon for many non-climbers! But I agree in general that climbers are probably worse than average. I suspect not many others (in percentage terms) are happy to drive nearly as much for day/weekend trips.
In reply to stp:
If you are certain maybe provide some evidence. I think you are out of touch. A big proportion of climbers these days just climb indoors for starters... does any significant number travel for that.
If you are certain maybe provide some evidence. I think you are out of touch. A big proportion of climbers these days just climb indoors for starters... does any significant number travel for that.
In reply to Offwidth:
Well I guess if you're counting those who only climb indoors - I've no idea what percentage that would be. Maybe in somewhere like London it's pretty high. In Sheffield, where I live the percentage is obviously really low. You can tell by the way the walls empty out as soon as the weather is good enough to climb outdoors.
Perhaps I should rephrase and say: the environmental impact of 'outdoor climbers'.
Well I guess if you're counting those who only climb indoors - I've no idea what percentage that would be. Maybe in somewhere like London it's pretty high. In Sheffield, where I live the percentage is obviously really low. You can tell by the way the walls empty out as soon as the weather is good enough to climb outdoors.
Perhaps I should rephrase and say: the environmental impact of 'outdoor climbers'.
In reply to stp:
I suspect even outdoor climbers fly only a little more than average, given the penchant of Brits for cheap holiday flights. Also to me our impact enviromentally is a lot more than use of fuel it is how we live (eg food and work transport) and how we fight politically for our environment (eg: supporting green policies, defending national parks and access land etc) and in this even indoor climbers seem clearly better to me than average.
I suspect even outdoor climbers fly only a little more than average, given the penchant of Brits for cheap holiday flights. Also to me our impact enviromentally is a lot more than use of fuel it is how we live (eg food and work transport) and how we fight politically for our environment (eg: supporting green policies, defending national parks and access land etc) and in this even indoor climbers seem clearly better to me than average.
In reply to Tyler:
'a number of these venues would have made excellent free climbing venue's', really? How many have you visited? I have been around a few and seen none where 'free' climbing has ever taken place, or could. Feel free to sport climb at White Goods, or do the big roof at Newtyle, and I don't even see Gary Gibson bolting the grim end of Masson Lees. So are the half a dozen or so dry tooling venues as compared to the several thousand other venues a loss to the 'free climbing' (who ever that is) community?
'a number of these venues would have made excellent free climbing venue's', really? How many have you visited? I have been around a few and seen none where 'free' climbing has ever taken place, or could. Feel free to sport climb at White Goods, or do the big roof at Newtyle, and I don't even see Gary Gibson bolting the grim end of Masson Lees. So are the half a dozen or so dry tooling venues as compared to the several thousand other venues a loss to the 'free climbing' (who ever that is) community?
In reply to colesy:
Yip, hundreds of them in the UK, and on all types of rocks. Many went unnoticed and some of our most celebrated and venerated top climbers were handy when he came to hold creation. Most just keep quiet about what they got up to.
Das Kapital in the Lake District has always been my favourite chipping story. Pete Livesey hacked out a big jug but the midges were so bad he sent his apprentice Pete Gomersall down to finish the job.
Limestone is particularly notorious for creative holds because of its nature sometimes - just watch the recent Dave MacLeod Project Fear and the amount of cleaning and selective hold creation he had to do.
The other hold creation story that I find funny is on the Calf at Ilkley. The local fire brigade were so tired of rescuing people from the top of the Calf, they could get up but couldn't reverse, that the fire brigade chipped a line of huge buckets up it to help people get down (and up of course).
Now the Cow Udder at Ilkley (http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=28262) that was chipped by a notorious climbing chipper back in the day.
Then there's slate - but that's a big chipping subject!
I doubt much goes on in the UK now, climbers have got better and there is not that much virgin rock left.
Suffice to say, all of us have climbed chipped routes, often unknowingly, and have enjoyed them - it's all part of our rich and diverse climbing heritage.
Mick
> How can we say that we have such a strong history of not bring the rock to our level when there are so many examples of chipped routes that are universally enjoyed by the climbing community?
Yip, hundreds of them in the UK, and on all types of rocks. Many went unnoticed and some of our most celebrated and venerated top climbers were handy when he came to hold creation. Most just keep quiet about what they got up to.
Das Kapital in the Lake District has always been my favourite chipping story. Pete Livesey hacked out a big jug but the midges were so bad he sent his apprentice Pete Gomersall down to finish the job.
Limestone is particularly notorious for creative holds because of its nature sometimes - just watch the recent Dave MacLeod Project Fear and the amount of cleaning and selective hold creation he had to do.
The other hold creation story that I find funny is on the Calf at Ilkley. The local fire brigade were so tired of rescuing people from the top of the Calf, they could get up but couldn't reverse, that the fire brigade chipped a line of huge buckets up it to help people get down (and up of course).
Now the Cow Udder at Ilkley (http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=28262) that was chipped by a notorious climbing chipper back in the day.
Then there's slate - but that's a big chipping subject!
I doubt much goes on in the UK now, climbers have got better and there is not that much virgin rock left.
Suffice to say, all of us have climbed chipped routes, often unknowingly, and have enjoyed them - it's all part of our rich and diverse climbing heritage.
Mick
Post edited at 07:38
1
In reply to TobyA:
Yip, at all those places and more like say.
> But I'm pretty certain there are chipped routes at Stanage, Brimham, Wimberry and probably others too.
Yip, at all those places and more like say.
In reply to philhilo:
You've missed my point, a number of these venues have been chipped to make them suitable venues for dry tooling. This seems to be accepted. If a similar attitude had been applied then some (not all) would have made good sport climbing venues. It wasn't because there would be uproar and I'm just wondering why it is considered acceptable to chip venues for dry tooling (I know they are all quarries if you think that makes a difference).
> 'a number of these venues would have made excellent free climbing venue's', really? How many have you visited? I have been around a few and seen none where 'free' climbing has ever taken place, or could. Feel free to sport climb at White Goods, or do the big roof at Newtyle,
You've missed my point, a number of these venues have been chipped to make them suitable venues for dry tooling. This seems to be accepted. If a similar attitude had been applied then some (not all) would have made good sport climbing venues. It wasn't because there would be uproar and I'm just wondering why it is considered acceptable to chip venues for dry tooling (I know they are all quarries if you think that makes a difference).
1
In reply to Michael Ryan:
and we used to send children up chimney's and kill whales, but we now know better (hopefully at least).
Isn't this grade chasing just a lot of willy waving anyhow?
Everyone like to push their grades but to have to glue bits on so it stays the same, who is that for?
and we used to send children up chimney's and kill whales, but we now know better (hopefully at least).
Isn't this grade chasing just a lot of willy waving anyhow?
Everyone like to push their grades but to have to glue bits on so it stays the same, who is that for?
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...