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
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.
