But we did it anyway! FA's, Ethics and adding bolts
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 вер 2024
- I sat down with my friend Aiden to discuss retro bolting. Among many things Aiden is a very prolific climber and has many first ascents.
Retro bolting is when a bolt is added to an existing rock climbing route. Not to be confused with re bolting where bad hardware is replaced.
Affiliate link. If you buy gear thru this link I get a small percentage.
www.extremegea...
I created the first bolted climbs in the Trøndelag/Norway area back in the early 1980'ies (same county as the Flatanger cave), in that time I was really afraid of getting people angry so I put in the very minimum possible for the first one, just two bolts put in on lead to link two crack systems. This route was very well received so later I actually rapped down to clean and bolt, but since we had to do it by hand, we still didn't put in more than absolutely required to avoid any ground falls.
The Crab Nebula ("Krabbetåken") in the same area starts with a long slab pitch, initially traversing in above an overhang then following a natural line up to the top, we had bolts after ~3, 7, 12, 18, 25m with a long runout to the top. After the first ascent I rapped down and added one more on that runout since the top was slightly wet from a semi-permanent seep. The climb has obviously been retrobolted since the guide book now claims 8 bolts on that pitch, but I never got asked and I don't worry about it.
On yet another multi-pitch climb there with lots of bolts, the guide book notes that the first two pitches were originally climbed trad by my wife & I: This was obviously unsafe so I was glad to see the added bolts.
Thanks for sharing that story and your context.
I am a German living in Trondheim currently and I can see that people are very reasonable here. You have a lot of very well protected sport routes and also a lot of trad. Something for everyone.
While in Frankenjura, where I come from, there are such strong ethics. Most lower grades routes are very unsafe where you can not fall without risking injury. Something like retro bolting would never be an option.
Thank you, a healthy view on the matter.
I think there’s also a difference between a climb that was meant to be a test piece, and a climb where the FA was to tired to hand drill any more bolts (specific to older areas put up before cordless drills)
True. Good point
Great video! Don't worry about playing to the camera, the discussion was very interesting. I hope you have more videos like this.
Glad you enjoyed it. Definitely wasn't happy with the camera angles and sun.
@@bobbyhutton1989 I actually kinda liked the impact the sun had, and the angles. It's filming outside, for a simple conversation, so a less than perfectly optimized result is natural. Very appropriate for a discussion about how natural to leave an existing route IMO.
@@Mengmoshu There you go. Glad it worked for you. Worked last week setting up lighting for a short film, so I was very aware of all the rules I broke when I reviewed the footage.
@@bobbyhutton1989 I was enjoying the discussion and really wasn't paying much attention to the visuals to be honest. I've spent hours watching vids on equalized anchor building and carabiner reviews etc. Only saying this to emphasize that the content was solid and it was a nice change of pace from typical youtube climbing vids. I've only been into the sport for a couple years after moving to a location that with a substantial climbing scene. The local ethics that evolved here require you to bolt on ascension with hand tools. So there ends up being pretty significant run-outs in some of the older routes. There is also a family friendly area that has routes with close bolt spacing too. I've only been climbing a couple years and thats the area I frequent. I'm not ready for the 30 foot run-outs yet!
the thing that gets me is most of the climbs that need bolts in my area are lower graded climbs from 5.5-5.8 R/X. you almost never see something over 5.10 R/X, so it makes this barrier to entry, new climbers are also having the most risk as far as protection goes. so it’s not about the head games, it’s about the ppl that did the FA were so good that this is a warm up for them and didn’t need protected, then newer climbers suffer for it.
Totally. We see the same issues here.
I think they kind of like it that way too, too - keep all the riff-raff out. Gatekeeping...
Good point.
Are there any new opportunities for new routes of those grades that you could add? I feel like that would be the absolute best option. Then you get to be the one who decides the style for those climbs!
If not, then it’s a tough spot… and I feel the community that uses the climbing area should collectively find a happy medium. (I know it’s going to be impossible for everyone to agree)
My personal view is almost always to leave it alone, especially if there is any available gear placements.
But if it’s the only routes in the area and it’s very prohibitive to other people learning to climb… I could see an argument there.
Can those routes be toproped still?
This! I'm pretty new to trad. Climbing in the western NC area. It's really annoying that all of the scariest experiences come from 5.7. I comfortably onsight 5.12 sport, and so it seems like I'm always less scared on 5.11 trad than 5.7... because there's always a bolt or easy pro on the 5.11. The old traddies are only tough when the climbing is really a joke, which makes it feel more stupid than tough.
I'm not suggesting we go add bolts to all the R and X-rated mixed routes, but in my opinion, as soon as the first bolt goes in, the argument for an X-rated route becomes very weak. Once you start adding bolts, you're crafting a route and making it extra dangerous in spots feels contrived to me. The occasional bolt/piton to turn a mostly-R with an X section into fully R seems ok. Same with removing an R move on a mostly G route. But, if you knock out an X section and the route is still X, go fix the other section too or don't add any bolts imo.
Makes sense to me.
Crags that are on private property have a whole different set of ethical standards or considerations. Keeping the climbing reasonably safe, relative to the aforementioned climbs in the video, has a legal component as well. Also, some of the FAs in my area were done by a man who expressed in writing that he wasn’t afraid to die. So….. things to consider. Great conversation. Great video.
Yeah, definitely things to consider
There have been soooooo many discussions over the years on Mountain Project about bolting, retrobolting, bolting on lead at stances, bolting on lead on hooks, rap bolting... There are soooo many nuanced points that are not always immediately obvious that are worth thinking about.
Sometimes its cost, sometimes its time, sometimes its physical effort required hand drilling, sometimes its ego and posturing, sometimes the FA never intended to climb it more than once, etc...
Rap bolting... where one can run many TR solo laps on something and find logical bolt placements that provide good protection to prevent ground falls, ledge falls, slamming into corners, etc... as well as placements which are easy to reach and clip for most climbers heights from good holds... and can clean cracks, test rock quality in different areas of a face... take time installing quality hardware that will last... Can provide really high quality routes that can be appreciated by many and for generations to come... that has a lot of positives going for it.
Bolting from hooks and even worse, from stances, leads to routes that are bolted where the FA could (if that), not where they should.
Yup.
More Aiden please! He was a great addition.
I thought so too.
Fantastic discussion here! This is a really excellent video. Thanks, Bobby
Glad you enjoyed it!
Great video thanks, it's also lovely to hear the diversity of opinion in the comments. It seems there's consensus that generally the style of an area should be preserved by future developers. I suspect similarly that the style of one's home area often contributes to one's opinions. Growing up in the UK I'm lucky that there isn't such a debate around retrobolting; even the sportiest of sport climbers that I know would be against bolting a gear route, though our crags are rarely mixed in style, generally being 100% bolted or not at all, so the lines are easier to draw for the most part.
There are some exceptions to this, and I'll be interested to see whether the locals replace some of the old mining fixtures (literally bits of pipe etc) in the welsh slate quarries (often serving as crucial pro) once they fully rust away...
I completely agree with Aiden (and disagree with many comments) that the nature of a climb is completely changed with bolting. I'm also not sure this opinion is linked to machoism (or tree huggery for that matter) as people seem to have suggested. Particularly in the mountain regions of the UK love that there isn't a bolt in sight! With rare exception in the upper grades mountain routes are most often on-sighted and finding fixed pro does genuinely alter the experience of a route. I'm not sure there's really the option of 'just not clipping the bolts' in these cases, generally the gear placements are there, and lots of the fun is finding and using them!
With regards to accessibility, perhaps it's different elsewhere but within any of the large climbing areas here there's a lifetime of routes to do at any grade, especially lower ones. It would seem odd to change the experience of a harder route when there's invariably an easier classic just around the corner. (I may have conflated easier with safer here, sorry we Brits grade stuff weirdly). I can appreciate that this may be different in other places, I guess we're very lucky to have such extensive low-grade development.
Happy climbing folks!
Totally agree. It's definitely a different feel in the UK. Somewhere like Stanage has a ton of easy trad climbs and the Horseshoe or Masson Lees has very easy bolted routes so there's something for beginners everywhere. When I think to some of the harder trad slabs I've climbed (HVS nothing on the Extreme level lol) I definitely feel a bolt would've definitely changed the nature of the route and the experience of the climb. I feel like I wouldn't have honed my footwork and been so precise knowing a bolt was just ahead.
I'm really liking the cosy, slow paced vibe of this channel :)
Thanks
I definitley agree with all the stuff you guys said, but I also think climbing is very personal.. There's nothing that says you have to use every bolt that is in place. Therefore making the climb as difficult as you personal want it to be... Maybe Mark out the original bolt layout an add bolts in between. Use the bilts if you'd like. Don't use them if you wanna stay to the original. Obviously in places where you have permission to
That is closer to my thoughts.
Love these ethical videos. Keep it up!
Thanks!
Really enjoyed this one.
A vexaciuos issue, retro-bolting.
The joys of climbing.
Thanks heaps for making this.
🙂
Glad you enjoyed it!
Vexatious is an awesome word.
"Is this place better for my route?" ... Perfect! Bang on!
Absolutely. Couldn't agree more.
Great discussion! My take on it is to consider whether the route was cutting edge for its day in that area and how it went in. There are some lines or spires that were coveted first ascents, put in ground up with a hand drill, that were bold and at the edge of difficulty for the time. Im for letting those stand as they are for us all to remember the history of development. There are other moderate routes that were put in by climbers who were able to climb much harder than the grade and are run-out because they just wanted to be the first to stand on-top. There was nothing "edgy" about it except that someone got there first and saw the potential. The moderate climber can't enjoy it because it's too dangerous for them. In this scenario, if the first ascentionist grants their permission and is able to, then retro-bolting is good for the climbing community.
I really like to do first ascents but am far from a cutting edge climber. I tend to think about creating something that others can enjoy.
Excellent considerations.
Appreciate the video! That is a very sticky topic though 😬
I am fine with scary climbs but I don't see the point of having a dangerous climb when you could easily make it more save. So I think I would disagree with what he says starting at 8:54
(but as we know, my opinion is wrong, since yours is right) 😅
I obviously wouldn't just wanna do it, but talk to the people that bolted it (besides, I don't bolt anyway).
Yeah, I dislike dangerous routes. My thought is that if the FA isn’t willing to make their routes safe I have plenty of other climbing to do. Most dangerous routes will be reclaimed by the mountains and forgotten about.
My unasked for opinion is that climbing is many things and should continue to be many things. Climbing is safe, climbing is incredibly dangerous, you choose. I think preserving that choice is very worthwhile.
You're doing the gods' work Bobby.
I don’t know about that but I enjoy it.
An open detailed conversation on the ethics of a super controversial subject. Yeah, that's just doing good works in this time. Glad you're out there taking it easy for all us sinners.
I appreciate this discussion. How much experience is appropriate to make a judgment call about bolting where you would consider reaching out to the first ascensionist to discuss adding a bolt? Having at least 5 years of solid outdoor climbing experience would be a minimum in my mind. Time and experience are important factors when learning how to climb, make decisions on the rock, and push yourself. Personally, rather than trying to "fix" the climbs to meet my own ability, I would air towards honing my ability to find good climbs that are right at my level for challenge, safety, and risk.
Giod considerations.
Great very interesting topic. Loved the video. Aiden was very entertaining as well as extremely informing. Excellent video. I look forward to your next one.
Thanks! Stoked that Aiden was willing to share.
Great piece. Well done.
Thank you.
Love the discussion. Helps formulate a concept for someone researching responsibility to the outdoors vs responsibility for not decking or having a serious accident
A lot to consider in that regard.
I think having huge runout just to get the blood pumping is a bit much, but I totally understand the aesthetic choice around bolting. I like pretty rock lots more than stainless steel. I imagine having an active climbing community with good communication helps to resolve a tough issue like retrobolting. How silly would it be if the FA said you can only climb this route without a lid! Maybe that's a bit apples to oranges but sometimes that's how it feels.
Good points.
In my opinion, retro bolting isn't rearranging or artificially altering the original climb to consider it contrived. Simply skip the bolt(s) and pay homage if you so desire. Also, is rehearsing the climb on top rope contrived? How do you measure the FA's head game such to emulate their "bravery" by top roping it until you're comfortable? I'm for retro bolting.
Good points.
@@bobbyhutton1989 Thank you for the videos!
Agree with you
Cool video. I agree with most of the things discussed. I found it really interesting that after that girl fell on snake dike not too long ago the question of adding bolts came up. On Reddit it got pretty heated. The only surviving member of the FA party even chimed in and said he wanted bolts added and even told the story of why it was so run out in the first place. So the crazeis chimed in and said they would chop any bolts added blah blah. I find it so funny how those dudes are usually the ones screaming about only the FA can add etc, then when it actually happens they change their tune.
Yeah, interesting case study
Yeah screw it. Times change, in many cases it's better to just retro to manage traffic, make crags more sustainable, and improve safety.
Plus most of the runouts out there are probably because their drill ran out of battery! No real reason. No need to make repeaters suffer in most cases. I've retro'd many of my own routes cos I DON'T want repeaters to go through what I did!
This attitude of 'you have to do it in the style of the FA' is bullshit in most cases. There are some routes that should be revered but at the end of the day no repeater will have the same experience as the FA, so there's little point in enforcing it. But as Aiden said, the important thing is keeping in the spirit of the area
I can't say I disagree generally.
@@bobbyhutton1989 sorry I came in a little hot there, I'm used to fighting the very strict dogma here of never changing anything. But this isn't my local Facebook climbing group😂.
Like you both said in the video, it depends on the route & circumstances of course. Around here we have a few crags that're getting slammed and are in desperate need of rebolt, and often that involves retro too. Some FAs can be very prickly about that but if their gear is substandard it's gotta go, and we have to overrule them as a community, or sometimes the elders will pull rank. But at other crags the wildness & spirit is defended by everyone. Really it all depends on the place, but much of the history isn't worth preserving cos the FAs only did it that way cos they were broke or dropped their drill bit or whatever😂
@@MountainMulletWe fight the same fights here.
You forgot the influence of drugs on the choices of the FA. At least around here.
Hello! In Poland we have a bit hot discussion about bolting routes which were protected 30-40 years ago with pitons. People used to clip them as bolts and a lot of people climbed there. Today those pitons are useless and very often one cannot place cam in very narrow, dirty crack. Almost nobody climbs there now.
We have the same discussions here. Not sure if there is a right answer but I have no problems with replacing pitons with bolts personally. I don't think there is a fundamental difference.
@@bobbyhutton1989 We have the same discussion in the UK. Old pegs rot out, we don't often agree to bolts, however there is usually a discussion about a new peg or no peg. Frequently with the old peg protected routes modern gear can now protect them and the peg is not essential. Some however are fundamentally changed by the loss of the peg and in those cases replacing the peg is often decided on, usually with a longer lasting version - titanium is a common choice, especially in sea cliff environments.
I think we often have the notion that the FA bolted a particular way with the intention of providing a certain experience. What if the FA was just new to bolting and/or not very good at it and had no business doing it in the first place? Then we become indebted to this person like they own the rock which I think is unfortunate at times. If it’s poorly bolted in a style that is not consistent with the area, perhaps majority should rule and rebolting is beneficial for the people who frequent the crag, which is what it’s about. Contrived runout sport climbing never made much sense to me. trad is choose your own adventure and can be as scary as you want to make it. Thanks Bobby great stuff man!
Good points.
What if the FA was just poor and didn't have enough money for enough bilts.
First let me say, I am not a climber, but I get to play with the gear so I enjoy these videos. My limited opinion is maybe for two reasons: 1 to increase safety, 2, if a route can be split into more than one
You would think.
Thanks for watching
There's been a relatively recent discussion in the UK about this so the BMC (British Mountaineering Council) can take a well defined stance. Essentially, proposals should be brought for discussion at local meetings to reach consensus. But the only real place where retro-bolting proposals are likely to succeed are the old trad climbs which make use of one or two pitons in locations where removable gear isn't possible. The justification in that case is it can be hard to judge the quality of a piton, particularly if they're uncommon in the area. And they don't last anywhere near as long as a good well placed bolt. And you can only really say that that climb is going to be as sever as it is for the person who placed that piton. For every subsequent climber, you have no idea if that piton is still going to be good when you get to it. And that fundamentally changes the climb for every subsequent person. This stance is quite rock-type dependent, though. A proposal to replace a piton with a bolt on grit-stone is unlikely to get through because of the suitability of bolts in that type of rock. Also worth saying that pitons just don't get placed in the UK on trad any more and haven't for many decades. So this is about preserving the classics. And these placements are often after large runouts in thin cracks where you couldn't even place a micro-cam. So there aren't really any alternatives that wouldn't dramatically change the climb.
Good point about pitons. In many cases you can place an adequate modern cam or nut in the old cam placements. Otherwise I think a SS or titanium bolt is a good long term replacement. The only change to the user experience is that they don't have to worry about the fixed protection failing.
adding bolts to protect ledge falls or ground falls definitely makes sense but if its just a big scary clean fall maybe leave it OG. another point to consider, in some cases runouts are due to areas of poor quality rock, is it better to have no bolt than a bolt placement in rock that is more likely to fail? in my opinion no bolt but this could be debated. i suppose glue ins may be the answer there, it'd be interesting to break test glue ins and wedge anchors in hollow/aerated placements, maybe you have?
Good points.
If the rock is solid enough to climb you can get a glue in to hold. it might be big tho.
Firstly, I think that the NPS and USFS should watch this before Jan 30th. Secondly, I have found old bolts with intact looking hangers that are not on mountain project, and have no idea how to find the FA. They're all just single bolts on top of huge boulders, so not quite that same as the sport routes around the corner. Have you ever been to Bald Rock in Butte county? It an epic playground that's probably a great spot to rig an awesome 1km highline, though I have no experience with that. HMU if you ever make your way there; I live at the bottom of that hill.
I also have problems finding people who did first ascents. it helps to make friends in the local community if there is ine, but that has been hard in my area.
I haven't been to Bald Rock dome yet. That and Grizzly Dome are in my list.
Situation by situation, today most areas have a history that can inform active climbers, regarding local traditions, ethics, and such. Respecting the history involves both overall style, outlier routes, testpieces, etc. A few truisms hold anywhere: No one is forcing you to climb any route; your safety can be as simple as walking away; but also, no one owns any climb, and a first ascent is not a license to ignore the impact or consequences of ones actions on a vertical public space. Bold style dictated by natural protection deserves respect, and preservation, by and large. Artificial boldness, "statements," forced by sparse bolting, etc. age poorly(unless manner of placement was on lead, ex: Bachar-Yerian). Locals can develop forums to debate such issues, often as areas become overcrowded /overdeveloped.
The Bolt Punk era of the 80's into the 90's raised the most ire, but overall now the reality of safety means that when bolts are used, they should be as state of the art and solid as possible. Despite some resistance, retrobolting heavily used belay stations and rappel lines will likely become more common, but really impacts practical realities and not the character of the climbing itself.
Locally, I'm surprised that Eldorado Canyon has a few bolted rappel routes off Redgarden Wall that are distinct from actual climbing lines, yet the heavily trafficked Bastille Crack does not; watching parties at the awkward belays, as darkness or weather descends, gives me chills, deja vu of leaving the canyon years ago, half an hour before such a team had a fatal anchor fail and rescue of the stranded survivor. Abstract debates crumble against real lives lost.
Well said.
I like that trad climbing the uk the protection is considered in the grade. So if you were to put a bolt in you would change the grade of the climb.
Yeah, probably good to have that factor. The YDS has modifiers like PG13, R and X, but they are ussually even more subjective than regular route grades.
Another great video! Thanks Bobby!!
Thanks for watching!
Aiden! Legend.
Absolutely
I'm curious to hear people's thoughts about adding bolts to a climb that has changed since the FA. For example if a rock fall has removed a section leaving behind a smooth face, would you consider bolting it then?
Good question.
Without vitriol. Great work!
That was the goal. I don't think there is a single solution to every situation and it is "just" climbing so vitriol is unnecessary.
Love the, "don't add bolts where you have gear" ethos.
It seems to work for Sugarloaf but doesn't make sense everywhere in my opinion.
Thoughtfully done!
Thanks
Aidan is such a lovely addition to the channel. Do you think maybe next time he could have his shirt off?
Not if I have anything to say about it.
Great video!
Glad you enjoyed it
Have you ever been to North Carolina? Would love to talk with you about the ethics of my area some time.
I have climbed at Looking glass several times. Y'all have your own set of regional ethics and fanatics.
@@bobbyhutton1989 If you ever come back through let me know I'm happy to give recommendations!
Absolutely with you, don't retrobolt trad climbs!
That is mostly a straw man in my opinion. I rarely hear anyone seriously suggesting retro bolting trad climbs. It happens sometimes tho.
So you climb 15.3 m before being able to build any kind of anchor on Tapestry? That seems kind of mental. It should be fine to add protection to let people climb to the original first bolt. I’m talking about one more placement.
It is a Gnarly route that seldom gets climbed.
It would seem to me that if you want to achieve the runouts of the original route, you could simply not use any retrobolts.
It would seem like that wouldn't it.
Something about the double bowline makes me want to listen more intently
Pretty sure it is a figure 8 with a Yosemite finish. He didn't do the additional turn around the main line with the sharp end.
Just because there is a bolt does not mean one has to use it, if you want the fear factor and want to risk your arse then don't use them, the bolts being there doesn't force the daredevil to use them.
We always have the option to choose more risk.
@@bobbyhutton1989 Yes, that was my point in reference to putting bolts on a rout. I personally don't care if there are 100 bolts on a mountain, its just that the tree hugging folk freak-out at a little bolt scarring "mother earth" 😆. Thnx for what you do, I appreciate your channel.
It is arbitrary to assign eternal power to the First Ascensionist just becuase they got there first. If they did it in some bold style, make a note of it. There is no logical reason to force all others to climb it in the same way. Do we say that since the FA was done free solo that all subsequent climbers have to do it solo? I have been climbing trad since the late 80s and I love trad over bolts any day but there isnt any REAL reason to not bolt up dangerous routes. There is also no reason to not bolt up routes that have obvious and safe gear for the entire climb. If I could afford to "buy" a climbing area, I would definitely retro bolt any previous climbs and fully bolt up any new ones. If you want to trad the climb, skip all the bolts. It is definitely better for the future of the sport to bolt because its better for human life. Cars used to be dangerous as hell but now they are vastly more safe. Does it make us cowards and snowflakes that we dont shun seatbelts and airbags, ABS etc.? The adult answer is, no it doesnt. The retro bolt hate is all about ego and arbitrary tradition. Ill keep putting in gear because it is way more exciting but Im not going to try to force someone else to do it "my way" or no way.
Can't really argue your points. Unfortunately many things in life are arbitrary, letting the creator of a route have a say isn't very high up that list.
I think we give too much value to the opinion of the first ascentionist on bolt amount, placement, route names, and similar.
Reach out and ask, and definitely if there are good reasons, rock issues, route finding, etc., which you didn’t realize or more likely some historical value to preserving the climb as is, the community should decide to keep and maintain as is. However, nameless one of a dozen 5.10a on an alright bit of rock where the original bolts were just to not have to haul out more batteries…
Usually, a climb which should be preserved has some solid reasons from the first ascentionist, not simply getting there first. Good indication is they have a story about the route.
interesting points
It is very reminiscent of the guy who is still hung up on his highschool and college girlfriends even though he moved on years ago, just because things have changed since you were last there it doesn't change or negate your experience.
I think the context of the area needs to be taken into account. For example, in an area with 30+ safely bolted routes there is one route that uses gear, maybe adding a bolt is a good idea. In an area with mixed or predominantly gear routes, leave the routes alone. Also rock type matters, limestone is tricky for gear but it can be found, that doesn't mean it has to be on gear all the time.
Good considerations.
How about we bolt the climbs so that they are safe, this especially means first bolts shouldn't be sparse. There's no reason to have the first bolt 4 meters up. Also, I think it's reasonable to put the second bolt a distance away from the first where you wouldn't deck it if you fell before clipping in. Safety aside, why wouldn't you make a climb accessible to everyone? There are very good climbers that are afraid of runout climbs, and there are a lot of people who can't climb but are okay with falling long distances. Those things don't have to be related. There is joy to be had in a difficult climb for the climbing itself, it doesn't have to be scary. Why not make the climb accessible to everyone, and if one particular person wants, they can clip every 3rd bolt, or even free solo it if they so desire.
Good points.
U can always skip bolts …
Yup. I choose my own risk in many climbs.
Maybe new bolts should be marked somehow so people knew they weren't a part of original route and could avoid them if they wanted a challenge.
Ehh, if you care that much I think you will do the research to find which bolts are original.
IMO if theres just 1 bolt on the climb(not including a rap archor) then the whole thing should be safely retro bolted. Unless its a pure trad route danger should not be a factor. The whole point of bolts is to remove that danger. Keeping the FA in the conversation because "back in my day thats how it was climbed" is not reason to have a unsafe sport route. Just cause they climbed it first does not give them the right to dictate to the entire climbing community how dangerous and bold you have to be to climb. Thats gate keeping at its worst.
At least in my area there is enough rock and climbing that it isn't worth retro bolting every climb. Often those routes would be improved with more bolts and the mental energy of fighting with the traditionalist is best spent elsewhere.
Getting to the first bolt on Happy Face is unnecessarily dangerous even with cam placements. The first few moves shouldn't be dependent on a sketchy cam placement when the rest of the climb is a sport route. Also, when placing bolts think about the clipping stance- please don't make it so you have to clip mid crux or risk hitting stuff below because of poor bolt placement.
Controversial question: why does a FA gets to decide the future of a route? Just because you climbed it first? I think it is not jet very relevant because there is still a lot of unclimbed rock and alternatives. And a lot of thanks to all the bolters and FA's. Im in the camp more bolts more better skip the bolts if you dont want them... however like they said i think the most important is the opnion of the local community and the area. I dont think 1 person should get to decide how a shared outdoor space is used just because you were first.. and yes I agree, scary climbs have their place
Very interesting and polemical subject thanks Bobby.
I am pretty new I'm the climbing world so maybe I got this wrong, my humble opinion is that as climbing get more and more structured safety would become more important.
Adding bolts when it is "too dangerous " should be allowed. If you accept danger then just don't clip this new bolt or do solos.
The decision should be taken by a higher authority (federation or responsible for the site...), I respect the FA but when it comes to security there should be a white book to follow and we should respect thoses rules, climbing is dangerous enough by itself.
9:15
If it's contrived and risking death to skip retro bolts, then it still feels contrived and risking death to climb it before those retro bolts have been put in. I think the place climbing needs to get to is that we extrapolate the personal ethic of choosing what challenges we face to include choosing which bolts we use.
To me, it's a lot more of a show of mental and physical skill to intentionally choose to skip all but the original two bolts than to only have those two, while still allowing more people to experience the awesome climb in a less risky manner. If you can justify the risk to yourself in one circumstance but are upset that you can't justify the risk to yourself in another, then I think you really need to think long and hard about why you're climbing in the way that you are.
I don't agree with the currently competitive and gatekeeping ethos of climbing - I want to be able to introduce people to the climbs that I love, and there being an arbitrary risk of the FA having a death wish (or being waaaay stronger than the climb requires and thus ruining what would be a great 5.7 by only putting one bolt on it) doesn't feel like a good enough reason to not be able to do that.
That being said, I also don't think it's right to just arbitrarily retrobolt everything - there does need to be a good justification and plan on how to handle this into the future, and until there is I support being extremely cautious about changing what we have.
Try using shorter paragraphs. I don't disagree with what i could decode from the wall of text.
@@bobbyhutton1989 Essentially these 3 points:
(1) difficulty and danger in climbing is always contrived, and I think climbers need to analyze why we take certain risks or like certain challenges.
(2) If someone puts too few bolts on a route, it means fewer people can climb it. This makes me sad.
(3) Don't retrobolt in almost any case, until the entire climbing community has a standard on why we do or don't retrobolt routes.
I walked 3 hours to a crag to find some nice easy and safe trad routes just to find someone had bolted the entire thing
My opinion is that if it's safe to climb trad it shouldn't be bolted
Makes sense. That is a pretty dedicated developer to hike in all that gear 3 hours.
Climbing ethics isn't worth people's lifes. Adding bolts to defuse dangerous routes is fine.
Yes that context is important to remember. on the other hand not everyone has to climb every route.
If the person who had the first ascent wants to add a bolt or let someone else add a bolt then in my opinion it's okay.
That seems to be the general consensus.
This is an excellent example of gatekeeping. "If you want to do this climb, you have to do it the way *I* did it, or else." Unless a climber is hangdogging every bolt, the route is the route - you either did it or you didn't. The only difference is more bolts = more safety, and more safety = more accessibility ... and at the end of the day, isn't the goal to get more people out there climbing instead of bickering about who did it with less bolts?
Good point
My opinion on the matter is, pretty simple. Never ever retrobolt a route. Only exception is when the first ascender himself does the retrobolting. But depending on where in the climbing scale you are, how many bolts and where they get added, it'll mess everything up in terms of grading and character and has to be graded again potentially and and and. Better to just leave it be.
And all the arguments with, it being dangerous, or not easily accessible for a broader range of climbers or whatever. Doesn't matter, don't care. A big part of climbing is self-awareness and risk management. Like anything else, it has to be learned and really can't ever be fully mastered.
If you feel like a route is too risky, but with more bolts and stuff you could probably do it, well too bad. Your brain seems to think that your skills aren't reliable/good enough yet to make up that lack of bolts. Go back and do either a route with the same difficulty but more safety, or a route with lower difficulty + same amount of safety. Eventually, you'll have become better and will be able to do that route as it was originally done. And guess what, it will feel 10x more rewarding too :)
Just my 2 cents tho
Thats alot of words for a simple opinion.
@@bobbyhutton1989 Haha true, you got me :D
And??if a route Is done in sólo? Like freerider in el cap.After that last ascent? We take off all the bolts?
Go back and do routes in sólo? And if eventually you don't die, you become better and Will be able to do that route in the most rewarding way?