Rap/Ground-up bolting at the Pinns

[Uncle Stinky]

No worries just wanted you to stop by for dinner.  No idea what your deposition was about but if it was with the city attorney he is a friend of mine.  We could have gone out or as you know I can cook. My wife is flying back from the East Cast tonight and my daughter is in Santa Cruz so it is just the boy and I. Tonight was left over BBQ  cold  chicken with chimichurri sauce and caprese salad with mostly local ingredients with a local white wine.  (http://www.bokischvineyards.com/)  My son went with grilled cheese and organic (not that he cares at all) carrots. I also would have sent you back with some zucchini grown in our small back yard.   Yes,  in some way we are hell but always a few degrees cooler than north or south of us with a delta breeze, and two hours away from everywhere.    Let me know if you come back and yes the drive sucks.  

I also agree with everything you say about The Pinnacles but in some ways I don't feel my opinion is valid because I am just a .9-.10 climber.

Cheers Jeff


  

[JC w KC redux]

I've got to run to depositions in hell (Lodi, to be precise)

I'm assuming you had CCR qued on the car stereo

[mudworm]

...as you know I can cook...

Lodi sounds like heaven to me, but I guess sometimes, heaven is not most conveniently located.

[mungeclimber]

Uncle Stinky, one of the issues at play here, though mostly unstated is whether if we apply the top down ethic to "hard" routes, why not apply the top down ethic to easy routes?  As Brad stated, many of us believe in preserving at least one place in the State of California that has almost all gone ground up, and many by stance. So your opinion does count, especially as a new router yourself!




Jim T.

Thanks for speaking up here! You are right, there are multiple communities of users. Though admittedly the community of new routers is limited to probably about 6 of us  


I'd like to use your comment as a starting point for a digital meeting of the minds here...

I would not want to see rap bolting become the standard because at that point anything can be bolted.  

The below is not directed to you specifically, but to anyone that cares to listen to my opinion.


And I think that's what is at issue is the "becoming" aspect. Have we finally hit a point where enough top down activity is occurring that it's influencing others to do top down style. Erectile Dysfunction went in top down at 5.9 as I understand it. Clint C. reached out, and there wasn't another top down from that group/person since. The tied seemed stemmed at that point.

But Mucci's point is one of legitimation. Does leaving prior top-down routes in place legitimize additional top down routes because there is a fear of "scarring" the rock, having "bolt wars" pissing off land managers? Yes, I think it does both legitimize additional top down routes because the evidence of the route lasting over time and enjoyed by the "community" seems to outweigh the danger of scarring, bolt wars and pissing off land managerss. But what else is to be done? How else does one stem the flow of top down activity?  Make a new rule and try to enforce it?  If I was into top down routes on a regular basis, I would tell all super strong climbers that my top downing 5.4 and other routes was fully justified by their top down elite routes in the 12 or higher range.

I think the other top down routes at Pinns remained SOLELY as a result of the meeting of the minds that occurred in the 80s. Ostensibly there was agreement to leave existing routes in place. GOING FORWARD that agreement would NOT prevent removal of top down routes established after the 80s meeting of the minds. Theoretically that could include Ubermensch and Yo Mama, but I have no interest in modifying those personally.

West of the Son would be the test route, I think. Clearly there is a strong tradition of ground up ethics at Pinnacles. Most routes are established this way. Hard routes are established this way, whether one is Higgins, Mr Mud, McConachie, Atomizer, Mittens, Gagner or Belizzi.

I think there is sufficient vocal opposition that Vian's new line might be ripe for removal. In fact, that is my vote. Again, I'm not saying all routes down top down since the 80s need removal, but we can no longer idly sit by and watch the preservation of an ethic be eroded even if it is at a very difficult level or put in by very talented climbers.

[Jim Thornburg]

Hi Robert,

I appreciate a lot of what you say, and I think it's reasonable, in theory at least, to cast your vote.

I think there is a problem with taking a vote here on Mud n Crud. This is a site for Pinnacles ground-up first ascentionists and their friends.

If we agree that there are different Pinnacles communities, I would point out that there are three, at least in application to the topic at hand.

There are the rap-bolting FAists - I think we can agree this group is the smallest .... less than 10 people?

There are the GU first ascenders - this group is bigger, but still tiny... 25 people?

The biggest group... in the 1000s? are the climbers who don't put up first ascents and just want to go climb at the Pinnacles. They might come on here to check for raptor closure info, but I doubt they care to look at this thread.

I think my Pinnacles FA days are over, but I love to climb there and I want to go try Vian's route. Like you, I don't think the grade or how hard you climb matters. It looks like a cool route, one I've wanted to try for over 20 years but didn't because I knew it would bug Tom D, who I like very much. It's a bummer he was finally getting psyched to try it again, but the ground up crew had this route reserved for 24 years.

If someone is going to chop it, PLEASE put it back right away. It's proud you guys do FAs ground-up, but don't lose sight of your real contribution to Pinnacles climbing: establishing routes for OTHERS to enjoy.

There is only one FA - it's a lot of fun for the person who does it - but it's the 10s or 100s or 1000s of ascents that follow that really matter.

[mynameismud]

I do not think there are 1,000's of people that climb at the Pins.  Perhaps 1,000's over the course of decades.  I have climbed there regularly and it seems I see the same folks year after year.

The thing with this route is there were other folks other than Tom that were looking at bolting this route ground up and they had the talent to do it.    They had even posted their intent on the forum. 

Erectile Dysfunction is an example of bad bolting that was done on rap.

Most of the popular routes in the Pins were put up ground up.

[mungeclimber]

There is only one FA - it's a lot of fun for the person who does it - but it's the 10s or 100s or 1000s of ascents that follow that really matter.

This is a tougher question. It only really matters if others want to repeat the line, which speaks to the quality of the line. The risk of using a community based vote is that many many of the climbers that use Pinns (as opposed to establishing routes there) don't appreciate the values and history of Pinns. The sample set is likely biased in favor of those that learned in a gym and still haven't come to appreciate Pinnacles for what it is. Over time they might, but if we continue to do top down routes, they might never appreciate it since the ethics will be compromised over time instead of being an exemplar area. Pinns is truly unique in that it is ground up, but also bolted face climbing, IMHO a great way to expose newbies to the tradition and broaden their experience.

If someone is going to chop it, PLEASE put it back right away. It's proud you guys do FAs ground-up, but don't lose sight of your real contribution to Pinnacles climbing: establishing routes for OTHERS to enjoy.

that would be ideal. Anyone know if they are wedges or sleeve bolts?  If sleeves, we could re-use the hole. Not exactly the same as re-drilling, but could still be exciting to try and get them back in those holes.

[Jim Thornburg]

Mud,

My point exactly, it doesn't matter if it was GU or TD. Just make good routes. Arguing that one way will get it right and one won't is ridiculous, though.

You said:

"there were other folks other than Tom that were looking at bolting this route ground up"

I don't understand this argument. I've "looked" at 100s of unclimbed routes - that doesn't reserve them for me and me only. If 24 years isn't long enough to have dibs on a route, what is?

And you said:

"I do not think there are 1,000's of people that climb at the Pins"

There most certainly are, just ask Brad Young how many guidebooks he's sold and you'll have a start.

"They had even posted their intent on the forum"

Why were they posting when they could have been getting after it? If I could put up routes by "posting" I'd be the greatest climber who ever lived.

Robert,

You said:

"still haven't come to appreciate Pinnacles for what it is"

I still believe statements like this reflect your version of what Pinnacles climbing is (a version supported by lots of people who use this site), but it doesn't reflect what I (for instance) love about Pinnacles climbing.

In any case, I'm glad we are in agreement that chopping the route only to leave it chopped would not be ideal (I think it would suck). According to Chris Belizzi the bolts as they stand are in good spots, hopefully the chopper will also put them back in good spots. I just tried to explain this to non-climbing friend... "well there are already bolts in the route, but someone wants to take them out and then put them back in a way that their community approves of.." She just shook her head and said "whoa, climber's are WIERD!"

[Brad Young]

Jim,

Obviously I disagree with you, but still, I'm very pleased that you're posting here, and thanks for a very reasonable attitude and approach.

I disagree with the numbers you use in your last post, but the general idea of "three categories of climbers" is right on.

However, I think you're in error in at least two ways that matter.

First, I think you are flat wrong in trying to describe what the majority of of climbers ("non-first ascentionists") who climb at Pinns want and/or admire. I don't know your politics, but your comment reeks of Richard Nixon's embracing "the Great Silent Majority" to support his views on the Vietnam war and other events of the early 1970s.

My experience is that many of the climbers who are of "the middle" lean toward admiring the ethics and traditions of Pinnacles. As an example, the several non-first ascentionists who post here seem to feel this way, but then again, they are obviously not an average sample.

Perhaps it's most accurate to say that the majority in the middle just don't care about just another route they could never climb. This really isn't the "middle's" dispute and they aren't your "silent majority."

Second, I continue to disagree with (what I perceive as) an inference that "fun" is the greatest value in climbing. I think there are lots of values in climbing, and adventure (which is also fun in and of itself) is at least as high in importance. Can't Pinnacles remain one place in California with a strong ethic and tradition? Do all climbing locales have to have rap bolted routes designed for the masses? Does every climbing location have to be at the lowest common denominator?

How do you feel about Americans who go to Paris and demand the right to eat at McDonalds?

[Brad Young]

The question of whether Tom still had a "claim" to the route shouldn't properly be part of this discussion; it's a different issue.

Hell, I was certain enough that it was abandoned (Clint was too) that I put that in the book (maybe I should have checked with Tom, but there's already so much work to do to get a book together...).

[Jim Thornburg]

^^^
Agreed. My point is more that it's been an obvious challenge sitting there with a big arrow (the bottom bolts) for a very long time. Adam (is that who Atomizer is?) was around back in the day (though he was a youngster) It's a shame he didn't do it sooner and then this argument (about this particular route anyway) wouldn't be happening.

I'm also sure I don't fully understand how hard it would be to do that route ground up. I did all the moves on tr around 1990 and could see why Tom hadn't gotten any higher GU. I so wanted to (rap) bolt it but didn't out of respect for Tom and fear of the shitstorm it would brew.

The back of the Monolith is such an obvious target for awesome routes I'm not surprised that someone couldn't resist. Those routes have been fallow for so long with no attempts that I'm aware of? While I was respectful of your guys wishes, I'd always walk back there hoping to see the bolts up a little higher or to the top. I felt resentful that those routes had to just sit there without anyone even trying them.

Now that it's bolted, I really want to try it! I might be too old to send it though....

[Jim Thornburg]

Brad,

You asked:

"How do you feel about Americans who go to Paris and demand the right to eat at McDonalds?"

Are you hoping I'll incriminate my lame-sport climbing self by saying something like "Hell Yeah it's my right to eat at McDonalds in Paris and rap bolt at The Pinnacles?"

First, that's not what I think or do.

Second if you want to use that analogy, then what would the chopping equivalent be? Blowing up McDonalds in Paris with a bomb? Would I then try to rebuild it in a way I see as more appropriate? That actually sounds pretty good, but I think I'd end up in jail.

And for the record, I have not rap bolted in the Pinns, but I have enjoyed french fries at the McDonalds across the street from my daughter's apartment in Paris.

[squiddo]

And for the record, I have not rap bolted in the Pinns, but I have enjoyed french fries at the McDonalds across the street from my daughter's apartment in Paris.

Very nice Jim. As much as I appreciate this thread, the thoughts of being in Paris now are better.

[mynameismud]

The reason they did not jump earlier is they were actually conscienious enough to find out what was going on with the route. 

I went to France and did not bother with Paris so I have no idea if there is a McDonalds there.  Why go to Paris when you can go to Verdon?

Of course when I went to England I did not go to London.  Why go to London when you can go to the Peak District?

[squiddo]

The reason they did not jump earlier is they were actually conscienious enough to find out what was going on with the route. 

I went to France and did not bother with Paris so I have no idea if there is a McDonalds there.  Why go to Paris when you can go to Verdon?

Of course when I went to England I did not go to London.  Why go to London when you can go to the Peak District?

my mouth is on the floor....either of these statements is enough to bag my head. For the people of course!

[mungeclimber]

And for the record, I have not rap bolted in the Pinns, but I have enjoyed french fries at the McDonalds across the street from my daughter's apartment in Paris.

LOL!  dig it!






"Shitstorm" - yep, but that's the only way to make hay and raise awareness, if folks only ever see bolts, and not the "how" of things get created. Sorry to leverage your posts Jim. You are doing a good job making the minority position arguments (of first ascenders), so I think we're working off of your arguments to shine light on the ground up arguments in the absence of the actual FA'er for the route in question.



Brad wrote...

"Perhaps it's most accurate to say that the majority in the middle just don't care about just another route they could never climb. This really isn't the "middle's" dispute and they aren't your "silent majority.""

Brad, I think they could be the silent majority, but only if we take the next step of making lots of sport bolted lines at Pinnacles. The only way to do that would be to accelerate the rate at which routes go in, vis a vis, top down approaches at all levels. But I think Jim agreed below, that is not what we want.



In my first post in this thread, I indicated it was a partisan type of issue.  That leads to a false dichotomy option in a way; either you are for top down styles of attaching fixed gear or you are ground up.  I still think it's partisan. The only difference, and to avoid a false dichotomy of choices is to say at some point one style needs to stop and make it an actual dichotomy.  If there is no disincentive to prevent top down and promote ground up, then top down seems much more reasonable, especially when couched in terms of safety and greatest number of users benefitting from the outcome.  The difficult routes just become the exemplars for justifying a change from the tradition.

Wouldn't there need to be a disincentive at some point to maintain the tradition?  Or is anyone willing to say unequivocally that the tradition should be changed at Pinnacles for all routes, all grades, etc?

 

[Jim Thornburg]

Robert,

Your post could be boiled down to "we're going to chop and harass and bully people who don't climb the way we do until they agree with us or leave".

Is that accurate?

[mynameismud]

Jim,

Isn't that what Rap bolters do?  Rap bolters will not be happy until rap bolting is accepted everywhere.  They do not want a single tradition climbing area.  All areas have to be open to rap bolters or they will continually harass, bully until all agree or leave.

[Jim Thornburg]

I don't think they have done that at the Pinnacles.

I can think of lots of areas where the two styles coexist, but none where GU climbers are pushed out, harassed or forbidden. Do you know some areas like this?

[mungeclimber]

Robert,

Your post could be boiled down to "we're going to chop and harass and bully people who don't climb the way we do until they agree with us or leave".

Is that accurate?

Mischaracterization for sure.


Chop is technically inaccurate, though we can use the word as a placeholder.  Basically remove and patch, or potentially remove and re-place GU.


"Harass" is completely wrong. We're having an intelligent discussion about the future of the limited rock in Pinnacles and many of us are not likely to accept further top down efforts in the short and long term.

"Bully" is outright wrong. Unless of course placing the bolts top down is also viewed as bullying as well.


No one has to agree with me, but neither do they need to place bolts top down. Strong climbers have top roped the lines. There is no need to Top Down to establish gear if safety is paramount. If it's just about leading them with a modicum of a fall possible, then I would urge that's not sufficient a reason to turn the direction of the tide (sorry for the misspell of this word above) at this one place that seems to maintain a strong tradition, ethic, history and values tied to ground up methods.