MudNCrud Forums
Climbing and ... Climbing => Masters of Mud -- Pinnacles => Topic started by: mungeclimber on April 20, 2012, 11:35:22 AM
-
There was an interesting pre-requisite to the 74 Richards guidebook that climbs under a certain height wouldn't get included, unless they were already documented (if I recall the phrasing right).
The idea that a certain size climb might never get recorded, at Pinnacles, seems unfortunate. Did we lose history in 74 as a result? Short solos, short spires, etc?
-
I think most of the following guide books have been comprehesive enough to pick up what was missed. Brad definetely got all the know routes.
I kind of agree with Richards on this one. He had a 30 foot standard. For the most part seems like a good rule of thumb. If it is 30 foot or less TR or boulder. Do we really need 20 to 25 foot leads?
-
I think most of the following guide books have been comprehesive enough to pick up what was missed. Brad definetely got all the know routes.
I kind of agree with Richards on this one. He had a 30 foot standard. For the most part seems like a good rule of thumb. If it is 30 foot or less TR or boulder. Do we really need 20 to 25 foot leads?
Folks seem to find that short hard routes are acceptable, but that short easy ones are not. Talking bolted lines. Yet Pinns has tons of these. Some are classic, like Piglet.
-
I question Piglet.
Not to many 20 to 25 foot hard bolted lead routes. Not saying they are not there. I still think there just is not a need for 20 to 25 foot bolted lead routes. To me it just does not make sense.
-
what is it about a 25' route that is different from 65' route, other than length. I think you're saying that length, by itself, is a quality of it's own in determining the value of bolts.
I don't necessarily disagree, but it seems as though there are lots of lead climbs that are short that are quite enjoyable to lead (assuming of course that leading has a lot of value for 90% of climbers). So isn't more lead climbs better?
I would say yes.
The counter to that principle of unrestrained bolting is minimum impact practices. Do we need to have lead bolts on anything less than 100' anymore? Probably not. Just TR it, right? I know, it's an age old agrument.
-
As a new leader I like the fact that there are short climbs like Piglet. After leading the Left Side 5.6** on the Sponge, it was a nice choice for me to try something harder - it was my first 5.8**. I was so pumped afterwards that I led the Rappel Route on Burgundy Dome - my first 5.7*** and a big handful of stars for the day! Now that I lead, I've developed an aversion to toproping and my philosophy is - if it won't go trad - then bolts are okay. From a common sense standpoint if a bolt can be placed high enough to keep you from decking then it's worthwhile - regardless of the climb height. Following that, we'd have to think about what grades warrant that standard - for me it's 5.7 and above. I'm sure there are those that think the shorter stuff shouldn't be protected at all - regardless of grade.
-
I completely understand that JC.
-
So Mungie are you trying to justify a height challenged route?
dont' forget the sit start as well.
-
Shoot, leave the guy alone Factor; he's trying to have a legit discussion and you're only adding static.
Here's a thought on the subject: On the height issue there is a big difference between independent pinnacles (I think shorter routes are often justified since there is no "easier way" to the top), and cliff faces (shorter rotes are more questionable since it's just a matter of adding routes instead of "getting to the top;" and getting to the top is one of the oldest traditions/goals in climbing).
-
Factor will not be able to post if he does not give folks a hard time.
-
Well here are a few more productive thoughts....
There are short climbs in the monument...Unmentionable, Piglet & Photographer's delight.
So maybe it depends on the route...and the experience?
TR 1st...bolt if you can't get the rope up there? And solo if under 20ft.
-
A counter example to "TR 1st" as a guiding principle is losing the lead climbs on Upper Crust, Back Door, and much of discovery, especially if you have long ropes. The tradition of existing climbs seems to suggest that if the climb is good, it's worth bolting, and that TR'ing as a gating criteria wouldn't carry forward.
-
I think Factor was replying in regards to the 20 to 30 foot climbs. Back Door, Upper Crust, Discovery are all longer than 30 feet. I think for the 20 to 30 foot climbs a TR first approach is not a bad idea. A good example is Teaching rock. The TR is perfect and actually allows for many more opportunities. If it was a longer face a couple of anchors could be added allowing for a vast array of possibilities.
Of course there are always extenuating circumstances such as an independent pinnacle, no other access possible or perhaps just an awesome location.
-
I think Factor was replying in regards to the 20 to 30 foot climbs. Back Door, Upper Crust, Discovery are all longer than 30 feet. I think for the 20 to 30 foot climbs a TR first approach is not a bad idea. A good example is Teaching rock. The TR is perfect and actually allows for many more opportunities. If it was a longer face a couple of anchors could be added allowing for a vast array of possibilities.
Of course there are always extenuating circumstances such as an independent pinnacle, no other access possible or perhaps just an awesome location.
Copy that.
Nodal line is longer than 30' though?
The 10b on the far far left?
huh, maybe they are. Maybe my recollection of length is off.
-
The 10B on the far left is about 50, perhaps a bit more. Nodal line is over 30, not a lot, but it is in the same style as the area.
-
I think Brad's suggestion about differentiating between stand alone pinnacles and side by side routes on a face is a good one.
Holmgren and I wandered around quite a bit, looking for likely routes. We always carried our stuff, but on some days we never got around to climbing. I believe we may have been influenced by the Richards thirty foot rule. Did anyone else skip something because of it?
-
Yes even though I did not know the source of the the rule/guideline.
-
I think Brad's suggestion about differentiating between stand alone pinnacles and side by side routes on a face is a good one.
Holmgren and I wandered around quite a bit, looking for likely routes. We always carried our stuff, but on some days we never got around to climbing. I believe we may have been influenced by the Richards thirty foot rule. Did anyone else skip something because of it?
To be sure. All the little lumps peppered hither and yon, are tempting, but then I wouldn't bother thinking that Bob and Holmgren had already done them. Little did I know. ;)
-
Actually, it was the '35 foot' rule. Richards has a discussion of his decision in the very beginning of his 1974 guidebook.
Here's my $0.02. Richards makes reference to the the era of longer routes which started in the late 60's and continued into the 1970's with climbs on the bigger formations such as Machete and Goat Rocks. Part of me thinks that he took exception to the shorter climbs since the climbers in his posse were the ones putting up the long, multi-pitch routes.
Personally, I have always felt that you report all routes and include the FA info. If somebody is going bolting 25-foot choss piles then people will know exactly who the 'guilty' party is. The end result is instead of lots of glory is people will be staying away from your routes.
-
I agree that all routes should be reported and preferably the style of the ascent and the bolting. I like the 25 or 30 foot rule. Along the lines of the 25 foot rule I have a greater appreciation of TR's. When I first saw Clint putting in TR's I did not really agree with what he was doing and it kind of bugged me. Later I started to really appreciate the style. I will still bolt lines but I also cannot help to look at stuff now and think "Is that a good TR". It is an elegent and poetic solution. The TR allows the next person to climb the line they want, no bolts just rock. If the line is really good and it becomes popular the option is still there for someone to ground up bolt the line.
I really enjoy the lead and have been a bit of a lead hog throughout the years, but as the years go by I also appreciate the simplicity of the TR. It is kinda like, soloing without the ground.
-
but as the years go by I also appreciate the simplicity of the TR. It is kinda like, soloing without the ground.
It is like soloing when using one of your ropes for a TR...
-
sorry but i don't get that. how is toproping like soloing? toproping is totally safe - soloing is all or nothing.
-
I think he means the purity of focus. The different sources of focus, but the result is the same.
TR means you don't have to worry about falling.
Solo means you can't (overly) worry about falling.
-
sorry but i don't get that. how is toproping like soloing? toproping is totally safe - soloing is all or nothing.
No, no. Factor is making a direct reference to the quality of Mud's ropes. He was making a joke.
If you've climbed with Mud (even this last weekend) you'd see what Factor means right away (nice, big goby on the yellow rope). But the rope is "perfectly safe," just ask Mud (and yes, I climbed on it and Joe climbed on it and lead fell on it and it was fine - but we can still give him crap about it).
-
direct reference to the quality of Mud's ropes. He was making a joke.
thanks for clarifying that. now that i read it again i see the true meaning.
funny how we can interpret things sometimes.
i still have to put in my two cents.
since i started leading i don't want to toprope anything outside anymore - call me a lead snob.
i occasionally solo stuff - usually after i've been climbing other stuff and am good and warmed up.
soloing to me is the purest form of climbing and nothing else compares - although i have felt the same exhilaration and sense of satisfaction after leading stuff at Pinns where i'd clip some old bolt and think "i definitely do not want to fall on that POS" Maybe Solo should be shortened to the acronym SOL since that's what you are if you fall...but i digress...
-
@Factor
now that was a good one liner.
@JC w KC
How is the TR like the solo? Well I usually like a TR a bit loose so if I fall I know it. So in that respect the TR is like soloing since there is freedom of movement. The harness restricts a bit more than what I would feel when soloing but freedom of movement is what I meant. When I solo there is freedom of movement and no thought to gear, rope, partner, pitches, etc. So with a TR most of that is the same or at least similar. This is what I meant. The freedom of movement is there, the freedom from thought, but the ground is not there. With the TR if I come off, the ground will not be there.
You are correct the commitment is not at all the same. As a result the focus in many ways is not the same. But there are, for me, similarities.
that is what I meant by soloing without the ground. Same, but yes, very different.
-
I am the opposite with soloing. I like to start the year soloing. I start on easy routes, some I have done many, many times. When I start to relax on the rock I like to go start leading stuff. However, the solo is a dangerous game. R&I called it well when they called it the dark art. So alluring, so rewarding, the draw is strong. Getting caught up in it can become an addiction at which point it becomes dangerous (perhaps this should be more dangerous - it goes to a different level). I think Croft said it very well when he stated that one has to do it for themselves only and to be honest about the outcomes. I read in Buddhism about stages of fear and risk. Fear, ignoring fear, loss of fear (very dangerous point), understanding fear, fear. I have done a fair amount, and some at a relatively high level. Sometimes now, the TR just seems ok.
-
I hear ya Mud. I totally get what you're sayin'. i may change my attitude toward TR'ing when i have a few hundred leads under my belt...
-
that's some good stuff. i feel like a toddler swapping stories with you now!
-
I just enjoy the back and forth discussions. I think I spend to much time thinking about this stuff.
-
I just enjoy the back and forth discussions. I think I spend to much time thinking about this stuff.
that's why I post
beats working
-
@munge
I find the term focus interesting. It seems when the subject of soloing comes up focus inevitably is mentioned. What is the focus? Why is it there? I think the focus comes down to the moment, and during soloing the moments focus is fear. Why fear, because we want to survive. Fear ultimately boils down to loss. What do we think we may lose? Our life. Soloing brings us to our most primal state. Protecting our life. The task at hand is singular and real. The task can only be achieved with our ability to master the physical environment that is in front of us.
-
that focus by fear seems to me to depend on difficulty and "exposure" - but when soloing easy ground I can get into a zen like state of focus and awareness that isn't fear based (or at least isn't primarily...).
I'm still focused though. In that sense, TR'ing is even closer to soloing focus, but with more difficulty on TR.
That's why I climb better on TR. There is no fear of falling and all focus can be poured into a single move.
-
That's why I climb better on TR. There is no fear of falling and all focus can be poured into a single move.
That's odd; I feel that I climb significantly better on lead because all the incentive is there. Who gives a rat's ass if they fall on TR?
-
That's odd; I feel that I climb significantly better on lead because all the incentive is there. Who gives a rat's ass if they fall on TR?
I couldn't agree more Brad - nothing like being on the sharp end to motivate your moves - especially the crux(es).
-
Hm. I'm w/ munge. I climb so much better w/o the shake factor interfering with my technique.
I'm still too new to leading to be able to not have the "what if's" haunting my every move (or freezing a move).
With the security of TRing or seconding, I can much better enjoy the moves and focus on form.
-
that's cool. as KC says "that's why they make chocolate and vanilla"!