MudNCrud Forums
Climbing and ... Climbing => Masters of Mud -- Pinnacles => Topic started by: mynameismud on January 29, 2015, 11:20:03 AM
-
New thread to discuss the merits of what is a good route, what is worthy of being bolted, what is the value of a stared route.
Link to where this started for a bit more history on the topic.
http://www.mudncrud.com/forums/index.php?topic=2177.new#new (http://www.mudncrud.com/forums/index.php?topic=2177.new#new)
-
Isn't the question whether a bad route deserves hardware?
The only way to know that in a ground up area is to either pre-inspect (incomplete assessment), OR, to judge it after the fact.
Judging after the fact for a ground up route, where the quality of the line can only be, at best, partly judged from the ground or nearby.
An analogy is Monday morning quarterbacking. Is that kind of assessment valuable when the FA authors have extensive experience otherwise?
Another question, is whether someone that lives in the region, should have a quota max for quantity of routes. The argument being that quantity over quality is an issue in some manner.
Thus far, the issue has been described as an aesthetic one.
I'll stop for the moment to let others chime in.
-
I'm going to jump in here as fast as possible and suggest some ground rules as my idea wasn't so much to have a discussion but rather more of an artists statement from everyone putting up routes or interested in putting up routes or people that just have an opinion of how a route should be put up.
So no retorts and no questions.
This is a perspective exercise.
Go!
I'll post mine later, not enough time at the moment.
-
Welp, I'm out of the running if that's the case. And that would be different than picking up the abstract discussion from the context of the original thread. :)
Besides, I'm out. Need to go the hardware store... ;)
cheers guys,
Munge Rob Post Pants
-
I would modify with no retorts, questions can be good to help to clarify or to continue a discussion.
-
Camouflage hangers. Removable hardware on questionable FA projects.
-
Deleted
-
Come on over Mungie, I have a few hardware pieces....maybe a B-Day present? Or is that beer?
-
I am a bit removed as of now having moved far away from my favorite place to climb. However, I will chime in with my opinion.
Primarily, I have always sought FA's, everywhere I frequent. Yosemite, southern yosemite, pinns, sonora, j-tree. I don't climb many established routes anymore, and always figured I would climb what interested me in order to find my own adventure.
I have never rap bolted, used a power drill to establish a climb, pre-inspected, or cared what anyone thought my motivations were. This limited my reach in terms of new routes.
In Pinnacles, there is a long standing, ground up tradition. This has been vehemently enforced by "locals" dating as far back as bellizzi's POD. Yes, rap routes have come since then, but without the staunch efforts through discussion, and at times removal of rap bolted routes, the park equalization to a ground up arena would have been lost. It is better for it IMHO. Had these efforts not been managed, pinnacles would look like Atomizer said "Castle Rock".
New wave FA's, in the last 10 years that I have been visiting pinnacles is very far from a numbers chase. It just makes sense that going ground up will inherently limit the "quantity", proven by looking at the number of new routes in the last decade. Having a sense of adventure by choosing NOT to pre-inspect, drill from stance, run it out, etc is all part of the tradition. Entitlement is a word I have recently been hearing in regards to the current FA'ist and new routes that are attributed to them. This word "Entitlement" has been used as of late and I am a bit perplexed.
Entitlement to what I ask? The "right" to establish new routes? The right to discern what is acceptable quality, length etc? Absolutely. Everyone is "entitled" to do as they wish, keeping in context the rich history in an area void of massive rap bolting onslaughts. The problem is, those that are vocal, tend to not be interested in the grades of what is being established.
I have done plenty of dangerous FA's in pinnacles, but at the same time, found gems that were overlooked and classic. "King Lines" as one might say in terms of quality, not numbers (I am not that great of a free climber). All of them were uncertain from the onset, yet many yielded the adventure, quality and suspense I was looking for. I have only left 1 project unfinished due to a rock quality I was not into. That to me is saying something. If nothing else, that I finished what I started out of respect for the process.
I challenge those who are not into FA's at pinns to climb some of the newer routes (last 10yrs), that have been cleaned up. Many might be surprised with the quality, some may not. Most people don't put quality in the same sentence with pinnacles. However, doing a SA of a new route, one must appreciate the process of it coming to equalization. This takes time, but generally works out for the better with traffic. Royal Flush on Casino rock is one of the best plucks I have ever had. Those that have climbed it like it. JOE D even let me pass without calling it "Garbage"! LOL.
I say, keep new routes in context with the pinns fabulous history, and push each other to climb what makes sense. Many are going to argue what is worthy, however it is up to the FA party to do the best job as pioneers.
This is a age old discussion. Sometimes people get butthurt, sometimes they are jealous, other times they are "entitled" due to how hard they send. End of the day, those who are putting up routes, will always be in the limelight. They should be prepared to answer questions if those questions are posed in a thoughtful manner, just as the routes that go up, thoughtfully.
I can assure any naysayers, that the majority of new routes, especially those in recent years, were done thoughtfully. This I know from experience, having personally climbed with most regulars on this site, and the park over the last decade.
Then again, it is just my opinion. If you don't like chossy routes, then don't climb early ascents, stick with the milk runs I always say.
Or go and find you're own adventure.
-
I’m going to start off by saying that what I am as route establisher can be compared to being a road builder, except my roads are on the side of rock walls. In general when we build actual real life roads we went them to be nice, potentially scenic and enjoyable. We don’t want them to be bumpy, full of 5mph hairpin turns, etc. We also want them to be safe for others. And as much as we like nice roads I know that not all of us want roads through every pass in the Sierras either. So we practice some moderation in road placement. Road builders also don’t build roads for themselves, even though they may enjoy the process, in reality roads are built for others. And so this becomes a close comparison to my approach of new routes as well.
The largest factor to me is the environmental impact a new route or crag will have on an area. I’m going to reference, and I think I read it in Brad’s book, that the base of the Discovery Wall was once a nice grassy area where as today it’s quite the opposite. I really enjoy the nooks of preserved areas at the Pinnacles and hold them quite valuable so I will ALWAYS think about whether the area I’m thinking about placing a route can withstand the impact of route development and future ascents and also if it has enough potential to be impacted by my own footsteps or by others. This is where the worthiness of a route really gets distilled down more methodically for me. Basically the way I could impact the environment rains king in my decision. But I will also compare Discovery Wall’s worthiness. As much as I’d like to see that area pristine I do find the amount of quality routes there outweighing the environmental impacts.
When I approach the idea of a new route to be built I first look towards its general aesthetics. This of course is typically majority of the reason why I would want to climb something. It either looks pretty or maybe it looks challenging. I’ll assess if there are any other routes near by because I don’t want to squeeze a route in too close. I think that usually about ten feet apart is a minimum distance for a crag, although I’ve seen tighter routes else where, and I’ve yet to ever put two routes side by side anyways. If there are other routes in the area I’ll ask myself if this potential line I’m looking at looks like something else near by that already exists and if so does the area need two similar routes. If there are no routes at all then I will pay attention to the landscape and make a decision on where or not the area could hold up the impact of route development as I previously already stated. At Pinnacles of course I must also consider rock quality as well. Making a route up the pink walls of the balconies seems pointless unless of course I take a snow shovel to it first, but that is out of the question for me. I’ve found in my own experiences that sometimes routes are often dirtier and more chossy than they appear from below and when going group up this could be something you may not find out until after you’ve started the route. So a stronger assessment of quality must be made if the route appears to be borderline worthy and pre inspection could prevent unnecessary damage to the environment. Also checking to see if there are enough holds to make something climbable first is a great idea too, something I've had to assess while establishing 5.12 to 5.14 routes. We could also address difficulty as well, but I’m open to many levels of difficulty. I have a regular Pinnacles climbing partner who is in his 70’s so I definitely appreciate the 5.7 and under routes. Although somewhere in there the difficulty may be too low to justify a route if it doesn’t summit something aesthetic. Be that as it may I have no personal interest in such low difficulty route establishment so that has little bearing on my potential routes.
I’ve always found the history of Pinnacles climbing to be fascinating and very much want to continue the traditions on moderate routes or in the face of difficulty. But I must also think about what my road will become, because in my case I don’t believe the road is mine, but rather belongs to everyone. And I don’t want to build a bad road. I want to build an enjoyable, safe (within reason) and hopefully popular road. I don’t want to establish a meandering rope drag nightmare with R/X ratings. No, I’d much rather not, mostly because that sounds horrifying for me. I would rather make a nice route while upholding the traditions. But if I can’t accomplish the building of nice road in the traditional methods and face building a bad road I think it would be time to really question the worthiness of the line once more. If it’s not worthy to me I guess I’ll chop it or leave it abandoned. But if it is worthy and everything that could be done had been done and there just isn’t any other way of finishing the route I would really have to push myself to find a solution or compromise. I don’t know how yet, maybe dynamite.
So in short, protect the environment, uphold tradition and build a nice road for others. If those prerequisites can’t be met then it’s probably not worthy to me.
And note how in this text I never once use the words first ascentionists, until now of course. So that’s a bit of a statement on my approach as well.
Now again, this is my opinion and the content above is HEAVLY subjective, so keep that in mind. And I hope maybe my subjectivity can be received with an open mind looking to explore perspective as much as I eagerly wait to read your well thought out statements on new route worthiness and how you approach the subject. Even if it is blasphemy!
Respectfully and happily covered in moss and choss,
-Kyle
-
British friend and climbing partner Dave Gregory first visited my home in 1995. Dave began climbing in 1948 (He was once bailed out of a French jail by Don Whillans!) and, though now 80, is still at it. After he shed the worst of his jet lag, I gleefully took him out to the West Side. He was horrified by all of it and refused to go near Pinnacles – however I tempted him – on any of his subsequent visits. This is a guy who never turned a hair when he had to dig grass out of cracks with his “brodler” on a Grit first ascent. The place isn’t for everyone.
It’s a place of unending beauty and adventure for me, as I think it is for all who contribute to this forum. Does that make us all entitled? I think so – to the extent that we receive a wondrous, ongoing gift and are responsible for its well-being. I was enchanted immediately on my first trip up Old Original in February of 1977 and remain so now.
Limiting the impact of what we climb is important. Holmgren and I spent many great days out at Piedras Bonitas and I confess I was amused by his efforts to mitigate the visibility of our routes. He spent many hours at home hand-painting (and then baking) various hangers to match the rock on various sections of our routes. I thought (wrongly) that nobody would ever troop out there to climb and (correctly) that if they did they’d have trouble finding the climbs. Still, he was right.
Clink and I put up “Hunting Spiders” in 2003 (I think) and I remember sitting at the belay between bolts and speculating with him about possibilities further to the right. I was among the folks who finally got around to exploring those possibilities. All was done in the best style – stance drilling, no previews and much discussion of where a given line might best proceed. Were we right to climb there? Time will tell.
-
My path of exploration in the last few years has varied, not as much as Lady Gaga's wardrobe, but still entertaining.
No time tonight to spend on it, but will be looking back and contemplating the experiences I've shared at the Pinns. Thanks Mucci, kyqueener, and Bob for your posts.
-
My personal take on new routes, climbing, the Pins.
I have a few different influences. I want to put up good routes that are quality but also like to put up adventurous routes. When I started to climb I was influenced by some of the bold climbers. When I was younger I really wanted to put up routes that had some element of boldness and also sought out existing routes that had a sense of boldness. I have not always managed to pull off bold routes but the desire was there, just not always the will. Later I talked and met people that did not really have any desire to put up bold routes, they wanted to put up good routes for other people. I hadn’t ever really considered other people when putting up my routes so that was a bit of a new concept. It had crossed my mind, sure, but it was not part of the end game. I had previously just thought about the route itself. So my personal criteria for putting up routes has evolved by meeting new people yet is defined by climbers that had put up routes in the past.
Pinnacles has an interesting history for putting up routes. There are guys that never thought about people repeating their routes. These folks put up routes strictly for the adventure not thinking of those that came behind them. I was definitely influenced by this. But there is also a history of putting up well protected routes that have good quality. I have put up both but I think I am influenced by those that only cared about adventure. Now that I am older, I want to do both. Interestingly enough both of these groups had folks that really did not focus much on repeating routes, they were primarily just into putting up routes and mostly putting up routes that were as hard as possible for their time. Ethics evolved to allow folks to bolt ground up and yet push the limits. About the only limits that I pushed were my own. Now there is also a group and this group is growing, that are influenced by Jack Holmgren. These folks will only put up routes from stance, no hooking or hanging. Jack many years later has the only stance drilled 5.11. A few people are heavily influence by Jack but do sling or hook if necessary.
Here are my constraints/guidelines. I think it was Roper that established the 30 foot rule since he would not report a route that was 30 feet or shorter. Personally I like this rule and have tried to live by it. More than one person has mentioned to me the 10 foot rule, as in no routes within 10 feet to the left or the right of an existing route. I have done fairly well but do have two routes that are within 10 feet of each other. Myself and the other culprit discussed this but in the end ended up just going for it. The desire is always to find the classic black streak but more often than not I just end up going with the overall look of the line. I like the line to have a good look, even though sometimes the rock is questionable. The good rock versus bad rock for me is a bit fuzzy since I have done some routes with questionable rock that I thought were fun but then I am kind of into that kind of stuff. I have also done routes with questionable rock that I thought, why does this exist, so once again it comes down to the line.
Impact, Dave Wood was a fairly strong influencer when I started putting up routes and just getting out in general. He painted some of our hangers we also purchased camo hangers, and at the base of routes would talk about the impact of the area if it became popular ( turns out we did not have to worry about that ). In one case he talked about abandoning an area because he thought a bird might nest there. We should all think about impact, we have shown we care when hiking trails get trashed why would we not think about non-hiking areas getting trashed.
Pinnacles does have a strong ground up ethic and I think it is good to preserve this. All climbing areas are different. In the past I have stated that I would never rap bolt but who know maybe someday I will go to an area that is a rap bolting area and rap and preview a line then bolt it with a Bosch then lead it. Not really on my top ten list primarily because I have no idea where I would start. I am not against areas that do it that way I do think each area is different and should be respected for what it is. Pinnacles is ground up, by hand.
Entitlement, no one, everyone. My history with this is coming into the Pinnacles as a fringe player and interacting with those that had it. At the same time there was a strong overall community, so when a big event did happen "the meeting" occurred and almost everyone who was active in the FA community showed up. It felt a bit odd to be a part of this and it did seem that some people felt that they should have more voice than others, but really it was fairly democratic. The issues at hand were resolved by the group. I thought this was pretty cool and it stuck with me. Now many years later, many routes climbed, routes put up, hours logged, good things done, bone headed things done. I am one of those guys that thinks to a certain extent, that I have earned the right for my voice to be heard. But I also do not think anyone has the right to entitlement, and everyone should have a voice. Being our own critic, having strong partners, and maintaining an open mind, I think, will be our greatest strength.
-
I read the whole post!
Actually read it last night. Then we talked. My view: the word "bold" inherently implies unpleasant consequences when you blow it whatever the bold "it" is. Most people have the capacity to pull off something bold even at their limit and often times, accompanied with some internal or external drama, and it's always a fantastic feeling to have pulled it off -- a very good ego booster and *everybody* has ego (just not everyone care to show it to others). However, if you blow it, and when it comes to climbing, the consequences usually mean injuries, which usually lead to time off from work and family duties and financial setbacks. Some people can afford these things more than others, but nobody likes them. Climbing routes can be extremely challenging without having to be bold.
I'm not advocating sanitizing climbing routes to remove any boldness from them, and as Mud said, most times, those routes were put up without knowing that they would be perceived to be unsafe/bold by others in the future, but, I very much disapprove putting up a bold route for the sake of making it bold. I also think that the FA's need to have an open and humble mind to listen to loud -- implying consensus -- complaints about their unsafe routes and be willing to allow changes. To be blunt about it, I think any FA's who turn a deaf ear to these loud complaints is controlled by their ego -- they want people to be reminded how bold they were back in the days. the emphasis is in the past tense because even they know they are not who there were any more so they cling on the past image even tighter. There I said it.
-
Deleted.
-
Once you take my view to its extreme by equaling a desire for safe climbing to only wanting grid bolted climbs (I added this) or even worse, gym climbing, the idea does sound ridiculous and should be dismissed right away. I'd dismiss it myself! Mr. Mud did the same thing and our discussion didn't get very far.
But the truth is there is no black and white in the matter. It's all a spectrum. The pure form of being adventurous is only free soloing unknown territories without topo and guide. That's an extreme, and not many, if any, people do that all the time (Insert: a good video (http://"http://www.epictv.com/media/podcast/the-sufferfest-with-alex-honnold-and-cedar-wright---the-full-movie/275335")) including those from this forum. And then, there are people who only climb in the gym (like my gym climbing partner who stopped going outside all together and got rid of all her outdoor gear). It's just a matter of choice, and almost all of us here fall somewhere in between, and still, we don't always stick to the same spot on the spectrum all the time.
Sometimes, climbing at Pinnacles is perceived as adventurous climbing (sure, more so than Castle Rock), but there are people who have climbed there for 25, 30 years, or longer, and rarely venture away from established routes on Flumes, the Balconies, or Bear Gulch, etc. And then are new comers who have been all over the place. Who is to give the score?
Not really side tracking from the "bold" discussion, and I get the point -- adventures usually involves an element of boldness, but nobody is the most adventurous or boldest; there are always people out there fully qualified to laugh at our cowardliness if they are so inclined.
It may not be obvious, but I am actually not advocating safe climbing, or anything. I just don't hold strong opinions on things. Not my style. I believe people can choose to walk away from things they do not consider safe, and there is nothing wrong with that. But if someone makes a conscious decision not to install a bolt even knowing that there is a good possibility people can get badly hurt, I can only interpret it as ego at play. That's why over the years when briefly witnessing some bolting/chopping wars (not necessarily on this forum), I scratch my head having a hard time fully understanding either camp. I turn off my computer.
P.S. I'm really turning off my computer. We are heading out to So Yo.
-
Deleted.
-
It’s great to read people’s thoughts, musings, and feelings about climbing and route-setting at Pinnacles. A big shout-out to Kyle for the idea and for Mr Mud for posting the thread. In spite of the varied personal histories, subjective experience, and opinions that shape the beliefs and values held by most of those posting so far, it is inspiring to see a consistent and collective love for Pinnacles voiced so clearly.
I think my own thoughts on climbing and route-setting at Pinnacles definitely echo many of the ideas and thoughts already raised. I’ve been climbing at Pinnacles for 15 years, and working at the park as a wildlife biologist for over 12 years… To be honest, I usually consider my time and experience at the park rather brief compared to a lot of local folks! I think that is a testament to how passionate long-time climbers and visitors can be about the park, its history, its unique geology and wildness.
I’ve done some route-setting at Pinnacles, but didn’t really start at all until I had been climbing at the park for 10 years. I suppose I strive to climb and set occasional routes at Pinnacles in the same way that I try to work as a park biologist: with a strong emphasis on responsible stewardship, balancing my own needs and desires with the intrinsic value and beauty of the park, its cliffs, and its residents. I do respect the ground-up ethics that are emphasized at Pinnacles, partly for their historical significance, and partly because those ethics make route-setting at Pinnacles a thoughtful process and a challenging prospect. It takes time and effort to establish new lines at the park, and I try my best to approach that process with care. As Kyle and others have said, I would prefer to work on setting up a few safe lines that inspire me rather than a lot that feel dangerous or that severely impact the resources at the park. I also greatly appreciate the aesthetics of safe and well-camouflaged bolts / hangers. I understand the feeling some folks have against “previewing,” but have previewed (i.e. rappelled down from natural anchors to inspect) a few lines myself without regrets, and have ended up rejecting them because of safety, aesthetic, or impact issues.
That said, I think the notion of “good” lines and “bold” lines can be a bit hard to define, especially given the rock quality at Pinnacles. I would rather set lines that are safe, with well-spaced bolts… But in setting certain lines I’ve had to push well beyond my comfort zone to get to stances where I can drill, so there is often an inherent “boldness” in exploring one’s way up a path of rock the first time, even if the finished result appears more safe and tame. I would also imagine that many lines we now consider “classics” were once much more loose and wild… As Mucci mentioned, it takes time for a lot of lines at the park to “equalize.” As much as possible though, I try to stifle my ego and abandon lines if they don’t strike me as really contributing to the history and beauty of both climbing and resources at the park.
Ultimately I enjoy setting routes for others, and hope that my efforts will lead to accessible and challenging opportunities for other climbers. However, I do understand the notion of pushing a line upwards for the sake of personal adventure, and I certainly appreciate the comradery and friendship that come with working with other inspired folks on different lines. I have a lot of respect for members of the Pinnacles climbing community that have invested time and energy to protect the park and the resources, and our collective capacity to accept feedback and criticism.
At times I wish there was a bit more transparency about route-setting projects that folks are currently working on. I understand the concern about “poaching” but see great opportunities to work on new lines more broadly with a larger slice of the climbing community, especially younger folks that may have interest in learning and being exposed to the possibilities. Maybe I’m just being naïve about the “poaching” issue, but I see a lot more to gain from being open about the projects that people are working on. I know I would love to share the route-setting experience with more people. Perhaps a simple, collective declaration welcoming people to ask and get involved would suffice.
At any rate, I feel fortunate to call many Pinnacles climbers my friends, and am grateful for the concern and care with which many in the climbing community tread carefully at the park. As a climber, a park biologist, and a friend: thank you for your thoughtful stewardship at the Pinns!
-
Gavin kills it with eloquence. I agree.
Charles
-
Gavin kills it with eloquence. I agree.
Charles
Agree 100%!
-
Ultimately I enjoy setting routes for others, and hope that my efforts will lead to accessible and challenging opportunities for other climbers. However, I do understand the notion of pushing a line upwards for the sake of personal adventure, and I certainly appreciate the comradery and friendship that come with working with other inspired folks on different lines. I have a lot of respect for members of the Pinnacles climbing community that have invested time and energy to protect the park and the resources, and our collective capacity to accept feedback and criticism.
Gavin expressed my thoughts exactly, though I only came slowly to the idea that others would be climbing routes I helped create. Several of the longer ones aren't safe yet as far as rock quality is concerned and I steer newer Pinnacles climbers away from them when I can. I've come to think, too, that the rock dictates bolt spacing. When you come to a good stance, you shouldn't pass it by. We all hope that the rock, the bolts and the quality of climbing will all come together in a unique, aesthetic balance. Sometimes it happens!
-
Wow, it took more than an hour to read and catch up on Mudn’Crud. And I was only away for eight days!
It’s nice to see that the two conversations that were pretty heated when I left turned around and ended on good notes. Also good to see that Charles is still hanging in here instead of making a quick strafing attack and then leaving. Maybe we’ll keep him trapped here - the more he posts the more he’ll get to know everyone and the harder it will be for him to exit.
Here are my thoughts:
1. In my view, this comment by Rob may be the single most important and true comment about Pinnacles first ascents:
“Post facto judgment about a climb being a part of a push to quantity over quality is inherently incongruent with a ground up approach.”
As I read that, he’s pointing out that a person can’t necessarily tell how good a route is going to be if that person sticks with the ground up ethic.
I’ve put up at least one route that looked very good to me from the ground go to shit (A Rock, A Hammer and a Black Eye - 5.11a on Tadpole Rock). Most of the really good looking (really good!) holds broke off on that climb before we got it redpointed. Other routes I've established have turned out as expected, and some routes I’ve put up turned out better than I thought they would.
If, as we all expect, new routes at Pinns are put up on lead, we'll get a mix of poor, good and excellent routes. That's no different than what we've seen at Pinns for the entire 80 years of its climbing history.
2. Adam said (in part):
“I have spoken with many others, who are longtime Pinns climbers, who feel similar to me about the recent huge list of mostly lackluster routes. I would rather only put up 3 or 4 awesome routes at the Pinns in my whole life than 100 so so routes."
First, I call bullshit on your use of “lackluster” and of your citation to an unnamed "many others." How many Pinnacles routes have you actually climbed that were put up in the last five years? Hell, how many of those routes have you even seen? And the “many others” you’ve talked to, how many of them have climbed any route that’s been put up within that time frame?
Second, who decides what is lackluster anyway? You? Your "many others?"
My values - and my view of what is "lackluster" - is very different from yours. I would rather do a route I haven’t done before - even if it gets “no stars” - than a three star route that I have done before. I know "some" others who share that point of view. So in that sense none of the new routes you call “lackluster” actually are; those routes have serious value to me and to others.
And obviously, you are different than me; in climbing you seem to like quality of routes over quantity. That’s a perfectly fine point of view too (it is also likely the outlook of a serious majority of all climbers). But do I have to modify what I like in this regard to match your standards (hint, I’m not gonna)?
Third, if you look at all Pinnacles routes known to exist up until the 2007 guidebook, they have about the same proportion of poor to good routes as do the climbs put up since that time. Perhaps “three star” routes are an exception, but certainly the new routes that have gone up lately aren’t some “wave” of crud. If that’s your thinking than please explain how this new wave is actually any different in quality than the preceding 70 years worth of routes.
3. Gavin said:
“I do understand the notion of pushing a line upwards for the sake of personal adventure, and I certainly appreciate the camaraderie and friendship that come with working with other inspired folks on different lines.”
Let's not shortchange the very experience of putting up a new route. Doing an FA is an inherently adventurous and usually fun undertaking. If it results in a "poor" route is it wrong to have done the ascent? If the climb doesn't become popular is it wrong to have made it? I don't think so. Don't shortchange the value an FA has to the climbers who made it - even if the route ends up being "lackluster" by some climbers' standards. I've put up routes I wouldn't repeat, but I also wouldn't trade away the first ascent experience.
Also, there's never been any limit to Pinnacles first ascents based on whether the resulting route will be a "good" quality climb (in someone's view). Certainly there hasn't been anything like this in the last 80 years of climbing at Pinns. Should there be such a limit? Maybe. But how would it be implemented? By previewing (some think this is bad style and aren't willing to do it)? By abandoning the ground up ethic (not in my lifetime)?
Like Rob said, there's no way to be sure of what you're gonna get until you do it (at least in most cases; also, in this respect, isn't new routeing this way kinda like deciding to have kids ;D you never know what you'll get).
4. It's hard to tell if Charles is advocating making new routes that are run out and/or dangerous just for the sake of run outedness?
If this is what you're saying (and I may be wrong - I lean toward me misunderstanding your meaning), I disagree.
If a first ascent party chooses to make a route dangerous, that's their right (and any subsequent climber has to suck it up and repeat it if they want to do the route; believe me, I've done plenty of that).
But what is wrong with the opposite too? What's wrong with making well protected routes if that is what the FA party wants? If they are drilling on lead, by hand, if they are keeping that level of adventure, what is the issue with closely spaced bolts?
I know that as I've gotten older, as I've repeated more and more objectively dangerous routes at Pinns, I've gotten less and less willing (or is it less and less able) to run it out on FAs.
5. I like this idea of first ascentionists as stewards of the climbing community. The idea has been expanding as the number of climbers increases and the amount of untouched rock decreases. But isn't this mostly a self-imposed thing? Or at least shouldn't it be?
But Brad (self reflection here), maybe "self-imposed" could/should have two meanings? It should certainly mean a certain level of stewardship by the first ascent authors. But can't it also mean some level of oversight by the authors' fellow climbers? And isn't that type of "fellow-climber oversight" exactly what Charles' original post was (even if it was snarky)?
That's it for me. Time to unload eight days worth of climbing and camping gear and stow it back where it belongs.
-
Deleted.
Charles
-
...plus, as a good friend and long time Pinns climber said when talking about this topic "does Pinns need more routes?"
That's a catchy phrase, but tell your friend it's also meaningless.
Did Pinnacles ever need any routes at all?
If it didn't, then no, it doesn't need more routes now.
If it did, if Pinnacles ever needed any new routes, then whatever reason or reasons it needed new routes still exist now.
Have your friend answer that question: Ask him or her whether Pinnacles ever needed any routes.
-
...plus, as a good friend and long time Pinns climber said when talking about this topic "does Pinns need more routes?"
And ask your friend too whether Chuck Richards would have been right if he had asked the same exact question back when he did his guidebook (1974, and he basically did ask that then). Wouldn't Pinnacles have had "enough" routes then? Or would 1982 have been a better cut off point, or 1991?
Who gets to decide when there are enough routes?
And what about newer or not as strong climbers? In the last few years I've put up (using myself as an example here) several quality routes which I specifically bolted so that beginners would be OK leading them. Does your friend get to decide that those were too many routes and that newer climbers who are finding these enjoyable shouldn't have them to enjoy?
As I said, the question sounds smart - until one starts to really analyze it.
-
I realize I am still way young and naive compared to the demographic here (exceptions for Gavin, Ky and Adam)...
You just called me old. A polite and loving E.S.A.D. to you for doing that.
What's even funnier is that you just called Mungeclimber old too, and he's much, much younger than me.
Alright, spill the beans - how old are you (I'd say 37 years old as a guess).
-
How about kicking around a few of these ideas, is new-routing good for the sake of new-routing? The routes that got me fired up aren't even in remarkable locations...
Shit, I'm on a roll and I might as well keep going until dinner.
Yes, there is value in new routing for the sake of new routing. I think an FA is a unique experience. And those that wish to do them should (within constraints that all of us here agree on - ground up, no new routes over hiking trails, no chipping and gluing, constraints like that).
But taking the second part of your comment, "[they] aren't even in remarkable locations." That's your judgment and not necessarily theirs. When I walked under the routes my impression was very different than yours; my impression was that they had found a few gems that would make the whole north side of the Flumes experience better (a better variety of routes for all the hordes that climbing guides, er, I mean that climbers bring there).
Is my view more valid than yours? Hardly. It's different though. And I see valid reasons for what those climbers did by way of those routes.
So who gets to judge?
And by the way, although I don't think you or I have the right to say "you can't put new routes in there" to any other climbers, we both have the right to say "whoa, that's a shitty route, what the hell were you thinking." I try not to do that too often ("there but for the grace of God go I" and that sort of thing). As I've understood just about all of what you've said in all these many posts, it's been along the lines of "shitty route," not "you can't do that."
-
new-routing good for the sake of new-routing
Interesting question, but clearly a straw-man argument. New-routing isn't for the sake of the new route. It is, as Brad mentioned, for the sake of the experience.
The routes that got me fired up aren't even in remarkable locations... Escape from Soledad is a crap route as far as rock-quality but in a fantastic location and for bonus points has really scary/sporty bolts (or so I remember)... so for my criteria maybe at least hit two out of three - rock quality, location, and sporty pro....
Not sure I understand this. Are you saying that Soledad is something to emulate? So if we were to try and universalize that principle of a crappy rock, with bad poor, and good locations, how many routes might there be? Would anyone get any value out of them? A small percent of regular users. But that's me judging the product ahead of time. So going on to the next point...
intuitively it seems that just going ground up for the sake of putting a route up is a pretty dumb reason... if my name is gonna be on a route I want to make damn sure it's fine... take one shot every once and a while, don't just pop off cause you can... going to have a couple dozen lackluster routes with a gem here and there.
Again, we're not going ground up just for the sake of a route. We're going ground up because that's the type of experience we want to have. We want preserve some of that adventure. This is probably where you will have more success with your arguments. You might try and argue that 'if one really wants adventure, then why not run it out more'. That creates an inconsistency in the counter argument.
But for me, since Pinnacles has a strong tradition of ground up, that's the ethical standard I appeal to. If we all were to assume the approach of going top down just to make sure all new routes are three stars, then there is no reason at all to make run out routes. A run out on a top down route is anathema. One goes top down to clean, prep the route, and install the hardware in particular way. I.e. closely spaced bolts at the bottom with more even spacing higher up.
If there is a middle way, then it is what I refer to as modified GU. You preview and inspect, but all hardware is installed ground up. Naturally the division between stance and aid can be argued.
But this begs the broader question? Why Pinns? Why GU at Pinns? The history is one reason. The past agreements is the other reason. But primarily, it is one of the LAST, if not THE last place in California with this kind of appeal to history and principles are inherently climbing principles. Since Pinns is the last place, is it DOA? Should it not be worthy of preserving? I say yes.
-
:confused:
-
But this begs the broader question? Why Pinns? Why GU at Pinns? The history is one reason. The past agreements is the other reason. But primarily, it is one of the LAST, if not THE last place in California with this kind of appeal to history and principles are inherently climbing principles. Since Pinns is the last place, is it DOA? Should it not be worthy of preserving? I say yes.
Tradition, then do we still need to wear stiff pants, heavy lugged boots and tie in with a bowline?
Ahh the good old days.
-
Deleted.
-
We don't have to agree with each other in general, but the original accusations were serious and didn't sound like they were based on the common understanding born from the history of Pinnacles.
To that end I'm willing to work the arguments as long as needed.
-
Deleted
-
Nope. Just holding strong on the approach anytime there is direct or indirect reference to the original post.
-
Charles,
I feel sorry for you.
-
Deleted.
-
Arrogant is feeling like climbing has "lost its greatness" because normal everyday climbers don't do great deeds.
Arrogant is thinking that average climbers aren't worth a bean if they "only" enjoy what they can do and are "overjoyed by the process," but they are nevertheless contemptible because that's not what the best climbers do.
"We" all don't cheapen this fantastic and pointless endeavor. "We," at least "we" here on this site, enjoy and celebrate the endeavor together. We encourage each other, look up to each other and respect each other.
And thus we, we common climbers, give climbing our own greatness.
-
Dawn Wall is average?
Mainstream, only somewhat.
-
Aaron,
That's fairly arrogant. I don't. But I do think climbing is losing it's greatness… climbing is average and mainstream now... Less imagination, more superficiality…no longer climbing for for the sake of climbing.. Blame corporations..
Charles
Charles,
This explains a lot about your prospective and the place from which you are coming. I really do feel sorry for you, and I completely disagree with you. I do not appreciate your darkness or your negative energy on this forum. You have no one to blame but yourself for your dismal outlook.
-
Deleted.
-
Charles,
I disagree. There is no growing trend. Human nature hasn't changed in thousands of years. Seeing some sort of bleak darkness in that nature now is pointless, and, in my opinion objectively wrong. People are people and they always will be.
When I was in college a million years ago I made up a saying that goes like this: "90% of the people in the world are assholes; so focus on the 10%." What you just typed above makes me think that you intend to focus on the 90%. If I may give you a bit of advice (I am, after all, much older than you), that's not a very good way to find happiness in life.
And BTW, I think Supertopo isn't what it used to be in large part because of people who do just that - they focus on the 90% (maybe they belong to the 90% too, I don't know).
Anyway, to be specific to this forum, while I have no problem with your "getting thoughts out," I'll tell you bluntly that you could do it, at least here on this board, in a much more constructive and positive way. People would listen and would discuss your thoughts if you approached them with respect, and if treated them as equals. Why be negative and nasty instead of looking for friendly discourse among people who share what are obviously some of your biggest enjoyments and passions?
-
Tobin Sorenson, he ran it out in SLO. One of his routes reminds me of Mr. Mud's and a few of Aaron's FA leads.
He departed this world so young, bold as they come. I was able to put eyes on one of Mud's FA solo's last week. He must have been in the "zone".
30 or so years ago, Robbins ended up in a bad situation on Indirect Traverse. He accepted a rope a teenage partner of mine who was up on top. That was an eye opener for me. I hear Robbins is turning 80, bold as hell, yet wise enough to know when he was having an off day.
Climbing for a lifetime is what I aim to do. Climbing within this community is a privilege I highly value. I have found much of what I was searching for in friends, climbing and life among this group of Pinnacles climbers.
-
Climbing for a lifetime is what I aim to do. Climbing within this community is a privilege I highly value. I have found much of what I was searching for in friends, climbing and life among this group of Pinnacles climbers.
I like this.
There have been some funny characters in the Pinnacles community. Run-ins with Chris Bellizzi have always been entertaining and enjoyable. My time climbing with Brad and Gavin has been very enjoyable and I look up to you guys a lot in regards to new routes. I've had some very awesome times climbing with Charles. I've not yet climbed with Munge but I enjoy our online conversations and stoke for climbing. I've climbed with Jim Thornburg more than a few times there as well and its always a good time. I've very grateful to feel like a part of this community.
When I was in college a million years ago I made up a saying that goes like this: "90% of the people in the world are assholes; so focus on the 10%."
I like this too. But to propose 90% of people are assholes is a little cynical and too big of a number for me to agree with.
I like to cut people up and separate what I like about them from what I don't like about them (figuratively of course). Then I just focus on what I like about them. So even if only 10% of that person is likable, I'm just going to focus on that 10% as best as I can and ignore the 90% I don't like. Because I believe we get back what we put in and if we put in the best parts of ourselves and show a 10%'er some kindness he or she will at some point will respond positively. And who knows, maybe they'll grow to be less of an asshole.
Luckily the people in this community have more likable qualities to them than less likable qualities, so really you're all making this really easy on me.
-
To a certain extent I do see what Charles is saying. When I first got into climbing it seemed to be an alternative sport. It was not real mainstream although I did come into a bit late so it was not real uncommon either. For the most part most of the rags were gossip columns but the larger message was adventure, boldness and really pushing one’s ability. At the Pins there was not much a guidebook but most of the stuff being put up was either at the hard end of the spectrum or harder runout moderates. Things changed as they always do. Sport climbing became popular, Comps were vogue, bouldering became very popular, more and more folks talked about putting up “good” routes that other people would enjoy. There was a lot of talk that bold routes were a concept for people stoking their ego although some really strong sport climbers that I met seemed to have the whole ego bit covered just fine.
So naturally routes became safer and there was also a movement to put up moderate routes. Routes that were not cutting edge in boldness or grade difficulty. First few times I saw that I really wondered why. But I did see some of those area’s and routes become popular. I also met folks that climbed the moderates and their goal or objective was not to really push much beyond that. Some of these folks had an incredible stoke for climbing and I must admit I initially struggled with the concept. Not that I am all that good of a climber but I had always tried to either push the number or the boldness factor in order to have fun and figured that had to be part of the game. Now I barely climb and figure any climb is good and the route I did the other weekend was pretty low on quality and difficulty but it lasted a few pitches and I really had a good time. Actually looking back on the last couple years I have not climbed anything that is difficult and nothing really that can be called classic but I did really enjoy the climbing.
So my perspective has changed quite a bit. I still really admire folks that push the limit. Love reading/hearing about bold climbs, like hearing/reading about folks pushing hard grades. But, I also admire the current wave of stuff and what the folks are doing at the Pins. There is a group of folks that are pushing their limit in trying to scare themselves a bit by putting up routes that go purely on stance. Having bolted on stance a couple of times I do know most people will come down at least a couple of grades from their lead ability in order to be able to bolt on stance. I also know it takes patience and a certain tolerance for pain. I do not think there are a lot of guys out there that are going to hike around and try and find 5.11 routes that will go ground up, let alone ground up at the Pins. It will happen but the Pins “ Golden Era” if you want to call it that is over.
Perhaps my newfangled mellowed perspective is just a self-defense mechanism but for the moment it is working. Perhaps someday I will be able to climb something on a regular basis that is more difficult than a set of stairs. I do not know. For the moment I rest in the bit bucket and write about what once was.
-
Deleted.
-
I find cigarette butts where only climbers tread at Pinns, what kind of fucking moron throws their cig on the ground?
I found (and was utterly disgusted at) cigarette butts squished out in the cracks on almost every belay when I did the Pacific Ocean Wall on El Cap. That was in 1987. So if you think that level of thoughtlessness by climbers is new, I think you're mistaken. Human nature (and climbers are human) hasn't changed.
Climbing has changed, the people doing it now have changed, to say otherwise is ludicrous.
I don't disagree. It has changed.
By why do you focus on the bad aspects of the change and not the good? There is at least as much good in the change as there is bad. The way I've experienced it, there's more good than bad in the changes.
And more critically, why bring nastiness and negativity to people here on this forum, solid people who are good climbers and good stewards. Are you assuming that they are part of the 90% (they aren't).
-
I do not think there are a lot of guys out there that are going to hike around and try and find 5.11 routes that will go ground up, let alone ground up at the Pins.
Mud,
I can introduce you to a couple and they would be more than happy to bring you along (no hooks allowed).
-
To a certain extent I do see what Charles is saying. When I first got into climbing it seemed to be an alternative sport. It was not real mainstream although I did come into a bit late so it was not real uncommon either. For the most part most of the rags were gossip columns but the larger message was adventure, boldness and really pushing one’s ability. At the Pins there was not much a guidebook but most of the stuff being put up was either at the hard end of the spectrum or harder runout moderates. Things changed as they always do. Sport climbing became popular, Comps were vogue, bouldering became very popular, more and more folks talked about putting up “good” routes that other people would enjoy. There was a lot of talk that bold routes were a concept for people stoking their ego although some really strong sport climbers that I met seemed to have the whole ego bit covered just fine.
So naturally routes became safer and there was also a movement to put up moderate routes. Routes that were not cutting edge in boldness or grade difficulty. First few times I saw that I really wondered why. But I did see some of those area’s and routes become popular. I also met folks that climbed the moderates and their goal or objective was not to really push much beyond that. Some of these folks had an incredible stoke for climbing and I must admit I initially struggled with the concept. Not that I am all that good of a climber but I had always tried to either push the number or the boldness factor in order to have fun and figured that had to be part of the game. Now I barely climb and figure any climb is good and the route I did the other weekend was pretty low on quality and difficulty but it lasted a few pitches and I really had a good time. Actually looking back on the last couple years I have not climbed anything that is difficult and nothing really that can be called classic but I did really enjoy the climbing.
So my perspective has changed quite a bit. I still really admire folks that push the limit. Love reading/hearing about bold climbs, like hearing/reading about folks pushing hard grades. But, I also admire the current wave of stuff and what the folks are doing at the Pins. There is a group of folks that are pushing their limit in trying to scare themselves a bit by putting up routes that go purely on stance. Having bolted on stance a couple of times I do know most people will come down at least a couple of grades from their lead ability in order to be able to bolt on stance. I also know it takes patience and a certain tolerance for pain. I do not think there are a lot of guys out there that are going to hike around and try and find 5.11 routes that will go ground up, let alone ground up at the Pins. It will happen but the Pins “ Golden Era” if you want to call it that is over.
Perhaps my newfangled mellowed perspective is just a self-defense mechanism but for the moment it is working. Perhaps someday I will be able to climb something on a regular basis that is more difficult than a set of stairs. I do not know. For the moment I rest in the bit bucket and write about what once was.
I don't disagree with the general idea behind this post, but want to emphasize that for the assessment of moderates above, I think you mean well protected moderates. Moderates haven't ever stopped going up as FAs. It's just many times now they are well protected when viewed through the lens of history. Bolts were hard to drill in the old days. bits would break. They were time consuming.
However, let's focus on this for a bit. Lack of bolts on moderate terrain wasn't about pushing limits. It was about efficiency. Why drill here when I could drill close to the crux, where I'm more likely to need it. It was very subjective and self focused. So what does that mean to be well protected? Well 20-25 foot falls used to be completely acceptable distances, absent a ledge. who hasn't had to boulder out 5.10 moves to get to a first clip 25' off the deck? Easy 100' run outs 50' or more out that was 3 grades lower than the crux used to be fairly commonplace.
Well, I submit they still are common. Most of the sport routes in the U.S. are going up at 5.10 or harder. Are we to blame the elite for this trend, or the moderate duffer that puts in bolts where there is a comfortable spot to drill?
TD is not the same as GU though. But GU is an ethical approach, not a review of the final product.
Further, the want and need for getting some butterflies in the belly is not dead. It is part of why we climb. And if one day I'm inclined to put some bolts closer together than others, there is no ground for being chastised for it in any serious way. The proper response to closely spaced bolts, is further apart spacing on one's own routes.
-
Mud,
I can introduce you to a couple and they would be more than happy to bring you along (no hooks allowed).
I go stance when possible but clink, you know at heart I am a hooker.
-
I go stance when possible but clink, you know at heart I am a hooker.
People can always change. Clink ensures this change by hammering your hooks flat at the beginning of the day. Hence your days as a hooker are numbered.
-
…lack of bolts on moderate terrain wasn't about pushing limits. It was about efficiency. Why drill here when I could drill close to the crux, where I'm more likely to need it. It was very subjective and self focused...
I think this comment by Munge is:
1. Insightful (I hadn't thought of this, and Mud ignored it too);
2. Mostly correct as a historical fact.
There was however a different mindset and expectation decades ago, both at Pinns and every other location where climbs were going up (you might get called a "pussy" if you didn't run it out). But when non-bolted pro was a big maybe (before cams), that was the mindset about climbing altogether.
I started climbing when this outlook was more common, but already fading.
Without a doubt, one of the changes that has occurred in climbing is a move toward more safety. This has resulted in more routes being better protected. It's a change. So what. Does every route have to be butt-ass scary? What's wrong with some that are well protected?
Anyone who wants the scary routes can still go do them. In fact here's a list of the ones I've found most scary at Pinns (scroll down about one third of a page):
http://www.mudncrud.com/forums/index.php?topic=2056.0
And, as Rob pointed out, anyone who wants more scary routes can go put those up even now.
-
Clink ensures this change by hammering your hooks flat at the beginning of the day.
Rubbish, I say ground up with hooks trumped leaving all those beauty routes to rap bolting. Just stance when you can. Now that is a question.
I wonder if these guys who can pull 13s will find a route like WW on a super steep wall. Hats off if they do.
Meanwhile our plate is full.
-
Actually I was a bit disingenuous, personally I do not think anyone will put up another stance only 5.11 in the Pins. It takes quite a bit for that to come together, the individual and the climb. The amazing thing about Jack pulling it off was, from what I know, 5.11 was his upper limit.
Munge
The lack of bolts on moderates was definitely in part because the drills and bits were not as good, but not entirely. The bits were not as good but it was also a lot easier to put in a inch and a half quarter inch bolt than a inch and a half three eighths bolt and that standard now is 2 inches or more. But part of it, in my opinion, was the game was just different. The couple of guys that I climbed with that were climbing in the 70's ran it out even on gear. I think to a certain extent those guys (and gals) had to be a bit more bold because the gear just was not as good.
I am not advocating one is better than the other. I am just stating that I think the game has changed a bit. I am not stating that I am in agreement with everything that has been stated. I did state that I did understand a part of what he was trying to communicate ( perhaps anyway ). I also stated that I thought that you guys were pushing your limits and I also tried to communicate that bolting from stance does change at what level bold starts for most people. Heck, it altogether changes what can be bolted.
There have been well bolted moderates in the past but I personally think there is more emphasis within the community on this. Perhaps that is solely because I associate with more people, or perhaps different people, perhaps it is simply that more people are climbing so this is more of a community to actually put up routes for. During the 80's and 90's before the two Rubine books came out the emphasis was hard routes. Others went up but from what I saw most were looking to put up hard routes. Before that, most of the hard routes that went up had an element of boldness to them. I do agree that people can still put up runout climbs but I think, in general, there will be less. Perhaps I am wrong since I have climbed very little of the climbs that have gone up in the last couple of years and the route clink and Aaron put up last year looks quite intriguing. Again, as I have tried to communicate, I do not think having well protected moderates is a bad thing. As I have stated more than once, some of those have become quite popular and the Flumes is a perfect example. At that time I may not have entirely agreed with what happened there, but time has proven that the community likes those climbs.
-
Yup, Jim told me just about the same logic. Bolts were hard to get and they used what they could find....hence they used them sparingly....Now Mungie can go around the corner from his house to his local industrial fastener supply shop and pick up a case of Powers SS.
The lack of bolts on moderates was definitely in part because the drills and bits were not as good, but not entirely. The bits were not as good but it was also a lot easier to put in a inch and a half quarter inch bolt than a inch and a half three eighths bolt and that standard now is 2 inches or more. But part of it, in my opinion, was the game was just different. The couple of guys that I climbed with that were climbing in the 70's ran it out even on gear. I think to a certain extent those guys (and gals) had to be a bit more bold because the gear just was not as good.
-
How many people remember this anthem; When in doubt, Run it out.
;D
Now, will someone setup a TR for me, Please?!
-
But part of it, in my opinion, was the game was just different.
No doubt.
Though some recent routes have been established exactly (R/x) as the "old game" routes. On these the climbing itself dictated the commitment and danger, no place to stop and stance.
The last bolt on WW was added after the top out on the FA. The rock quality is suspect on the final moves, Aaron used a flexing hold(it is still there) while the fall looked like a broken bone(s) if he were to come off and hit the ramp below the headwall. Later a nice hold was discovered in the gravel at the edge just above the flexing hold. To let the world know how badass(stupid?desperate?) the FAers were that final bolt could have not been placed. The thinking was much the same as the FA artists of Foreplay adding the first bolt after the route was established.
The quality of the climbs deserved both the style in which it was established and prudence considering protection placements for future ascents by the community at Large.
I resemble this final grouping more each day, and must turn the tide and find my inner Tobin.
Some routes are admittedly shit.
In the movie "Purge" the population has one day a year to "remove" bosses, neighbors and such. A Pinn's purge day?? To dark, I know.
Vader. I sense the good in you. >:D
-
Cannot purge all the bad routes, I would not have any left!
-
Cannot purge all the bad routes, I would not have any left!
clink is like a kid with a stick staring at a beehive - just ignore him!
-
but, that takes all the fun out of it.
-
Tobin Groucho Marx is one of my favorites.
-Tim
Tobin hav'n fun.
-
Looks like the other thread got removed.
Glad I saved a copy so we can stick with facts should it come up again.
In the meantime, hope everyone has a good weekend. :)
-
Looks like the other thread got removed.
Glad I saved a copy so we can stick with facts should it come up again.
In the meantime, hope everyone has a good weekend. :)
WTF, removed? That can happen on this site? How?
-
Looks like the other thread got removed.
Glad I saved a copy so we can stick with facts should it come up again.
In the meantime, hope everyone has a good weekend. :)
HA! HA!
Thank you admin for ending the insanity who ever you are!
-
We are looking into what happened and are thinking of reposting the thread. Unfortunately we did not have the recycle function enabled since we had never had a thread deleted.
-
Glad I saved a copy so we can stick with facts should it come up again.
You are sick, Munge!!! What kind of foresight do you possess that would prompt you to save an entire thread? But that's appreciated! Can you send the thread over (hopefully preserve as much information as possible) by email?
Although we still cannot figure out how the thread can disappear, we suspect it had something to do with schrammel deleting his account.
Mr. Mud and I are contemplating the right thing to do. We respect schrammel's decision to leave the forum and the discussion and his desire to mute his own posts, but we feel that other people's posts should not be taken as a result. We plan to repost the thread (thanks to Munge) only with schrammel's posts marked as "Deleted". Does this sound fair to everyone?
-
You are sick, Munge!!!
and twisted!
-
You and Mud are just awesome in the way you run this forum.
I think your idea is completely fair.
-
Man, nothing more lame than deleting a thread. A first here I believe.
It is public information as the web has a history of the thread.
Post it back up in it's entirety.
I have always believed if you put you're name behind you're posts, you should stand by them.
Pulling a thread is not only a slight on the posters to said thread, but also a window into the character of the person who started it.
Can't pull words when spoken, but this day and age people don't have the sack to confront others face to face.
Maybe this will be a trend at MNCRUD? LOL
Edit: In regards to a terminated accnt, The above does not apply.
-
I do not think anything was done intentionally. He started the thread and I think that some how when he deleted his account the thread got nuked. We are making adjustments to make sure it does not happen again.
-
I've had experience with moderating forums for quite awhile and invariably the discussions either bring up a 'forget this' or a reticence about the discussion. I'm sure there are posts out there that I wish I could still edit.
Actually I'm inclined to let it be without reinstating.
Almost all the posts were either directly or indirectly related to the original post and concerns.
I would only use the copy should the issue come up again with any unfair or untruthful accusations.
-
This forum is setup so you can always edit your own posts. I know others lock posts down after x amount of days.
Hmm, I thought there was good discussion, some supported him some did not.
-
I do not think anything was done intentionally. He started the thread and I think that some how when he deleted his account the thread got nuked. We are making adjustments to make sure it does not happen again.
I don't know if anyone else saw it or not, but I clicked on Mudn'Crud about 15 minutes before the original post was made. I saw an altogether different original post, complete with a different thread title.
It was a pretty damn nasty set of comments. It also included the bit about maybe he was being nasty because he'd spilled coffee on his privates and they hurt.
I typed a reply but when I tried to post I got the same result that Dennis just got - there wasn't a thread to post to. But I assumed then that the whole thread went away because the only post to it went away.
It's actually kinda cool that the site hasn't had a "deleted thread" issue before; that says a lot for the site and the people who've been on it.
-
Mucci,
I completely agree. This is why I always use my own name when posting. I know I need to be careful about everything I say. I believe there are deeper implications to Charles posts. Charles decided to bring his work into the discussion. Can you imagine if his boss or existing clients/ future clients read his comments? I know that if someone who worked for me used my company name as an appeal to authority then started a flame war I would have something to say about it.
The entire opening to the post and following cometary by Charles was completely rude and thoughtless. I bet if I wanted to make friends with the people camping next to me, I do not think my first gesture would be to go take a dump in their fire ring.
To the Mediocre and Old Washed up Climbers (you know who you are),
I think you showed Charles much more respect and accommodation than he deserved. I on the other hand have very little empathy for a rude and ignorant person.
-
he started off a bit harsh but I thought made amends well enough. I do not think his posts were thoughtless, I would go with not well thought out or presented. Being one of he early posters here I can say that some of my early stuff was somewhat harsh or at least brash.
I think the end of the argument/discussion boiled down to what should and should not be bolted. Which is definitely a valid discussion.
-
he started off a bit harsh but I thought made amends well enough. I do not think his posts were thoughtless, I would go with not well thought out or presented. Being one of he early posters here I can say that some of my early stuff was somewhat harsh or at least brash.
I think the end of the argument/discussion boiled down to what should and should not be bolted. Which is definitely a valid discussion.
OK except he has never established a line and has no idea what it takes or what is involved. Sorry but arm chair quarter backs opinion does not count the same as someone who is actually in the game.
-
he started off a bit harsh but I thought made amends well enough. I do not think his posts were thoughtless, I would go with not well thought out or presented. Being one of he early posters here I can say that some of my early stuff was somewhat harsh or at least brash.
I think the end of the argument/discussion boiled down to what should and should not be bolted. Which is definitely a valid discussion.
That end boiled down to that? No, that was the beginning too. If we talked TRs with removable gear, no one would care. It's a valid discussion. How we talk about it is important. Issues around limited resources are valid. Appeals to elitism to prevent mediocre climbers from enjoying the same rock is wrong headed.
-
How we talk about it is important.
Maybe most important.
Issues around limited resources are valid.
Yep, they are.
Appeals to elitism to prevent mediocre climbers from enjoying the same rock is wrong headed.
I agree completely.
-
I think even if you do not put up routes but solely repeat routes there is valid input. As a climber whether or not you put up routes, you can still see the aesthetics of climbs.
Probably one of the greatest debates I have had on the establishment of routes came from a co-worker who was a hiker. That "discussion" made the old thread look tame. This was a couple of decades ago. In the end we both realized we had valid points.
-
...I know that if someone who worked for me used my company name as an appeal to authority then started a flame war I would have something to say about it.
Interesting point. I'd wondered whether anyone else caught that.
I had it happen to me about 15 years ago. An employee used the name of my firm to threaten someone else in a purely personal dispute.
I found out about it. I gave the employee a chance to explain. She had no explanation. I handed her her last paycheck and walked her off the premises. She was gone 15 minutes after I learned about it. I'm not very good at tolerating people that f#%k with me.
-
That end boiled down to that? No, that was the beginning too. If we talked TRs with removable gear, no one would care. It's a valid discussion. How we talk about it is important. Issues around limited resources are valid. Appeals to elitism to prevent mediocre climbers from enjoying the same rock is wrong headed.
I thought so, looking at what other put in. I do not think it is the level of routes going in. It is how many, how fast, and concerns of quality.
This was my last post. I am a bit familiar with the 11's out there so I used that as a reference point. My post below basically just shows that this is not the fist time this discussion has come up and the previous time the "old guard" was involved.
Mud's fully entitled to just reminisce and bullshit now and then.
Well, if you cannot climb ya gotta do something. I do not know if I am part of the old guard, but perhaps longevity does have its merits.
But to throw fuel on the fire. Should Gagner been given a hard time for putting up Feeding Frenzy, Here comes the Judge and Pill Box. All of them are 5.11 all have more than their share of loose rock. Well Pill Box just has 15 to 20 feet of junk ( the crux of course ). Or, does he get a pass just because he put up hard routes that no one else was willing or capable of bolting? Gagner was the master of choss.
I can see the other side as well though. There was some discussion back in the day before the Rubine books came out because of the number of routes that were going up. Most of the plums were plucked back then. I even remember discussions of the route approval committee being thrown around.
Having read through this and basically looking at it as an outsider since I have no real position but to know most of the folks involved and having been a part of the pins for a while, I would say the argument mostly boils down to this
a. There are a lot of routes going up. (this has been a concern in the past even though most of that stuff was on the harder side)
b. Were not sure the quality or the difficulty ( I think if the quality is there no one will argue ) warrants some of these routes and perhaps folks need to step back and ask should this be done.
My take on a. this is the first time since the old Santa Cruz crew and the Bay Area crew that there has been a "crew" working together to put up routes. So of course the routes are going up quickly and there is a deliberate focus on moderate routes which just has not really existed in a while. Previous examples that I can think of ( Gerdies and Flumes ) both short lived both relatively popular.
My take on b. yeah we should always think about what were bolting. I have done routes that in retrospect I perhaps should have passed on. But, I have also walked past routes that got bolted that turned out fairly well.
-
Again, antecedent knowledge of quality going ground up is not possible in most cases.
Premeditated should not have gone up? Horseshit.
If you are going to argue headpointing do that, don't obliquely say quality is something we should pursue on PINNACLES ROCK!
The rock is crap. It is variable and that is why adventure is alive and well on 5.3.
Will come back with more later.
Gtg
-
Premeditated is aid not a free climb. I thought the whole idea behind aid is to do stuff that others will have a hard time repeating.
Amazingly enough I do think quality should be an objective ( I cringe writing that considering how much choss I put up ). I have found that I usually have an idea of what the rock is like on a route when I start. Perhaps not the entire thing, we all get surprised, but for the most part yes.
I do think there is an exception for great lines. Premeditated is a great line. I know I can think of others, well Here Comes the Judge for one.
-
Quality is an objective, but not a moral imperative.
It's an objective because we like to climb quality. But using that as a pretext antecedently to the climb being put up as a guiding principle?
1. It isn't typically knowable ahead of time.
2. what are the criteria for quality?
a. If you meet criteria X and Y, is that sufficient, but if missing criteria Q, then go STFD?
Of course not.
We would have to do the hard work first of determining what those are?
Then we have to ask ourselves, what then? Are there repercussions? Public shaming? Private talking to? Beating? And if we run out of quality, who gets to tell everyone, 'welp, that's it everyone. No more routes.'
Which criteria of quality is it worth telling someone that they should never have started up something in the first place? Post facto reasoning.
-
Why shouldn't quality be a moral imperative? Seem like a reasonable goal to me. Granted their will always be failure but it seems a reasonable goal.
I do not see any reason why putting up quality routes should not be a preceding goal. What defines quality is difficult, as you point out, to define. I do think there is a general consensus which is why there are lines at the base of certain routes. Other routes look great but the rock is marginal (Premeditated, Here Comes the Judge). I agree at the Pins it is quite often guess work but most of the choss routes I put up I kind of knew ahead of time what I was getting into or did shortly after starting.
I also do not think quality should negate a route. I had a good time putting up Drunk in the Rain, crappy route but good day. I have other examples as well. I personally enjoyed Feeding Frenzy one of the loosest 11's in the Pins and in a weird way Knifeblade Direct which is total choss but a good line. Public shaming, no never, a beating, well maybe ;) Overall I think there should be some thought put into establishing good routes, whatever that is, but realize that sometimes folks just want to have fun.
Much of the hard work is done before putting up the route.
Answer to your last question: I do not know.
-
but realize that sometimes folks just want to have fun.
Girls do, or so I've heard.
-
Nice,
My last thought on this for now is. The worst part of the fallout of this is JC and KC seem to have gone from the forum.
-
Quick clarification, goals aren't necessary like a moral imperative would be.
-
I agree.
-
I do not see any reason why putting up quality routes should not be a preceding goal.
I agree. This discussion will ultimately benefit the Park.
The newer routes I have climbed represent the quality of the whole of routes in the last guidebook. These run a gamut of quality that IS typical of Pinns.
Why no mention in most of these discussions of quality recent routes? Actually Mud mentioned one. Mostly zilch.
Quality routes, crap routes, mediocre, super quality routes, trad only protected routes, Trad and bolted combinations, where the ratio runs 95% either way. This is the reality of recent routes.
In the last decade OLD(mostly) dudes nabbed two major water chutes on Machete. Seriously Rock Around the Clock by whom??? Mud, I may even break out hooks myself for a project 11. What if Tom Davis and Kelly Rich return to do FAs with Tom's son. Ha!
Pinnacles' FA's aren't for everyone, these new routes will be old soon enough and yet I suspect a curious young climber will still be able to find "worthy" first ascents at the Pinns a 100 years from now. Whining shall fade into oblivion. I know this from experience.
Also enough character assassination, by all sides. Unless it is me attacking Geoff or Caleb for being imbeciles and disagreeing with me.
On the other hand, I appreciate being immersed in the community at large, and that means everyone.
-
We haven't lost JC and KC, we may have gained some new blood. I particularly would rather have people around me who honestly differ at times in opinion and will argue against mine. Life is more interesting this way.
-
Overall I think there should be some thought put into establishing good routes, whatever that is, but realize that sometimes folks just want to have fun.
Sounds like Sport Climbing....So Mr Mud is a closet sport climber!
Knew it!
-
The worst part of the fallout of this is JC and KC seem to have gone from the forum.
We're still here - just keeping a low profile until we're sure it's safe to come back out.
Thanks for the concern.
-
Sounds like Sport Climbing....So Mr Mud is a closet sport climber!
Knew it!
I clipped overbolted choss today.
Grain oatmeal.
Delicious
-
Grain oatmeal.
and keeps you regular.
-
Other routes look great but the rock is marginal (Premeditated, Here Comes the Judge).
Interesting, I've done "Here Comes The Judge" a couple hundred times (yes, literally) and I don't feel the rock is particularly marginal. Yes, it has some loose bits near the pockets when you break away from the crack leading up towards Trial, but overall the rock is decent, especially up towards the crux. I do think that line could use another bolt near the crux and have mentioned it to Bellizzi (and he agrees)... But I'm still surprised it doesn't get more ascents.
-
But I'm still surprised it doesn't get more ascents.
It's a really scary lead (I did it once).
-
I led all five of the "controversial" new routes on The Upper Flumes today. Gavin and I did three of the routes and then I did the others with three of the members of the first ascent parties.
I'm posting my thoughts here, although I haven't yet added them to the new routes sticky (sorry, that'll have to wait until I get back to the office). I've got a draft topo too that I will finalize and (eventually) post up. Also, I'm being thorough with my comments since so much has been said about them.
The routes are named and rated (left to right; my ratings and stars, which only differ from what the first ascentionists gave them by one grade on one route):
- Where the Sun Don't Shine 5.6;
- Masters of Mischief 5.7 *;
- Self Selecting Substrate 5.6 * (great name by the way, although I'm not sure what it means);
- Where the Sun Shines 5.7 *; and, above these,
- Bolt Bandit 5.7.
The first two routes start from the ground and share one anchor 90 feet up. Bolt Bandit goes from that anchor up to a tree and a walk off. The other two routes also start from the ground and share an anchor 80 feet up. So, two pairs of routes and one that leads off the top.
Comments:
1. Rock Quality: The words "rock quality" refer to the strength, hardness and general integrity of the rock itself (and not to whether there is dirt or moss on top of the rock). The left two routes have excellent rock. If "1" is the worst rock at Pinns and "10" is the best, these two routes are on 7 or 8 quality rock. I knocked off almost no rock when I climbed them. If I recall correctly, one poster to this thread commented along the line that he knocked more rock off these two routes (apparently the only two he climbed) then he had on all the other routes he'd ever done at Pinns. I don't see how this would be possible on these two and I simply do not believe him; there isn't enough looseness on either of these routes for this comment to be anything other than a gross exaggeration. Plentiful, nice, really solid lodestones make both of these routes good candidates for "stars" (or an additional star) in the future, if they get climbed and thereby are cleaned up.
The upper route starts with equally good rock. It pulls a nice roof, still on good rock, but then the rock quality deteriorates as the formation curves over to horizontal.
The two right routes have good rock, maybe "5" or "6" on our 1 to 10 scale. Better than average, but not as good rock quality as the two left routes.
Overall, the rock quality on these routes is (to use an example of an older Flumes formation route that Dennis discussed in his posts) vastly better than the rock on the second pitch of Feeding Frenzy.
2. Dirt, Moss, Lichen ("Choss"): The two left routes are filthy. The low angle bottom parts of both are especially bad this way; the left route in particular goes into a waterstreak that is really mossy. In this regard these two routes are similar to how the popular sport routes to their left (Flumes Northeast Face) were in their early days (these newer routes are worse/dirtier than those were though). However, as with other routes at Pinnacles that are like this, the great majority of the actual holds a climber uses are clean (and, see above, solid). Will these routes clean up like the sport routes to the left did? Time will tell.
The upper route and the two right routes are cleaner - it seems like there is a tradeoff with the two right routes being a little cleaner, but having somewhat lesser quality rock.
3. Squeeze Jobs: A flatly inaccurate and unfair accusation. The two left routes start on easy ground together. Then they are between 15 and 20 feet apart for their whole lengths until the left route makes a straight right traverse to the anchor.
There is then about 50 feet between these two routes and the set of routes to the right.
The two right routes start a few feet apart, quickly separate, and then gradually rejoin near the top (on easy ground). For most of their lengths they are about 15 feet apart too.
4. Overclose Bolting: Not in my opinion. Most of the bolts on these routes are 8 to 15 feet apart. At least one 20 foot runout seemed a little spicy to me (also, all the routes start with run-out, easy slab). In two places bolts are five and (around) six feet above the bolt below. In one of these two cases, Masters of Mischief, the first ascent party added the closely spaced bolt after the first lead because they were worried about a bad fall/landing at a crux move. I have no problem with this decision at all; there is a trend nowadays toward creating generally safer routes, and, unless one believes that less capable climbers don't deserve better protected routes, I think these routes fit modern norms for bolt spacing.
It's interesting too that, as an experiment suggested by one of the first ascentionists (to get the feel of the first lead), Gavin skipped this "after-added" bolt when he led Masters of Mischief, and he was OK with that. I clipped it when I led it and was happy to have it.
5. Overall Impressions: Not great routes, but worthwhile additions to this part of The Flumes. I'll eventually post a topo here and on Mountain Project; after that I'll bet that parties on The Flumes Northeast Face will slowly start trafficking these (and enjoying them too).
-
Too many bolts? Too close together? My ears are burning. Why would anyone complain about that?! it's like having a climbing gym and complaining about climbing.
-
I clipped overbolted choss today.
Grain oatmeal.
Delicious
Now Mungie?
Where are the Heroes?
You know Mungie you couldda just kept driving east to Red Rocks.
Just saying.
-
Junior never would've made it up this route if mom wasn't comfortable with the bolt spacing.. just sayin ...
(he is crying in this picture none the less.. Mom wouldnt let him quit!)
(http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/s457/beanolar/10931058_10205796916985654_8944061824649040654_o_zpsofoqogid.jpg)
-
The Main Flumes wall had a bit or loose rock originally but has cleaned up a lot.
@Gavin
Here Comes the Judge was pretty loose when it first went up. First time I did it there was constant rain of crud. I have not done it nearly as many times as you have but have done it maybe a half dozen perhaps more if you includes escapes onto Broken Arrow. Each time it seemed better. Has probably been a decade since I have been on it.
P.S. You really need to lead Feeding Frenzy. You will like it. Keep in mind a couple hundred pounds of rock have come off it since the FA.
-
Keep in mind a couple hundred pounds of rock have come off it since the FA.
Yeah, and almost all of that came off on the day you and I each redpointed the second pitch. I doubt anyone's been on it since then ;D
-
Yep we did Redpoint together. I am pretty sure I had been on it before but do not remember if I got it clean or hung or TR'd the thing. That was a fun day.
On another note. Here is a breakdown of number of routes put up by year. EDIT: Updated I missed a couple routes. There were 11's years with no routes associated with them. The most recent was 1971 (unless I missed something).
Ranking Year Count
1 Unknown 262
2 1986 38
3 1989 37
4 1988 34
5 1990 29
6 1965 27
7 1991 26
8 2000 23
9 1999 19
10 1962 18
11 1973 18
12 1987 18
13 2003 18
14 2011 18
15 1984 17
16 2014 16
17 2001 15
18 1995 14
19 1961 13
20 1976 13
21 2004 13
22 1982 12
23 1992 12
24 2005 12
25 1983 11
26 1993 11
27 1996 11
28 1972 10
29 1978 10
30 2010 10
31 1963 9
32 1974 9
33 1998 9
34 2002 9
35 1980 8
36 1985 8
37 1960 7
38 1967 7
39 1977 7
40 1994 7
41 2006 7
42 2009 7
43 2012 7
44 2013 7
45 1951 6
46 1964 6
47 1970 6
48 1981 6
49 1997 6
50 1947 5
51 1975 5
52 1940 4
53 1956 4
54 1957 4
55 1968 4
56 2007 4
57 2008 4
58 1946 3
59 1949 3
60 1969 3
61 1934 2
62 1953 2
63 1959 2
64 1966 2
65 2015 2
66 1933 1
67 1935 1
68 1939 1
69 1950 1
70 1952 1
71 1955 1
72 1958 1
73 1979 1
-
Note: Not 100% correct. Some routes had 90's so I put 90 some had early 90 etc. But it gives a decent idea of activity by year.
-
Kristin & I did the new flumes routes today, and they were SPECTACULAR. NOONE CRIED ABOUT RUNout. (We both cried about loose rocks). If they were any more sparsely bolted, I wouldve peed my pants and went home. Noobs like us need more routes like this! I pushed into a new grade! 5.7 Thanks guys for the new routes. Keep drilling (but please dont ask kristin to, it sounds horrible he he)
-
Congrats on the new grade! Take that stoke and push onto the next level!
Do have a 5.8 in mind?
-
Thanks for the breakdown Mud, 1965 and the second half of the eighties were big years.
50th anniversary for the 1965 routes. Coolest year ever.
Is that the famous beanolar and the WORD renowned Kristin. It is said that rulers, even nations and gpa's rise and fall by her pen.
Lisa and Aaron were the rock jocks for our little group. My daughter Laura had a great time in their company! Nice to meet Paul(the master of disguise)and Kyle.
Climbed Sound Chaser yesterday, been 15 years or so. I climb it like a ballet dancer, unlike Aaron's style, a Viking with an axe, uttering fierce words in battle. ;D My Pinns guide is MIA, so I don't know who put it up but have to say what a great route and thanks to the FA artists who followed the balance line of holds, making use of the whole stage.
-
5.8 yikes! Maybe, if I can get to the third bolt without freaking out. (hint hint!)
Kristin is sick with power. She works across THREE universities this term. Someone's got to whip these kids into shape!
That knuckle route looked interesting. How far is the hike...
-
Noobs like us need more routes like this! I pushed into a new grade! 5.7 Thanks guys for the new routes.
Amen and congrats!! :)
-
5.8 yikes! Maybe, if I can get to the third bolt without freaking out. (hint hint!)
That knuckle route looked interesting. How far is the hike...
Not any farther than the High Peaks and not as strenuous.
I'll/we'll go out there with you if you like.
Several more routes to do yet and more rebolting work.
Cool location.
-
Juan -- the pix looked nice! How many ticks? Kansas is afraid of ticks. She got colonized by nests of them while writing The Trails of Kansas guidebook. Note: They like to crawl into horrible, horrible places on your body.
So like, if it's not too much bushwhacking i'm down.
Y'all got any tips for "comfortable" 5.7-8s? Like, where I don't think i'm going to die or get disfigured? Slab, runout, and cantaloupes scare me
-
The fruit stand on 152 is loaded with cantaloupes. Stay clear of there.
On West Side or East?
-
Y'all got any tips for "comfortable" 5.7-8s? Like, where I don't think i'm going to die or get disfigured? Slab, runout, and cantaloupes scare me
7's are a tough grade at Pinns - waldo and clink will enjoy it if you do Hunting Spiders :)
soft 8's - Tilting Terrace, Overboard
Cool Daze if your head is in it - sustained and steep but it's all there and good rests.
Warm up on Corona - do Beyond Destiny(need .5 or .75 and #3 camalot) - then Dos Equis (KC has).
F4 will suggest Piglet :) - that was my first 5.8 right after doing Burgundy Dome (my first 5.7)
-
waldo and clink will enjoy it if you do Hunting Spiders Smiley
Not true. Bob and I were doing a recon, scoping out the buttress left of Lichen to Lead. HS was a variable, a connector, but hardly a route.
Hood of the Cobra 5.7, a committing move into a waterchute, stemming in a half pipe as the chute steepens and curls around you, then face to the top of the pinnacle.
Swallow Crack 5.7, will need to place gear. First time up place lots of protection, nuts and cams with a few long slings, the second will appreciate this as the crack diagonals. Bring a nut tool.
Sinbad, without the direct start is a fantastic climb overlooking the canyon, not sure of the rating.
Mug shot 5.7 feels airy, mostly well protected, just watch the swing back into the corner getting to the second bolt, after that your golden.
Portant which I believe was rated 5.5 when I first did it. Pinns climbing at it's best, my favorite route. A bit runout but if you can make the bouldery 5.7/8 entry move you will be fine. I recommend going up 40' to an intermediate belay on the left, it is good practice for multi-pitch route and cuts down on the rope drag. Gear may be placed in the lower gully.
That's what comes to mind outside of the closers. Good luck!
-
West side, east side, I dont discriminate.
Thanks for the lists, Juan , Clink, I will check those out!
-
Swallow Crack - I had the distinct pleasure of belaying Aaron on his first trad lead and it will likely be mine sooner than later.
Sinbad - don't start off the dirt - it's a 5.8. Start at the third bolt for a fun, well-protected 5.6.
-
I moved my original post from here to the "2015 Objectives" thread. It belongs better there.
-
Not true. Bob and I were doing a recon, scoping out the buttress left of Lichen to Lead. HS was a variable, a connector, but hardly a route.
Swallow Crack 5.7, will need to place gear. First time up place lots of protection, nuts and cams with a few long slings, the second will appreciate this as the crack diagonals. Bring a nut tool.
Sinbad, without the direct start is a fantastic climb overlooking the canyon, not sure of the rating.
Mug shot 5.7 feels airy, mostly well protected, just watch the swing back into the corner getting to the second bolt, after that your golden.
Portant which I believe was rated 5.5 when I first did it. Pinns climbing at it's best, my favorite route. A bit runout but if you can make the bouldery 5.7/8 entry move you will be fine. I recommend going up 40' to an intermediate belay on the left, it is good practice for multi-pitch route and cuts down on the rope drag. Gear may be placed in the lower gully.
That's what comes to mind outside of the closers. Good luck!
I agree with Brad that this is a thread drift but still somewhat related.
Laura - don't listen to clink - he can't find his guide book and often forgets things of major importance!
The climbing on Hunting Spiders is similar to but a little spicier than Tilting Terrace.
The problem is - it is hard to find what I would consider "comfortable" 5.7's
I've climbed with you enough to know your comfort level and the fact that you did some of the new routes tells me that you may have gained some confidence - nicely done. You should get back out there and lead the rest of them.
Swallow Crack is 5.6 - for a mixed bolt/gear climb is good - you'll be grateful to clip the pins/bolt in between gear placements. Ordeal is better imo and would get you an 8.
Portent is also 5.6 but the start can be quite challenging. You're tall - so that will help. The nice thing is you can boulder around on it before committing. clink is right that you should stop at the first belay and bring your follower up. People that do it in one long pitch put their second at risk during the start - rope stretch will put a second back on the ground if they blow the opening moves - people have broken ankles on this one. All the holds are there but this climb is a head game and a Pinns classic. You may have already followed some or all of these Disco climbs. Entrance is a cool 7. I used a 4 and a 6 camalot. Think about it - all those climbs on the wall and only one 7. Welcome to the Machine is 7 but it is choked with PO.
Sinbad is also "only" 6 and you've probably already done it - it is steep for the grade and well protected. Good for your head.
I think you'd enjoy Mug Shot - but not sure it's "comfortable" even after we added a bolt in my runout. It is an interesting climb. I haven't led it with the added bolt. Nelkins said some of his friends led it recently and liked it. You could warm up on Where's Dave (I know you've led that one).
Redline is a cool 7 but you have to get up Alias Bandit Bench (a good eight) to get up there - although I have an easier way up there too if you're interested in checking it out. I could also show you a way to do it with one rope.
-
The prof. has spoken.
Aaron, thanks for coaching Laura up FS . She was telling Martha how nice that was to have you there.
BTW.I am so glad my parents moved us out of the Boston area when I was 7.
-
The prof. has spoken.
helmet, harness, shoes, rope...
or maybe that should be shoes, helmet, harness rope - acronym is shhr :)
-
The prof. has spoken.
Aaron, thanks for coaching Laura up FS . She was telling Martha how nice that was to have you there.
BTW.I am so glad my parents moved us out of the Boston area when I was 7.
Clink,
No problem! I am very happy she did not give up! Laura did a great job.
-
Holy tangent rant, this thread derailed a long time ago!
All we need to do now in order to make the tangent creditable is to bring up 9/11 conspiracy theories!
#thisthreadaintworthy
-
Something broke, we never got to Godwin's Law references, did we?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
-
Something broke, we never got to Godwin's Law references, did we?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Shut up you ignorant Nazi.
-
Shut up you ignorant Nazi.
Yeah... what Brad said!
-
Granite is the ultimate thread drift on Masters of Mud.
Kyqueener, what you need is to find a pic of Bin Laden with granite FA possibilities in the background and post it here.
-
Actually thread drift on Mudn'Crud is common and weird.
It seems that there is usually an ongoing discussion of who's up to what between most of us much of the time. Frequently that discussion occurs on whatever thread happens to be on top.
J.C. sniveled about this a few months ago, about all of us "jacking" his thread. He seemed to calm down though after I pointed out that it was our normal here: he'd start a thread about what he and Kat had been up to lately and then we'd all use it for our normal weekly discussions.
Carry on.
-
lol
The circle is now complete.
-
Kumbaya 8)
-
Brad, it's Hakuna Matata!
-
New routes 5.11 or harder since 2007 guidebook.
2008- 5.11b
2010- 5.11a
2011- 5.11b, 5.12b, 5.13c, and 5.14a
That's an average of less than one per year, or have I missed info?. Bet that changes.
-
Piglet rules!
Mungie, I forgot to ask, do we refer to you as Dr. Mungie???
-
New routes 5.11 or harder since 2007 guidebook.
2008- 5.11b
2010- 5.11a
2011- 5.11b, 5.12b, 5.13c, and 5.14a
That's an average of less than one per year, or have I missed info?. Bet that changes.
Is 2007, Brad's book?
-
yes, and the 13c is Hajime, correct? That's a variant of two lines, no? I don't imagine it would have it's own bolt count.
-
yes, and the 13c is Hajime, correct? That's a variant of two lines, no?
At the risk of sounding prejudiced, beyond 12c they all look the same to me.
-
yes, and the 13c is Hajime, correct? That's a variant of two lines, no? I don't imagine it would have it's own bolt count.
link up, yes.
-
Clink has a point....splitting hairs are we?
:ciappa:
-
No, it goes directly to the point of the rate of consumption.
-
Clink has a point....splitting hairs are we?
Putting up routes of this difficulty, ground-up, is no small task. Ground-up is arduous, especially on Pinnacles rock. Not many recent takers at this level is my point.
I have heard "all the good quality routes are done", blah, blah, blah. I think a couple of next generation climbers will end up proving this otherwise. My other point.
-
I have heard "all the good quality routes are done", blah, blah, blah. I think a couple of next generation climbers will end up proving this otherwise. My other point.
I hope they show up soon!
-
I hope they show up soon!
Me too. :guitar:
-
Give me a few months.
-
New thread to discuss the merits of what is a good route, what is worthy of being bolted, what is the value of a stared route.
Link to where this started for a bit more history on the topic.
http://www.mudncrud.com/forums/index.php?topic=2177.new#new (http://www.mudncrud.com/forums/index.php?topic=2177.new#new)
I was playing on a rainy day and wanted to see the origin of this thread. It says it is missing or unavailable to me.
Well! I Never!
What's up Mud? :biggrin:
-
Same fate as my Retro-Bolting thread I guess.
-
Not sure, will have to look into. F4 will definitely have the mods delete all your posts.
-
I can never be silenced!!
-
As I remember, the link does not work because the original poster deleted the thread. Anybody else remember that?
He also deleted all of his comments on this thread.
-
Bummer, it’s a great idea to write out what aspects go into a new route.
I remember Mr. Mud said the color of the moss= rock quality.
-
I think Noal is correct.
-
I think Noal is correct.
I was asking because K Queener makes a comment early in the thread that makes it sound like he started it but Mr Mud's post is the first one.
Kat just pointed out that Charles is listed a bit downthread on page 1 - so this must have been the infamous "living room" thread.
Thanks! and Here's Mud in Your Eye!
-
Noal is correct. JC pm me if you need something specific. I copied parts of the original.
-
Mungie, do you have the part about using the power drill?