[AndiT]

I lost my Karma cherry today and recieved a punter point so, now that I've got my balls wet, thought I should jump in the deep end.

I was talking with Somebody's Fool at the weekend about building of patio's beneath highballs. His argument being that it makes them more accessible to the average man. I don't see how this isn't bringing the problem 'down to your level'. I don't have a problem with mats, or padding out the landing with bags and jackets etc but think a line should be drawn at reconstructing the landing of something, especially when it stays like it afterwards. I always thought that the whole idea of pads and stuff was so that we could get away with not having to do stuff like this.

Some Highballs are made so by their landings, not their heights and it is for this reason I think it is a bad thing. I would be upset to see the boulders rolled out of the way or built up to a plateau beneath Ram-Air much as I would to see a pier built out under Paralogism so that it could be well padded.

NB. Not to be taken as an attack on individuals, but it's just a fear of mine that it is the thin end of the wedge and there seems to be happening a lot more now. Sorry.

[fatdoc]

interesting point, well made IMO.

with the state of my ankle / knees / back ( all torn, twisted and or broken) I'm more on the side of the fence of flattening... but what, when and where?? lines would have to drawn. not easy.

i've got a preorder on a ronin air pad (from flashed)... could be the tchenology has improved enough to answer some of the question... we'll see.

[Bonjoy]

 I'm fairly pro patio within sensible bounds. Probs like the Storm, Flatworld, Brass Monkeys, Super Bock and some of my probs like Fear Full Orange and English Voodoo would be a worse problems for having the landings in their original state IMO. Generally speaking I think if you can move it without breaking stuff and making a mess then it's legit. I know this practice has been going on for years, for obvious reasons people tend not to advertise the fact they do it but that doesn't mean it's new. As good new probs get harder to find it might become more common I suppose, as all probs above flat ground become worked out.
 You've only got to look at old patio jobs like the Storm and Brass Monkeys to see that the groundwork rapidly becomes naturalised. The subsequent rockery of blocks and grass being arguably more crag friendly than the bare patches which wear under flat grass landings.
 In the case of A Fearful Orange the blocks which I moved to make a paddable landing were there due to the top of the buttress being quarried off in the dim and distant past. Arguably removing the blocks is restoring the landing to it's original state.
 The above are very much side justifications to the main one for me, which is one of pure pragmatism. Some things can be padded around, other things can't. A short protectionless arete above a terrible landing will make a poor and neglected headpoint E6, the climbing barely justifying the effort/risk for the first ascentionist (and not justifying the effort/risk for anyone else), but with some arrangement of the landing an excellent boulder problem. In an environment full of mobile blocks of various origins I see the ends as justifying the means. Some bits of rock work better as boulder problems than routes. Who wants to go home with a broken back from a rock that you and your big mate could have moved from arbitary spot A to arbitary spot B, in a matter of seconds.
  It's a slightly more contensious issue if the prob was originally done as a route and the landing changed by someone other than the FA. I still think it's ok if the FA approves e.g.The Art Of White Hat Wearing. And to an extent i'd argue that ground up above pads is a ethical step up from headpointing so within reason it's ok for people to do some rock shuffling to make this a viable option.
 Obviously it's not a black and white issue and each case needs judging on it's own merits. What is the visual impact, how does it change the climb, is the percieved improvement worth the cost?
 I think the current position of people doing a bit of it sensibly here and there and not shouting about it or encouraging others is a pretty good status quo.
 Good point well raised though Andi.
 

[SA Chris]

Good point indeed. Who knows what groundwork has been done in the past that looks perfectly natural now? I thin in a crag environemnt if rocks can be moved by hand to improve a landing, it's for the greater good. On the coast here I have unashamedly used a crowbar in the past to move blocks around to make problems more accessible / climber friendly or in some cases creating one that would have been  impossible. Storms seem to rearrange them anyway. Plus it's safer on the fingers.

[Somebody's Fool]

I told you you wouldn't get smited for a decent point well raised.  I think Jon's justifications were what I was trying to say to you.  As you say though, they still fall under the blanket of 'bringing a climb down to your level'.  
After talking about this at the weekend I found myself reconsidering my viewpoint.  Adam and myself were pretty gung ho about shifting the TAOWHW block but it did occur to me afterwards that maybe it wasn't our 'right' to do so.  Luckily uptowngirl was in favour of what we did but he could have taken offence.
I think my viewpoint now is that with boulder problems it's going to be ok, within reason.  After all it's bouldering. No prizes for breaking your legs on a V8 or whatever.
However if somebody has done a route, which could in this day and age be highballed with pads, is it OK to rearrange the landing to facilitate a highball ground up ascent?  Someone in the past has stuck their neck out (albeit maybe after toproping) and earned their grade. Now said person could have no complaints about someone doing it ground up above pads without altering the landing.  But if the landing is radically altered (as with TAOWHW) then it could detract from that person's achievements.  In cases like this it may be worth asking the first ascensionist what they think.

[Bonjoy]

As far as bring a route/prob down to your own level goes, I guess that's undeniably true. But in a toss up between moving rocks and pre-toproping I think most often the former gives the route/problem more of a fighting chance. For example I think I would feel safer headpointing Sparrow/My Best Friend The Watermelon then I would bouldering it out regardless of how much groundwork you did, short of filling the valley with with plastic balls, cos with headponiting you don't stick your neck out until you're sure you aren't going to fall off.

[fatdoc]

bonjoy speaking wise words;

i essence i fully agree with this standpoint... crucically FAists must agree to previous headpt routes being flatened for pads... i'd be most surprised if they didnt agree. esp the pre pad routes.

as for nu boulder probs - do it sensibly and do it well - the storm looks near natural to me now.

[Somebody's Fool]

I hear what your saying Bonjoy but I guess concerns remain regarding Andi's thin end of the wedge point. 

I was hasty in my last post giving it the thumbs up for all bouldering. There are literally hundreds of established problems in the Peak alone which could be made safer through landing construction.  If everyone of these is built up the place could end up looking a mess.  When care is taken they can end up looking natural.  However many of them probably don't/won't.  It's arrogant to suggest that a natural environment, enjoyed by many people other than boulderers, should be rearranged and jigged about to reduce a few fluttery moments here and there.

I admit this may sound a bit rich coming from someone who built one last week, but I've had a bit of an epiphany.  Talking to sages from Leek can do that to a man.

[uptown]

An issue rightly and well raised Andi - I'd have to respond due to the recent events surrounding TAOWHW.
Its original ascent was pre-headpoint bandwagonism; and was after an abseil clean and a 'proper' pull on the holds on that same abseil rope, purely to justify the attempted solo.
As you'll see in the FA photo, no pads were used and the spotting leaves much to be desired.
I felt then that it was one of the best 'sprint' climbs I'd done on peak grit, and after chatting with Mike Lea at the Foundry that evening about subjective 'numbers' decided to give it E5 6c - 'cos that's what you did!
Sadly since that day it's been totally ignored, and I dare say it would not have received any attention were I not to have publicised it on UKB and offered my acceptance of any potential groundworks.
TAOWHW deserves to be climbed again and again, as Adams praise illustrates.
Let's make sure this doesn't open the floodgates to unlicensed 'groundforce teams' though - each climb / problem on its own merits.
The UKB site has proved its use in effective arbitration - but lets all be sensible and understanding in this.
There are some of my FAs that I would be very annoyed to see landscaped.

[AndiT]

I'm quite (happily) relieved with these responses, I thought I was going to get slated!

I would add, also that I don't entirely agree that it should be the role of the first ascentionist to decide what happens to problems they made. It should be a general consensus, which I suppose as a general rule of thumb, is to improve on, or atleast stick to, the style of the first ascent. Crow-barring and car jacking are a bit much and I'm sure there can't be many people out there who've done this who haven't had atleast a slight twinge of guilt in doing so.

I think there are a lot of problems/highballs out there which get ignored because they have danger to them, this is the same with routes too but we should perhaps just leave them this way. Is an occasional top rope of a highball going to cause it any more damage than would occur if it had been patioed and had folk clawing up it every weekend?

If a landing can be landscaped, then I imagine it can also be padded, with enough pads. I don't believe there is justification enough in landscaping a problem just so it can be done above one pad, or as part of a circuit. If we can't allow 'Donkey-ticking' how can we justify 'the patio'.

Cheers 

[uptown]

Crow-barring and car jacking are a bit much.

- I once got paid by the National Trust to de-scale routes on several Lakeland venues in the name of H&S for walkers underneath.
There consultancy process was certainly not as open as the UKB moderated one, despite their moral highbrowing, and amongst our weapons of choice was the trusty Tirfor!
I also heard about a chainblock somewhere in the peak...

[fatdoc]

i'm good with the no *one pad* landscaping but adamant that if it's been headpointed it's currently a route. the FAist does have a right to see the piece of rock beinmg dramatically changed from thier initial experience... carry on reading before posting back.. please;

if the FAist doesnt want it patioed it should most definately NOT be done.

this will hopefully quell the thin end opf the wedge concerns and keep a tradition of the FAist keeping the route done in the manner someone -once legit at the time, (or a bit dodgy if you r going to raise the pre-practise ethical conundrum) documented the ascent and then got it in a nationally ratified guide.

A comparision in my mind to substantiate my line of argument here is when most retro bolting has taken place on little used limestone death routes for instance, it is the norm to get permission off the FAist is it not?

[Ru]

Patioing is the new retrobolting - who'd have thought? Nothing to add really, everyone seems most sensible about the issue. Personally I have nothing against moderate patioing and agree with Bonjoy. Also agree that the FA's wishes should be respected, but there may also be an argument to preserve the original character of the route in some cases, as per retroing.

[fatdoc]

yeah i agree its the nu big issue.

as far as the peak is concerned there are enough interested folk in the pubs that matter and or on forums (esp this one) that would be able to go for a case by case discussion with hopefully representation from all parties.

AndiT, cant believe you though you'd be -ve karmaed for raising this issue.... most of us seem to think it's a real problem that needs to be aired... thanks.

[r-man]

I'm sure this topic has come up before, under the more provocative heading of landscaping. My personal opinion is that patio building is much the same as footpath making - with a bit of common sense it's a perfectly acceptable way to allow more people to enjoy a small piece of the world.

Whether a boulder is here or there is all pretty arbitrary. People go on about leaving the world as we find it, and the underlying aim of that ideology is fine, but it can be taken too far. People are part of this world, and we need to interact with it. Throwing stones in the sea, building treehouses, making patios for boulder problems...these are all small things, and unless done to excess are unlikely to damage the ecosystem, or anyone's enjoyment of the outdoors. Sunken ships, concrete bunkers, old quarries...these are far bigger things, but given a chance nature will soon reclaim them.

And in this particular case - patio building - I think the thin end of the wedge argument is always going to remain academic, purely because patio building is bloody hard work and most people would rather find another problem than spend 2 hours trying to shift large boulders. Can anyone think of a patio or altered landing that's really been done badly?

[AndiT]

I think it's less of a case of the natural beauty being affected and more the change of character of our sport - which is becoming rapidly more sanitized. The landscaping generally looks fine and is in keeping with the natural surroundings but does detract from what the environment is offering us in the way of a challenge, afterall, it's not just physical difficulty that appeals to us in climbing, but also that rush of excitment of doing something a bit necky.

I could, for example, build a plinth below Art Nouveau on the Skyline. This would instantly make the route a boulder problem and as such a fantastic problem for everyone to try, but in the same instance would take away everything which is special about it.


I'm not saying this is going to happen, but it could soon develop into a trend. I've certainly noticed a lot more of it going on.

I'm glad to hear that other people also agree that it is something which needs airing.

Cheers.

[Dr T]

a slight left turn but some problems wouldn't exist without patioing....
ie adam slater's southern soul in the cuttings boulderfield...
 for those who don't know at it a large quantity of choss was pulled out from under an overhanging boulder to expose a great v4 traverse
every so often there's a little avalanche and some clearing of footholds needs doing but it's cool
granted the artifical nature of the boulderfield allows this to pass without too much notice but it was worth noting

as for patioing in general I'm with fatdoc

- do it sensibly and do it well -

and Ru

I have nothing against moderate patioing
Also agree that the FA's wishes should be respected,

[Johnny Brown]

Darn, missed this thread whilst away last week, suppose I should contribute really

Like anything I think this is a case of moderation. TAOWHW is the first time I've undertaken major landscaping, and it wasn't undertaken lightly. In the past I've been quite scathing about Patios, largely for the reasons Andi outlines below.

I think it's less of a case of the natural beauty being affected and more the change of character of our sport - which is becoming rapidly more sanitized. The landscaping generally looks fine and is in keeping with the natural surroundings but does detract from what the environment is offering us in the way of a challenge, afterall, it's not just physical difficulty that appeals to us in climbing, but also that rush of excitment of doing something a bit necky.

However, having seen some small efforts (The Storm is the real clincher) make a big difference and then be successfully absorbed back into the environment, I changed my mind. I'm still wary of bigger efforts, though seeing the decline of areas like Deliverance have showed 'leaving the environment as it is' isn't always an option either.

I took on TAOWHW with the following considerations in mind:

Firstly, this bit of the crag is a quarry. This makes a big difference in my mind. It also provided lots of raw material for building without more disturbance.

Second, the problem was established with some pre-inspection and to the best of my knowledge had only received one ground-up ascent with the block, by Pete Robbins. I got pretty high with the block but it added such risk as to totally put me off. Without the block it is still necky, most have so far bottled the top move the first time they reached it.

Third, the result is very good. You can enjoy the climbing, fear is still a factor, the ground doesn't look an obvious mess, and will no doubt improve.

It also gives a good trophy problem to a good unfrequented circuit - I think there is value in considering what it will add to the area climbing wise. You now have an area which is well worth a half day visit on its own. With the hammer the eastern edges have been getting the last few seasons I think its good to spread things around.

I could, for example, build a plinth below Art Nouveau on the Skyline. This would instantly make the route a boulder problem and as such a fantastic problem for everyone to try, but in the same instance would take away everything which is special about it.

Firstly, no it wouldn't. It'd still be one of the best sequences on some of the best rock in the world.
You would ruin its character though, a highball perfectly in keeping with all the other short routes thereabouts. I'm not convinced you could just build a plinth either, (without major effort ie spades, helicopter-derived stone carried in from the path above.) Either way I agree it would be bad thing.

I've noticed Staffs is starting to address some of the erosional problems now, some of which (Chalkstorm etc) are probably worse then anything seen in recent years here, though I think that may be cos we went through that in the eighties and they've settled down now. The ground below Narcissus is 18" lower than it was in 1979 - you can still see the stain on the rock - but I digress. The point being sometimes things have to be changed to help them stay as they were.

Finally, how do you compare the intensive gardening down the Churnet with this attitude? I would be much slower to cut a tree down than roll a quarred block over...

[Somebody's Fool]

though I think that may be cos we went through that in the eighties and they've settled down now.

What's with this 'we'.  In the 80s weren't you still in short trousers?  With a hole in one of the pockets no doubt.

[dave]

I think it would be fair to say when we go bouldering we are motivated by the quality of the climbing, not the neckyness of the landing. people can go on about bad landings adding character etc etc if they want to be heros, but most people want to boulder and not die as a result.

As for landscaping the landing on "routes", you have to firstly decide is it a route because of the seriousness of it, or is it a route simply because the first ascent was done before the days of mats. I would have thought that most routes would still stay as routes even with a reasonable amount of landscaping - for example you're not going to be able to roll the odd block and suddenly make jasmine, peice of mind or meshuga a boulder problem. If its really a boulder problem/highball like TAOWHW then i say go nuts (obvisouly there may sitll be grey areas....).

A final note i'm always puzzled when people seek the approval of the first ascentionist for stuff like this (or rebolting sport routes etc). Nothing against anyone involved in the TAOWHW saga but i've always been of the thinking that no-one owns a particular bit of rock or problem, regardless of if they were the FA or not. I still have the rather quaint pseudo-communist ideal that the rock and climbing belongs to everyone. i don't think first ascentionists have any providence over a route/problem, seems nonsensical to me. Years down the line when uptown dies (sorry to be morbid) does the guardianship of TAOWHW pass to his next of kin? does it pass to pete robbins? food for thought maybe, and probably a bit off topic.

[Somebody's Fool]

The first ascensionist can often have strong emotional ties with routes or boulder problems.  I wasn't suggesting that it's an unforgivable sin to alter the landing of a route, just that it might be polite to see what people think.  In such a small community it's not very hard to make an effort to contact people.

You're right that no-one should own rocks.  However people give a part of themselves to complete a route.  Rock only becomes a route because of human endeavours and I think this endeavour deserves some respect.  Even more so with retrobolting than patio building.

[Bonjoy]

Years down the line when uptown dies (sorry to be morbid) does the guardianship of TAOWHW pass to his next of kin? does it pass to pete robbins?

I'd have thought it would be passed on to the next leading exponent of the White Hat Art. Perhaps Le chef suédois?? A safe pair of hands i'm sure you'll agree.

[Dr T]

I think it would be fair to say when we go bouldering we are motivated by the quality of the climbing, not the neckyness of the landing. people can go on about bad landings adding character etc etc if they want to be heros, but most people want to boulder and not die as a result.

[uptown]

The first ascensionist can often have strong emotional ties with routes or boulder problems.
Rock only becomes a route because of human endeavours and I think this endeavour deserves some respect.

Knocked the nail right on the head twice there SF - There's a very fluid social history to gritstone climbing and we must never presume our present scene is the be all and end all.
Respect has a huge role to play - I have it for many irrespective of their UKB involvement, and Karma aside, feel a lot more motivated in cherishing our sport if this is reciprocal.

[AndiT]

I think it would be fair to say when we go bouldering we are motivated by the quality of the climbing, not the neckyness of the landing. people can go on about bad landings adding character etc etc if they want to be heros, but most people want to boulder and not die as a result.

Most people on UKB perhaps, but there are plenty of other climbers who still cherish the challenge of overcoming the inherrant risk, more than the technical difficulty. I've plenty of times found myself in a position of retreat thinking how great a problem would be if 'that block' wasn't there, however I can't say I've ever considered changing the ground. I would class that as lessening the challenge, much in the way that having piles of mats does. The beauty there however being that we can carry our pads away and leave the problem how nature intended it to be, necky.

JB, I can fully see from your perspective about it being in a quarry, and have to agree on that side of things. But you must also conceed that you daren't do it before you moved the ground around and that you wouldn't be able to put it back to how it was now, you brought it to your comfort level, shame on you.

Hey, and whats all this cutting trees down shit! I've never done that, I've removed rhodendendrons, but as I was informed they are some sort of parasite and removal is actively encouraged.

Finally, JB, this isn't a personal dig and not even aimed at TAOWHW or what you did there, just a general thread about landscaping to vent my opinion as I don't like it. I hope you see it this way dude, and I still want that print btw