An ethical question: distance between climbs before it is squeeze jobby?

[mungeclimber]

Let's say you have two classic lines about 20' apart, with a potential classic line between them. And by classic line between them, I mean, relatively steep, solid rock, good knobs, and will be well protected and established ground up off aid and stance, with good clipping stances, mostly devoid of veg.

Assume the climbing moves do not share any of the holds with the two existing lines, until the very last two moves, and possibly not at all.  Assume also that the moves of the proposed line are at least 6' away from the existing lines, and mostly are 8' away. Assume that it will require bolts to protect. Assume also that it has been top roped before. And at least once by me, but over 10 years ago.

Assume also that it is far from a trafficked area.

Would it make a difference if they were three starred climbs, as opposed to 1 and 2 star climbs?

Thanks for you well thought out responses.

Factor4, since I know you'll reply with snark, no need to reply.   

This is actually a serious question for me, and I'm want to get as much insight as I can before attempting it.

If you have other examples of squeeze job climbs that you think are still good climbs, can you add those?  What is their distance between climbing moves and climbing bolts?

[squiddo]

Good question Munge and worthy of consideration. I've been known to climb sandwich jobs and even on occasion enjoy them. Shortest answer is just don't do it. IMO, a sandwich job does little to the routes around it other then bringing their overall quality down. It's changes the experience for me.

Climbed a day at Squarenail this past winter.....easily one of the worst examples of sandwich jobs I've seen. On several routes I could have easy clipped bolts on three routes without moving more than a few feet. Hated that....like a gym day outdoors. Tons and tis of bolts.....

[mungeclimber]

IMO, a sandwich job does little to the routes around it other then bringing their overall quality down. It's changes the experience for me.

Climbed a day at Squarenail this past winter.....easily one of the worst examples of sandwich jobs I've seen. On several routes I could have easy clipped bolts on three routes without moving more than a few feet. Hated that....like a gym day outdoors. Tons and tis of bolts.....

agreed, if it is a sandwhich job, it doesn't go in. That's the criteria I'm searching for. Bolts on existing lines are definitely not clippable from the moves on the proposed line all the way up. That's a de minimis requirement, that if you can clip the bolts on existing lines from the moves on the proposed line, then it should be left a top rope problem, without a doubt.

But 6 feet or more between the lines until literally the last two moves, and possibly not at all, depending on how it climbs?

[cobbledik]

Offhand I'd say that if the routes (holds or bolts)  to the left and right can't be touched by the middle route then it's not a squeeze job.

Some other considerations besides spacing to consider.
1. Can two people climb the middle and side route without interfering with eachother? What about a fall? Can a swing bring one of the climbers into the space of the other?

2. The size of the crag would matter as well I would think. The aesthetics of the amount of bolts on the wall depends upon the perception of route:climbing space so the larger the crag the less of a visual impact (maybe, the opposite might be more true, not sure)

3. Continuing with visual aesthetics: are the routes to the left and right trad or bolted? I would think that if they're trad then the bolts in the middle won't be as much of a problem, except that maybe if they are trad routes then the bolts would change the visual character of that section of the crag lending one to say TR.

But in abstract, based upon your setup, sounds good to go.

[cobbledik]

Climbed a day at Squarenail this past winter.....easily one of the worst examples of sandwich jobs I've seen. On several routes I could have easy clipped bolts on three routes without moving more than a few feet. Hated that....like a gym day outdoors. Tons and tis of bolts.....

Don't ever climb at Riverside Quarry. All that plus chipping.

[squiddo]

agreed, if it is a sandwhich job, it doesn't go in. That's the criteria I'm searching for. Bolts on existing lines are definitely not clippable from the moves on the proposed line all the way up. That's a de minimis requirement, that if you can clip the bolts on existing lines from the moves on the proposed line, then it should be left a top rope problem, without a doubt.

But 6 feet or more between the lines until literally the last two moves, and possibly not at all, depending on how it climbs?

Seems to be fair.

[squiddo]

Don't ever climb at Riverside Quarry. All that plus chipping.

Ha! I'd actually like to.....worth visiting but repeatedly is still tbd

[mungeclimber]

Offhand I'd say that if the routes (holds or bolts)  to the left and right can't be touched by the middle route then it's not a squeeze job.

Some other considerations besides spacing to consider.
1. Can two people climb the middle and side route without interfering with eachother? What about a fall? Can a swing bring one of the climbers into the space of the other?

2. The size of the crag would matter as well I would think. The aesthetics of the amount of bolts on the wall depends upon the perception of route:climbing space so the larger the crag the less of a visual impact (maybe, the opposite might be more true, not sure)

3. Continuing with visual aesthetics: are the routes to the left and right trad or bolted? I would think that if they're trad then the bolts in the middle won't be as much of a problem, except that maybe if they are trad routes then the bolts would change the visual character of that section of the climb lending one to say TR.

But in abstract, based upon your setup, sounds good to go.

Thx Cobble, great criteria to think through!

[F4?]

Mungie,

I'd bolt next and then cross your route.

Painting your hangers purple.

[Brad Young]

The only way to give a meaningful opinion is to see the line in question, but I doubt you'd share a possible new route with half a dozen, scavenging, vulture-like fellow first ascentionists.

Without seeing the existing and potential lines, here's my best response: the very fact that you're raising the issue makes me think it's probably too close to the routes on either side.

[squiddo]

Without seeing the existing and potential lines, here's my best response: the very fact that you're raising the issue makes me think it's probably too close to the routes on either side.

Excellent point Brad. I've found that the mind (all too often) has the answers to questions before they are even asked.

[mungeclimber]

The only way to give a meaningful opinion is to see the line in question, but I doubt you'd share a possible new route with half a dozen, scavenging, vulture-like fellow first ascentionists.

Without seeing the existing and potential lines, here's my best response: the very fact that you're raising the issue makes me think it's probably too close to the routes on either side.

correct on the first part.

with regard to raising the question, that can be explained by the fact that I don't think I've ever bolted a new line anywhere near existing classic lines. The closer you get to the flame, the more hesitant one is to get near it, doesn't mean you can't run your finger thru a candle's flame.

[mynameismud]

What is wrong with leaving it as a TR?  That isn't necessarily bad.

It seems as though bolting it may not actually be bad but it also seems as though this could be more aesthetic left as a TR. 6 to 8 feet between routes is not to bad but it is getting close.  There are routes that fit that bill on the Monolith that look and climb fine.  Any closer...

[mungeclimber]

It seems as though bolting it may not actually be bad but it also seems as though this could be more aesthetic left as a TR.

what would be the criteria for an "aesthetic TR"?  - other than it necessarily avoiding a squeeze job on otherwise good rock.

if the anchor is not directly over the top of it, it could be a bad pendo. So to make it a good aesthetic TR, I believe, would require adding at least anchor bolts.

[mynameismud]

Yes.

A TR would need an anchor.

what would be the criteria for an "aesthetic TR"?  - other than it necessarily avoiding a squeeze job on otherwise good rock.

if the anchor is not directly over the top of it, it could be a bad pendo. So to make it a good aesthetic TR, I believe, would require adding at least anchor bolts.

[mungeclimber]

Yes.

A TR would need an anchor.

So it seems that a good aesthetic TR would need new bolts (2). If adding bolts, then why not add lead bolts?  What is qualitatively the difference, if either type is camouflaged anyways? Assume the TR bolts would be visible to hikers, but not any more or less than the 2 other classic lines.

[mynameismud]

to squeeze or not to squeeze.

[k-man]

Have you ever climbed a squeeze job where you didn't wander into adjacent routes? I have, and has as been said above, it kinda degrades the existing routes.

Look at the Monolith, there are a few TRs that 'could' be bolted, but thank goodness Clint first called them TRs. They're great as TRs. And as leads, they would be every bit as good as POD or Noises. But IMO, it would be a disgrace if they were bolted.

Brad has it right: If you have to ask...there's probably a good reason. The funny thing about the Pinns is that if you find good rock, you can put a route in every three feet. Put one in three feet left of the Beast, and another one three feet left of that. They might not be quite as good as the Beast, but they'd be a hoot to lead....

TR with a directional, that's my guess for the best resolution from what can be gained from the read. And I know, what a flubber of good line. But you might be happier if it was left without the bolts.

[mungeclimber]

Have you ever climbed a squeeze job where you didn't wander into adjacent routes? I have, and has as been said above, it kinda degrades the existing routes.

Brad has it right: If you have to ask...there's probably a good reason. The funny thing about the Pinns is that if you find good rock, you can put a route in every three feet. Put one in three feet left of the Beast, and another one three feet left of that. They might not be quite as good as the Beast, but they'd be a hoot to lead....

Hi K-man,

There is no argument here about whether or not a "squeeze" job will wander onto existing routes. By definition they do. But at what poing does a squeeze job not become a squeeze job anymore? 

I have to ask. But probably not for the reason that this hypothetical has met an unstated criteria of a squeeze job.  Rather, because we tend not to agree what the criteria are as a community, and instead condemn after the fact (sometimes passive aggressive, sometimes aggressively).

3 feet is obviously squeeze.

Let's try another way to work thru this...

Is Pweeter a squeeze job?

Is Stupendous Man a squeeze job?

Is Hot Lava a squeeze?

[Gavin]

Munge -

Interesting question. Like Brad, Mud, and k-man, my instinct is that a TR would make more sense. I think that for me personally, a squeeze job would still tend to include bolted lines within 5-6 feet of each other because I can reach that far over to the bolts on the next line.

I'm not clear on how the climbs you ask about would be squeeze jobs, but perhaps I'm missing something... Though Pweeter starts at the base of Jorgie's and ends up at the top of Ordeal, most of the bolted moves aren't near either. For Stupdendous Man, what other bolted lines do you feel are too near it? There are Lithium and Power Point, but both are definitely further away and on more difficult features (and until Power Point joins with it). Likewise for Hot Lava.

Again, those are my initial perceptions!