UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => news => Topic started by: remus on October 26, 2023, 05:27:51 pm
-
Looks like a thin one! As I understand it, it adds a hard direct start in to the cruxy bit of the meltdown and then does Franco's direct finish.
For those struggling to follow along at home, here's a little topo that Franco put together when he did Meltdown Direct.
(https://climbing-history.org/file/512996f9-6b4b-6383-3460-6057304a490d/Screenshot_20220421_214657.png)
https://www.instagram.com/p/Cy3dUaztBFm/
-
Looks like all that artic fingerboarding paid off
-
Wow! Great stuff Franco… especially impressive post expedition!!
Has it been filmed for Brit Rock judging by that short?
-
Has it been filmed for Brit Rock judging by that short?
Hopefully there is some footage (9a+ slab, fucking rad!) But I think that clip is an old one.
-
Great stuff!
Is the style of climbing on these crazy-hard slate routes completely different from Somehow Super at Cheedale Cornice?
-
Sounds amazing! But still absolutely no clue where it goes on that topo?
-
Glad it's not just me! Does it climb the "Hard Section on Meltdown" or not?
-
Amazing work from Franco and Ondra is looking interested judging from his comment on Insta.
Yes it does climb almost all of the hard Meltdown section before taking on the direct finish via the red line.
The topo is bad, the problem is that it only shows where the Meltdown direct finish goes. Rather confusingly, the purple line is not a route but I think is meant to be a kind of square bracket showing the section where the hard climbing on the Meltdown is located. An arrow(s) from the caption would have been a better idea here. I spent ages looking for a key that would show the line of the purple route but there is none.
We are left wondering where the direct start comes in from?
-
Aaah. Thanks, makes sense. Direct takes the line of the rope maybe?
-
Sounds amazing! But still absolutely no clue where it goes on that topo?
Sorry for the confusion, the topo is an old paint pic franco put together when he did meltdown direct. Here's something marginally better I whipped up (based on Franco's description), with The Dewin Stone in green.
ed: also, as Kingy said, Im not super clear on where exactly you start for dewin stone.
(https://climbing-history.org/file/e9421536-cb51-7f6f-ac9f-29ef3735d152/dewin_stone.png)
-
When I understood that the purple scribble was a curly bracket and not a bit of climbing, it became a little more clear.
-
Thought I was having a stroke trying to interpret that. Thanks for the explainer Ted and Remus!
-
Yes thanks, it wasn't very clear. If the green line is accurate that's very cool; straight up, no deviating.
-
Great, glad I know where it goes now. I'm heading down tomorrow for a shot at it :)
-
Some interesting Franco colour added on the other channel:
Well done on the route Franco, sounds full on. A pity you didn't write something about how spending time on a sailing boat going to Greenland was some kind of training for this... the continuous movement of the boat in the waves meant you were adjusting your centre of balance over your feet the whole time and led to the calculation of the vectors becoming instinctive and therefore the rockovers on the slate sea of the Meltdown felt almost as easy as sitting down on the sofa.... Johnny would have given us all something like this.
Am I right that you led the bottom direct start with a hanging rope with knots in to clip? I'm not a rabid bolter but I think it would make sense to go and actually place the bolts? I've always found the NWB fund really helpful with lending the kit to bolt and often providing the bolts themselves at a really generous price, and I'm sure there are plenty of folk who can teach you how if you are not sure.
Apologies if I am wrong about this or that there is some ethical reason for the hanging rope.
And again good effort on it, I'm sure there are plenty of folk chomping at the bit to go look at it, which is surely the best compliment you can get.
https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/ukc/the_dewin_stone_9a+_slab_for_franco_cookson-765149?v=1#x9843206
-
FFS. How are other people meant to try it?
-
Tbh I don't think it makes that much difference practically for this route. I think most people top rope meltdown before getting on the lead, so only minimal logistics compared to that.
-
Bit odd not to mention it before it got a write up on UKC.
-
Classic Franco.
-
it may not get repeated due to faff.
anyone know if the direct finish is bolted?
-
Based on the write up on UKC including this:
Potential 50 footer down the slab from the end, so kind of has an E10 vibe when you're tired on redpoint
I guess not
-
Sounds like Caff has been to look at it:
"Is a good effort from Franco. The start to gain Meltdown is easier than Meltdown start. Less hard moves. Finish will be punchy on the full link though."
:boxing:
-
(https://climbing-history.org/file/e9421536-cb51-7f6f-ac9f-29ef3735d152/dewin_stone.png)
Looking at those lines without context, but knowing Franco's involved, I definitely would have assumed that one was highlighting where a classic climb went and the other was showing the route Franco took when he told instagram he repeated said classic :lol:
-
Especially the purple one.
-
WTF
So what on earth is going on with this? The whole knotted rope thing is bollocks, in my mind it’s basically not a route, what he’s done is a little better than a top rope ascent. If he’s not put the bolts in because he wants it to be a trad route, then it’s an unfinished project and doesn’t deserve a name and grade. If he’s gonna bolt it with bolts where the knots were it’s far from ideal, and in my eyes a legitimate ascent hasn’t occurred….. is this ok these days?
I’ve held off on this because I sound like a miserable old twat, it’s becoming more apparent to me that I’m turning into Ken Wilson, but do people really think this is ok…?
-
I think people probably do yeah
-
Everyone's journey in climbing is their own... But I agree if it was me it would feel like this was a project still. But if Franco is content with what he's done and is open about what he's done that's fine too
-
I'm so far off the mark that my opinons don't really matter, but I personally think it's a bit shit, and verging on hypocrisy. Happy to use bolts that someone else has placed, but reluctant to place your own? Shame, as it puts a bit of a tarnish on what looks like a phenomenal piece of climbing.
-
This is great. As a keen new route developer I'm never going to bother putting bolts in a new route again - dropping a temporary knotted rope is way easier! Imagine all the time and physical effort new routers have wasted bolting when they could have not bothered and done the routes this way. Low impact too. Get the tick, move on, fuck anyone else's experience.
-
I’ve held off on this because I sound like a miserable old twat, it’s becoming more apparent to me that I’m turning into Ken Wilson, but do people really think this is ok…?
I'm also a miserable twat, but no, I'm the same as you. From my understanding the detail of the knotted rope was also omitted from the UKC article which seems somewhat ...incomplete?
-
I'm not sure why clipping a knotted rope instead of bolts would invalidate the ascent. Why's it any different to having used removable bolts, in terms of the mechanics of the lead?
But agree it's a weird thing to do. If it was actually to be done on trad gear only (which seems fanciful as no one but Franco is even notionally interested in semi-soloing something like this), that will mean either removing or ignoring the existing bolts on Meltdown anyway.
Then again, who cares. It's not like he's done a new 7a at a good crag and left it half unequipped. This route is totally niche. For the few people who will want to try it, hanging a knotted rope is hardly a make-or-break inconvenience.
My guess? It's so that Franco can say he's never placed a bolt, in the same vein as avoiding climbing any 8s before climbing a 9. Amiright? ;)
-
In my opinion it's legit but really lazy not to put the bolts in where the knots were, even if that's done after the fact. Is it likely to ever get the mooted trad ascent? Probably not.
Feels a bit like Franco was scraping the barrel for how to make this one in any way controversial. Get creative, Franco! You could easily have gone out at night, chipped it, complained that someone had chipped it, filled them back in, done a shit under the route, been really cross about someone shitting under your route, hung a big 30m high banner with a glamour photo of yourself and the words "Franco's project do not touch or else" on it, stolen the banner, been really cross that the banner went missing. Seriously it's not hard.
I might set myself up as a pro-climber agency: Band of Turds.
-
WTF
So what on earth is going on with this? The whole knotted rope thing is bollocks, in my mind it’s basically not a route, what he’s done is a little better than a top rope ascent. If he’s not put the bolts in because he wants it to be a trad route, then it’s an unfinished project and doesn’t deserve a name and grade. If he’s gonna bolt it with bolts where the knots were it’s far from ideal, and in my eyes a legitimate ascent hasn’t occurred….. is this ok these days?
Hilarious isn't it? Franco, as usual, wanting to have his cake and eat it. I applaud him for not bolting it and don't want to encourage it, but unfortunately taking that stand does prevent you from claiming it as a sport route. To not mention this up front is totally misleading. There are plenty of times top climbers have claimed things as top rope problems and publicised them as such - a challenge for others to improve on - and sometimes their names have been retained and ascents remain worthy of recording. But rule one is be honest and open.
It's so that Franco can say he's never placed a bolt,
Yes, he's said that. And also lacks the competence, which given his experiments with glue I think we should keep him well away from the tools as long as possible.
I'm not sure why clipping a knotted rope instead of bolts would invalidate the ascent. Why's it any different to having used removable bolts, in terms of the mechanics of the lead?
Removable bolts require drilling holes obviously, which would remain in the same place for subsequent ascents. But fundamentally I don't think this style has any precedence for being considered legitimate, it's effectively a weird top-rope. The subterfuge would suggest he wanted it to gain some legitimacy before the beans were spilled.
-
Removable bolts require drilling holes obviously, which would remain in the same place for subsequent ascents. But fundamentally I don't think this style has any precedence for being considered legitimate, it's effectively a weird top-rope. The subterfuge would suggest he wanted it to gain some legitimacy before the beans were spilled.
This is the question I was going to ask, I couldn't think of any other examples of someone climbing something with a knotted rope as protection, would be happy for some examples from people who are saying it is legit. I guess if someone wanted to repeat it in a similar style they could also use a knotted rope to protect the top bit that Franco hasn't bolted too?!
-
I guess if someone wanted to repeat it in a similar style they could also use a knotted rope to protect the top bit that Franco hasn't bolted too?!
They could indeed. Or they could add the bolts and any extras they wanted. Which is what happens normally with sport routes that have been badly bolted.
-
Quite a few Lakes FAs were done with pegs that were immediately removed. Similar in my view.
-
Like others have said on here, is it much of a hassle to put a knotted rope down a slab though?
I'd image it would be no more hassle than putting the draws on a bolted route. It is not as though most/any ascentionists would be climbing up, placing-the-draws-in-one-free-push.
I guess the difference from top-roping is that you have to take a hand off to clip. I'm also impressed by some top-roping feats though (eg Zippy onsight-top-roping hard grit test-pieces back in the day and that guy who top-roped Cry-Freedom at Malham).
It all seems to me pretty harmless. I agree that initially not mentioning it in interviews etc adds an additional layer of zany-ness though!
In France they have the ethic that equipping a sport route confers the right to name it regardless of whether the equipper can climb it. I guess some French bolter could give that a go ;D
-
Removable bolts require drilling holes obviously, which would remain in the same place for subsequent ascents. But fundamentally I don't think this style has any precedence for being considered legitimate, it's effectively a weird top-rope. The subterfuge would suggest he wanted it to gain some legitimacy before the beans were spilled.
I don't think it's right to call it a weird top-rope. He was still leading between clippable points with all the normal scope for falling etc, it's just that some of those clippable points were temporary instead of fixed.
Can't deny there's no precedent though, and if you take this to its logical conclusion it does become very silly - you could claim any new line as a 'sport route' in this way, without having to place a bolt.
I'm optimistic that it won't catch on...
-
I don't think it's right to call it a weird top-rope. He was still leading between clippable points with all the normal scope for falling etc, it's just that some of those clippable points were temporary instead of fixed.
Why? It's exactly what some people do to TR self-belay on things. Didn't someone famously screw this up somewhere quite serious, letting the knotted rope swing out of reach?
-
If this is a legitimate lead/FA then (unless I'm missing something fundamental) the same tactic applied to any bit of rock would also be a legitimate lead.
That's quite a lot of trad FAs that suddenly got a whole lot more doable at a stroke!
-
I don't think it's right to call it a weird top-rope. He was still leading between clippable points with all the normal scope for falling etc, it's just that some of those clippable points were temporary instead of fixed.
Why?
I've already said why... it's a succession of pre-set clippable points for protection, much like a line of bolts. So in that sense, how is it any less of a 'lead' than a self-equipped sport line?
I'm not saying it isn't bullshit for other reasons, just that to me it's a weird lead rather than a weird top rope.
And there's something odd about saying 'this was not a legitimate ascent because you didn't equip it properly for other people'.
-
The second hardest route at a local crag was done exactly in this fashion. Lead by clipping loops on a knotted static rope. (The FA was some thirty years ago.) The reason was that the two developers of the crag could not agree on where the line went, and as there was only really room for one route on that piece of the crag, one of them just threw down a static and went on to "lead" it.
The route did not get bolts until after the other developer died in a climbing accident.
-
I've already said why... it's a succession of pre-set clippable points for protection, much like a line of bolts. So in that sense, how is it any less of a 'lead' than a self-equipped sport line?
Which is used by others as a TR way of soloing; it's not leading, even if it looks akin. I 'did' a Hard GritTM route before leaving Sheffield but tied the GriGri off at the gear; it's totally arbitary and a TR ascent. If that was in a knotted loop it'd still have been a TR even if looked closer to leading.
-
Can't deny there's no precedent though, and
Todd Skinner also did a new route at Hueco like this in the early 90s - tensioned a knotted static line down the route with trad gear (I think some tube chocks/Big Bros in a couple of huecos) and clipped the draws tied to the static line - I think because there was a ban on bolting. Don't know if it was bolted/re-led later.
-
I tend to agree that its not a valid sport ascent. As Stone said, Steve Roberts toproped Cry Freedom several times but was by his own admission scared to get on the lead. He still did the climb but by the ethical standards of the community, it was not a led ascent.
Slingshot, English 7b, at Froggatt was a toprope problem by Jerry Moffat in 1988 before bouldering mats were invented. I'm sure he could have contrived knotted protection if he wanted to for a 'lead' ascent. Now with several big pads, its a stout Font 7C+ to the ledge or E10 for the full route, Blind Vision.
-
If this is a legitimate lead/FA then (unless I'm missing something fundamental) the same tactic applied to any bit of rock would also be a legitimate lead.
That's quite a lot of trad FAs that suddenly got a whole lot more doable at a stroke!
The Southern Sandstone would be one of the least developed areas in the country. Dozens of unjustifiable solos finally made possible!
Regardless of if the ascent is legit: in general, climbing with a hanging rope makes for a poor quality experience.
-
Why all the false equivalences talking about grit routes? We (generally, with some weird exceptions) don't allow bolting or sport climbing on grit, so of course a hanging rope clip up would not be legit.
On slate we allow sport climbs and we do insist on leading. This fits with those stylistic rules, but instead of clipping drilled metal he's clipped fixed loops. The Cry Freedom example isn't equivalent because we don't consider top roping to be legit style on limestone sport routes.
-
And there's something odd about saying 'this was not a legitimate ascent because you didn't equip it properly for other people'.
There is, but that's because climbing is plain odd when you start to analyse it.
It's obviously a legitimate climb of a piece of rock in the style that Franco climbed it. The problem is that it's a style virtually nobody who puts up new routes ever uses, almost without exception. And not because it hasn't been considered before.
Why I wonder do we not climb in this style and forget the part about putting bolts in new routes which aren't trad routes or top-rope routes? It would be all-round an easier, cheaper, quicker, less impactful way to do these routes.
I think probably because it comes with a very strong whiff of being a bit selfish, self-centred, and deliberately unhelpful or exclusive to other climbers now that we have easy access to good drills and bolts and using them has become common practice. The logic that anyone can drop a knotted rope to provide temporary protection points if they want to climb this route applies to any route at the Tor, Malham, LPT etc. Trying to rig ropes to climb on those crags because there weren't any bolts in place would make it a lot less enjoyable and inclusive an activity.
-
I think in part it seems absurd because if you've got a hanging rope there why not just clip into it "properly" (with a shunt or whatever) and just TR the thing? Perhaps it just brings home the absurdity of climbing just a little too much to be comfortable.
-
I've already said why... it's a succession of pre-set clippable points for protection, much like a line of bolts. So in that sense, how is it any less of a 'lead' than a self-equipped sport line?
Which is used by others as a TR way of soloing; it's not leading, even if it looks akin. I 'did' a Hard GritTM route before leaving Sheffield but tied the GriGri off at the gear; it's totally arbitary and a TR ascent. If that was in a knotted loop it'd still have been a TR even if looked closer to leading.
I think this is stretching the usefulness of the term 'top-rope' to include something more different to what is conventionally meant by 'top-roping' than it is from what is conventionally meant by leading.
Yes, it's arbitrary, you can put a knot anywhere you like. But if you're equipping a sport line, exactly the same is true of a bolt. A grit route is not a good comparison.
-
I think in part it seems absurd because if you've got a hanging rope there why not just clip into it "properly" (with a shunt or whatever) and just TR the thing? Perhaps it just brings home the absurdity of climbing just a little too much to be comfortable.
I think there is some truth to this :lol:
-
Why all the false equivalences talking about grit routes? We (generally, with some weird exceptions) don't allow bolting or sport climbing on grit, so of course a hanging rope clip up would not be legit.
On slate we allow sport climbs and we do insist on leading. This fits with those stylistic rules, but instead of clipping drilled metal he's clipped fixed loops. The Cry Freedom example isn't equivalent because we don't consider top roping to be legit style on limestone sport routes.
I don't recall anyone ever debating the point. I think it's a reasonable proposition to say that 'no bolts on grit' is principally about protecting the rock. In which case if someone wants to claim a sport route, without placing bolts, why shouldn't they?
Or maybe we just don't break the entire paradigm of UK climbing in order to accommodate one person's perverse addiction to controversy. :tease:
-
If Franco went back and put bolts in exactly where the knotted loops were in his static, would people be less bothered about the validity of the ascent? If he'd claimed a lead of Indian Face [insert other bold trad route of choice here] then fair enough, but it's on a wall that's already bolted so I'm assuming there's no reason he can't place bolts wherever (disclaimer - I don't know the wall so unclear if there are existing trad routes to consider, etc.). If the real reason for not bolting it is that he wants to able to say he's never placed a bolt then that strikes me as a bit daft, but I'm really struggling to be questioning the ascent's validity.
If it was someone other than Franco, would the conversation be going the same way or would we be giving someone else a bit more leeway?
Todd Skinner also did a new route at Hueco like this in the early 90s - tensioned a knotted static line down the route with trad gear (I think some tube chocks/Big Bros in a couple of huecos) and clipped the drawers tied to the static line - I think because there was a ban on bolting. Don't know if it was bolted/re-led later.
Route was called Boys Town - it's on Moving Over Stone 2, towards the end. Can't find any reference to it on Mountain Project, so might have been renamed or might be that no-one sport climbs at Hueco now?
-
Or might have been highballed and renamed!
-
If it was someone other than Franco, would the conversation be going the same way or would we be giving someone else a bit more leeway?
To be fair I think this would have raised eyebrows and been called out by some whoever did it, given its high publicity (and status as a cutting edge 'slab' climb). It's pretty odd.
-
If Franco went back and put bolts in exactly where the knotted loops were in his static, would people be less bothered about the validity of the ascent?
It's obviously a legit ascent of the moves. He's just done it in a style that's so poor and out of the ordinary when it was completely unnecessary - the wall's already covered in bolts! :wall:.
It's a classic 'if everyone else did it like that, climbing would be shit, that's why they don't do it like that'.
-
As Bonjoy alluded to, is it not as much about the validity of the route in its current form as the validity of the ascent? If I do a new grit prow in this style can I give it a name and a sport grade? Most would say no I suspect, because it isn't really a sport route. What's the difference here? In the same sense is this really, currently, a sport route? If not, does it make sense to give it a name and a grade?
Interestingly boulder/route hybrids that can be done on bolts/gear or above pads are both boulder problems and routes in many ways, so maybe a route can be a sport route and a trad route at the same time? Schroedinger's route? It doesn't feel like that makes sense though
It's a classic 'if everyone else did it like that, climbing would be shit, that's why they don't do it like that'.
I like this way of summing it up!
-
If it was someone other than Franco, would the conversation be going the same way or would we be giving someone else a bit more leeway?
If it was someone other than Franco they'd have probably been honest about clipping a knotted rope from the start and this would have all just been a niche discussion about a weird hybrid way someone had chosen to climb a variation on Meltdown.
Either he genuinely thinks this is a completely legit way to climb something so he didn't think it was worth mentioning before it was written up on UKC as a bona fide uncontroversial FA, or he knew it would cast doubt on the legitimacy and take away from his achievement so chose to keep it hidden. All a bit odd!
-
didn't think it was worth mentioning
This doesn't seem particularly credible
-
If I do a new grit prow in this style can I give it a name and a sport grade? Most would say no I suspect, because it isn't really a sport route. What's the difference here? In the same sense is this really, currently, a sport route? If not, does it make sense to give it a name and a grade?
As Will mentioned, I don't think the grit route comparison is a great one. A big part of the grit "experience" is the boldness element determined by the rock. There's nothing to stop you claiming whatever you liked but it's further out of line with the prevailing ethics and so you might as well top rope it.
With this route it all seems a bit daft/pointless as there's no reason not to bolt it. I can't understand the logic that led to where we are, but I wouldn't call into question the validity of the route. If someone did similar on a limestone sport crag with no bolting bans, etc., I'd question their sanity/thought processes, but I wouldn't question the route's existence.
As an aside, back in the day I used to spend a lot of time at Red Wall in Trowbarrow. We considered this approach for "leading" the routes there for training purposes, because top-roping was getting a bit too easy. I'd never have claimed trad ascents of the routes, but I could see value in doing it to get a bit more mileage out of an overused bit of rock.
If it was someone other than Franco, would the conversation be going the same way or would we be giving someone else a bit more leeway?
If it was someone other than Franco they'd have probably been honest about clipping a knotted rope from the start and this would have all just been a niche discussion about a weird hybrid way someone had chosen to climb a variation on Meltdown.
Either he genuinely thinks this is a completely legit way to climb something so he didn't think it was worth mentioning before it was written up on UKC as a bona fide uncontroversial FA, or he knew it would cast doubt on the legitimacy and take away from his achievement so chose to keep it hidden. All a bit odd!
Yeah, probably agree with this. My natural thought when I see anything with Franco's name attached is "what's he done weird this time?". I just wondered whether that should be my nature reaction given how arbitrary a sport we operate in.
-
Haven't read the whole thread yet, but to summarise, is the exciting news that someone has now bolted, and done the first ascent of the "Dewin Stone" project??
-
I think he should smash 40 bolts in it (preferably close enough that the quickdraws overlap), a great improvement in style imo.
More seriously, he's been honest about the style so I'm struggling to see the issue. For fairly arbitrary reasons we've settled on the idea that you have to lead something for it to 'count', and likewise we've decided that abseiling down and putting bolts wherever you like to make the lead safe is an acceptable thing. Replacing those bolts with a knotted rope seems a relatively small step. I wonder if anyone who's climbed the meltdown has extended the draws to make them easier to clip? Let's hope they didn't extend them too far.
-
is it not as much about the validity of the route in its current form as the validity of the ascent?
I'm trying to reconcile this, the idea that it was a legitimate ascent but that it is not a legitimate route in its current state. I guess it's not that different to the status of a route that has had its bolts removed. It might still go in the guidebook, but in truncated form or with a warning.
Alternatively Franco's pioneered an approach where routes don't have to have been climbed in any way to be named and written up:
https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/twll_mawr-636/the_dewin_wall_trad-682594
-
...I think this is stretching the usefulness....
...A grit route is not a good comparison...
Fair enough. I'm not convinced there's much difference between doing that on the Rainbow or a small lump of grit but each to their own. I guess Barrows said it better with:
I think in part it seems absurd because if you've got a hanging rope there why not just clip into it "properly" (with a shunt or whatever) and just TR the thing? Perhaps it just brings home the absurdity of climbing just a little too much to be comfortable.
More seriously, he's been honest about the style so I'm struggling to see the issue.
It was, and still is missing from the original UKC article that a knotted rope was used for pro. That's something pretty easy to rectify rather than letting it play out in the comments section.
-
More seriously, he's been honest about the style so I'm struggling to see the issue.
It was, and still is missing from the original UKC article that a knotted rope was used for pro. That's something pretty easy to rectify rather than letting it play out in the comments section.
He discussed it in the video interview he did with UKC, and he didn't write the article. Sounds like an issue with UKC not Franco?
-
Perhaps my view is coloured by the Prow nonsense, but no, I'd suggest if someone is bringing it up in the comments I'd expect the subject of an article to request important points are included as an amendment (I'd also expect UKC to pick that up too).
(I also can't see it on the long Insta post?)
Anyway, enough grumpiness from me. I'm sure the climbing is very impressive.
-
I’m surprised Franco has not posted on here to clarify things.
-
I think the main impact of not bolting it, is that it stops good climbers from elsewhere coming and doing it easily, as there isn't actually a route to come and try and noone else is interested in this kind of silliness.
Which no doubt means it will go into the mysterious, esoteric, controversial pile of daft UK routes of which there's far too many already. Unless someone just goes and bolts it and does a proper ascent.
-
Can't remember the source of this (maybe Dawes' book?) but I think the FA of Windows of Perception may have been done with a knotted rope, and the bolt placed where the knot was afterwards - so there is some precedent on slate, at least with the bolts actually being placed afterwards.
I think having a knotted rope to clip makes the 'E10' designer danger run out finish seem much more contrived though - why not have another knotted rope on that section?!
If it's genuinely a better trad route than Meltdown is a sport route then I I guess Franco should chop the bolts on Meltdown and cause some real controversy :punk: :popcorn: ;)
-
I think it's quite a nice nod to history that The Meltdown had a name and was well-known as a notorious project before it was climbed, and so The Dewin Stone can also be named and well-known as a project, whether it eventually gets done as a sport route or a trad route.
-
I don't the Dewin Stone will ever be done as a trad route cos that would mean chopping a fair number of the bolts on the Meltdown. Can't see that happening
-
A better example of precedent would be al Evans route in Vivian quarry. Done originally with a knotted rope instead of bolts. Never got bolted. Never got climbed. Got written up as if it was originally trad ( I learnt the rest researching the ground up guide).
Now returned to nature, and a fair few shrubs
-
I was wondering whether this might have (intentionally?) been a bit like that Marcel Douchamp Fountain artwork.
Basically prompting people to wonder as to what climbing means to them or whatever. It sort of works in doing that I guess.
-
When I climbed the direct start to Tour de France at Avon I protected the middle pitch with a knot in the abseil rope, a spur-of-the-moment decision which I'd never done before or since. It was a fortunate choice as I took a 60 footer onto it (if the Avon guidebook is to be believed, it didn't seem quite that far). I went back and placed a peg roughly where the knot had been. Which is what Franco should do in my view.
-
I was wondering whether this might have (intentionally?) been a bit like that Marcel Douchamp Fountain artwork.
Basically prompting people to wonder as to what climbing means to them or whatever. It sort of works in doing that I guess.
That analogy might be more prescient than you think stone!
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2023/oct/15/conceptualist-art-fountain-is-fake-say-historians-marcel-duchamp
-
I’m surprised Franco has not posted on here to clarify things.
I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing was just to wind up UKB :lol: I imagine Franco has been enjoying this thread.
I think it's basically a valid ascent, as in he's done the climbing and the knotted tope is basically equivalent to bolts in terms of danger / difficulty of clipping. It is however unhelpful for any would be repeaters, as it leaves ambiguity as to where the line goes and adds logistics.
So he's climbed the route, but the route sort-of doesn't exist :shrug:
P.s. I think the earlier post about this whole inspection of our ethics being uncomfortably nonsensical was spot on
-
It is however unhelpful for any would be repeaters, as it leaves ambiguity as to where the line goes and adds logistics.
Any more ambiguous than a normal trad route?
-
It is however unhelpful for any would be repeaters, as it leaves ambiguity as to where the line goes and adds logistics.
Any more ambiguous than a normal trad route?
I think in most cases. There's usually gear and/or a line to follow - granted, not always.
And it would be fine if it was an ambiguous trad route, the problem is that it is being put out there as a sport route.
-
Would someone nearby (Pete?) Just go and fucking bolt it already? Would clear things up a bit :lol:
-
While I’m waiting for it to be bolted I may as well get the first ascent of that line left of Indian Face with this new knotted protection, before someone else drops a top rope down and claims the first ascent.
-
You have to admire Franco's ability to wind up.
I don't even think it is particularly intentional.
He is selflessly putting his life in danger and opening himself up to ethical criticism in pursuit of the interesting and new.
He is the sport/trad/top-rope leader we need but don't deserve!
-
He discussed it in the video interview he did with UKC, and he didn't write the article. Sounds like an issue with UKC not Franco?
UKC can only go off the information they’re given though, and he wasn’t forthcoming. It looked like they mostly just copied and pasted from Franco’s Instagram account to write that news article, at which point nothing had been mentioned about a knotted rope. I haven’t followed it that closely or watched the video so I could be wrong, but wasn’t the video interview done several days after the article? By which time the knotted rope info had come to light so he had no option but to come clean.
Question is, would UKC have done a news article and reported it in the same way if Franco had been honest about the knotted rope before they published? I doubt it.
He’s setting a bad precedent IMO. Get your story out first and then straighten out the details afterwards. It was the same with the Prow, that Cornish slab, the Young etc.
-
What's the difference between extending a bolt and a knotted rope? None. I cant belive this thread is a thing nor that anyone thinks that this is anything to do with top roping.
However, I do think that its lazy not to put the bolts in but then I don't really understand the designer danger ethics of routes that are part bolted/part gear.
Anyway, felt like there was an overwhelming majority that think francos ascent is somehow non legit so wanted to add a differing opinion to that.
-
How many knots were on this rope?
It sounds like it just protects the direct start to the meltdown so is kind of like, as Hayden says, extending a bolt to protect the start.
It doesn't seem that controversial to me that there is another badly bolted route on the slate.
-
It's about 10m to the first bolt on The Meltdown?? Hardly the same as a 4' sling on that to make it easier to clip.
Now, just speculating here, going out on a limb, but I'm wondering if at any point during the weeks of working this project, anyone thought to ask someone from Llanberis / Llandudno / North Wales retro-Bolt Fund scene to stick a few bolts in?? I mean it's unlikely that anyone in such a climber-sparse area that's scarcely had a bolt placed in the last decade would be available or keen to help turn a mega-project into a route just like The Meltdown next to it, but it might have been worth a try....
-
Would someone nearby (Pete?) Just go and fucking bolt it already? Would clear things up a bit :lol:
It is tempting but I probably wouldn't bolt something if I wasn't capable of climbing it, without first talking to the FA. I live 5 minutes away and have drill, attic full of bolt, and competence. What say you Franco, want to be a boring normal person or are you fully committed to being a zany attention-seeker?
I also think if someone bolted it they should have a say on renaming it. I'd call it Cutting the Gordian Knot.
-
To be clear, I’m not suggesting the FA is invalid, just that the this is precedent setting and it’s worth considering what wider implication the application of this style has. Yes, I was being sarcastic in tone, because to me it seems to muddy the waters by adding further levels of arbitrariness to an already contrived sport, but I’m not calling ‘no FA’ on Franco. We can draw up some boring, complex and arbitrary rules, or just collectively agree this sort of thing is technically valid, but that it degrades the sport somewhat and we don’t want people to do it.
I do think it’s a shame that this will probably dissuade some potential repeaters, especially international ones. I think the best outcome would be that someone competent bolts the route. First they’d need to ascertain the exact clip positions (is there video for this?) given that this might have an impact on difficulty. However, I can see that there is a (eye-rollingly tiresome)controversy booby trap rigged to this action in Franco’s statement about wanting to do this as a trad route. For my money if I was the presiding judge on the ethics committee here I would rule that Franco get the FA but doesn’t get to veto or otherwise cry foul when a thick skinned philanthropist does the decent thing. Obviously this doesn’t stop Franco doing the route on trad, he can take the hangers off for the ascent, then chop the bolts properly afterwards. I have one uneaten hat from a previous one of Franco’s bold claims regarding Dangermouse at Wimberry. Fortunately I have another one I can eat if he does this route on trad.
-
This shit just gets better….. hats off to Franco he really does just seem to bring this shit on himself……
This is all second hand knowledge but my understanding of what has actually gone on. Hopefully he will/can come on and correct/justify stuff, but from where I’m sat it doesn’t look great….
Caff has bolted the start, which is good!! He one hanged it on day 2. Crux for caff is the meltdown still….
A hold appeared on the upper section before Franco did it…. Fuck knows if he used it….. Franco then got the glue out and repaired/filled it back in.
Caff still managed to use it as a foot on his go….
Franco then went back and filled it in even more….
Fuck knows what’s going on but the fact he’s not openly mentioned this hold which he did or didn’t use and the fact he filled it in doesn’t cover him in glory.
I love a bit of controversy and it only adds to the history and mystique of routes, but it’s pretty disingenuous to not be upfront about this kinda shit, regardless of how/what’s gone down…. :popcorn:
-
This just gets better each time I read these additional comments.
Did the first ascent get filmed?
-
A chipped hold that's been filled? We just need the shit and the banner now.
-
Franco theads are my favourite UKB threads
-
You must be a Franco-phile.
-
I have one uneaten hat from a previous one of Franco’s bold claims regarding Dangermouse at Wimberry. Fortunately I have another one I can eat if he does this route on trad.
When are you naming a prob "The Art of Uneaten Hat Wearing"?.
-
(https://premierleague-static-files.s3.amazonaws.com/premierleague/photo/2016/09/09/e05b23b9-d904-45c1-a158-0ad0106d5dbf/GettyImages-130010419.jpg)
-
Good pen picture of footballs' ''the most interesting man in the world'': https://www.goal.com/en-gb/lists/mario-balotelli-what-happened-most-interesting-man-in-the-world/bltcdabaf1c326fd3d3#cs7b8c61cdd92526b1
-
It would be interesting to see a photo of what went on. This comment on UKC 'ask him if he's plan on leaving his spiders web art installation of fixed ropes up permanently?' suggests it's a lot more than just a single rope with some knots in it akin to a bolt extension.
My view is it isn't a route yet. Unless he places or arranges bolts to be placed asap in the positions he used, he's done a decent ascent equivalent to a clean top-rope. It would be very easy for him to now drill them in more awkward positions, whether intentionally or not. As it stands it lacks the permanence to be repeatable, it will be noted in the line's history, but not the FA.
There may some precedents around the world but they're all notably isolated incidents where the general consensus has been, as Pete put it, that it would soon be a shitshow if we carried on similarly.
Taking a step back, I do think that to claim a sport route, it has to exist as such. Sport climbing is defined by the presence of bolts. If you want to establish sport climbs then you have to grapple with the ethical issues of drilling.
-
My view is it isn't a route yet. Unless he places or arranges bolts to be placed asap in the positions he used, he's done a decent ascent equivalent to a clean top-rope. It would be very easy for him to now drill them in more awkward positions, whether intentionally or not. As it stands it lacks the permanence to be repeatable, it will be noted in the line's history, but not the FA.
Are you saying, in your view, that if the bolts were placed now then that would complete the FA with no further climbing. Or do you think he would have to relead it on the bolts?
-
It’s too late by the sounds of it now….
See my comment above, Caff has bolted the start I think. God knows if where he’s put them is any kind of a nod to where the knots were!!
Back around methinks
-
Yeah, the more I think about it the more I think he'd have to relead it. Otherwise, who knows where the clips were? Slate has a long history of bolts where the clips were the crux, and while this may not be the case here it doesn't mean they aren't an integral part of a sport lead.
-
It would be interesting to see a photo of what went on. This comment on UKC 'ask him if he's plan on leaving his spiders web art installation of fixed ropes up permanently?' suggests it's a lot more than just a single rope with some knots in it akin to a bolt extension.
I think that's just a reference to there having been assorted ropes left in place on that bit of crag for the last couple of years now - some for getting in from the top, some for getting to the bottom. Rather than having much to do with the knotted rope scenario. Could be wrong.
-
OMG I’ve just realised all these routes and proposed routes with names and sport grades and proposed trad grades are listed on UKC, as Franco is the crag moderator for Twll Mawr. No asterisks to indicate ‘a newly updated climb waiting to be checked by the crag moderator’.
It’s all getting a bit Si O’Connor.
-
Classic poacher gamekeeper.
FWIW I actually hope he goes back and releads it on the new bolts. it does sound and look like an amazing piece of climbing ("chipped" and filled holds notwithstanding).
-
Yeah, the more I think about it the more I think he'd have to relead it. Otherwise, who knows where the clips were? Slate has a long history of bolts where the clips were the crux, and while this may not be the case here it doesn't mean they aren't an integral part of a sport lead.
I can't see how that would make a difference? If the bolts haven't been placed where the knots were then you'd just extend them until they were?
(I'm not trying to persuade you otherwise, just exploring the thinking behind your view)
-
That would depend on whether Caff gets there 'first'? :worms:
I don't think the comparisons to extending draws elsewhere are great. There are plenty of challenges on slate where doing so would be a retrograde step.
-
Yeah, the more I think about it the more I think he'd have to relead it. Otherwise, who knows where the clips were? Slate has a long history of bolts where the clips were the crux, and while this may not be the case here it doesn't mean they aren't an integral part of a sport lead.
I can't see how that would make a difference? If the bolts haven't been placed where the knots were then you'd just extend them until they were?
(I'm not trying to persuade you otherwise, just exploring the thinking behind your view)
Well, if the bolt is now 30cm left or right it could be a ballache to clip?
I added a bolt to a route at Dumby, as there was a long runout beyond the crux before which people usually extended but it was a pita for working and onsighting so we stuck another one in. It's in a good clipping position, but with the wrong length QD on it the rope can get in the road of the crux foot sequence.
Now, if the rope knots were clipable, then it should in theory be pretty easy to get the bolts in the right place and I doubt Caff would fuck it up.
Also, did the write up not say the start was actually easier than the meltdown original? (and the crux is later)
-
That would depend on whether Caff gets there 'first'? :worms:
I don't think the comparisons to extending draws elsewhere are great. There are plenty of challenges on slate where doing so would be a retrograde step.
Isn't there a difference between those routes described as trad and sport? You'd get called out for extending the bolts on Poetry Pink but all the people I've seen on The Medium recently have got a sling on the bolt by the crux so it can be clipped twice.
-
Also, did the write up not say the start was actually easier than the meltdown original? (and the crux is later)
Effectively climbs the straight up line of the buttress, missing out the first hard move of the Meltdown, but with harder moves to join the same point from below and a harder finish.
https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/twll_mawr-636/the_dewin_stone-682592
Also page for Quarryman Wall to see all the projects written up including the 9b https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/twll_mawr-636/#the_quarryman_wall
-
This thread is such a frustrating read. A genuinely noteworthy piece of climbing ruined because of a sociopathic obsession with controversy.
I think he's earned the right to be named as the first ascentionist but I, and I'm sure others, think less of him as a result. I'm sure he doesn't care about that but Just all a bit stupid. Well done Caff for bolting it.
-
Well, if the bolt is now 30cm left or right it could be a ballache to clip?
...with the wrong length QD on it the rope can get in the road of the crux foot sequence.
Both of which might be solved by having a knotted rope which you can just flick left or right to put it in the right position when it suits. Not saying it's definitely easier this way - all a bit hypothetical and it could be just as much or even more of a ballache, but using a knotted rope just isn't the same as a bolt in a fixed position regardless of how long you choose to extend it.
Plus, as Ian said, if you're trying to replicate the safety of a sport route without using bolts by hanging a knotted rope down the thing then why only do it for the lower bit and not the top? Pointless.
-
It would be interesting to see a photo of what went on. This comment on UKC 'ask him if he's plan on leaving his spiders web art installation of fixed ropes up permanently?' suggests it's a lot more than just a single rope with some knots in it akin to a bolt extension.
My view is it isn't a route yet. Unless he places or arranges bolts to be placed asap in the positions he used, he's done a decent ascent equivalent to a clean top-rope. It would be very easy for him to now drill them in more awkward positions, whether intentionally or not. As it stands it lacks the permanence to be repeatable, it will be noted in the line's history, but not the FA.
There may some precedents around the world but they're all notably isolated incidents where the general consensus has been, as Pete put it, that it would soon be a shitshow if we carried on similarly.
Taking a step back, I do think that to claim a sport route, it has to exist as such. Sport climbing is defined by the presence of bolts. If you want to establish sport climbs then you have to grapple with the ethical issues of drilling.
You're ruling essentially that you can't have your ethical hat and eat it.
-
a sociopathic obsession with controversy.
Is it this, or is it desperation for recognition which then leads to exaggerated/misleading claims? (which ultimately results in the controversy) :shrug:
-
The bit I’m interested in is who is the phantom chipper…. :worms: And did Franco use the chipped hold or not!
I’m not sure how much I’m gonna believe his inevitable “ no of course not” reply….
Given he’s not been particularly open about what’s gone on. Which is a real shame, I like the i don’t give a fuck attitude, I just wish he would take a bit more ownership of what’s gone on and be upfront about it.
It’s undoubtedly an amazing piece of climbing, there’s no taking that away from him.
For me given everything I’m not sure it counts as a valid ascent of the route… that’s just my opinion. Hats off to him he’s certainly livened up a wet week!!
-
Just to be absolutely clear, no one has said to me a hold has been chipped….. a new hold “appeared” it could very well have been there for ever, just not noticed.
If this is the case, it’s also pretty whack that he’s taken it upon himself to force a sequence…..
Either way it’s all quite sad, but will be a great read in the history section of the guide(if such things exist ) in a few years time!!
-
I doubt it will be a great read, the slate guide is now a rockfax. :P
I half-expect Franco to author the next guide to really have the insane running the asylum. Going by that UKC logbook page linked to earlier he's already trying to claim ownership over the ethical narrative of the unclimbed lines on Quarryman Wall.
-
If anyone thinks this wall is just sport climbing, i.e. 'it's the climbing not the clipping', note that the neighbouring route Quarryman pitch 1 gets 7c but 'also considered E6 6c with gear to reduce the run outs'. :???:
-
a sociopathic obsession with controversy.
Is it this, or is it desperation for recognition which then leads to exaggerated/misleading claims? (which ultimately results in the controversy) :shrug:
My impression is that Franco might just do whatever he is inclined to do, not specifically to seek attention, but not shying away from it either. I guess most people think of potential things to do but hold back whilst Franco just does it.
I'm thinking of another old Franco "happening". People nowadays don't generally leave quickdraws in Peak sport crags but it used to be pretty standard. Back then, Franco stripped the quickdraws out of Raven Tor and told people he had done so. My guess is that nowadays Franco might retrospectively be seen as a bit of a hero for doing that but (for many/most people) he wasn't back then. (disclosure, I think my draws were amongst those taken)
This link is to that:- https://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,10781.msg181313.html#msg181313
-
OMG I’ve just realised all these routes and proposed routes with names and sport grades and proposed trad grades are listed on UKC, as Franco is the crag moderator for Twll Mawr. No asterisks to indicate ‘a newly updated climb waiting to be checked by the crag moderator’.
It’s all getting a bit Si O’Connor.
Maybe it's changed recently, but anything unclimbed has a grade of 'project' and 'unclimbed' in the FA details. To me that seems pretty clear and not like anything is being claimed. I kind of like it, seems like the modern equivalent of having projects mentioned in the guide.
-
Maybe it's changed recently, but anything unclimbed has a grade of 'project' and 'unclimbed' in the FA details. To me that seems pretty clear and not like anything is being claimed. I kind of like it, seems like the modern equivalent of having projects mentioned in the guide.
At the time I linked it earlier, they all had grades listed (up to E12 7b and 9b), but they have now been updated to have ‘project’ instead.
-
I don’t mind a ‘project’ being listed. But naming and grading trad routes that haven’t been climbed is completely ridiculous ego-driven bolloxs in my view. Can I add ‘Tom’s arête’ E8 7b 3 stars “climb the arête right of Smiling Buttress”? I’ve been on it a couple of times and have some idea of the difficulty. No, of course I can’t!
Edit: as per teestub post someone is reading this thread and agrees.
-
I don’t mind a ‘project’ being listed. But naming and grading trad routes that haven’t been climbed is completely ridiculous ego-driven bolloxs in my view. Can I add ‘Tom’s arête’ E8 7b 3 stars “climb the arête right of Smiling Buttress”? I’ve been on it a couple of times and have some idea of the difficulty. No, of course I can’t!
Maybe it's just me but it doesn't seem that crazy. Smiling Buttress, Wizard Ridge, Launch Pad Project etc. were all named before they were climbed and of course the FA is free to suggest whatever name and grade they want (e.g. Launch Pad Project became Floatin').
Perhaps if Franco had called them "Franco's 5* Line" it'd be a bit shit, in the same way it'd be a shit, egotistical name if it was suggested by the FA.
-
Maybe it's just me but it doesn't seem that crazy. Smiling Buttress, Wizard Ridge, Launch Pad Project etc. were all named before they were climbed and of course the FA is free to suggest whatever name and grade they want (e.g. Launch Pad Project became Floatin').
Or La Dura Dura?
Interesting one. I had the impression that the names of these other projects had come about sort of organically, rather than had their names deliberately chosen. Which feels kind of different, if true.
-
For sport climbing it totally makes sense to mention unclimbed lines in guidebooks and route databases, because otherwise it can be confusing to orient yourself at the crag. When the routes are listed from left to right, projects should be listed just to help with finding routes.
Writing up a undone trad project in a topo or route database is ludicrous.
-
I think it's a bit OTT to call naming trad projects 'ridiculous ego driven bollox' or 'ludicrous'. I think it's just a bit overkeen and possessive.
-
I don’t know if it’s that weird to name it, especially if the namer has a few projects on the go, but grading it (as seems to have been done at some point) is maybe the odd bit? But as long as it’s obvious it’s all a work in progress it’s not that bad is it?
-
I don't mind the naming of projects really I think it gives a nice link to the past as part of the history of that climb. Think about when Jean-Christophe Lafaille bolted biographie in 89 and it sat in the middle of ceuse as an infamous project before sharma came along and sieged it into submission. It all adds to the story but ultimately it'll always be the quality of the route or boulder problem itself that determines its level of notoriety.
-
Yes, naming of projects without grading them is OK (or a working title). Depends on which country as to whether the bolter gets to name it or the FA. In the UK, its the latter, in France the former.
IMO, routes should not be graded until they are climbed. That is a long standing precedent since the early days of climbing. Speculation on the grade is one thing but to grade it in a topo or database before being climbed is not the right way to go. The FA gets to grade the climb.
Usually on Spanish topos, 'P' or project or '?' is used on the topo with some speculation, if any, on what likely ballpark grade it might be appearing in some accompanying note.
Holds appear on routes from time to time without being chipped. Sometimes existing holds 'break bigger' e,g, the pocket for your RH on Launch Control at Kilnsey used to be a tight 3 finger slot (in 2019 when I did it) but has since broken to make a better, full hand pocket. No chipping involved.
-
Holds appear on routes from time to time without being chipped. Sometimes existing holds 'break bigger' e,g, the pocket for your RH on Launch Control at Kilnsey used to be a tight 3 finger slot (in 2019 when I did it) but has since broken to make a better, full hand pocket. No chipping involved.
Absolutely agree. I think the relevant questions are
Is it chipped?
If so, who chipped it?
Did Franco use it?
If it’s not chipped is it ok to fill it in and force a sequence?
-
I think the relevant questions are
Is it chipped?
If so, who chipped it?
Did Franco use it?
If it’s not chipped is it ok to fill it in and force a sequence?
The answers to which will only be revealed via Franco’s substack page ::)
-
Personally I think the knotted rope issue is a storm in a tea cup.
I always thought the point of leading a sport route was that it takes out any potential for getting some accidental assistance from the rope (except for checking a swing in something steep). In order to lead something you then had to place/clip making it in most cases physically harder too. The knotted rope doesn't charge either of those things.
Obviously with trad you are taking up the challenge of only the protection the rock allows you and the inherent danger/commitment that goes with it.
I wouldn't be against the idea of having a knotted rope sport route in area with no bolt ethic that are physically possible but seemingly unfeasible to lead due to the difficulty and lack of protection. I'd caveat this by saying on delicate rock that it should be left for future generations and not risk damaging it.
It also strikes me that slate bolting is historically arbitrary. A mix of fully bolted sport routes, mixed routes and trad routes that sometimes rely solely on runout bolt protection. Add in questionable homemade bolts and bolts placed deliberately after the crux to engineer the danger. Francos approach doesn't seem that odd when you look at the scatter gun approach to bolting in the area.
Just to clarify I'm pretty neutral on Franco on the one hand I strongly disagree on his claims on the prow and the young, on the other he has achieved some incredibly impressive ascents. I always thought some of the charm of British climbing came from its strong/controversial characters and its non standard approach to ethics and protection.
-
It would be interesting to see a photo of what went on. This comment on UKC 'ask him if he's plan on leaving his spiders web art installation of fixed ropes up permanently?' suggests it's a lot more than just a single rope with some knots in it akin to a bolt extension.
My view is it isn't a route yet. Unless he places or arranges bolts to be placed asap in the positions he used, he's done a decent ascent equivalent to a clean top-rope. It would be very easy for him to now drill them in more awkward positions, whether intentionally or not. As it stands it lacks the permanence to be repeatable, it will be noted in the line's history, but not the FA.
There may some precedents around the world but they're all notably isolated incidents where the general consensus has been, as Pete put it, that it would soon be a shitshow if we carried on similarly.
Taking a step back, I do think that to claim a sport route, it has to exist as such. Sport climbing is defined by the presence of bolts. If you want to establish sport climbs then you have to grapple with the ethical issues of drilling.
You're ruling essentially that you can't have your ethical hat and eat it.
Haven't we established that there is going to be disappointingly little hat consumption of any form on the go?? :)
-
Personally I think the knotted rope issue is a storm in a tea cup.
I always thought the point of leading a sport route was that it takes out any potential for getting some accidental assistance from the rope (except for checking a swing in something steep). In order to lead something you then had to place/clip making it in most cases physically harder too. The knotted rope doesn't charge either of those things.
Obviously with trad you are taking up the challenge of only the protection the rock allows you and the inherent danger/commitment that goes with it.
I wouldn't be against the idea of having a knotted rope sport route in area with no bolt ethic that are physically possible but seemingly unfeasible to lead due to the difficulty and lack of protection. I'd caveat this by saying on delicate rock that it should be left for future generations and not risk damaging it.
It also strikes me that slate bolting is historically arbitrary. A mix of fully bolted sport routes, mixed routes and trad routes that sometimes rely solely on runout bolt protection. Add in questionable homemade bolts and bolts placed deliberately after the crux to engineer the danger. Francos approach doesn't seem that odd when you look at the scatter gun approach to bolting in the area.
I agree, I think it's excellent news and I'm looking forward to starting my gritstone sport climbing career using this method!
-
Personally I think the knotted rope issue is a storm in a tea cup.
I always thought the point of leading a sport route was that it takes out any potential for getting some accidental assistance from the rope (except for checking a swing in something steep). In order to lead something you then had to place/clip making it in most cases physically harder too. The knotted rope doesn't charge either of those things.
Obviously with trad you are taking up the challenge of only the protection the rock allows you and the inherent danger/commitment that goes with it.
I wouldn't be against the idea of having a knotted rope sport route in area with no bolt ethic that are physically possible but seemingly unfeasible to lead due to the difficulty and lack of protection. I'd caveat this by saying on delicate rock that it should be left for future generations and not risk damaging it.
It also strikes me that slate bolting is historically arbitrary. A mix of fully bolted sport routes, mixed routes and trad routes that sometimes rely solely on runout bolt protection. Add in questionable homemade bolts and bolts placed deliberately after the crux to engineer the danger. Francos approach doesn't seem that odd when you look at the scatter gun approach to bolting in the area.
I agree, I think it's excellent news and I'm looking forward to starting my gritstone sport climbing career using this method!
Clipping up Reservoir Dogs seems like a great idea, are you free this weekend? :lol:
-
Now your just being silly. It's an (old) existing route so clearly feasible and has broken several times so clearly fragile.
I was talking about something that's a thin 9a or whatever with no gear and hasn't been climbed and might possibly never be without some form of protection. The rules say you can't bolt it so you are left with top rope or Francorope which at least mostly removes gaining assistance from the rope.
Historically there's been the use of pre-clipped incredibly high side runners sometimes in multiple routes to solve situations like this. Guess I don't see a huge difference if you're giving it a short grade.
-
Have I got this right? The route exists in a particular state which is presumably, beyond the ability of the climber to lead in that condition. Extra protection relying on a rope from above is added so that the climber can do it. It then gets claimed as if it were the route with the protection that he would have liked to be present, but wasn’t. That route does not exist. The too bold original still does.
-
Have I got this right? The route exists in a particular state which is presumably, beyond the ability of the climber to lead in that condition. Extra protection relying on a rope from above is added so that the climber can do it. It then gets claimed as if it were the route with the protection that he would have liked to be present, but wasn’t. That route does not exist. The too bold original still does.
I think this argument makes a lot of sense if you are thinking about it in a trad context, but not so much in a sport context. The difference between popping a knotted rope on it and drilling bolts in the same place as the knotted rope seems pretty strained when you look at the practicalities of how people will typically try and climb this thing (potentially abbing in from the top of the crag, likely spending some time on top rope first, maybe making use of a fixed line to work it etc.)
-
Now your just being silly. It's an (old) existing route so clearly feasible and has broken several times so clearly fragile.
I was talking about something that's a thin 9a or whatever with no gear and hasn't been climbed and might possibly never be without some form of protection. The rules say you can't bolt it so you are left with top rope or Francorope which at least mostly removes gaining assistance from the rope.
Historically there's been the use of pre-clipped incredibly high side runners sometimes in multiple routes to solve situations like this. Guess I don't see a huge difference if you're giving it a short grade.
Was it not obvious enough? :wall:
-
Have I got this right? The route exists in a particular state which is presumably, beyond the ability of the climber to lead in that condition. Extra protection relying on a rope from above is added so that the climber can do it. It then gets claimed as if it were the route with the protection that he would have liked to be present, but wasn’t. That route does not exist. The too bold original still does.
I think this argument makes a lot of sense if you are thinking about it in a trad context, but not so much in a sport context. The difference between popping a knotted rope on it and drilling bolts in the same place as the knotted rope seems pretty strained when you look at the practicalities of how people will typically try and climb this thing (potentially abbing in from the top of the crag, likely spending some time on top rope first, maybe making use of a fixed line to work it etc.)
Exactly…. Go down there get on any route of your choice and report back as to if it feels more like a sport route or a trad route!
As Adam said earlier this place is a long way from a sport crag.
-
Was it not obvious enough? :wall:
Surely you know the internet has an algorithm that removes all traces of irony, satire and sarcasm?
I do like your idea of the satirical though. The historical ending to this saga should involve Franco removing whatever he filled the hold with and replacing it with a brass mold of the original rock alongside a small painting of Caff dressed as a quarryman before retreating into life as an obscure artist that involves some form of public nudity thus completing the cycle of Welsh climbing controversy
-
Was it not obvious enough? :wall:
Surely you know the internet has an algorithm that removes all traces of irony, satire and sarcasm?
I do like your idea of the satirical though. The historical ending to this saga should involve Franco removing whatever he filled the hold with and replacing it with a brass mold of the original rock alongside a small painting of Caff dressed as a quarryman before retreating into life as an obscure artist that involves some form of public nudity thus completing the cycle of Welsh climbing controversy
Good story, but needs more 3D printed holds and Lattice training plans. 7/10.
-
Plus a picture of a willy.
-
Exactly…. Go down there get on any route of your choice and report back as to if it feels more like a sport route or a trad route!
As Adam said earlier this place is a long way from a sport crag.
Times have a-changed in the Big Hole. Twll Mawr has loads of normally bolted, standard sport routes these days.
-
On that particular face?
The sport routes I've done down there certainly weren't.
-
On that particular face?
The sport routes I've done down there certainly weren't.
I'm not sure about that particular face. I haven't done Rock Bottom Line, but it's of the same era as the other modern fully bolted routes, so I suspect that one.
But nearly all the others have trad grades, so are not a like for like comparison for Dewin Stone, which has been given a sport grade.
I don't think the argument 'this is not a sport crag' holds any water when there are lots of routes nearby that are indisputably sport.
It's a hybrid crag, with some sport and some partly bolted trad, like most of the slate.
-
It's a hybrid crag, with some sport and some partly bolted trad, like most of the slate.
Isn't that what's being implied, in that it's far from your typical sport venue?
-
Loads of sport venues have trad routes though. Eg, Kilnsey. I thought it was being implied this was somehow a special crag where even all the "sport" routes were really run out/needed gear, which isn't the case. It's not Taipan, where you need a bit of bravery and extra gear on all the routes. It's a crag where weird slate "trad" routes and perfectly well bolted sport routes live together. If you went with a typical sport rack I think you'd have a typical sport day.
-
Fuck it then…. Knotted ropes it is! It’s not Taipan no! It’s the quarryman face.
Everyone is free to do whatever they like, personally I hate rules. However there are parameters within climbing that the game is played within. We all play by different rules ultimately.
You might be happy with your ascent with a 20ft daisy chain at the bottom of the crag and a 50ft runout at the top!
I think the two things are in complete contradiction of each other and it just sets a precedent for people to do what ever they fancy.
And those aren’t the rules of the game I play. I’m happy to concede climbing is moving on and obviously leaving me behind and this is ok these days.
-
It's a hybrid crag, with some sport and some partly bolted trad, like most of the slate.
Isn't that what's being implied, in that it's far from your typical sport venue?
Possibly, but it was implied that this somehow makes the knotted rope thing less excusable than if it was at a more conventional sport crag. Which I don't personally think is a factor at all. It's been claimed as a sport route with a sport grade at a venue that already has a bunch of established sport routes.
I'm not sure how I've ended up in a position of defending the ascent so much - I don't really care if posterity demands Franco has to lead it again with the bolts in (as token and pointless as that seems) and I have no interest in defending anyone's right to claim routes this way in future. I just find some of the arguments against it nonsensical.
-
I’m happy to concede climbing is moving on and obviously leaving me behind and this is ok these days.
To be fair not a single person on this thread has actually approved of the knotted rope. I think we all agree that it's shit practice.
I would definitely harden my position on recognising ascents if it became more than an anomaly.
Now, back to that filled-in hold... :popcorn:
-
It’s all bollocks any way isn’t it. As far as the knotted rope goes my final salvo is that it has probably been summed up best by Pete somewhere above when he said that if everyone did it like this it would be shit, and that is ultimately why for the last 30yrs or so it’s generally been accepted that it’s not the done thing…..
-
The knotted rope is less faff than drilling, but more faff for everyone else and less repeatable. Your knots positions are different to my knot positions (actually not mine, it’s not a Font 5).
A bit like those warehouse rackings you can adjust the height of the shelf/bolts to where you want them. Or that time I placed the same cam 3 times shuffling upwards.
Long live rules, long live pushing the rules.
-
Fuck it then…. Knotted ropes it is! It’s not Taipan no! It’s the quarryman face.
Everyone is free to do whatever they like, personally I hate rules. However there are parameters within climbing that the game is played within. We all play by different rules ultimately.
You might be happy with your ascent with a 20ft daisy chain at the bottom of the crag and a 50ft runout at the top!
I think the two things are in complete contradiction of each other and it just sets a precedent for people to do what ever they fancy.
And those aren’t the rules of the game I play. I’m happy to concede climbing is moving on and obviously leaving me behind and this is ok these days.
You've got the wrong end of the stick. I'm not saying the Quarryman Face is shit or that because its slate anything goes. I'm saying that its not a crag where the ethic is to not bolt 'proper' sport routes, ie routes where there are plenty of bolts and any run outs are titillating rather than dangerous. As such its not actually 'a long way from a sport crag' at all; it is very much a sport crag, albeit one with a face where some of the old school designer danger slate routes live (which I love, and should never be gridbolted). It might be valid to say that you think that properly bolted sport routes shouldn't exist on the Quarryman Face, which would be logical apart from the fact that Meltdown already exists and is presumably normally bolted, cause who wants to try and climb 9a while worrying about taking monster spills down a slab?
-
If Franco wanted it to be a trad route, he should have stayed quiet and kept working it until he'd done it as such.
If Franco wanted it to be a sport route, he should have either bolted it or got someone else to bolt it if he didn't think he was capable of doing a good job.
He didn't do either of those things, hence the controversy.
You can't claim a new sport route (which is potentially the hardest slab in the world), take the applause from the news coverage etc, without expecting anyone else is going to want to come and try it. And noone else can really try it without either bolting it, or engaging in the same knot silliness that noone else is interested in doing.
Or rather you can make such a claim, but the outcome was inevitably going to be threads on the internet like this one. As it's kind of rubbish saying I've climbed the hardest slab in the world, but no, you can't come and try it for the next few decades as I want to keep it as a trad project.
All of which seems like a shame for what looks like an amazing route. Thankfully, if Caff's now bolted it, it may become the classic hard slab testpiece that it should be.
All that being said, he's still in the hero camp for me, for running down Tryfan in under ten minutes :lol:
-
I love that Franco seems to care a lot less about the semantics than everyone else. Much more dignified than a Gresham justification thesis. I wouldn't be surprised if if he doesn't mind that Caff has bolted it either.
-
It’s not just semantics though, it’s being up front about what you did and how you did it. That’s transparency and honesty, and Gresham is leagues ahead on that.
-
To be fair not a single person on this thread has actually approved of the knotted rope. I think we all agree that it's shit practice.
Err....
I agree, I think it's excellent news and I'm looking forward to starting my gritstone sport climbing career using this method!
I am not joking...I genuinely think it's a great idea and I really don't get what the problem is. It's just a different style, as long as people are honest about what they've done then why the hell not? It has no impact on the rock, in fact if anything it's likely to be less damaging than using trad gear, leaves no permanent or even temporary trace, infringes on no one else's experience and allows people who are more risk averse to climb dangerous but otherwise high quality routes, which they don't otherwise have access to, in a safe and sensible way. So what's the problem?
I'll caveat that in this specific case describing it as a sport climb without placing bolts does infringe on future aspirant's experiences, but only insofar as the unwritten expectation that sport climbs should essentially be handed on a platter to repeaters.
-
If you don’t want the danger just top rope things. If you want a bit more spice do it with 5 or 10 feet of slack.
-
To offer the counterpoint, Bradders, the reason this has never caught on is that it's not necessary. If you want to do the climb but don't want the challenge of doing it on gear/soloing then you can always chuck a top rope on it.
People don't get their knickers in such a twist about top roping any more but one of the reasons this has been historically discouraged is to protect the rock. Not such an issue at Widdop but I'd bet lots of bold Peak slabs would be ruined by excessive top roping.
It would probably be disingenuous to pretend that protecting the cachet of hard trad routes doesn't also have something to do with it!
-
If you don’t want the danger just top rope things. If you want a bit more spice do it with 5 or 10 feet of slack.
Tell that to the sport climbers! They'll save a fortune on clipsticks and quickdraws.
-
If I was Franco I’d just go back and lead it again if it’s now bolted and put it to bed.
It’s a bit like Century Crack. IIRC Pete & Tom did the FA with some gear left in from a previous attempt. They then got some gyp on the internet about it not being proper so just went back and did it placing all on lead. Sorted.
-
I am not joking...I genuinely think it's a great idea and I really don't get what the problem is. It's just a different style, as long as people are honest about what they've done then why the hell not? It has no impact on the rock, in fact if anything it's likely to be less damaging than using trad gear, leaves no permanent or even temporary trace, infringes on no one else's experience and allows people who are more risk averse to climb dangerous but otherwise high quality routes, which they don't otherwise have access to, in a safe and sensible way. So what's the problem?
Just go TR soloing. You can have a lot of fun with a single rope and a micro-traxion. People do this on anything from gritstone buttresses to the height of the Verdon and to work pitches on Freerider etc.
The only problem I see was if this was to become very common practice, some routes wouldn't fare so well, as Will has suggested.
-
If I was Franco I’d just go back and lead it again if it’s now bolted and put it to bed.
I really hope he does. I think the route this?
-
If you don’t want the danger just top rope things. If you want a bit more spice do it with 5 or 10 feet of slack.
Tell that to the sport climbers! They'll save a fortune on clipsticks and quickdraws.
I'll doff my cap to anyone who fancies top roping some of the big steep euro routes. Guaranteed broken ankles if you drop the first 20m of Chilam Balam I reckon :lol:
-
A friend of mine likes to top-rope at a crag where the ground slopes away. "Try or fly" he calls it. It looks fucking terrifying.
-
Yes I rather like this practical aspect to the debate. Knotted ropes ain't happening on anything 10 degrees overhanging or over.
-
I used a knotted rope once on a new route that I wasn’t sure was worth bolting as it was squeezed in between two existing routes. Didn’t appreciate how much stretch there was and nearly ended up on the ground falling on the first knot.
-
who wants to try and climb 9a while worrying about taking monster spills down a slab?
Exactly or a 9a+ with a knotted rope at the bottom and the prospect of a monster spill at the top….. as I said the two things are a total contradiction, either bolt it properly(I don’t have a problem with that at all) or bolt the bottom and have some slate designer danger at the top… in keeping with many things on the slate. What he’s done is put politely, fucking lazy.
And then there’s the whole other filled in hold bullshit, which needs some clarification…..
-
As someone who’s tried recreational leading by clipping knots in a hanging rope let me assure you that it absolutely sucks.
- You don’t feel like you’re really leading so you don’t get the psyche to commit between knots.
You don’t have the “just take me there” comfort that a top rope gives you either.
As Ted says, if the route is even vaguely steep or 3D then the rope’s in space some of the way rather than being “in and around” the rock like normal gear which feels really freaky, makes the clips weird and is generally nothing like clipping gear or bolts.
As Shark says, the rope’s stretchy too (even statics stretch a bit of course) which makes it all feel mad- really hard to predict how far you’ll fall or how you’ll swing.
It’s faff to set up even if you tie the knots in arbitrary places. If you want the knots spaced in useful places like a well-bolted sport route then it’s mega faff.
You feel like an idiot.
The result is that you grab the rope rather than committing to doing tricky moves between the knots, swing around disconcertingly whenever you weight the system and very quickly say “what the fuck are we doing?l” and sack it off.
I can see why a psyched and eccentric pro climber who wants to preserve a dangerous trad project but also get a sponsor-friendly FA story on the books in the meantime would decide to use such shenanigans (funny how we moan about how there are no “proper characters” in climbing any more but when Franco gets up to his mischief everyone’s up in arms) but if the average climber goes out for what they envisage to be a pleasant afternoons knot-clipping they’ll probably be disappointed.
-
I would argue that using knotted ropes on a slab has little to do with character.
-
As Shark says, the rope’s stretchy too (even statics stretch a bit of course) which makes it all feel mad- really hard to predict how far you’ll fall or how you’ll swing.
It’s faff to set up even if you tie the knots in arbitrary places. If you want the knots spaced in useful places like a well-bolted sport route then it’s mega faff.
I assumed this was why, as quoted above, he'd rigged a 'spider's web art installation of fixed ropes'. Although getting around also seems to have been a consideration.
-
funny how we moan about how there are no “proper characters” in climbing any more but when Franco gets up to his mischief everyone’s up in arms
The "proper character" aspect would be more interesting if it wasn't so painfully contrived as a Redhead-Dawes-hybrid-wannabe performance-art attention-seeking "character", as is well summed up by the Uneaten Hat Department:
Or maybe we just don't break the entire paradigm of UK climbing in order to accommodate one person's perverse addiction to controversy. :tease:
I can see that there is a (eye-rollingly tiresome)controversy booby trap rigged to this action in Franco’s statement about wanting to do this as a trad route.
Franco as someone moving very impressively on rock has always been more interesting than Franco the oh-so-wacky character, and I'd like to see more of the former. Imagine if this whole scenario had actually been "The Dewin Stone - New 9a+ Slab from Franco".....
-
Franco as someone moving very impressively on rock has always been more interesting than Franco the oh-so-wacky character, and I'd like to see more of the former. Imagine if this whole scenario had actually been "The Dewin Stone - New 9a+ Slab from Franco".....
Exactly. I suspect he'd have been on safer territory too if he'd given it 9a but said it was harder than the Meltdown. Still the hardest slab in the country, but much less likely to get a witheringly rapid repeat and embarrassing downgrade from Caff. Anyway, he's off to the Dawn Wall next, I look forward to Siebe's perspective.
-
The "spontaneous" call (videoed on both sides) is great.
-
Franco as someone moving very impressively on rock has always been more interesting than Franco the oh-so-wacky character, and I'd like to see more of the former. Imagine if this whole scenario had actually been "The Dewin Stone - New 9a+ Slab from Franco".....
Exactly. I suspect he'd have been on safer territory too if he'd given it 9a but said it was harder than the Meltdown. Still the hardest slab in the country, but much less likely to get a witheringly rapid repeat and embarrassing downgrade from Caff. Anyway, he's off to the Dawn Wall next, I look forward to Siebe's perspective.
Or he could just give it the grade he thought it was and let repeaters share their opinion when they do it, and a grade will come out of the consensus. Personally I think this whole spiel about "witheringly quick repeats" and "embarrassing downgrades" is silly. So what if one of the best climbers in the country repeats it and thinks it's slightly easier? I much prefer that than everyone getting wound up about minor differences of grade opinion when everyone knows grading is a crap shoot at the best of times.
p.s. if Caff had repeated meltdown rather than making the FA I reckon he'd have suggested 8c/+ ;D
-
...in twenty years time, the hard "adventure" routes will be become relics only living in fading memories and UKC logbooks. Climbers will be afraid to do routes in anything but the most orthodox way in to avoid a circular cantankerous dressing down from UKB. In response, the UKTR (UK top route) forum will be created and seen as the voice of reason.
-
Or he could just give it the grade he thought it was and let repeaters share their opinion when they do it, and a grade will come out of the consensus. Personally I think this whole spiel about "witheringly quick repeats" and "embarrassing downgrades" is silly. So what if one of the best climbers in the country repeats it and thinks it's slightly easier? I much prefer that than everyone getting wound up about minor differences of grade opinion when everyone knows grading is a crap shoot at the best of times.
Completely agree. How can we give someone stick for giving a high grade to something and then it gets downgraded, while also getting annoyed when people opt to not grade routes? Because that's what'll happen if their only choice is public ridicule, or sandbag it to the point the grade is meaningless.
-
How can we give someone stick for giving a high grade to something and then it gets downgraded
Because it can be perceived as a cynical attempt to get the requisite publicity for the 'hardest route in the world' rather than the grade and hype it more probably deserves. Were you not around for the Walk of Life E12 fiasco?
Personally I don't get annoyed when people opt not to grade routes. Preferable to waving a massive fake willy imo.
-
I see not offering a grade as willy waving. Total copout, and comes across as saying you think its harder than everything else but don't want to actually say it in case you get proved wrong.
-
I'm obviously aware of the issues around hype, WOTL controversy, etc etc.
The solution in my eyes is not to discourage people giving grades, but to just make slightly less of a big deal when stuff is put up at a high grade. If we put a little less weight on the grades, then massive fake willies become a bit pointless, and we get to hear more honest opinions from people about how hard they found a route. And let's be honest, what's the reason for slapping outrageously big numbers on stuff? Maybe naivety (they'll learn), seeking sponsorship (companies will cotton on soon enough), wanting publicity (after a few "boy who cried wolf" scenarios the publicity will wane too).
I'd much prefer this to not giving a grade. Grades are very useful for the vast majority of climbers, and are a simple way to give an idea of difficulty. I appreciate that they can get wavy at the top end but I don't see that as a reason to forgo grades completely, just give people more leeway with whatever they say and let it settle over time.
To be clear: not a fan of cynical willy waving. I'd just prefer to enable people to give honest opinions and descriptions of difficulty (grades are handy for this), rather than doing away with grades all together.
-
I know that Franco is a wind up merchant, but if he does the Meltdown, which Caff says is 9a, and then does this and it feels roughly a grade harder, then it makes sense that this would be 9a+. There's no reason not to give that grade, if that's what he thinks it is compared to the 9a that it straightens out.
I suspect if Caff had given Meltdown 8c+ then Franco would give Dewin Stone 9a, on account of his own self-admitted lack of experience grading hard sport routes.
If Caff now says this is 9a and Meltdown is more like 8c+ then that's hardly Franco's fault.
-
Don't you think it would have made more sense for him to say that he has no experience climbing or grading hard sport, having only done one route harder than what, 7c? And therefore to say it felt harder than Meltdown but no idea if a full grade. Instead, what we have is someone who's entire sport resume is one ascent of the Meltdown, grading the hardest sport slab in the world. Which isn't bolted btw. The whole thing's a joke.
-
I think it makes sense for him to say I did this, which is apparently is grade X, and this varient feels like X+1, therefore I'm giving it X+1
I honestly have no idea what the issue is there. If Caff does it and downgrades it then he does it and downgrades it and the world turns ever on, if he says yeah 9a+ is fair then he says that... really I don't get the issue with the man doing a climb and grading it, if he didn't grade it he'd be slagged off for that and if you do a climb imo you're allowed to offer an assessment of how hard it is in grade form
-
How can we give someone stick for giving a high grade to something and then it gets downgraded
Because it can be perceived as a cynical attempt to get the requisite publicity for the 'hardest route in the world' rather than the grade and hype it more probably deserves. Were you not around for the Walk of Life E12 fiasco?
Personally I don't get annoyed when people opt not to grade routes. Preferable to waving a massive fake willy imo.
Bring back John Redhead.
-
This is coming across as Andy F style anti-Franciscan zealotry, JB.
He's done Meltdown, he's now done a variation on Meltdown which he reckons is substantially harder. He's offered a grade. It's not unreasonable. If Caff downgrades it and says it's easier than Meltdown then so what? An FA grade being wrong is hardly a surprise.
If this is easier than Meltdown it makes me wonder why Meltdown didn't take this route in the first place? Is it a less obvious line on the wall?
-
If this is easier than Meltdown it makes me wonder why Meltdown didn't take this route in the first place? Is it a less obvious line on the wall?
Someone (Franco in the recent UKC interview?) said Meltdown isn't actually very logical, and goes where it does because it's got some cool moves on it.
-
If Caff now says this is 9a and Meltdown is more like 8c+ then that's hardly Franco's fault.
I thought Caff originally gave it 8c+/9a on account of the fact he was unsure as he had little to go on (had he repeated the Big Bang at that point?)
-
If this is easier than Meltdown it makes me wonder why Meltdown didn't take this route in the first place?
Dawes.
-
If this is easier than Meltdown it makes me wonder why Meltdown didn't take this route in the first place? Is it a less obvious line on the wall?
Because it was always considered a trad line! :chair:
-
If Caff now says this is 9a and Meltdown is more like 8c+ then that's hardly Franco's fault.
I thought Caff originally gave it 8c+/9a on account of the fact he was unsure as he had little to go on (had he repeated the Big Bang at that point?)
Sure but then it says 9a on UKC, 8a.nu and such, like I think that saying that it got 9a is defensible. And if it did get 9a then like, if one did a variation that's harder then giving it 9a+ is fair. To me!
I think that some people are saying that Franco's grade 9a+ is a cynical, deliberate overgrade for the purposes for fame, which to me seems rather baseless, he did do Meltdown after all... it feels like this is more "Franco is a cock" than a legitimate argument against his grade
Maybe he is a cock. Maybe he's a cock that's climbed a new 9a+ though.
-
...in twenty years time, the hard "adventure" routes will be become relics only living in fading memories and UKC logbooks. Climbers will be afraid to do routes in anything but the most orthodox way in to avoid a circular cantankerous dressing down from UKB. In response, the UKTR (UK top route) forum will be created and seen as the voice of reason.
Bollox. Firstly this isn't a 'hard adventure route', it's a bolted-single pitch-that-someone-couldn't be-bothered-bolting, at the bottom of a big quarry 15 minutes from the road. All that's at issue here is one person needlessly, possibly selfishly, creating a mess for others for no good reason.
Leader protection is a part of the visceral experience in climbing. Creating new sport routes requires committing your reputation, time, effort and skill to placing permanent protection. When done well it works in concert with the moves and rock so that the route flows, or at the least isn't a frustrating or needlessly dangerous experience. Creating new trad routes requires committing to working only with what the rock offers. Looks like Franco, for all his undoubted psyche and talent, isn't committing himself to the hard choices, but wants the satisfaction of an ascent and is prepared to use shoddy short-cuts as a means to achieve his desired end.
'Personal ropes affording temporary safety' (PRAT for short) isn't some daring counter-culture at the cutting edge - it's an easy and lazy way to rig some protection for a new route and it's an option that anyone who does enough new routes at whatever level of difficulty knows that they could use, if they wanted to be careless and inconsiderate over their new-routing addiction. It isn't progressive in enabling future ascents, or use of new technology - it's easier for literally one person and shitter for everyone else, and it's dumber technology in that it was a method that's been made obsolete by good bolts and lightweight drills! We could all say 'damn the constricting orthodoxy' and drop knotted ropes down anything we fancy climbing, and once we've done the moves claim new routes. At all different grades not just hard stuff. Quarries full of crap boltless-but-protected-when-I-did-it 5s and 6s, crags covered in crap gearless-but-protected-when-I-did-it E10s and 11s. It leaves a practical and ethical shitshow for everyone else. Similar but different to how we're currently left with a practical and ethical shitshow from other historical short-sighted ways of claiming new routes by placing pegs and non stainless bolts for protection on sea cliffs. One extreme to the other from leaving crap to not bothering to leave anything!
-
I think that some people are saying that Franco's grade 9a+ is a cynical, deliberate overgrade for the purposes for fame,
To be clear I’m not saying that just indulging in some climbing nerdery!
-
If Caff now says this is 9a and Meltdown is more like 8c+ then that's hardly Franco's fault.
I thought Caff originally gave it 8c+/9a on account of the fact he was unsure as he had little to go on (had he repeated the Big Bang at that point?)
Sure but then it says 9a on UKC, 8a.nu and such, like I think that saying that it got 9a is defensible. And if it did get 9a then like, if one did a variation that's harder then giving it 9a+ is fair. To me!
I think that some people are saying that Franco's grade 9a+ is a cynical, deliberate overgrade for the purposes for fame, which to me seems rather baseless, he did do Meltdown after all... it feels like this is more "Franco is a cock" than a legitimate argument against his grade
Maybe he is a cock. Maybe he's a cock that's climbed a new 9a+ though.
Ukc says whatever the moderator says it is.
Caff said 8c+/1+9a when he did it as seen on 8a.nu...
https://www.8a.nu/news/james-mchaffie-sends-the-meltdown-project
-
Ukc says whatever the moderator says it is.
Caff said 8c+/1+9a when he did it as seen on 8a.nu...
https://www.8a.nu/news/james-mchaffie-sends-the-meltdown-project
That's not always the case. Mods can't change grades that are in guides. They have to put a case to Alan and he will either agree or disagree
-
And guidebook grades aren't always written as slash grades like caff essentially gave there?
-
FWIW Angus opted for a slash grade on his recent repeat of the Meltdown;
https://www.instagram.com/p/CtJUsdhNl1G/?hl=en (https://www.instagram.com/p/CtJUsdhNl1G/?hl=en)
-
If Caff now says this is 9a and Meltdown is more like 8c+ then that's hardly Franco's fault.
I thought Caff originally gave it 8c+/9a on account of the fact he was unsure as he had little to go on (had he repeated the Big Bang at that point?)
Sure but then it says 9a on UKC, 8a.nu and such, like I think that saying that it got 9a is defensible.
What UKC or Jens think of the grade is 100% irrelevant. If Caff gave it 8c+/9a then it 'got' 8c+/9a.
-
Its clearly opaque bullshit. Either bolt it and lead it as a sport route, or lead it as a trad route. FA is still there for the taking.
-
If you'd like a gresh-style essay, I'll have a go at replying. Apologies for taking a while to reply, I was busy belaying people on projects/celebrating and then finishing some DIY. As this is UKB critism thread #483, I think you'll know that I'm open to criticism. I know I do things my own/weird ways and am happy to take a bit of crack/answer questions, but being called a sociopath/ liar / chipper are not really on. This episode is almost entirely about me having not bolted a direct start to a sport route and instead super-extending a draw. I think some of the responses on here are deranged tbh.
To start, I'll acknowledge my faults first in the hope we can reach some common ground - I gave something a "big grade" without any idea of what those grades are, badly resined a hold up that appeared, didn't bolt a new sport line, left some bright orange ropes hanging.
The hold: I first worked the line and figured out a sequence for the headwall. I worked it a lot like this and then did the direct finish. Shortly before leading this, one of those very thin slate spikes broke and left a small useable hold. This ruined both the jump move (you can use this hold with your right hand for that) and the hard rockover (you can use a lower foot on this hold). For me, a significant part of the quality of the route was this dynamic and wild headwall sequence. The two best moves were ruined by this new hold and it wasn't something that was initially there. With the new hold, both moves would just be standard rockovers, without any of the complexity that was originally there. The bit that broke off here was tiny and disappeared, so I did a shit repair job by sprinkling bits of dust and tiny slate pieces on super glue. This looked terrible, but rendered the hold unuseable, which was all I was after really. Obviously it's significantly easier to do this headwall with the new hold also, but I didn't care so much about that, it was mostly the pursuit of quality that guided my actions (I've acted in the opposite ways in the past when new routes I've put up have been made easier). Quality is the most important thing to me in climbing - hence all the daft debates about lines. Obviously there are ethical issues with using glue or resin on routes, but there is precedent on this wall, with the repair that has taken place of the meltdown jug (not by me) with cement, not to mention Dawes' desire to add a bronze hold!! So there really is no contoversy to see here.
I climbed this new route with the good sequence, not using the new hold. This repair job was still in tact shortly before I redpointed the route, so I assume it was still in tact on the day I did it, as I didn't notice any change. When I next went on the line, a couple of days after I'd done it, I noticed part of the repair had come off. This could be my poor repair job, as it was just bits of slate glued on a hold (this seems unlikely timing), or someone could have broken the repair off by using it/ deliberately prising it off (we're talking about a very small stone coming off that was filling in a small hold). Either way, I was keen to restore the line to the original state and the way I did it. This next time, I did it with resin, which I hope stays on and makes the whole (small) hold slick and unuasable. So criticise me for repairing the route, for repairing it badly and making a mess, but trying to read more into this is, I think, unfair. As for "believing whether Franco used that hold on his ascent", I honestly am not that bothered what you believe. If I had used the new hold, I'd want to go back and do it without, cause the route is way cooler and having to execute those moves when you're pumped is one of the best challenges I've had on any route. But I also see this route as very much a stepping stone project to the trad challenge - I really don't see it as a major achievement in its own right. Leading a sport route with massively extended draws is obviously still leading the sport route and with the hanging rope it means that sport and trad can coexist on the same line, which is pretty cool.
The hanging rope thing is totally straightforward for me - I just didn't want to place bolts. There's a long history of oddities like this (I don't remember anyone criticising Pete for his weird bamboo draws on baron greenback for example), it's just a bit of fun really. (FWIW, I think the route's probably more difficult with the knotted rope, as it moves and you have to hit it so it bounces back to clip, as it's almost out of reach. The bolts are pretty much in the same place, apart from more bolts low down).
No one's likely to do this line without top roping it, so the rope's not a logistical problem, just one of aesthetics - only from the theoretical world of the UKB armchair is it a problem ;) . I've belayed 2 people on The Medium and 2 people on The Quarryman over the last couple of weeks and all have extended bolts - it's common practice on slate routes if you want a 'sport experience'. The only argument I accept here is that I shouldn't publicise an ascent of a 'sport climb' when I haven't bolted it. This is kind of fair enough, but I was totally honest about the way I did this. For the guy who said I wasn't upfront about this, I think your argument is really unfair and mean-spirited. I posted 2 videos of me trying the lower wall and clipping the rope as I went a few posts before I climbed it. On one of the videos I talked with loads of people about the style I was trying it in. I haven't hidden the style at all. I'm not going to put a paragraph at the bottom of every post trying to pre-emptively bat away every possible criticism someone could throw my way. The first proper interaction I had with UKC, I also made this clear. I'm not one of these climbers that sends in press releases to websites. UKC contacted me when I was out (in the quarries) and I responded very quickly and gave them no detail. It does annoy me that people think they can publically throw around accusations of deceit or whatever from the safety of their anonymity. It's a big deal to call someone a liar or say they've been hiding things, when in fact they haven't, you just don't know the facts. I'll post the email interaction I had with UKC below - I think you'll agree it was pretty brief, it's not like I've deliberately omitted key facts. You've made a mistake by reading a long UKC article and assuming I wrote it/ sent in a massive press release. That's your reading error, I hadn't at all:
UKC:
Hi Franco,
Congrats on The Dewin Stone, amazing achievement!
I’m going to put a piece up on site today, but I'd be keen to ask you some questions about the route and your time on it, and get a longer interview on site at some point in the coming week or two, if you’re free to answer some questions?
Let me know, if so I can send you some questions over later today.
Cheers, and congrats again!
Me:
Sage. Thanks!
Earlier the better really for me
UKC:
No worries!
Quick question or two for the piece going up today if that’s ok - should have asked these earlier, sorry! No need for extended answers, unless you feel the answer demands it!
- Does The Dewin Stone follow the same finish as The Meltdown Direct?
- Do you know how many sessions you spent working out the lower section of the route (up to the hardest move)?
- How does the route compare to your direct finish to The Meltdown, in terms of both quality and difficulty?
Cheers,
Me:
Nah, it's totally different. See topo.
Nah, i don't know. Quite a long time. Leading the route vs doing it on a top rope seemed quite a lot harder, as you have to hold stress positions
They're both really good. This seemed harder, as it packs so many moves together//////
When it comes to the ethics of the rope hanging, I can see why it would annoy you if you're a die hard sport climber and why it can seem like I'm trying to be controversial. I think I know enough people in person these days for people to know what I'm like. Most of all I want to have a laugh and occasionally a bit of a wind up, but I'm not into winding people up with what I do in my climbing. However, like someone above said, I'm also not bothered about being seen as controversial and I do like things being a bit weird. In an ideal world I'd climb some cool stuff, get moderate support from companies as a result that will allow me to try more cool stuff. Being controversial has no positive impact on being able to do this (or is perhaps even detrimental). That said, I'm not going to start drilling holes in a rock face in order to avoid controversy (the fact that that sentence makes sense blows my mind btw - drilling is now the done thing... I find that pretty sad). I get the hypocrisy of claiming a sport line when advocating not placing bolts, but I like to be a pragmatist and the bolts in Meltdown were already there, so hanging the rope down from the bolts and leading the route as a stepping stone on the way to the trad project made sense. For me, there was a 'natural' designer danger challenge already set there - of getting into the metldown groove on trad and then running up this with the bolts to the top, a bit like leading a thin seam trad route on mostly old pegs. We can talk about ethics in a pure sense, but if you start from the position of not wanting to place any more bolts, but dealing with what you already have, then that thing was actually very inspiring to me. I can see that hardly anyone else would see things that way, but I like to just do what feels right for me. I wasn't told that the line had been bolted, so when I went back with Anna to try the other project, I was really sad to see that it had been unilaterally bolted. That trad line (and then entirely without bolts) was something that was really on the aspirational horizon for me and a difficulty and style that is really rare. That being bolted was a total gut punch - I actually shed a tear when I saw these bolts, it was really, really sad to see something like that being destroyed in that way. I don't expect anyone else to see it my way (which maybe even makes it even sadder), but that is the strength of feeling I had towards that challenge. It wasn't a piss take or frivolous. Perhaps I shouldn't have publicised the fact I had done it sport style, but I thought people would be interested. We basically disagree on one point (placing bolts) - if you park that issue, all of my actions are logical.
The grade: I regret giving it 9a+. I have no experience at the grade and it's a load of shite me trying to point at grades in this range. The 'hardest slab in the world' stuff has acted as a massive red rag for people to attack all the stuff evident in this thread and a really good route has been overshadowed as a result. Just to make it totally clear, I never reffered to it as the hardest slab in the world - I suspect some of Zeni's routes like Eternit could well be harder. I don't actually think it's that hard. I've spent so much time on this wall that the moves on this and meltdown feel pretty steady. I'm way more interested in the harder project lines, as they're proper hard. 9a+ is of course a big grade for a slab though and maybe giving it that was a bit brash. I kind of thought Meltdown was accepted at 9a (it's not got a slash grade in the guidebook I don't think, everyone I know refers to it as 9a, and there's that vid of caff doing it where I'm pretty sure it's bigged up as a 9a? The story I heard was that Caff was considering giving it 8c+ because Pete Robins was close to doing it and he didn't want him to have climbed a 9a? - don't know what of that's true) and that 9a+ was a grade that wasn't really that big-a-deal anymore, but that was likely pretty stupid of me. What's weird for me is that I gave the slate modern 9a+ last year and that didn't see anywhere near as much attention, in spite of that being a multipitch (hardest multi pitch in the world :lol: ) . I suppose I did a better job at click-baiting it this time round with a snazzy title and a build up (kind of shows you why people do this, much to all of UKB's annoyance I'm sure...), but it is strange how certain things get so much more interest, when on paper they're exactly the same, or even less significant. I can see how easy it is to be beaten into giving things lower grades you don't think they are - it would have been much easier to give it 9a or 8c and have an easy life, even if that's not the grade I thought it was. I always thought the 'not grading thing' was kind of pathetic, but that too is becoming increasingly attractive - just to forget about grades all together. I still think it's a solid grade harder than Meltdown, as the start has multiple tiring moves rather than just one and the end is way more difficult, tiring and dropable, so I don't really know how else I should have graded it. A full breakdown of the two routes would be... Meltdown: 7c into a shake, couple of easy moves left into a hard move to gain the groove (shorties/unbendy people often find this the hardest move of meltdown), meltdown groove (4 or 5 hard moves, culminating in foot pick up, shake, moderate boulder problem down and right, easy climbing to top. Dewin Stone: easy climbing, two moderate moves, hard move getting foot up compressing a small groove, hard move spanning and then slapping into base of the meltdown groove (I found this the hardest move on the route on the link), straight into 4 or 5 hard moves in meltdown groove, shake, droppable balance move, hard jump move with bad feet, massive hard crimpy move, hard high foot rockover, 3 more straightforward moves to the top.
The spider web comment about ropes was because there was a bright orange rope I was using as my rope extension, an in-situ top rope (used by me and someone trying the quarryman), and a rope the whole way down the quarryman (not used for this climb). It was unsightly, but there are often in situ ropes on this face.
So to summarise, feel free to criticise, but maybe steer a clear of calling me a liar or a sociopath because what I do annoys you. You can look at this mammoth reply and think "strange that every route he climbs, there are so many points that need to be discussed", but ultimately these things all seem to stem from one initial point of disagreement, whether that's about line, clickbait nonsense or whether I should have bolted a line. People then chuck in loads of other accusations. The result is that I look really dodgey, but the only criticism based on truth is that I didn't bolt the route, gave something a big grade and repaired a hold. There are loads of examples of other people leaving ropes hanging on projects or repairing holds etc, but strangely there don't seem to be UKB threads slagging them off. Also strange that there is no criticism of the unilateral retro bolting of this new line, even when I quite clearly said I'd prefer the line to remain unbolted. I'm not one of these people who thinks the FA of a route has any more say over whether a route should be bolted or not, but nor does the person who went and decided on their own that it should be bolted. If it's accepted that all new lines can be bolted on slate, then slate trad effectively has no future. Of course a route is always going to be easier on bolts than on gear (thus quicker to work and climb), so a route is always going to be climbed on bolts before it is climbed on gear, unless it is missed or left in some way. If people are just going to start unilaterally bolting every new line (and lets remember, we're talking about a difficulty and quality of trad route that is incredibly rare to find world-wide), then I think that begins to ethically justify bolt chopping and retro-tradding routes. I'm all for both types of climbing living side-by-side and enjoy both, but the scales are tipped way too far in the direction of sport at the moment. Fashions change and we've seen that bolts are (socially) incredibly difficult to get rid of once they're in, so what happens if people want there to be slate E13s in the future?
P.s. I love that the Raven Tor story has evolved so much that someone now actually believes they were a victim of my 'theft'! What actually happened is that a mischievous older climber put me onto striping some draws from Raven Tor when I was a kid and didn't know what sport climbing was. I went there on my ow :chair:n and asked someone who was climbing at the crag (maybe Simon?) what the ethics were about taking the draws there, as I thought they'd been left behind. The person told me in clear terms that they weren't fair game! A stupid story and shows how little I knew at the time, but no draws were ever taken!
-
That being bolted was a total gut punch - I actually shed a tear when I saw these bolts, it was really, really sad to see something like that being destroyed in that way. I don't expect anyone else to see it my way (which maybe even makes it even sadder), but that is the strength of feeling I had towards that challenge. It wasn't a piss take or frivolous. Perhaps I shouldn't have publicised the fact I had done it sport style, but I thought people would be interested.
You definitely shouldn't have claimed it as a sport route if you feel that strongly about bolts being put in it :slap:
-
That being bolted was a total gut punch - I actually shed a tear when I saw these bolts, it was really, really sad to see something like that being destroyed in that way. I don't expect anyone else to see it my way (which maybe even makes it even sadder), but that is the strength of feeling I had towards that challenge. It wasn't a piss take or frivolous. Perhaps I shouldn't have publicised the fact I had done it sport style, but I thought people would be interested.
You definitely shouldn't have claimed it as a sport route if you feel that strongly about bolts being put in it :slap:
I think this is it. If you'd said "wow, so psyched, I've linked my trad project. The climbing is about 9a+ and I climbed it like this as a step towards leading it on gear" then it probably would have been left alone.
Fair play with the long reply. The main thing that concerns me is the precedent over filling in a hold that appeared in order to retain a sequence. I can live with the argument of preserving what's there to begin with, because after all we do glue holds back on for the same reason, but I can see a future where someone develops something and fills in any existing holds that they don't want to be there to force a sequence/difficulty. They'll use exactly the argument you've made as justification. For me the magic of developing stuff comes when you find rock that gives you a great sequence or hard moves entirely of its own accord. It's special for the very reason that it's rare. I hope we don't lose that.
-
You definitely shouldn't have claimed it as a sport route if you feel that strongly about bolts being put in it :slap:
Quite.
Like Will, I don't particularly like filling in holds that appear due to breakage. I also don't like gluing holds back on unless strictly necessary. Holds break and things get harder. Holds break and things get easier. Sometime both things happen on the same route. It happens all the time and shouldn't (and doesn't) necessarily mean things getting glued, even at crags that already have plenty of sika.
-
If Caff now says this is 9a and Meltdown is more like 8c+ then that's hardly Franco's fault.
I thought Caff originally gave it 8c+/9a on account of the fact he was unsure as he had little to go on (had he repeated the Big Bang at that point?)
Sure but then it says 9a on UKC, 8a.nu and such, like I think that saying that it got 9a is defensible.
What UKC or Jens think of the grade is 100% irrelevant. If Caff gave it 8c+/9a then it 'got' 8c+/9a.
That is fair. Honestly I wasn't aware he specifically gave it the / grade
-
Good on ya Franco, nice reply, and good to see some justification and your thought process regarding what’s gone on…. Just to be clear, I might’ve said I wouldn’t believe your “I never used it honest” reply but that was just me being a twat.
I absolutely believe what you are saying and can relate to your thinking…. Being a miserable old twat, I’m against filling holds which have appeared naturally to force a sequence no matter how cool the sequence is, but each to their own, it’s good that your being open about it all.
Seems like you’ve kinda shot yourself in the foot with the bolts! Like you say you’d have been better off not really saying much if you had aspirations to do it on trad…..
Don’t be put off, like bonjoy said you could still do that and chop them. It would make an even better history section in the guide for me!!
Enjoy El cap, it’s the best place on earth….
-
Also it’s a bit of a contradiction in my eyes being so anti bolt/drill yet being fine with filling a natural hold in to force a sequence( to me it’s as bad as chipping)
-
This is coming across as Andy F style anti-Franciscan zealotry, JB.
He's done Meltdown, he's now done a variation on Meltdown which he reckons is substantially harder. He's offered a grade. It's not unreasonable. If Caff downgrades it and says it's easier than Meltdown then so what? An FA grade being wrong is hardly a surprise.
If this is easier than Meltdown it makes me wonder why Meltdown didn't take this route in the first place? Is it a less obvious line on the wall?
History has shown us that people who mainly climb in one area or in one style of routes often get their gradar out of kilter. Franco isn't immune to this. Clearly he's climbed something hard (in an admittedly odd style, again), but his painful lack of experience across the broader climbing spectrum shows up at these times.
-
That being bolted was a total gut punch - I actually shed a tear when I saw these bolts, it was really, really sad to see something like that being destroyed in that way. I don't expect anyone else to see it my way (which maybe even makes it even sadder), but that is the strength of feeling I had towards that challenge. It wasn't a piss take or frivolous. Perhaps I shouldn't have publicised the fact I had done it sport style, but I thought people would be interested.
You definitely shouldn't have claimed it as a sport route if you feel that strongly about bolts being put in it :slap:
Good effort replying Franco. This point above^ is it though, isn't it? Your long post mostly boils down to: 'I think this would be an amazing trad route, which I didn't do, and now someone's bolted it against my will'.
I suggest that it's been bolted against your will because you claimed it as a first ascent of a new sport route! So, why report a first ascent? If, in your mind, the first ascent was still to be done as the 'true challenge' trad route?
If you step back to think through what you're trying to say here it's along the lines of: 'I want credit for the first ascent of a sport route that I'm ideologically against creating, AND, I want to dictate to others that this route be kept free of bolts so that I can later attempt to do it as a trad route and claim another first ascent'. Never mind anyone else wanting to repeat your sport route that you've publicised...
This isn't how it works, and if other first ascensionists went around with this mindset climbing would be much the shitter for it. I want the moon on a stick for me and me only...
It's been suggested in this thread that it looks like you want the satisfaction and recognition of a first ascent, but without committing to the hard choices that the route presents a first ascensionist because of its difficulty and lack of protection - of either creating a sport route (which you haven't), or doing a nails and bold trad route (which you haven't). Cakeism, much?
That's the nub of it, everything else around it is window dressing.
-
What Pete said.
-
"If you step back to think through what you're trying to say here it's along the lines of: 'I want credit for the first ascent of a sport route that I'm ideologically against creating, AND, I want to dictate to others that this route be kept free of bolts so that I can later attempt to do it as a trad route and claim another first ascent'. Never mind anyone else wanting to repeat your sport route that you've publicised..."
Exactly, apart from I think it's easy to do it as a sport route with the hanging rope. I'm not saying people shouldn't climb it as a sport route, just that adding extra bolts is unnecessary. And if bolts were to be added, there should have been a discussion about it.
Like I say, there's some hypocrisy from me there, but basically it was pretty easy to extend the bolts a few metres, so no big deal. Why not fully bolt all the other lines in the quarries like this? The main thing that seems to have got people's goat is that it's hard?
Also, I'm not against creating sport routes, just against drilling rocks. If the bolts are already there, I'll use them. I don't think that's unreasonable
-
The main thing that seems to have got people's goat is that it’s hard.
No, I suggest that the main issue people have is that you’re trying to force through a style of new routing, that if we all used - and it would be laughably easy for us all to do on other routes what you’ve done - would make climbing a crapper, even more contrived than it already is, and more selfish a pastime.
This isn’t personal btw, we’d probably get on well as I dislike rules too! But a lot of the time the rules work and and make the best of an imperfect situation.
-
I don't see how it would be a problem for people to dangle 'bolt ropes' down trad routes. Obviously if you use it to assist by taking weight off that's cheating, but you can do that with sport (defo on the meltdown!).
As long as people chose esoteric routes so they don't damage the rock too much, I'd say fill your boots. It's not a complicated line to decipher between this and top roping. In fact, there's a hard project at Danby crag I'd like to do this way. It would be a bit of a shit trad route, as it's bold and a bit squeezed, but would make a great sport route.
Better that than everything getting bolted.
-
If that's your argument: 'better to dangle knotted ropes to claim first ascents of bold routes than everything getting bolted', then it's a very weak argument - for the simple fact that everything does not get bolted; and everything didn't need your knotted ropes to prevent everything getting bolted. Your Dewin Stone route wasn't bolted before you got to it was it!
And if you'd had the nerve and skill to do it on trad as you dreamed, it never would have been bolted. But you didn't, so you fudged it to bag a newie. And by that act you got it bolted because that's essentially how you climbed it. We've all been there wanting to bag the new route, you're just more creative and more attention-seeking with the fudging :)
I also can't ignore that you missed a brilliant opportunity to make a modern classic designer danger route - by allowing yourself to stick in the odd bolt to make it really scary, but just protected enough to convince yourself to go for it, that would have been right in keeping with the slate ethic and could have been one of the best. But you tripped yourself up with your... whatever it is.
-
I don't really mean it's a way of avoiding things getting bolts, just that it's not a problem. Why would it be an issue for someone to put a knotted rope on pull my daisy and post on insta that they'd done an F5 sport route? You don't really seem to have an argument against this, other than it's ugly.
And the idea that me placing a couple of bolts and creating a designer danger line would have gone down better is hilarious. That really is classic UKB, shifting which tiny ethical issue to get most outraged by 🤣
-
You actually expected potential repeat ascentionists to do it with a knotted rope? :lol:
-
Think you've gone into troll-mode now Franco. There's no 'outrage' doesn't need to be involved in a lot of people thinking something different to what you think. Bemusement, yeah perhaps a lot of that. I think we're done here.
-
Re: the hanging rope vs the new bolts; how many 'draws were attached to the rope and how many new bolts have been placed? I am not judging either way, just want to know.
-
I think 4 knots and 5 bolts?
-
I don't really mean it's a way of avoiding things getting bolts, just that it's not a problem. Why would it be an issue for someone to put a knotted rope on pull my daisy and post on insta that they'd done an F5 sport route? You don't really seem to have an argument against this, other than it's ugly.
And the idea that me placing a couple of bolts and creating a designer danger line would have gone down better is hilarious. That really is classic UKB, shifting which tiny ethical issue to get most outraged by 🤣
Dan, have you created another accounts.😉
-
And the idea that me placing a couple of bolts and creating a designer danger line would have gone down better is hilarious. That really is classic UKB, shifting which tiny ethical issue to get most outraged by 🤣
Designer danger is the literal fucking history of slate climbing. FFS, if ever there was an opportunity to continue that trend you've completed bolloxed it.
-
Exactly, apart from I think it's easy to do it as a sport route with the hanging rope. I'm not saying people shouldn't climb it as a sport route, just that adding extra bolts is unnecessary. And if bolts were to be added, there should have been a discussion about it.
Like I say, there's some hypocrisy from me there, but basically it was pretty easy to extend the bolts a few metres, so no big deal. Why not fully bolt all the other lines in the quarries like this? The main thing that seems to have got people's goat is that it's hard?
Also, I'm not against creating sport routes, just against drilling rocks. If the bolts are already there, I'll use them. I don't think that's unreasonable
I think the piece you're missing here, or don't care about, is that there are some unspoken conventions around claiming a new sport route - namely that someone else can turn up with a rope and set of draws, maybe a clipstick, and have a go. Those aren't very demanding conditions, but if they're not met it's not really a proper sport route.
If the convention changed and everyone started doing what you've done here, we'd soon have a confusing shitshow around what was actually equipped and how easily knotted rope could even be set up - not everything is straight up and off vert, so you'd end up with all kinds of wack edge case shenanigans.
Edit: afterthought. It's also just occurred to me that if people were claiming trad routes like Pull My Daisy as a knotted rope 'sport' lead, how long before people start saying 'that one's better as sport than trad actually' and down the line we just streamline the process and end up with more bolts as a result? Speculative, but another reason this might not be a precedent you really want to set.
-
If you step back to think through what you're trying to say here it's along the lines of: 'I want credit for the first ascent of a sport route that I'm ideologically against creating, AND, I want to dictate to others that this route be kept free of bolts so that I can later attempt to do it as a trad route and claim another first ascent'. Never mind anyone else wanting to repeat your sport route that you've publicised...
This isn't how it works, and if other first ascensionists went around with this mindset climbing would be much the shitter for it. I want the moon on a stick for me and me only...
Or, to put it another way and take a further step back, you're essentially questioning the legitimacy of what Franco did because 4 quickdraws were attached to a rope instead of bolts....
-
Let's be honest. Climbing a route next to a hanging rope, clipping quickdraws on knots is totally unacceptable.
There are ethics and rules for different areas. On slate you can place bolts, or choose to use gear. Doing otherwise shows you have little regard for the local ethics.
Franco, you've obviously climbed something quite difficult in the most ridiculous way possible. Well done on the difficulty, but stop being a dick and bending the accepted rules to fit your own perception of what is acceptable.
-
I hadn't seen any of the vids of the set up, there's one here https://www.instagram.com/p/CsR5-l8ADGV/
-
I'm feeling completely neutral about this, and put any negative consequences that have occurred down to a failure to communicate.
Twll Mawr is a special place with a deep history almost Tolkeinesque. Layers upon layers of development. I'm sure there's more to come. I got very disappointed and pretty much gave up trad climbing after a line I'd lived with and dreamt about sprung bolts days before my ground up ascent. This was mainly through a lack of clear communication between the motley crew of slateheads at the time. My communication and theirs.
This current kerfuffle smacks of the same, so I'm sorry for you Franco.
I'm sure the slate will provide the adventure of your dreams yet still. Just keep us in the loop.
-
Andy
As I said earlier this was going on in the eighties in the slate quarries too. So therefore there's local precedent. I just think there's been some poor communication, and possibly ( like myself in the 00s when I was almost the only active slatehead) a slightly squewed sense of ownership
-
Hose,
Climbing a line next to a fixed rope provided unlimited gear is tantamount to top roping IMHO.
We've all done very bold stuff, Franco has made his name doing it. This route, claimed this way is frankly pathetic. Climb it properly or not at all.
-
History has shown us that people who mainly climb in one area or in one style of routes often get their gradar out of kilter. Franco isn't immune to this. Clearly he's climbed something hard (in an admittedly odd style, again), but his painful lack of experience across the broader climbing spectrum shows up at these times.
I’m not sure that’s entirely fair. AFAIK Franco’s done some hard-ish stuff not only in the NY Moors but also at Nescliffe, on Cornish granite and now on slate. I know there’s been some doubts over the grades of some of his FAs and repeats, but I think saying he has a “painful lack of experience across the broader climbing spectrum” is probably overstating it. Sure he is stronger in some styles than others, but aren’t most climbers?
-
If you step back to think through what you're trying to say here it's along the lines of: 'I want credit for the first ascent of a sport route that I'm ideologically against creating, AND, I want to dictate to others that this route be kept free of bolts so that I can later attempt to do it as a trad route and claim another first ascent'. Never mind anyone else wanting to repeat your sport route that you've publicised...
This isn't how it works, and if other first ascensionists went around with this mindset climbing would be much the shitter for it. I want the moon on a stick for me and me only...
Or, to put it another way and take a further step back, you're essentially questioning the legitimacy of what Franco did because 4 quickdraws were attached to a rope instead of bolts....
''Questioning the legitimacy'' makes it sound like questioning whether someone actually climbed something. If you read back, some posters may have questioned the legitimacy but I haven't - I've clearly said he's obviously climbed the moves (and therefore the route), not that I think he needs anyone's approval as he's obviously perfectly capable of making up his own mind!
This was my take, for what it's worth:
It's obviously a legit ascent of the moves. He's just done it in a style that's so poor and out of the ordinary when it was completely unnecessary - the wall's already covered in bolts! :wall:.
It's a classic 'if everyone else did it like that, climbing would be shit, that's why they don't do it like that'.
That's what I think - it's a deterioration in style, not an improvement or as good as current style. That wall and whole quarry is covered in bolted routes so it isn't like he's defending anything here apart from his own narrow view of how climbing should be. But, as pointed out, because he needed the protection afforded by a sport ascent but wished it was a trad route while not having the necessaries to climb it as a trad route, he inadvertently ended up getting it bolted anyway by people who quite understandably probably think as soon as you go publicising a first ascent as a sport route it's a sport route! That alone should tell you what people think of this nonsense style. Can't see why you're so keen to defend it other than not liking seeing someone piled on; I don't either.
Didn't you climb an 8c at Malham recently? I assume you enjoyed the experience? Why do you get to enjoy playing on bolted routes without having to faff around with dangly knotted ropes for protection, but think someone setting a precedent for putting up new sport routes without bolts, which is a very simple and tempting thing for lots of us who new route to go out and do if you think it's so OK, is a good move stylistically?
-
P.s. I love that the Raven Tor story has evolved so much that someone now actually believes they were a victim of my 'theft'! What actually happened is that a mischievous older climber put me onto striping some draws from Raven Tor when I was a kid and didn't know what sport climbing was. I went there on my ow :chair:n and asked someone who was climbing at the crag (maybe Simon?) what the ethics were about taking the draws there, as I thought they'd been left behind. The person told me in clear terms that they weren't fair game! A stupid story and shows how little I knew at the time, but no draws were ever taken!
You've got to admit that it adds to your mystique that you told someone you took them and wrote posts at the time justifying having taken them and now say you didn't!
It's there in black and white isn't it https://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,10781.msg181313.html#msg181313
Like I said, pretty much everyone now thinks draws ought not to be left in and would say you (or whoever) were/was ahead of the time and it was a good thing.
-
For me the main point, which I think Pete has made pretty well up thread, is that the experience of climbing a route with a knotted rope hanging next to you just feels a bit whack.
I’m not sure that this makes the claim to have done a route somehow “invalid”, and I can see the point that logically it’s not much different from clipping bolts (i.e. in terms of physical effort, and danger which should be irrelevant for a sports route), it just gives a worse experience for reasons which are difficult to fully articulate.
-
You've made a mistake by reading a long UKC article and assuming I wrote it/ sent in a massive press release. That's your reading error, I hadn't at all:
No, I haven't. I've read a UKC article that didn't contain the detail, seen someone raise it in the comments and been surprised that nothing has been added to the article (and yes, I think that's quite poor of UKC too). Let's face it, it's quite a 'unique' detail to the ascent, no? ...and that's before we go back in time and consider the Prow.
In terms of anonymity (as I commented on this, so assume this part is levelled at me), I'd suggest "Paul B" (which is about as hard to decipher as petejh and others like Shark) is less anonymous than "Franco" (without an additional C I might add).
And the idea that me placing a couple of bolts and creating a designer danger line would have gone down better is hilarious. That really is classic UKB, shifting which tiny ethical issue to get most outraged by 🤣
This baffles me. Why not? A well bolted start with a designer danger finish doesn't seem all the out of place (if a little conflicted) and I can even think of MP routes elsewhere in the world where there's plenty of this going on.
For the record, reading the article my first thought was something along the lines of "blimey, this guy is pretty handy on this kind of terrain" and now it's something along the same lines with "I wish it didn't always come with a side dish of controversy".
EDIT: in terms of gluing holds, I'll echo what others have said. Breakage happens and it's something we need to accept. I had a season at WCJ collecting bits of routes that had broken off until I had enough to warrant opening a tube of glue. I spent the day gluing things (not climbing) but tried to squeeze one route in at Rubicon before going back to the car. Naturally I ripped a jug off that smacked me in the face and promptly threw it as far as I could into the water. I don't think I've glued anything else since.
-
Like I said, pretty much everyone now thinks draws ought not to be left in and would say you (or whoever) were/was ahead of the time and it was a good thing.
Come on Stone, leaving draws in has been frowned on since redpointing became a thing.
-
I hadn't seen any of the vids of the set up, there's one here https://www.instagram.com/p/CsR5-l8ADGV/
Franco, in future, an alpine butterfly would be a better knot as its better for 3 way loadings.
-
History has shown us that people who mainly climb in one area or in one style of routes often get their gradar out of kilter. Franco isn't immune to this. Clearly he's climbed something hard (in an admittedly odd style, again), but his painful lack of experience across the broader climbing spectrum shows up at these times.
I’m not sure that’s entirely fair. AFAIK Franco’s done some hard-ish stuff not only in the NY Moors but also at Nescliffe, on Cornish granite and now on slate. I know there’s been some doubts over the grades of some of his FAs and repeats, but I think saying he has a “painful lack of experience across the broader climbing spectrum” is probably overstating it. Sure he is stronger in some styles than others, but aren’t most climbers?
He's obviously great at what he does. But very niche. The best climbers are great at, well, climbing everything. He's not. And his grading is based on a very narrow spectrum.
Plus, TBH he comes online as a total knob.
-
Actually, thinking about it, I'm probably coming across as a knob, but I've got an important point.
We have ethics and values. Breaking those destroys our values.
I'm not willing to see history pissed on by an arrogant, self centered arse.
-
I think 4 knots and 5 bolts?
I've belayed 2 people on The Medium and 2 people on The Quarryman over the last couple of weeks and all have extended bolts - it's common practice on slate routes if you want a 'sport experience'.
Surely you can see this clearly false equivalence to say they are same thing? A long quickdraw or even a 6ft sling is very different.
-
We have ethics and values. Breaking those destroys our values.
I'm not willing to see history pissed on
If no one had been willing to diverge from the convention (of that time), then we would never have got sport climbing.
-
We have ethics and values. Breaking those destroys our values.
I'm not willing to see history pissed on
If no one had been willing to diverge from the convention (of that time), then we would never have got sport climbing.
Sport climbing in the UK happened as climbers used fixed gear from aid climbing, then bolted blank pieces of rock with no/minimal gear. It's very different to this scenario.
-
Andy, it very much seems like you're being deliberately cantankerous here because you don't like Franco.
Pete has been spot on through this whole thread, and I agree that you can't have your cake and eat it. Either claim the sport route and expect it to get bolted (or, better actually bolt it yourself), bolt it designer danger and wait until you can do that, or keep it as a trad project. On the plus side, if Caff's now bolted it, it all seems somehow appropriate - this is how Disney would have made make the movie, with a moral about our need for attention and "content" and all that scuppering our own dreams...
I suspect that this:
And the idea that me placing a couple of bolts and creating a designer danger line would have gone down better is hilarious.
is simply you not wanting to admit to yourself that you fucked up Franco, since it's very obviously bollocks.
-
This episode is almost entirely about me having not bolted a direct start to a sport route and instead super-extending a draw.
I hadn't seen any of the vids of the set up, there's one here https://www.instagram.com/p/CsR5-l8ADGV/
:lol: :lol: :lol:
25 weeks ago?? Did no-one, at any point, point out that this was very obviously bollocks??
-
P.s. I love that the Raven Tor story has evolved so much that someone now actually believes they were a victim of my 'theft'! What actually happened is that a mischievous older climber put me onto striping some draws from Raven Tor when I was a kid and didn't know what sport climbing was. I went there on my ow :chair:n and asked someone who was climbing at the crag (maybe Simon?) what the ethics were about taking the draws there, as I thought they'd been left behind. The person told me in clear terms that they weren't fair game! A stupid story and shows how little I knew at the time, but no draws were ever taken!
You've got to admit that it adds to your mystique that you told someone you took them and wrote posts at the time justifying having taken them and now say you didn't!
It's there in black and white isn't it https://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,10781.msg181313.html#msg181313
Stone - he didn’t say he took them in the comment you linked, he just agreed that he was there with the purpose of taking them although it was ambiguously phrased where he said ‘I don’t see what’s wrong with that’
When I met Franco for what I thought was the first time a few years ago at a BMC meeting in the North East he told me that we had met previously when he went to Raven Tor where I dissuaded him from taking in situ draws (this would have been pre Damascene conversion) although he didn’t say anything about being put up to it by another climber. It sounds like it could have been me but I don’t recall the occasion - I have a terrible memory. Obviously now I’d say fill your boots - they shouldn’t have been left there.
-
Actually, thinking about it, I'm probably coming across as a knob, but I've got an important point.
You are, and a bully. You should know better Andy.
-
Actually, thinking about it, I'm probably coming across as a knob, but I've got an important point.
We have ethics and values. Breaking those destroys our values.
I'm not willing to see history pissed on by an arrogant, self centered arse.
Is that a Suella Braverman quote? Give it a rest.
-
Climbing ethics are developed by consensus, which is most easily formed by persuasion and if necessary a bit of piss taking. Threatening or abusing someone doesn't tend to achieve the result we're after, but I guess the self righteous fury feels pretty good at the time.
The talented Franco has climbed something hard, but possibly tainted his ascent because a) he courts controversy and needs the attention b) is just oddly cantankerous c) is a visionary, we just don't know it yet. None of which matters really, since the prime directive has not been breached - no rock was chipped or damaged to affect future ascents. So maybe a bit of knicker untwisting is in order Andy.
-
None of which matters really, since the prime directive has not been breached - no rock was chipped or damaged to affect future ascents. So maybe a bit of knicker untwisting is in order Andy.
Hold on a sec Dan, I don’t think we’ve fully deconstructed the reconstruction part of Franco’s essay. ;)
-
Climbing ethics are developed by consensus, which is most easily formed by persuasion and if necessary a bit of piss taking. Threatening or abusing someone doesn't tend to achieve the result we're after, but I guess the self righteous fury feels pretty good at the time.
The talented Franco has climbed something hard, but possibly tainted his ascent because a) he courts controversy and needs the attention b) is just oddly cantankerous c) is a visionary, we just don't know it yet. None of which matters really, since the prime directive has not been breached - no rock was chipped or damaged to affect future ascents. So maybe a bit of knicker untwisting is in order Andy.
I’m not sure its b, seemed oddly measured given some of the unjustified abuse hurled his way.
-
The talented Franco has climbed something hard, but possibly tainted his ascent because a) he courts controversy and needs the attention b) is just oddly cantankerous c) is a visionary, we just don't know it yet. None of which matters really, since the prime directive has not been breached - no rock was chipped or damaged to affect future ascents. So maybe a bit of knicker untwisting is in order Andy.
Unfortunately this isn't quite right, as Franco says
"one of those very thin slate spikes broke and left a small useable hold. This ruined both the jump move (you can use this hold with your right hand for that) and the hard rockover (you can use a lower foot on this hold).For me, a significant part of the quality of the route was this dynamic and wild headwall sequence."
So he "badly resined" up the hold, but there is "no contoversy to see here."
Well actually I think there is. I don't think there is much of a precedent to change holds to force sequences on slate, grit or mountain rock types. And making a poor job of it, again, isn't acceptable from someone so talented and prolific.
-
There's definitely precedent, even of chipping. (Not to say that's right). As I say, there's a very obvious repair to the Meltdown jug for starters, which has been done to maintain a sequence, and I'm still yet to see any criticism of this on here. This is bright white cement on slate. Do you think that's wrong? A bit like all the repairs that happen on limestone, the reason why these things stay low key is because people keep them on the down low, rather than being subtly 'leaked' to a mate to then post on UKB.
Grit and mountain routes have far less history of accepted/ignored hold repair. I don't think you can group slate in with them.
I might agree with you that we shouldn't repair any holds, but to target what I did on this route does just feel like an unfair pile on.
-
Andy, it very much seems like you're being deliberately cantankerous here because you don't like Franco.
Pete has been spot on through this whole thread, and I agree that you can't have your cake and eat it. Either claim the sport route and expect it to get bolted (or, better actually bolt it yourself), bolt it designer danger and wait until you can do that, or keep it as a trad project. On the plus side, if Caff's now bolted it, it all seems somehow appropriate - this is how Disney would have made make the movie, with a moral about our need for attention and "content" and all that scuppering our own dreams...
I suspect that this:
And the idea that me placing a couple of bolts and creating a designer danger line would have gone down better is hilarious.
is simply you not wanting to admit to yourself that you fucked up Franco, since it's very obviously bollocks.
I thought about it a lot and chatted to lots or people about it. I just thought it was a bit silly but a good solution. I don't regret what I did at all and will probably do it again with the project on the right.
-
I think 4 knots and 5 bolts?
I've belayed 2 people on The Medium and 2 people on The Quarryman over the last couple of weeks and all have extended bolts - it's common practice on slate routes if you want a 'sport experience'.
Surely you can see this clearly false equivalence to say they are same thing? A long quickdraw or even a 6ft sling is very different.
I mean I can see where you're coming from, but I really don't think it matters. If I did it and didn't tell anyone, I don't think any of you would have had a problem with it(?). The main issue seems to be that I've sprayed about it on Instagram. I kind of see that I maybe have a responsibility not to promote daft practices, but I really don't think it matters that much. These things will get worked out eventually. You have to keep in perspective what I actually did - tied a rope to some bolts.
-
I don't regret what I did at all and will probably do it again with the project on the right.
Your post make no sense Franco. The route seems to have been bolted because of your approach (climbing it like a sport route and naming/grading it as a sport route). You also said you were upset by it being bolted. Not regretting it at all seems incompatible with being upset about it being bolted. If you repeat this on another route you shouldn't be surprised if it gets bolted!
On the sika:
Lots of things on lime get "fixed" but lots of things also don't. The trend in my experience in recent times has been towards less retrospective use of sika to fix breakage unless strictly necessary (whether the break makes it easier or harder). Trying to claim that doing what you want with sika must be uncontroversial because there's other sika at the crag doesn't stand up to scrutiny; however, perfectly reasonable people will disagree on what should or shouldn't cross the line to fixing. I don't see a pile on here, I see people disagreeing with the idea that this kind of "fix" is uncontroversial. I've seen people get very angry at this kind of thing at other crags that have plenty of sika around, so it's not nearly as clear cut that this is ok as you seem to think. Personally I'd rather not manipulate with sika in the situation you're talking about, and I'd rather others didn't.
-
The reason why these things stay low key is because people keep them on the down low, rather than being subtly 'leaked' to a mate to then post on UKB.
Is this a reference to Northern Yob bringing it up in this thread as it was posted about elsewhere (Twitter) for anyone to see?
-
So maybe a bit of knicker untwisting is in order Andy.
Actually, I've no issues with Franco personally. How could I, I've never met him.
His relentless self promotion, whack ethics and bollocks grading I do find annoying though.
He's clearly a very talented, if a little misguided climber. I guess being brought up in the era of Ron, Jerry, Ben, Johnny and the rest of the 80's climbers had somewhat coloured my view on what to expect from those pushing the envelope.
-
So maybe a bit of knicker untwisting is in order Andy.
Actually, I've no issues with Franco personally. How could I, I've never met him.
His relentless self promotion, whack ethics and bollocks grading I do find annoying though.
He's clearly a very talented, if a little misguided climber. I guess being brought up in the era of Ron, Jerry, Ben, Johnny and the rest of the 80's climbers had somewhat coloured my view on what to expect from those pushing the envelope.
But you also had the Gibsons, the Woodwards and few others. So nothing really changes.
-
So maybe a bit of knicker untwisting is in order Andy.
Actually, I've no issues with Franco personally. How could I, I've never met him.
His relentless self promotion, whack ethics and bollocks grading I do find annoying though.
He's clearly a very talented, if a little misguided climber. I guess being brought up in the era of Ron, Jerry, Ben, Johnny and the rest of the 80's climbers had somewhat coloured my view on what to expect from those pushing the envelope.
But you also had the Gibsons, the Woodwards and few others. So nothing really changes.
And not forgetting John Redhead. He broke the envelope, but many of his ideas (bolts on Cloggy, chipping routes to create difficulty etc) are now viewed in a less than positive light, despite his obvious brilliance on rock.
-
I guess being brought up in the era of Ron, Jerry, Ben, Johnny and the rest of the 80's climbers had somewhat coloured my view on what to expect from those pushing the envelope.
There was probably a previous generation proto-Andy F around at the time who thought they were all twats too.
-
I guess being brought up in the era of Ron, Jerry, Ben, Johnny and the rest of the 80's climbers had somewhat coloured my view on what to expect from those pushing the envelope.
There was probably a previous generation proto-Andy F around at the time who thought they were all twats too.
Possible, but at that time climbing was a tiny sport filled with old beardy men reminiscing about the good old days. Oh 🤦♂️
-
I don't regret what I did at all and will probably do it again with the project on the right.
Your post make no sense Franco. The route seems to have been bolted because of your approach (climbing it like a sport route and naming/grading it as a sport route). You also said you were upset by it being bolted. Not regretting it at all seems incompatible with being upset about it being bolted. If you repeat this on another route you shouldn't be surprised if it gets bolted!
I don't think your post makes any sense either. My actions didn't bolt the route. The actions of the person who bolted it, bolted the route. There was no need for it to be bolted. We'll see what happens in the future.
On the sika:
Lots of things on lime get "fixed" but lots of things also don't. The trend in my experience in recent times has been towards less retrospective use of sika to fix breakage unless strictly necessary (whether the break makes it easier or harder). Trying to claim that doing what you want with sika must be uncontroversial because there's other sika at the crag doesn't stand up to scrutiny; however, perfectly reasonable people will disagree on what should or shouldn't cross the line to fixing. I don't see a pile on here, I see people disagreeing with the idea that this kind of "fix" is uncontroversial. I've seen people get very angry at this kind of thing at other crags that have plenty of sika around, so it's not nearly as clear cut that this is ok as you seem to think. Personally I'd rather not manipulate with sika in the situation you're talking about, and I'd rather others didn't.
The pile on comes in the way these things are discussed - if they were measured responses free from allegations like yours here, then fine, but there are a whole host of accusations and outright name calling on this thread, all of it about stuff that goes on all the time (apart from maybe the knotted rope).
I don't really like the idea of hold repair either, but the quality that's preserved by this tiny hold being filled in, kind of makes it worth it in my opinion and just seemed logical when the foot pick up move on the meltdown had had the same treatment.
-
There's definitely precedent, even of chipping. (Not to say that's right). As I say, there's a very obvious repair to the Meltdown jug for starters, which has been done to maintain a sequence, and I'm still yet to see any criticism of this on here. This is bright white cement on slate. Do you think that's wrong?
If it's a later repair, to maintain an established and nationally significant route then I don't have too much issue with it. The jug on The Ace 8B springs to mind. But I think this is quite different from altering the rock on a project, purely to force or create moves.
I guess I just don't quite understand your disappointment with the alteration of the rock by the bolting of the route (which you said is a sport route!) because you want to keep it pure and eventually climb it 'trad', whilst also altering the rock yourself by putting resin on it to create sequences.
Probably wouldn't worry too much about it, hardly the Dawn Wall is it :thumbsup:
-
The sequence was there as it is now. A piece fell off to reveal a hold, so I covered it up. I'm not forcing a sequence I've made up. I don't see how whether it's a classic or not makes a difference?
-
There's definitely precedent, even of chipping. (Not to say that's right). As I say, there's a very obvious repair to the Meltdown jug for starters, which has been done to maintain a sequence, and I'm still yet to see any criticism of this on here. This is bright white cement on slate. Do you think that's wrong?
If it's a later repair, to maintain an established and nationally significant route then I don't have too much issue with it. The jug on The Ace 8B springs to mind. But I think this is quite different from altering the rock on a project, purely to force or create moves.
I guess I just don't quite understand your disappointment with the alteration of the rock by the bolting of the route (which you said is a sport route!) because you want to keep it pure and eventually climb it 'trad', whilst also altering the rock yourself by putting resin on it to create sequences.
Probably wouldn't worry too much about it, hardly the Dawn Wall is it :thumbsup:
I didn't realise it had happened on the Ace even...
-
I wonder what the initial UKB reaction to Franco bolting one of McHaffie's trad projects would be, whatever the circumstances. I am guessing it would not be whole hearted support.
It seems that minds were made up based on the knotted rope, based on a few snippets of hearsay. Then made a load of assumptions on other aspects based partly on reputation.
In reality, decisions are made based on balance. Take the broken hold that was refilled. Is it really that unreasonable on a mined quarry face, where there is precedent, to preserve what is clearly a great route if the alternative is a bit meh? It is not a black and white decision.
My guess is there are a significant proportion who are generally supportive of Franco or at least not anywhere near as outraged as this thread might suggest.
If I was him. I would be pretty miffed that what is clearly a significant achievement has been unfairly tarnished.
-
If the issue of breaking holds is reflected upon for a moment, once a hold breaks bigger/ smaller, from that moment on, this is the 'new normal'. Any subsequent attempt to 'put it back how it was' is in effect 'creating a new sequence', ie. one that is different to the new configuration of holds now on the wall. The mere fact that it used to be like that could be argued to be irrelevant
-
Franco I brought up your digression’s on here after seeing Caffs tweet, and speaking to a few people, I brought it up because like you climbing means a lot to me. Not because my “mate asked me to”…. When I said I was gonna call it out because it sounded fishy and was a shit thing to do he said I should go easy on you!!
As much as playing the victim might seem like a good angle right now, I’d be careful who you are blaming as the bad guy.
I made a point of making no accusations (at least that’s what I thought) I outlined what I saw to be some basic facts and potential scenarios, and you rightly came on here and cleared up what went on.
Theres not really been any kind of pile on, there have been a lot of questions which we all had because you weren’t very clear about what you had done.
It was very clear that what you had done was very far from a normal ascent of a sport route, to act surprised that people would have any questions is pretty naive.
If you are as genuinely surprised as you are making out that people might have a problem or disagree with the knotted rope and the filling in of holds to force a sequence. You are at best very naive, I would suggest you knew what was coming and that’s why you weren’t upfront with all the info so maybe stop playing the victim and own it. I don’t find the “I can’t see anything wrong with it “defence very convincing.
In the spirit of Ken’s spirit which does seem to have possessed me, I’m against fixing broken routes or boulders, we are supposed to be stepping up to the questions nature presents not manipulating them….sport climbing is the only scenario for me where glue should be used, and only when establishing routes after that let nature take its course….
You might argue you were establishing a new sport route, which you were but I think that forcing sequences is absolute bollox and just as bad as chipping and can only lead to climbing and climbers losing out in the long run.
Good luck on the dawn wall, I think it’s 20yrs ago this season that I was swinging around up there with Leo looking to find a way through, you should be in a good position to talk about the grade of your new “thing” after a month or so swinging around up there.
-
Actually, I've no issues with Franco personally. How could I, I've never met him.
His relentless self promotion, whack ethics and bollocks grading I do find annoying though.
He's clearly a very talented, if a little misguided climber. I guess being brought up in the era of Ron, Jerry, Ben, Johnny and the rest of the 80's climbers had somewhat coloured my view on what to expect from those pushing the envelope.
Self promotion bothers you and yet these are the people you hold up as alternatives?!
If it's a later repair, to maintain an established and nationally significant route then I don't have too much issue with it. The jug on The Ace 8B springs to mind. But I think this is quite different from altering the rock on a project, purely to force or create moves.
Is this route not nationally significant? It being new as opposed to done years ago doesn't diminish the fact that this is the hardest slab in the UK and likely one of the hardest routes full stop. It's a fine line up an impressive wall in an atmospheric place. And you could therefore say that maintaining its sequence is reasonable if the level of its significance is your justification for doing so.
If the issue of breaking holds is reflected upon for a moment, once a hold breaks bigger/ smaller, from that moment on, this is the 'new normal'. Any subsequent attempt to 'put it back how it was' is in effect 'creating a new sequence', ie. one that is different to the new configuration of holds now on the wall. The mere fact that it used to be like that could be argued to be irrelevant
This is a good point though. I'm sure I remember someone suitably qualified saying they thought The Ace would still have been possible without the hold being glued back on, for example.
-
I wonder what the initial UKB reaction to Franco bolting one of McHaffie's trad projects would be, whatever the circumstances. I am guessing it would not be whole hearted support.
They’d probably want to reflect on whether Caff had claimed it as a sport route first.
-
I wonder what the initial UKB reaction to Franco bolting one of McHaffie's trad projects would be, whatever the circumstances. I am guessing it would not be whole hearted support.
They’d probably want to reflect on whether Caff had claimed it as a sport route first.
Agreed
-
So he claimed one of the hardest sport routes in the country and then cried when someone bolted it. He’s either a genius or a MadMan. I’d take a stab at a 50:50 ratio.
-
I wonder what the initial UKB reaction to Franco bolting one of McHaffie's trad projects would be, whatever the circumstances. I am guessing it would not be whole hearted support.
They’d probably want to reflect on whether Caff had claimed it as a sport route first.
Agreed
And conclude.... that this is Schrödinger's slate, where a route may be in one of two states within a climber's mind, both sport route and trad project, its condition at any moment unknowable to the outside observer?
-
Fixing holds aside I don't really see how using a knotted rope instead of bolts is such a big issue to people. At this level of difficulty nobody is putting the draws in as they go anyway right? So by that logic you're already going to have done some faff to put them all in in the first place. How is adding a rope to one of the draws considered such an additional effort that it would hinder someone else trying it?
As to the grade it will get ironed out as and when it gets repeated the same as any other route. Why even bother arguing over it.
-
Fixing holds aside I don't really see how using a knotted rope instead of bolts is such a big issue to people. At this level of difficulty nobody is putting the draws in as they go anyway right? So by that logic you're already going to have done some faff to put them all in in the first place. How is adding a rope to one of the draws considered such an additional effort that it would hinder someone else trying it?
This misunderstands the issue. Which is this:
First ascent claimed of a route. Route claimed with a sport grade because the climber couldn't climb it as a trad route (this is not said as any sort jibe it's said as statement of fact, nothing wrong with sport). No bolts placed, which is odd, a dangly rope used instead of bolts.
OK.. weird, but no big deal. It's a really poor style but the world is imperfect.. It's lazy - just make the effort to put the bolts in. It's unhelpful to other climbers who want to try it - bolt-to-bolting from the ground versus bringing extra rope and faffing arranging hanging dangleberries which just isn't necessary or desirable. It sets a very bad precedent for other new routers - if this style is extended to trad (and why wouldn't it be?) it makes an already contrived and vulnerable set of ethical guidelines even harder to justify as all hard trad can get done in the next week in this batshit dangly rope style by attention-hungry individuals. Also loads more 'sport' routes could be put up really quickly using dangleberries without needing to do the hard bit of bolting - very tempting to us new routers.. but these routes would be a total pig for future climbers to enjoy without bolts.
But no biggie. The line will probably just end up getting bolted because it's been claimed as a new sport route by the first ascensionist, protected by in-situ protection positioned wherever the climber wants at the climber's discretion as opposed to protection dictated by the rock.
And this is exactly what happened, because it had to happen Unless the last 40 years of evolution of the ethics guiding the use of fixed gear during new route development gets thrown out the window because one attention-hungry individual wants the rest of the world to bend to his vision of how climbing should be.
But wait there's more!
Climber does not want their sport route bolted. And cries foul when it is, playing the victim role. Because climber is ALSO laying claim to the route as a trad project. Climber says they're also laying claim to other nearby unclimbed routes as trad projects, but intends to climb them as sport routes in new flawed dangly rope style and claim them as new sport routes in the interim.
This is the issue people have problems with - this is a totally new style of developing new routes, that appears at its core to involve a huge dose of entitlement and ownership extending beyond the point in time at which you finish a new route and it gets presented to the rest of the community for others to experience.
This is wanting the hit of achievement, attention, publicity or whatever, for doing a good new route which you needed to use fixed protection because doing it trad was too hard (no shame in that); but then trying to ethically cordon off the route as a trad project so that every other climber who'd like to try this sport climb has to abide by this individual's awful retrograde style of arranging fixed protection. Even though the first ascensionist failed to climb it as trad and there appears no likelihood on the horizon of it happening.
There's no outrage required here and I don't see much, because it's just obviously so much a load of bollocks that it won't get accepted by other climbers. I do think it's selfish, disrespectful to other climbers and disrespectful to the evolved traditions and ethics of new route development which is the lifeblood of climbing. * Not that ethics and traditions can't change they can and do, but usually in a progressively better style not backwards.
The hold repairs etc. are a sideshow. Hold repair not ideal but far less of a bollocks than the above.
-
Totally agree with the above, by bringing a new sport route into the world, this comes with a certain responsibility on the first ascentionist to bolt it for others to attempt/ enjoy. Either that or keep it as a trad project
-
So I get the idea of not wanting to set the precedent of doing this everywhere but my point is that it's not actually that much more effort in this instance to set up a rope than bolt it. There's already presumably bolts in meltdown to bolt to bolt set everything up and anyone who's climbing 9a+ (or whatever grade it is) is going to be prepared with necessary gear etc anyway.
-
anyone who's climbing 9a+ (or whatever grade it is) is going to be prepared with necessary gear etc anyway.
Just wondered if you climbed routes? Anyone sport climbing regularly will probably appreciate that a rucksack with a 70m rope, 12 quickdraws, water, lunch, harness, clothing, chalkbag, clipstick etc is more than heavy enough plus the fact that you need a big rucksack for anything extra that most people don't own. To set up a hanging rope you need 2 ropes and extra slings, carabiners plus the ability/ willingness to set up anchors and faff about tieing knotted ropes. The whole thing is enough to put anybody off sport climbing. We need more recruits, not less! :lol:
-
anyone who's climbing 9a+ (or whatever grade it is) is going to be prepared with necessary gear etc anyway.
Just wondered if you climbed routes? Anyone sport climbing regularly will probably appreciate that a rucksack with a 70m rope, 12 quickdraws, water, lunch, harness, clothing, chalkbag, clipstick etc is more than heavy enough plus the fact that you need a big rucksack for anything extra that most people don't own. To set up a hanging rope you need 2 ropes and extra slings, carabiners plus the ability/ willingness to set up anchors and faff about tieing knotted ropes. The whole thing is enough to put anybody off sport climbing. We need more recruits, not less! :lol:
I do climb routes yes. Surely someone operating at the 9a level can bring an extra 10-15m length of static rope and a sling or two. And it presumably doesn't take long to set the rope up in the scheme of bolt to bolt setting up the draws anyway. I'd be interested to know from Franco how long the setup took and how much extra effort was involved.
-
OK. I don't think the ability to climb 9a has anything to do with whether somebody should be expected to have to deal with a knotted rope. If we are saying this is to become accepted practice for some sport climbs, why not 8a or 7a climbers for that matter?
I strongly believe that sport climbing is meant to be for enjoyment of the movement over rock without too much in the way of equipment or forward planning. That's why the ethics/ conventions re bolting that Pete set out above have developed over time.
-
If it had been top roped and publicised as a top rope problem and an open trad project, would any of you have had a problem with that?
Would you have felt the same about it then being promptly bolted by someone else?
(I'm asking as someone who likes sport climbing, doesn't trad climb, would respect a cutting edge feat of top rope climbing and also doesn't see much a problem with knotted ropes on slabs)
-
11 pages of this, brilliant. Nice one on the route Franco, and if you are an attention seeking narcissist then you’ve played a blinder here…
Who was it who said storm in a teacup? Ferret? Spot on, nonsense squared.
Anyway, carry on….
-
No, I wouldn't have. I think that would have been respected as a trad project.
IMO this is much different to a lead with knotted ropes continuing up a lead of the Meltdown Direct. Im not referring to the lack of drilling in the rock on the bottom bit, rather the leading of the whole route as a sport climb.
-
If it had been top roped and publicised as a top rope problem and an open trad project, would any of you have had a problem with that?
Would you have felt the same about it then being promptly bolted by someone else?
(I'm asking as someone who likes sport climbing, doesn't trad climb, would respect a cutting edge feat of top rope climbing and also doesn't see much a problem with knotted ropes on slabs)
I think you have to ask yourself a few different things about that.
What does 'publicise' mean? Is it mentioning to one other person that you've done something; to, on the other end of a spectrum, pre-announcing on your instagram feed that you're trying something, then announcing when you do it and chatting to 'media' about it for news pieces. 'Publicise' is a very wide term encompassing many different motivations and incentives.
Why do people 'publicise' climbs?
What is a top-rope problem and does this style exist as anything significant of note except as a personal challenge*, outside of very few top-roping areas such as southern sandstone for preservation reasons?
Why would anyone 'publicise' a top-rope problem?
Thinking through the above questions I think makes your hypothetical moot in all but very limited climbing areas. But I suppose if someone started claiming TR ascents as something of note, then it would likely be ignored. Which is more or less what's happened in this case - the 'dangly ropes style' has been ignored, but not the ascent. And I'd have sympathy with someone if they thought that putting effort into bolting this line properly then leading it cleanly constituted an improvement in style over Franco's effort and perhaps made it more significant. Grey area though isn't it.
If top-roping something cleanly in an area where sport/trad/mixed routes co-exist ever becomes a justification for ownership over the style it subsequently should be led in, then imo climbing is borked and headed for complete polished and scuffed obscurity.
* don't get me wrong - I think all of climbing is just 'a personal challenge' not just top-roping!
-
Can I put my hand up as one of the (perhaps tiny) minority who would/does respect a top roped ascent as much as a sport climb lead.
I applaud people making every effort to publicise their climbing achievements. I don't begrudge people keeping quiet if they feel they must, but spraying gives us punters inspiration, so I'm always thankful for it.
-
If those are your views then fair enough. Personally I believe the different lead styles - os, flash, red point, ground up, are much more difficult to execute cleanly than a TR ascent. And this extra challenge in executing carries with it more significance - if we’re going to have a system that ‘publicises’ climbs that are deemed significant then such a system has to have a foundation based on calculating merit.
And what about trad TR where, even more so than sport, psychology of risk is at play?
We can’t all be winners…
-
I was v impressed when Zippy said he had top-rope flashed some hard grit.
-
Fixing holds aside I don't really see how using a knotted rope instead of bolts is such a big issue to people. At this level of difficulty nobody is putting the draws in as they go anyway right? So by that logic you're already going to have done some faff to put them all in in the first place. How is adding a rope to one of the draws considered such an additional effort that it would hinder someone else trying it?
This misunderstands the issue. Which is this:
First ascent claimed of a route. Route claimed with a sport grade because the climber couldn't climb it as a trad route (this is not said as any sort jibe it's said as statement of fact, nothing wrong with sport). No bolts placed, which is odd, a dangly rope used instead of bolts.
OK.. weird, but no big deal. It's a really poor style but the world is imperfect.. It's lazy - just make the effort to put the bolts in. It's unhelpful to other climbers who want to try it - bolt-to-bolting from the ground versus bringing extra rope and faffing arranging hanging dangleberries which just isn't necessary or desirable. It sets a very bad precedent for other new routers - if this style is extended to trad (and why wouldn't it be?) it makes an already contrived and vulnerable set of ethical guidelines even harder to justify as all hard trad can get done in the next week in this batshit dangly rope style by attention-hungry individuals. Also loads more 'sport' routes could be put up really quickly using dangleberries without needing to do the hard bit of bolting - very tempting to us new routers.. but these routes would be a total pig for future climbers to enjoy without bolts.
But no biggie. The line will probably just end up getting bolted because it's been claimed as a new sport route by the first ascensionist, protected by in-situ protection positioned wherever the climber wants at the climber's discretion as opposed to protection dictated by the rock.
And this is exactly what happened, because it had to happen Unless the last 40 years of evolution of the ethics guiding the use of fixed gear during new route development gets thrown out the window because one attention-hungry individual wants the rest of the world to bend to his vision of how climbing should be.
But wait there's more!
Climber does not want their sport route bolted. And cries foul when it is, playing the victim role. Because climber is ALSO laying claim to the route as a trad project. Climber says they're also laying claim to other nearby unclimbed routes as trad projects, but intends to climb them as sport routes in new flawed dangly rope style and claim them as new sport routes in the interim.
This is the issue people have problems with - this is a totally new style of developing new routes, that appears at its core to involve a huge dose of entitlement and ownership extending beyond the point in time at which you finish a new route and it gets presented to the rest of the community for others to experience.
This is wanting the hit of achievement, attention, publicity or whatever, for doing a good new route which you needed to use fixed protection because doing it trad was too hard (no shame in that); but then trying to ethically cordon off the route as a trad project so that every other climber who'd like to try this sport climb has to abide by this individual's awful retrograde style of arranging fixed protection. Even though the first ascensionist failed to climb it as trad and there appears no likelihood on the horizon of it happening.
There's no outrage required here and I don't see much, because it's just obviously so much a load of bollocks that it won't get accepted by other climbers. I do think it's selfish, disrespectful to other climbers and disrespectful to the evolved traditions and ethics of new route development which is the lifeblood of climbing. * Not that ethics and traditions can't change they can and do, but usually in a progressively better style not backwards.
The hold repairs etc. are a sideshow. Hold repair not ideal but far less of a bollocks than the above.
So it's entitled to leave the rock as it is, but not to drill holes in it, so no one can ever climb it as a trad route? Okay... that seems a fairly strange view point to me.
To try the meltdown you either have to scramble up to the top of twll Mawr and abseil 3 pitches, down the whole quarryman face to set up a top rope, or ab down a loose corner on the other side of the quarry, scramble across a loose system of ledges and then clip stick/ bolt to bolt up the meltdown (from the last bolt to the anchor is a long way, I'd be surprised if you could clip stick it even with the massive clip stick). But the real thing that's going to put people off it is extending a bolt with an 8m bit of rope, which takes 5 mins max?
With the line debates in the county, I could see both sides of the argument (and said as much), but with this, I just think you're plain wrong. The rope is very little hassle and let's both types of climbing coexist. It looks stupid, I grant you, but I envisaged it just being one of those little curiosities in climbing, that may put some people off, but is definitely not the weirdest thing to have happened in the quarries.
It's got nothing to do with effort or the cost of bolts, I just don't see why things should be default bolted, even if the majority think so. Who climbed the line first is irrelevant and it's not about ownership. I don't own the rock, the person who bolted it doesn't own it, but there is only one amphitheatre we can all play in and if it's bolted, one half of the climbing world is excluded (and there's already a fully bolted line in the Meltdown).
The project names and stuff aren't about ownership. Anyone's free to do that and give projects their own names. It gets people psyched and these things happen all over the place - wizard ridge, la dura dura, project big whatever... it only looks like ownership because I'm the only one trying these routes. I'd welcome 100 other climbers exploring what's possible and getting excited.
-
Franco, from what you’ve written in here, does your trad project involve soloing this bottom bit, then clipping the bolts in the Meltdown section, then the massive run out at the top? I think that’s what you’d said but wasn’t sure whether there was some gear somewhere to make the bolts redundant.
-
There are various projects on this wall. You can climb this line with rps, ball nut and low cam to the groove of the Meltdown, then clipping the bolts to the top. You'd be touch ane go decking as you reached the meltdown groove. You could then do the same, but remove the bolts (hangers? Not really sure that works...) of Meltdown to produce something exceptional bold, where for all of the redpoint cruxes of this line, you'd be facing a ground fall.
There's also possibility of climbing out of the quarryman, with lots of good rps and sliders, higher up, missing the low crux of this new line and then doing the Meltdown groove and headwall with no more pro. You'd be decking from the foot pick up upwards on that, so in the middle of the other two lines in terms of difficulty (E13 I reckon, even though the climbing would be less sustained - cause you'd started up quarryman).
Same with the project on the right. You could blast out from the meltdown bolts, or solo the bottom wall and place a tricam in the mini roof, at a much higher grade. The climbing on that is far far harder than Meltdown or Dewin Stone (and really cool), so those will be really exceptional lines.
It really is worth saying again how good and difficult these trad routes would be. They're unique in the UK and the left one has now (obviously) been linked, so is possible.
-
So it's entitled to leave the rock as it is, but not to drill holes in it, so no one can ever climb it as a trad route? Okay... that seems a fairly strange view point to me.
You’re deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote in an effort to play the troll, or you genuinely don’t get it. Only you know which.
It’s not entitled to ‘leave the rock as it is’ and undrilled. That’s the normal state - a trad route. Or a line that hasn’t been climbed yet.
I said it’s entitled to believe you can get to claim a new sport route and to continue to say that the route must not be bolted, because you want it preserved as a trad project. If you want a trad route then do a trad route, don’t claim a first ascent of a sport route, because the trad ascent eluded you, and expect it not to be treated like a sport route.
Why exactly did you report a first ascent of a sport route? :shrug:
You don’t get to choose both, that’s partly why new routing involves facing difficult choices by the FA. You’re dodging the difficult choices. We’re just going over old ground here. You don’t accept it, many, many other experienced climbers think your style in this case is bogus to put it mildly. Nobody’s going to accept non-bolted sport routes.
Those other trad projects, just do them then. But it isn’t a trad-only area, if it was they’d never get bolted. You have to accept other people’s views on what style of climbs work best in non-trad areas and sometimes/often it’s messy and not to everyone’s ideal. You’re clearly trying to control the narrative here to preserve them as trad, that borders on ownership.
Twll mawr access - I’ve climbed in twll mawr and the walls above/around around it, you’re describing a standard case of ball-ache access that could be made miles easier by a shorter direct ab from near the Watford gap track combined with a short bit of hand lining traverse to the base of meltdown wall. This would require a few bolts. But instead, your ‘must not add bolts’ ideology blinds you to this possibility and makes you think it has to be an epic long ab in from the top, or a crappy approach from below. So this situation - which could be easily improved with some lateral thinking, a drill, and some elbow grease - leads to you justifying rigging your dangleberries knotted rope ‘because it’s nothing in comparison to the approach’. Hello! That’s the kind of hair shirt backwards thinking that saw Scott dying of exposure while Amundsen sailed past pulled by dogs.
Based on this perhaps I should have left the diamond approach as the complete epic that makes getting to meltdown wall look like pulling up in your car at castle inn quarry in comparison. And therefore all the Diamond routes could be done by an eccentric in a whack style on a mixture of old aid pegs and wooden wedges and pre-placed knotted ropes, because ‘well the faff pales in comparison to the approach’. :wall:
Seb why did you not bother bolting Pic St Loup and instead use whack dangly knotted ropes..? ‘Well it’s such a ball ache to approach innit’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXV7WlYwoVo
-
Put gaffer over the hangers for the trad ascent, then chop them afterwards :shrug:. Is this more contrived than clipping knots?
It might feel a bit weird, but that's the price of pre-claiming the line as a sport route.
Within the standard etiquette of sport climbing it's totally fair and normal (not to mention charitable) for someone to re-equip an existing sport route if and when the gear is unusable. This is just an unusual anomaly where the re-equipment is immediately necessary for the route to be the thing it was defined as by the first ascentionist. Otherwise it's standard stuff. If you call a route a sport route like this you are responsible for the bolts,even if someone else held the drill. But it is reversible, if you're willing to climb the route without and (only) then chop the bolts.
-
I'm not trolling. I know what you mean, but I disagree with it. What I did/ didn't do allows people to climb it as a funny sport route or a 'natural designer danger line. I get that most people on here think all sport routes must be fully bolted the whole way up. I disagree. It really doesn't take loads of imagination to extend some bolts with a rope.
I 'claimed' a new sport route because I climbed a new sport route. I climbed a new sport route in a way that didn't ruin the trad challenge any further. Why can't i/ we have both?
What I really don't get is why having to hang a rope on some bolts ruins the experience for sport climbers. It just makes perfect sense to me. You still have falls, quickdraws in fixed positions and no one clip sticks this route anyway. Why do you need more bolts? It's not really any more convenient, it's not really any safer, it's not really any less clear as to where the boundary between this and top roping lies. The main argument seems to be "sport routes have bolts in. This is how things are. Stop trying to be controversial". I really wish we could have this debate face to face - I just think your argument is non-existent.
I didn't say the route must not be bolted. I said my vote was for it not to be bolted (and in this argument I don't think it can come down to a simple show of hands, as this really would be the end of trad everywhere).
And who decides what area is a trad or a sport area? What's gone before is a terrible test of what's right for a crag. Not to want to sound elitist, but there aren't loads of people who know what plausible really futuristic trad lines even look like, so how is there ever going to be a balanced arrangement that protects the future of both sport and trad? Sure the bolters got on all the blank rock first, that's the nature of being able to go anywhere with bolts, but that doesn't mean it should always stay that way. Tbh, I increasingly struggle to see a future for trad without retro tradding/ removing bolts. This discussion has just proved the flaws with the current arrangement even further.
You've described the normal approach to Twll Mawr. Its an ab from the gap and then a scramble. It's a bit annoying, not the end of the world, but hardly your normal sport approach and I'm sure puts people off. How popular is Twll Mawr compared with the rainbow? The scrambling way wouldn't be easier than a bolted line I think. I agree it's not a big deal, bit neither is a rope off a bolt.
-
Twll Mawr Access.
What I remember is the the ledge meltdown goes off is reached from an ab point in the alcove, accessed
by a relatively simple scramble from the tourist path. Has this changed? Been years since I played in Twll Mawr. The scramble up from the bottom to this point ( opening gambit P1) is also pretty straightforward.
That's the joy of Twll Mawr, easy access to deep adventure. There's bolt ab points hidden all over the place
-
I can't imagine Ondra approaching via either of those approaches. The traverse across that death dry stone wall is really not pleasant and still requires an ab (and then clip stick up)
-
...increasingly struggle to see a future for trad without retro tradding/ removing bolts. This discussion has just proved the flaws with the current arrangement even further.
You must surely see the irony of this statement, given that you are directly responsible for the line being bolted by declaring it a sport route. I think there are grounds for retro tradding stuff, especially if you did the sport FA. It's a debate worth having. Hammer out some ground rules in advance though, so it doesn't end up being a shitshow. For my money the cheif rules would be that the bolts are rendered properly unusable during the ascent (hangers temporarily removed or eye heavily taped over) and no bolts fully removed until after a clean trad ascent. Deciding what is fair game for this approach would be the contentious part in most cases, but not this case I think.
-
The main argument seems to be "sport routes have bolts in. This is how things are. Stop trying to be controversial".
I think you're not seeing the bigger picture. If we give a pass to sport routes being claimed with knotted ropes instead of being properly equipped, it opens up even more scope than there is already for bolt/anti-bolt controversy. Look what's happened here in a sample of literally one! Let your imagination run with it...if suddenly we have lots of routes with sport grades that are partly bolted or not bolted, someone takes it upon themselves to add bolts, someone else gets offended because they also wanted to keep it as a trad project...how is that a good way forward? What is even gained? Fixed protection is a perennially hot topic in climbing as it is, and adding another layer of complication to that seems extremely unlikely to help.
Out of interest, what do you think makes this route so suited to being a trad project, any more than any number of other hard lines with limited trad protection? By grade it's an order of magnitude harder than anything anyone has ever done with an equivalent level of danger, which does make it look from most people's perspective a bit improbable that it would ever get done...
-
I just don't see that. My actions maintained the status quo - It made me sad that there were any bolts in such an usually blank (but still climbable) wall, but the first bolts appeared there before I was born, because people couldn't imagine it being climbed on trad, so I just semi-accepted that and moved on, doing the best I could with what I found. This conversation is only really relevant to slabby and vert routes, as hanging ropes aren't likely to work on steep things, but I really don't see how it complicates matters. The argument "not bolting things makes things complicated, so we best bolt anything that hasn't been done on trad yet" is in any case, not particularly strong.
The first point regarding what makes a good futuristic trad project, is that there aren't many lines with poor protection. Bold routes (in my opinion) have to be particularly pure in line to make sense, so you're looking for something with hard climbing, bad gear and which is a great line. There's not many of them around... Certain rock types generally top out at certain grades because of this: grit ~E10, sandstone ~E11, Lakes rock ~E10 etc. You can climb harder than this on the rock types, but you're soon going to be compromising on quality. Slate has the potential to go way harder because it is so compact and still maintains inescapability. Unfortunately there aren't many good bits of slate that haven't already been bolted.
-
The argument "not bolting things makes things complicated, so we best bolt anything that hasn't been done on trad yet" is in any case, not particularly strong.
That's not the argument though - no one's arguing against keeping trad projects unbolted (well, no doubt some people would in any given case, but it's not really the point of contention here), but rather against claiming them as unbolted sport routes in the interim. Basically, I think that muddying their status is far more likely to end up not pleasing anyone than being the best of both worlds. A simpler way of having the best of both would be to do what Bonjoy suggests, and taping up the bolts or removing the hangers.
Anyway, fuck knows what I'm doing still weighing in on this, it long since passed an acceptable point of circularity :lol:
-
I get that most people on here think all sport routes must be fully bolted the whole way up. I disagree.
This is pretty much the definition of a sport route, which is agreed upon by everyone. Disagreeing is like trying to change what colour orange is.
You can’t claim a “sport route” and then say, “hang on, not what everyone else means by a sport route”.
The main argument seems to be "sport routes have bolts in. This is how things are. Stop trying to be controversial". I really wish we could have this debate face to face - I just think your argument is non-existent.
I agree, this is the main argument, and I can see your frustration because to some extent your knitted rope does work in this one instance.
What you are refusing to do though is to consider the implications if it was adopted as a sensible practice more widely.
Suppose a hypothetical area is developed like this, and I want to visit as a sport climber? That should be ok right - it’s supposed to be a sport venue…
Ok. I’ll need some knotted ropes. How long? Well it will be different for each route so I’ll take a selection of rope lengths with me on my walk in…
Not great.
Ok then - I can just take an extra 40m rope with me. Bit of a hit on the baggage allowance, but fine. But now the section with the knotted rope is 2/3rds of the way up and the rope gets in the way on the crux foot swap. And I get tangled up in it turning the roof at the bottom and feel like I’m going to hang myself.
Not great.
Ok - I’ll try a different route. I fancy an onsight burn on the area classic 8b. How do I get the knotted rope up there?
Fucking shambles.
So what you’re advocating might be ok as a one off, but would lead to a completely shit climbing experience if applied more widely.
There’s a reason sport routes have bolts in them. It’s because it’s the best way to provide a safe climbing experience that people enjoy.
The status quo often exists for a reason and it’s not a non-existent argument to defend it. It’s for people who want to break the status quo to show that their alternative is better and doesn’t lead to adverse consequences for everyone else.
-
What you are refusing to do though is to consider the implications if it was adopted as a sensible practice more widely.
How likely is it for that to actually happen, though? I don't think there are many people out there who are establishing sport routes with a view to then doing them as trad routes. I agree it'd be rubbish if it became the status quo, but in this niche I think it's just a nice bit of colour for the history section.
-
A negative implication/precedent here is that pre-claiming a trad line as a sport route can be (and arguably has been) used as a means of claiming a level of ownership of the line which precludes it being bolted. Having the sport FA cake and claiming the right to come back later and eat the trad cake too.
-
What you are refusing to do though is to consider the implications if it was adopted as a sensible practice more widely.
How likely is it for that to actually happen, though? I don't think there are many people out there who are establishing sport routes with a view to then doing them as trad routes. I agree it'd be rubbish if it became the status quo, but in this niche I think it's just a nice bit of colour for the history section.
That rather depends on the reception it gets, doesn’t it? Franco himself has said he plans to use this approach again on the slate. If the general response to Franco’s ascent was “great idea” you might see it adopted wider still.
It’s why it is worthwhile to point out how rubbish it is, even tho at times it must feel like a pile on to Franco, but I guess that’s what happens when you do something nearly everyone disagrees with.
-
Plenty of crags and/or rock types have certain rules to preserve the feel of the climbing, you can't bolt grit for example, it only seems fair that other crags/rock types have generally accepted rules that you should bolt it. In my (v humble) opinion
-
It's also fine to have hybrid crags - Taipan has trad, normal sport, trad-sport hybrid, and "designer runout" sport. I doubt anyone dropped knotted ropes to climb, claim the FA of, name, and grade the routes before actually climbing the trad route. Because they would have got laughed at (or, by the sounds of some characters back in the day, punched).
Plus everything Stu said.
-
A negative implication/precedent here is that pre-claiming a trad line as a sport route can be (and arguably has been) used as a means of claiming a level of ownership of the line which precludes it being bolted. Having the sport FA cake and claiming the right to come back later and eat the trad cake too.
What about if both cakes are made of hats? Or perhaps served in a hat each? Would that affect the consumption??
It does seem that there are a few sensible options dealing with a project like this:
1. Bolt it, or get someone else to bolt it, as is quite normal on slate, and climb it as a sport route.
2. Partly bolt it but with some runouts, as is quite normal on slate, and climb it as a designer scare hybrid route.
3. Leave it unbolted and continue working on it as a (closed) trad project, as is quite normal, with or without working attempts next to a hanging rope / tyrolean traverse / via ferrata / extendible ladder, and with or without flamboyant hullabaloo about H12 / E14 grades.
Any one of those could have happened....
-
I will stand up for Franco a bit here though - sometimes it's good to challenge the status quo. Without people prepared to look at things a different way, we might not have sub-genres like bouldering or DWS.
There's a way to go about this though. I could imagine doing everything Franco did to put up this route, but if I had then I would have been much more up-front about it in the media and interviews. "Hey guys, I've done this new route and it's a bit of an odd style, but I wanted to keep it a potential trad line and I think it works". Try and persuade people of your new approach.
To do it this way just seems super dismissive of the idea that other people might have a valid perspective or any stake in the matter, which I can imagine is why it got some people's backs up.
-
There's a way to go about this though. I could imagine doing everything Franco did to put up this route, but if I had then I would have been much more up-front about it in the media and interviews. "Hey guys, I've done this new route and it's a bit of an odd style, but I wanted to keep it a potential trad line and I think it works". Try and persuade people of your new approach.
Weren't we here significantly earlier in this thread?
-
For sure it's good to challenge the status quo and there are good and less good ways to go about it.
Franco's peripheral justifications keep wriggling around -
'the approach is so epic', then, 'no it's actually not that big deal' (it really isn't a difficult approach, and could easily be made even simpler/safer).
'all the trad routes are being bolted' - except the route he wanted to do as trad hadn't been bolted. (until he claimed it in a style that requires fixed protection and it got bolted as a result!).
'People only have a problem because it's hard', then 'people only have a problem because I publicised it'. Nope, people are pretty much only taking issue because it's a deterioration in style; unhelpful to other climbers wanting to climb; messy; that sets an awful precedent that can easily be applied anywhere else to the detriment of the activity; and introduces stylistic 'trad ownership' over routes in an area which isn't a trad-only area - it's always been a mixed ethic of trad/sport/mixed routes.
I really wish we could have this debate face to face - I just think your argument is non-existent.
I live 5 minutes down the hill from bus stop quarry in Fachwen. I'll happily put the kettle on and we can chat, you'd be made welcome and I hope you'd find me friendly and open minded to your views.
Or a wider debate, but face to face debates with large groups of people with counter opinions are notoriously not actually good for articulating nuanced points - I think mass meetings are good for the emotional aspect of getting together and seeing we don't have horns in our heads, but not actually for making the nuanced points that are the nub of the issue. Lots of people don't like speaking up in public or have trouble expressing clearly in speaking what they could in writing. See BMC area meetings for e.g., more about social/emotional feel-good than actually getting into the weeds of an issue.
Last thing - it's really funny and ironic that one of us has history of physically removing bolts from sport routes in twll mawr to preserve a historic trad route (Hamadryad)... the same person also has history of removing every bolt and peg from an existing 30m sport route to create what will be a genuinely brilliant 30m safe E8 with zero pieces of fixed gear. And re-positioning someone else's sport route bolts to preserve the feel of an esoteric but good E5 in Penmaen Bach Quarry.
It isn't the person you'd expect from reading this thread.. It also wasn't publicised to build a profile.
Just pointing out you're not the only person who loves trad and will bend the status quo to preserve it, many of us do. :P
-
A negative implication/precedent here is that pre-claiming a trad line as a sport route can be (and arguably has been) used as a means of claiming a level of ownership of the line which precludes it being bolted. Having the sport FA cake and claiming the right to come back later and eat the trad cake too.
I don't see it that way, specifically thinking about how style is considered in trad. As in, pre-placing gear is generally thought to be not as good style as placing the gear on lead; routes will often be done in a certain style which can be improved upon in later ascents. James Pearson's recent ascent of Parthian Shot without the high side runner for instance is an improvement in style compared to earlier climbers who did it with the runner.
To me, that's what happened here. Franco did the route in a style which could then be improved on by, e.g. having pre-placed gear without the hanging rope. However by it then being unilaterally bolted, all possible future improvements in style have been ruined. I don't think ownership comes into it; anyone could have come and tried to improve on Franco's style but they didn't, they whacked some bolts in. If anything, bolting it would have given Franco far more ownership of it in my opinion.
-
That argument doesn't really work to my mind, since you're basically saying he can claim a trad route by climbing with a knotted rope... which is clearly not true. Sport routes don't work like that, and clipping a knotted rope hanging from above is not trad climbing. Choose your poison - as Pete's banged on about all thread, having it both ways doesn't work. Or can we all now just claim the FAs of trad routes by leading them on knotted rope? In fact, at that point we can presumably just sack off the knots and claim FAs on TR with everything else just being a minor improvement in style? It's not trad climbing.
-
specifically thinking about how style is considered in trad. As in, pre-placing gear is generally thought to be not as good style as placing the gear on lead; routes will often be done in a certain style which can be improved upon in later ascents. James Pearson's recent ascent of Parthian Shot without the high side runner for instance is an improvement in style compared to earlier climbers who did it with the runner.
To me, that's what happened here. Franco did the route in a style which could then be improved on by, e.g. having pre-placed gear without the hanging rope. However by it then being unilaterally bolted, all possible future improvements in style have been ruined. I don't think ownership comes into it; anyone could have come and tried to improve on Franco's style but they didn't, they whacked some bolts in.
This comparison is bogus because Franco chose to claim the FA as a sport route. It's not a trad route if you have a hanging rope next to you with knots to clip whenever you want.
And with a sport route the only improvements in style are RP> Flash> O/S> O/S placing the draws. Gear doesn't come into it.
If he'd made it clear to everyone in no uncertain terms this was his closed trad project and the recent ascent with knotted rope was just a stepping stone to that, then he might have got a different reception (on here as well as UKC when they decided to run the article). But that ship sailed when the story of the ascent was a 'new 9a+ FA'...
-
If he'd made it clear to everyone in no uncertain terms this was his closed trad project and the recent ascent with knotted rope was just a stepping stone to that, then he might have got a different reception (on here as well as UKC when they decided to run the article). But that ship sailed when the story of the ascent was a 'new 9a+ FA'...
This sums it up for me. I kind of get what Franco is saying about not bolting it if the intention is to do it on trad, but you can't have your publicity cake and eat it.
It all comes down to the communication - either keep it quiet until you complete it as a trad route, or if you really feel the need to tell the world then make clear it is a step towards the ultimate goal of climbing it on gear (but if so, be prepared for someone else to potentially beat you to the trad ascent / bolt it in the interim). I really don't think there'd have been any issue if this had been done.
-
Exactly. There's an underlying contrivance to all of climbing - especially first ascents - that this case illustrates. I think we can all accept that climbing styles are contrivances. But contrivance it has to be to make the game work. The sport/trad/mixed(designer danger) choice that FA's face is a contrivance we've constructed and of course there are other ways to play the game. But the alternative being suggested by Franco is so much worse for most people (I'd argue for everyone except Franco), and it leads to the obvious possibility of doing what Alex and Ali suggest with trad routes.
I can't help but come away with the impression that this is more about Franco wanting to be known then it is about him wanting to 'preserve trad'. If that's correct, then it's incredibly selfish to not consider the wider implications of his actions.
-
A negative implication/precedent here is that pre-claiming a trad line as a sport route can be (and arguably has been) used as a means of claiming a level of ownership of the line which precludes it being bolted. Having the sport FA cake and claiming the right to come back later and eat the trad cake too.
I don't see it that way, specifically thinking about how style is considered in trad. As in, pre-placing gear is generally thought to be not as good style as placing the gear on lead; routes will often be done in a certain style which can be improved upon in later ascents. James Pearson's recent ascent of Parthian Shot without the high side runner for instance is an improvement in style compared to earlier climbers who did it with the runner.
To me, that's what happened here. Franco did the route in a style which could then be improved on by, e.g. having pre-placed gear without the hanging rope. However by it then being unilaterally bolted, all possible future improvements in style have been ruined. I don't think ownership comes into it; anyone could have come and tried to improve on Franco's style but they didn't, they whacked some bolts in. If anything, bolting it would have given Franco far more ownership of it in my opinion.
Claiming trad routes in poorer style as a valid first step in a chain of improved style ascents is totally standard and worthwhile in most people's eyes.
This ascent is not an example of that. It's claiming something as a pseudo sport route then seeking to treat it as a trad route, but as it is in no meaningful way any more trad than a standard sport route why should it be treated as a trad ascent or a trad route in any way whatsoever?
I agree ownership shouldn't come into it, that includes not dictating how many bolts others think your sport route should have.
-
Or can we all now just claim the FAs of trad routes by leading them on knotted rope? In fact, at that point we can presumably just sack off the knots and claim FAs on TR with everything else just being a minor improvement in style? It's not trad climbing.
Yes, that is essentially what I'm saying. :thumbsup:
I accept that communicating that as a sport ascent is not helpful and is absolutely an attempt to have your cake and eat it.
-
Yes, that is essentially what I'm saying. :thumbsup:
I can't work out whether this is sarcasm or not, and can't work out whether that says more about your original point or my emotional intelligence :lol:
-
Or can we all now just claim the FAs of trad routes by leading them on knotted rope? In fact, at that point we can presumably just sack off the knots and claim FAs on TR with everything else just being a minor improvement in style? It's not trad climbing.
Yes, that is essentially what I'm saying. :thumbsup:
You're going to have to flesh this out a bit, because it makes no sense as far as I can see. You might as well rip the rules of climbing up and start again.
Leading matters because of the development of trad from mountaineering and the need to start at the bottom and get to the top. Obviously the further we get away from onsight the more contrived this gets (headpointing etc) but trad, quite clearly, is not clipping a knotted rope that you've lowered in from the top of the route so you can be nice and safe whenever you want to be. It is antithetical to the idea of trad, in its traddiest, purest form, only offering protection where the rock allows. obviously hybrid routes exist with bolts etc but they retain the idea of protection only at certain points. It boggles my mind that you appear to be arguing otherwise.
Top rope ascents are a bit different but as was discussed upthread, leading is an additional challenge to top roping and one which deserves cachet and credit. A clean top rope ascent, whilst admirable, amounts to the removal of all danger, real or imaginary, and a sanitised route experience. In some cases it might be the best we can do due to shit rock/unjustifable danger, but that just means its probably a shit route rather than anything else.
-
Yes, that is essentially what I'm saying. :thumbsup:
I can't work out whether this is sarcasm or not, and can't work out whether that says more about your original point or my emotional intelligence :lol:
Sorry, the winking smiley isn't helping there. If I may, I'll amend to:
Or can we all now just claim the FAs of trad routes by leading them on knotted rope?
Removing the bit about top roping, as I'd missed that, sorry. But yes otherwise, my conclusion from this discussion is that leading is leading however the protection is arranged.
Jim - I get the point about the history of trad in terms of starting at the bottom but I don't think it's relevant in the context of how hard routes are routinely approached these days and, in my opinion, going ground up is simply an improvement in style if a climb has previously only been headpointed. Ultimately it's the climbing that matters, and if a route has been climbed free and on lead then that is entirely valid as an FA, irrespective of the protection used.
-
But Nick, if you're clipping into a rope hanging down from the top and not gear placed in the rock then it's not trad. Sport maybe (though please let's not have this because, as many have pointed out, it's shit for everyone else) but definitely definitely not trad. And we don't allow sport on grit so these would not be legitimate ascents. Like it or not, style is a fundamental part of trad climbing.
-
Ultimately it's the climbing that matters
This isn't true of trad. The nature of the protection, and the risk that can bring, is an absolutely fundamental part of trad climbing. What you're suggesting is almost like saying "it's the moves that are important in bouldering. Providing you can do all the moves you can tick it."
-
This could be seen as similar to a "pre-cams" ascent of Separate Reality in Yosemite which was protected by large hexes with long long slings dangled down from the top of the crag prior to attempting the lead.
Not sure if people considered that to have been "climbed" prior to it having a cam protected lead.
-
if you're clipping into a rope hanging down from the top and not gear placed in the rock then it's not trad. Sport maybe but definitely definitely not trad. And we don't allow sport on grit so these would not be legitimate ascents.
This is backwards imo. We don't allow bolts on grit. That makes sport climbing, as most of us define it, impossible, but you could redpoint a route on pre-placed trad gear - whether lots or a little - and people would accept it as a valid ascent.
It's dead simple to me, if your safety depends on a rope hanging down from the top, you are top-roping. Sport climbing is defined by pre-placed permanent artificial protection, not by the act of clipping a draw however attached.
The insta footage Tim posted only reinforces that. Note the comments - no one thinks what he is doing constitutes an ascent, they think he's practicing for some more legitimate style. If it is the world's hardest slab, then a top-roped ascent would still be noteworthy.
-
. But yes otherwise, my conclusion from this discussion is that leading is leading however the protection is arranged.
Jim - I get the point about the history of trad in terms of starting at the bottom but I don't think it's relevant in the context of how hard routes are routinely approached these days and, in my opinion, going ground up is simply an improvement in style if a climb has previously only been headpointed. Ultimately it's the climbing that matters, and if a route has been climbed free and on lead then that is entirely valid as an FA, irrespective of the protection used.
As Will said, that is technically true for sport climbing but would be shit for innumerable reasons but is not trad climbing. You cannot apply the phrase "irrespective of the protection used" to trad. It's integral to the whole pursuit. Protection, presence or lack of it, it's quality or otherwise, is why it exists as a discipline.
By your logic Franco has already done his hypothetical trad project by doing it with a knotted rope hanging down. It doesn't hold, at all. Even Franco wouldn't claim that he's done it.
-
Oh. The idea that you can FA a trad route by clipping a knotted rope hung from above is so insane that I was sure I must have been misunderstanding Bradders post confirming that he really thought this, hence my confusion about whether it was sarcasm. That idea is totally insane Bradders! Imagine how much fun we would have had on here if Gresh had done Lexicon in that style and claimed it as a trad route :lol: (Obviously he wouldn't have done, because he understands that that's not trad climbing in any way, shape or form.)
-
We need one or two first ascent claims by young guns, of nails last great trad projects around the E11-12 level done in dangly-rope Franco style. The cry of 'bullshit' would be deafening and hopefully put the idea to bed. Alternatively it would become accepted and we can all die a little inside and focus on sport climbing :lol:.
-
Perhaps it just brings home the absurdity of climbing just a little too much to be comfortable.
:)
-
Perhaps it just brings home the absurdity of climbing just a little too much to be comfortable.
:)
I'm still not sure if you're trolling. That's an odd take because trad is the least contrived of all the climbing disciplines.
-
I'm really not trolling promise. I guess I'm just approaching it from a different perspective, as what's important to me is the climbing. How safety is then arranged, once you're on lead, as I said is a matter of style and sits on a sliding scale, with loads of unnecessary bolts being the poorest but safest style to soloing being the purest but most dangerous.
-
I'm really not trolling promise. I guess I'm just approaching it from a different perspective, as what's important to me is the climbing. How safety is then arranged, once you're on lead, as I said is a matter of style and sits on a sliding scale, with loads of unnecessary bolts being the poorest but safest style to soloing being the purest but most dangerous.
I agree with this completely.
What we need now is for Remus to create a complex model incorporating 'style of ascent' into the Darth Grader so we can see how many C points (new grading system for all climbing styles) we get and compare ourselves against all climbers. Onsight trad elitists can now finally be pitted against lowball link-up merchants and speed climbers with science. Something about Lattice training plans.
-
I'm really not trolling promise. I guess I'm just approaching it from a different perspective, as what's important to me is the climbing. How safety is then arranged, once you're on lead, as I said is a matter of style and sits on a sliding scale, with a knotted rope replicating loads of unnecessary bolts being the poorest but safest style to soloing being the purest but most dangerous.
-
Oh good, now we can completely redefine traditional climbing! What fun! :chair: :wall: :shit:
-
If you aren't trolling (im still unconvinced!) then I think suffice to say it wouldn't surprise me if nobody else in the country shared your perspective. It's totally and utterly wrong to think you can claim a trad ascent by clipping protection in a knotted rope. Genuinely don't think I've ever seen something so nonsensical suggested even on UKC. :sorry:
-
If you aren't trolling (im still unconvinced!) then I think suffice to say it wouldn't surprise me if nobody else in the country shared your perspective. It's totally and utterly wrong to think you can claim a trad ascent by clipping protection in a knotted rope.
Im sure Bradders will correct me if Im wrong, but I think what he's getting at is that style doesn't fit very nicely in to neat little 'sport', 'trad' and 'bouldering' buckets. There's a wide range of stuff that goes on that fits somewhere on a spectrum from good to bad style, with onsight solo with a copy of the bible rammed up your arse on one end, to chipping your way up a 3+ on top rope on the other.
People just need to be clear about what they're doing, not getting together lynch mobs because Bransby used a 2x4 to protect the start of baron greenback, or P widdy using bamboo draws on the same route.
-
Thank you Remus, yes; that is exactly what I'm trying to articulate (badly).
-
Franco, excellent work in getting from the bottom to the top of that piece of rock, what an outrageous piece of climbing. I applaud that effort.
This shambles you've created around that event however is simply a continuation of the form you've shown previously and to be frank it dismays me. You hold very solid opinions about climbing ethics which flex and bend very rapidly as the realities of realising your ambition meet the limitations of you skill and nerve.
If you weren't chasing the notoriety (Which in my opinion you are, regardless of how you may protest) then I'd have you down as one of the most impressive and entertaining climbers in the uk. To quote myself on the last time we danced through these hoops learning nothing, please take a leaf out of Whittaker's book and let the climbing speak for itself.
-
Of course we can agree there is a range of styles. (although the specific example of Whittaker on Greenback is actually in the best tradition of trad, in that he placed them on the lead). The point I'm admittedly getting worked up about is the specific one about a trad lead being valid if you lower a rope from the top and clip into that on the way up, to the extent that if one did that they could claim a first ascent. That falls well outside the stylistic grey zones we've articulated; it is simply such poor style that it doesn't count as a lead. As JB has said, it is a top rope.
Perhaps this is my structuralist tendencies shining through but I have absolutely no truck with the idea that this is all just a matter of stylistic preference,interesting as those discussions are. Some ascents are valid, some are not. As Pete said higher up the thread, not everyone can be a winner. If you clip a knotted rope on a trad route you haven't done the trad route. You might as well say I've led Rainshadow from the ground but I pulled on the draws and stood on the bolts. That is not a poor form of style for someone to improve on. It is simply not an ascent.
It's of course interesting the ponder various styles and consider which are better than which others, but at some point that becomes metaphysical fluff and goes beyond parody, and you have to say what is and isn't a valid ascent.
-
Of course we can agree there is a range of styles. (although the specific example of Whittaker on Greenback is actually in the best tradition of trad, in that he placed them on the lead). The point I'm admittedly getting worked up about is the specific one about a trad lead being valid if you lower a rope from the top and clip into that on the way up, to the extent that if one did that they could claim a first ascent. That falls well outside the stylistic grey zones we've articulated; it is simply such poor style that it doesn't count as a lead. As JB has said, it is a top rope.
Ahem, that's what I said (v. early on).
People can go and do whatever they want but if that's going to make it to the climbing news as something noteworthy then expect it to come under some scrutiny, especially if the detail doesn't come out in the first article.
-
Quite. Sitting on bolts is not a "poor style" redpoint, it's not a free ascent of the route. Clipping loops on a dangling rope is not a "poor style" trad headpoint, it's not trad climbing.
As a follow on - If it's not trad climbing then it's nonsensical to try to apply a "trad" mindset about improving in style to it. It is far more valid - IMO - to apply the sport mindset, which involves bolting. You could of course treat it as its own unique style, that doesn't conform to trad or sport. This seems to be what remus is articulating. However, for all the reasons outlined by others on the thread (e.g., Stu, Pete), this style is a style that most people will consider bollocks and is a game that most people don't want to play, so chances are the thing will get treated by the rest of the climbing community as a sport route (yey, you can have the FA but now it's bolted) or will get treated as a trad route (i.e. it's still a project waiting for an ascent).
Perhaps we should be more open to this new style, but only in a niche location? Kind of like knotted ropes as nuts on those sandstone crags, or no-chalk zones or whatever - a curiosity of the particular crag or area, something that brings an unusual character and that doesn't neatly fit into the normal buckets? Maybe... but if you want to advocate for that then you need to do what Stu talked about - propose this new idea, convince people round to why this is a good idea in this context, accept why it's a shit idea in other contexts, and show why you think it would be fun to make, say, just this crag a weird little experimental hybrid crag where this unusual style is developed? If that approach were taken you might just convince people - you'd only need to convince a good dose of the local interested parties and you'd be onto a winner, I think people would probably respect weird local ethics if that's what the community wants. But you can't just pretend that it's not weird or controversial.
-
Of course we can agree there is a range of styles. (although the specific example of Whittaker on Greenback is actually in the best tradition of trad, in that he placed them on the lead). The point I'm admittedly getting worked up about is the specific one about a trad lead being valid if you lower a rope from the top and clip into that on the way up, to the extent that if one did that they could claim a first ascent. That falls well outside the stylistic grey zones we've articulated; it is simply such poor style that it doesn't count as a lead. As JB has said, it is a top rope.
What about a route where you can ab down and place loads of threads to make the route safe? or bash in a load of pegs? Is that so stylistically different from the knotted rope? In both cases you're going to the top and adding protection to make it safe. People don't seem so worked up about routes like Just Klingon though.
Stepping back a little, style and people's perception of it changes over time. 100 years ago good style was going to the alps, falling off something with no kit and killing yourself and all the other poor bastards who happened to be tied to the same rope as you. 50 years ago it was doing some sketchy mountain trad in EBs and trying not to place your single drilled nut runner too early. Today it is apparently placing bolts on a route you've claimed. In 50 years time it'll be live streaming yourself while you try and complete the Jim's Gym round of the 150 best indoor walls in the north east. Saying a particular style is valid and correct seems to have poor longevity.
p.s. I agree a knotted rope from the top would be very poor style on trad. Obviously it's way easier than a normal trad ascent. I don't think it makes sense to say it's invalid though, just bad style.
-
Im sure Bradders will correct me if Im wrong, but I think what he's getting at is that style doesn't fit very nicely in to neat little 'sport', 'trad' and 'bouldering' buckets. There's a wide range of stuff that goes on that fits somewhere on a spectrum from good to bad style, with onsight solo with a copy of the bible rammed up your arse on one end, to chipping your way up a 3+ on top rope on the other.
People just need to be clear about what they're doing, not getting together lynch mobs because Bransby used a 2x4 to protect the start of baron greenback, or P widdy using bamboo draws on the same route.
Thank you Remus, yes; that is exactly what I'm trying to articulate (badly).
I don't think anyone has suggested that there aren't edge cases and some blurring between categories, clearly there is. But this doesn't mean that >99% of things DO fit in these boxes and that therefore the boxes are valid and useful concepts worth maintaining. It's also clear that the knotted rope style if it's an edge case is one uncomfortably straddling the line between sport route and top rope and is a million miles from the trad box. The fact there are edge cases is never a good argument for suggesting all categories are valueless and should be abandoned.
Hats off to Franco if this is all a performance art piece satirising the contemporary gender debate.
-
People just need to be clear about what they're doing, not getting together lynch mobs because Bransby used a 2x4 to protect the start of baron greenback, or P widdy using bamboo draws on the same route.
Don't bring me into this, I've been watching from the sidelines deliberately keeping quiet.
ps the 2x4 was placed on lead so I stand by it being a completely valid ascent of the highest ethical standards.
-
Is that so stylistically different from the knotted rope?
Pegs are bullshit. Pegs on seacliffs are super bullshit. Rotting tat is moderate bullshit.
Ignoring the idea of hammering in new pegs - which is obviously bullshit and would cause a storm on many crags, the fundamental difference is surely the fundamental defining feature of trad - dealing with what the rock gives you. If you start to include setting up ropes from the top in this then TRing is just fine. But TRing is not trad climbing in the accepted rules of the game.
Saying a particular style is valid and correct seems to have poor longevity.
Well let's sack it all off and just TR aid those 9b and E12 projects and claim the FA then.
I don't think it makes sense to say it's invalid though, just bad style.
You are truely insane if you think that this is a valid trad ascent. Unless you also think TRing is a valid trad ascent? I never knew flashing E9 was going to be so easy! I can only assume that Remus is trolling as he's far too intelligent to believe what he's writing.
-
To take those two examples, whilst I wouldn't place pegs on trad routes nowadays, the key thing with both pegs and threads is they work with what the rock offers. They're essentially pre-placed gear. Loads of people do trad with some/all gear pre-placed, this is a million miles away from the knotted rope scenario, which artificially adds protection where the rock might offer none.
As Bonjoy says, knotted ropes are a huge distance away from the trad climbing box. If you think that would be permissible, even in poor style, you're effectively saying there is nothing that doesn't count as an ascent, only as a poor style of ascent and that is nonsense. Some things don't count. This would be one of them. These are the rules of the game we play, accepted by 99.99% of climbers.
I just feel quite strongly that not every ascent counts for something. Leading up a trad route in that style is stylistically worthless according to the history and rules of the game we play, accepted by 99.99% of climbers. As I've already said, even Franco wouldn't accept that as an ascent; because by that logic hes already done his trad project. Its not logically coherent.
-
I agree that I wouldn't count a knotted rope from the top as a trad ascent, but i wouldn't say the ascent itself is invalid as the person has climbed from the bottom to the top. It's just a poor style, somewhere between a top rope and a lead. Same as if someone has top roped something or even aided it. They've climbed it, just in a poor style.
To be honest I suspect we're just arguing over terminology here. I totally agree it'd be rubbish style, and it people aren't out and about doing this because I suspect it's a pretty boring way to climb.
-
I agree that I wouldn't count a knotted rope from the top as a trad ascent, but i wouldn't say the ascent itself is invalid as the person has climbed from the bottom to the top. It's just a poor style, somewhere between a top rope and a lead. Same as if someone has top roped something or even aided it. They've climbed it, just in a poor style.
To be honest I suspect we're just arguing over terminology here. I totally agree it'd be rubbish style, and it people aren't out and about doing this because I suspect it's a pretty boring way to climb.
Yeah, so its not a valid lead ascent. Thats my point; Bradders' is that it would be a valid lead ascent.
-
If you TR a trad proj it's still a proj - you haven't climbed it as a trad climb. That means no FA of the trad route, no name, no grade... If Franco had said he just did this as a personally enjoyable stepping stone to his trad project no one would have batted an eyelid.
-
For sure it's good to challenge the status quo and there are good and less good ways to go about it.
Franco's peripheral justifications keep wriggling around -
'the approach is so epic', then, 'no it's actually not that big deal' (it really isn't a difficult approach, and could easily be made even simpler/safer).
That's really unfair. I merely described the two normal approaches. I never said it was epic. Once you've got it dialled, you can get to the base of the meltdown in 90 secondsish. But is does still require an abseil / traxion out and I'm not sure the meltdown is clipstickable. It's more faff than sorting out the knots wad my point.
'all the trad routes are being bolted' - except the route he wanted to do as trad hadn't been bolted. (until he claimed it in a style that requires fixed protection and it got bolted as a result!).
Obviously I'm talking about the eaiser routes like windows, medium etc.
'People only have a problem because it's hard', then 'people only have a problem because I publicised it'. Nope, people are pretty much only taking issue because it's a deterioration in style; unhelpful to other climbers wanting to climb; messy; that sets an awful precedent that can easily be applied anywhere else to the detriment of the activity; and introduces stylistic 'trad ownership' over routes in an area which isn't a trad-only area - it's always been a mixed ethic of trad/sport/mixed routes.
That's an opinion. I see it the complete opposite. My solution allows sport with minimal faff and some designer danger trad at least - a compromise. What happened with the bolting of the Meltdown is that sport claimed ownership over that piece of rock. Now you mention it, what would be really interesting actually is to try and reduce the number of bolts on the meltdown and make it fit better with the slate ethic of designer danger, like all the other routes on that wall/ the rainbow/ california etc. I hadn't thought of that actually...
I really wish we could have this debate face to face - I just think your argument is non-existent.
I live 5 minutes down the hill from bus stop quarry in Fachwen. I'll happily put the kettle on and we can chat, you'd be made welcome and I hope you'd find me friendly and open minded to your views.
Or a wider debate, but face to face debates with large groups of people with counter opinions are notoriously not actually good for articulating nuanced points - I think mass meetings are good for the emotional aspect of getting together and seeing we don't have horns in our heads, but not actually for making the nuanced points that are the nub of the issue. Lots of people don't like speaking up in public or have trouble expressing clearly in speaking what they could in writing. See BMC area meetings for e.g., more about social/emotional feel-good than actually getting into the weeds of an issue.
Last thing - it's really funny and ironic that one of us has history of physically removing bolts from sport routes in twll mawr to preserve a historic trad route (Hamadryad)... the same person also has history of removing every bolt and peg from an existing 30m sport route to create what will be a genuinely brilliant 30m safe E8 with zero pieces of fixed gear. And re-positioning someone else's sport route bolts to preserve the feel of an esoteric but good E5 in Penmaen Bach Quarry.
It isn't the person you'd expect from reading this thread.. It also wasn't publicised to build a profile.
Just pointing out you're not the only person who loves trad and will bend the status quo to preserve it, many of us do. :P
Dewin!
-
Remus, come clean. You're about to launch a new product.
Want to climb trad routes but can't be bothered to learn how? Does it look scary and dangerous to you? We've got your back with the Lattice Lattice, the new low that's taking you to new heights in poorstyle trad.
-
[
Don't bring me into this, I've been watching from the sidelines deliberately keeping quiet.
ps the 2x4 was placed on lead so I stand by it being a completely valid ascent of the highest ethical standards.
Balls to that Ben…. What do you think?? Genuinely this isn’t a time to be sitting on the fence! The rules of the game are in danger of being rewritten 😂😂
-
Of course we can agree there is a range of styles. (although the specific example of Whittaker on Greenback is actually in the best tradition of trad, in that he placed them on the lead).
I disagree. I think it's a great effort and like weird quirks like that, but I'd imagine he'd agree it's a style to be improved on. Ultimately if you allowed the use of sticks to clip things on trad routes, you could stick clip a lot of things in the quarries, or pegs elsewhere and I don't think people would think that's acceptable.
Also, just to make it clear, this rope wasn't from the top, it was an extension of the bolts from the meltdown groove, so how you can say it's top roping, I have no idea. There is a complete sliding scale from a draw, to a double draw, to extended sling, to this. You could actually lead this with a couple of very long slings instead of the rope.
I still don't think you get the ownership thing. I'm not saying my opinion is any more valid than anyone else's. I hate the "what does the first ascensionist think" thing. It's rock. It's part of all our shared world. I don't have any more right to bolt it or save it as a closed trad project, but nor does anyone else. I will however continue to argue for what I think is right, as I thought long and hard about my actions on this line and still think I chose the best course of action.
-
There is a complete sliding scale from a draw, to a double draw, to extended sling, to this. You could actually lead this with a couple of very long slings instead of the rope.
You could just pre-clip it too.
-
Regarding the publicity/ keeping it secret thing: I felt I had led a sport route in a style that was repeatable for others. I thought people would think it was an amusing curiosity/ a bit naff, but I really didn't think it would get this reception. Pete's bamboo poles were what was in my mind and seemed far more provocative to me than extending draws on a sport climb that everyone top ropes anyway...
-
That's really unfair.
Everything's unfair when you play the victim. As previously said by others, own your shit.
Obviously I'm talking about the eaiser routes like windows, medium etc.
You mean routes that were done when you were a toddler or earlier? That's life.. the UK's covered in routes all over sea-cliffs that were done in the 70s-2000's in poor style with fixed gear (imo); and left us with a sub-optimal mess of corroded crap which we had no say in. That's a bigger an issue than a bold slate slab getting bolted in an area that climbers agreed works best with a mix of fully bolted, partially bolted (runout), and gear. :shrug:
That's an opinion. I see it the complete opposite. My solution allows sport with minimal faff and some designer danger trad at least - a compromise.
It's an opinion shared by a huge majority of people :lol:. Your 'solution' is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist for anyone else except you!
Watching you at work is a bit like watching someone advocating blowing up a vaccine factory as a 'solution' to their strongly-held belief that there's a problem with everyone in vaccine factories being lizard overlords in disguise trying to inject us with microchips.
That's an opinion.. ;)
What happened with the bolting of the Meltdown is that sport claimed ownership over that piece of rock. Now you mention it, what would be really interesting actually is to try and reduce the number of bolts on the meltdown and make it fit better with the slate ethic of designer danger, like all the other routes on that wall/ the rainbow/ california etc. I hadn't thought of that actually...
Troll mode engaged again then? :shit:
Gosh yes that would be a positive move - start a bolt-chopping / re-bolting war on other people's routes in the slate quarries just because you hold an ideologically extreme view of climbing that 99.9% of climbers don't agree with. If you went down that route it could be another piece of evidence in a growing portfolio, of your absolute disregard for anyone's views other than your own.
And you're definitely showing your true troll colours now. Talking balls about chopping bolts to make designer danger routes? Because this was your reply when I suggested to you that you made a complete bollocks of your new route by not spotting the potential for it to be a classic 'designer danger route':
And the idea that me placing a couple of bolts and creating a designer danger line would have gone down better is hilarious. That really is classic UKB, shifting which tiny ethical issue to get most outraged by 🤣
Tiresome troll.
-
That's really unfair.
Everything's unfair when you play the victim. As previously said by others, own your shit.
Untrue then. The argument was that it was loads of effort to hang a rope. I said getting onto the route is far more effort. You're suggesting I'm changing my position to suit my argument. I'm not.
Obviously I'm talking about the eaiser routes like windows, medium etc.
You mean routes that were done when you were a toddler or earlier? That's life.. the UK's covered in routes all over sea-cliffs that were done in the 70s-2000's in poor style with fixed gear (imo); and left us with a sub-optimal mess of corroded crap which we had no say in. That's a bigger an issue than a bold slate slab getting bolted in an area that climbers agreed works best with a mix of fully bolted, partially bolted (runout), and gear. :shrug:
That's an opinion. I see it the complete opposite. My solution allows sport with minimal faff and some designer danger trad at least - a compromise.
It's an opinion shared by a huge majority of people :lol:. Your 'solution' is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist for anyone else except you!
But in the 60s your opinion would have only been held by you. What I'm trying to do is futureproof the solution, so that when bold Trad comes back round, we haven't fucked all the best lines up.
Watching you at work is a bit like watching someone advocating blowing up a vaccine factory as a 'solution' to their strongly-held belief that there's a problem with everyone in vaccine factories being lizard overlords in disguise trying to inject us with microchips.
That's an opinion.. ;)
What happened with the bolting of the Meltdown is that sport claimed ownership over that piece of rock. Now you mention it, what would be really interesting actually is to try and reduce the number of bolts on the meltdown and make it fit better with the slate ethic of designer danger, like all the other routes on that wall/ the rainbow/ california etc. I hadn't thought of that actually...
Troll mode engaged again then? :shit:
Gosh yes that would be a positive move - start a bolt-chopping / re-bolting war on other people's routes in the slate quarries just because you hold an ideologically extreme view of climbing that 99.9% of climbers don't agree with. If you went down that route it could be another piece of evidence in a growing portfolio, of your absolute disregard for anyone's views other than your own.
And you're definitely showing your true troll colours now. Talking balls about chopping bolts to make designer danger routes? Because this was your reply when I suggested to you that you made a complete bollocks of your new route by not spotting the potential for it to be a classic 'designer danger route':
I'd suggest it is you who has a shifting argument. You say I should have done a designer danger route, then are outraged when I agree. I'm not in troll mode at all. I know how provocative it would be to to start chopping bolts, but, honestly, I do think we're nearly at that point with hard trad. Just like people were outraged with the first bolts being placed, you may be outraged by the chopping, but I really don't think you've got your head around how many bold Trad climbs have been destroyed by bolting. Both chopping and bolting are in a sense vandalism, but to act all holier than thou because you currently hold a majority opinion (although I am getting some messages of support on this) is at best fairly narrow minded.
And the idea that me placing a couple of bolts and creating a designer danger line would have gone down better is hilarious. That really is classic UKB, shifting which tiny ethical issue to get most outraged by 🤣
Tiresome troll.
-
p.s. I agree a knotted rope from the top would be very poor style on trad. Obviously it's way easier than a normal trad ascent. I don't think it makes sense to say it's invalid though, just bad style.
Surely we can agree that makes a trad route traditional is
1) going from the bottom up to the top
2) only using protection afforded by the features of the rock.
Your contention here is that when neither 1 or 2 hold true, it’s still trad. Of course it’s not :slap:
Preplaced slings and pegs may not be the best style, but they still conform to those basic principles if you start at the bottom and work upwards. A top rope manifestly does not.
-
In Sept I spent half my climbing days paddling/walking 1hr up a river to sport climb. Even after all that faff I would have been put off doing routes where I had to arrange my own "bolts". [I appreciate the comparison is pretty poor because I was at a crag with lots of amazing routes, but you get my point - faff of approach being high does not mean that lazy equipping of routes is ok]
"You say I should have done a designer danger route, then are outraged when I agree"
You didn't agree though, did you. You suggested modifying an existing route to create a designer danger route, which is fundamentally a different kettle of fish and clearly trolling (or stupid/naive if you can't see the difference).
It still basically feels like you fucked yourself over - probably through a lack of emotional intelligence/empathy; I can sympathise, since that's also not a strong point of mine - but can't bring yourself to admit it. It feels like you're clutching at straws a little bit rather than realising that you messed up and really shouldn't do the same again if you want to preserve a trad project - it would be madness not to proactively try get people on board with taking this unusual approach (in a few limited situations) in advance.
-
Hi Franco, a couple of observations from someone with no skin in this particular game.
Firstly, a massive well done for climbing such an obviously brick hard line in the quarries. :clap2:
And a second well done for engaging in debate on this thread
Thirdly, you’re clearly a massively talented (and motivated) climber - chapeau.
But your gift for winding people up, man.. it’s practically a superpower. It’s unique. I do hope however, that you go on to produce lots more exciting hard routes (ideally in recognisable styles). :beer2:
-
Can we park the 'lazy'? People are accusing me of trolling, but time and again people are deliberately misconstruing what's gone on. It wasn't lazy. It was a deliberate choice. The rest of your reply is overly focused on semantics. I don't want to have to get everything I write on here checked by my lawyer. I think you get the jist of what I meant by 'agree'.
I just fundamentally disagree that I fucked up. I climbed a great new sport climb and left it in a state that it could still be done on trad. I've come on here to engage with the corner of the climbing community that seems most extreme in its criticism of this. Now we're going round in circles.
You can get angry and cry "troll", but fundamentally removing bolts is no more an act of vandalism than placing them. It's completely arbitrary what we decide is right or wrong and history has shown that just because you're in the majority, doesn't mean your views are right.
As it stands, I'm pretty relaxed about these things. I was sad about the bolts in Dewin Stone, but didnt bitch about it to anyone, apart from what ive said on here. I see people enjoy sport climbing and that they're in the majority. I can do something else, or not, but don't act like your position has any inherent truth at its base, cause it doesn't.
-
Franco I've never suggested you 'should' have bolted a designer danger route? I've suggested you 'could' have, as one option. Hey it's just an alternative opinion, they're ok to have aren't they, you don't need to agree. Dunno why you're getting upset about it?
Other options exist - you could have fully bolted it, or you could have led it as a bold trad route. I genuinely have no strong opinion on which option is 'better' - I expect most people don't feel that strongly either, it appears only you who's ideological about 'no bolts' here. All that almost everyone else agrees on is your dangly rope style is bollocks and will inevitably just lead to other routes in this style getting bolted.
Just like people were outraged with the first bolts being placed, you may be outraged by the chopping, but I really don't think you've got your head around how many bold Trad climbs have been destroyed by bolting. Both chopping and bolting are in a sense vandalism, but to act all holier than thou because you currently hold a majority opinion (although I am getting some messages of support on this) is at best fairly narrow minded.
Your argument doesn't make any sense. You had a hard trad project, it wasn't bolted, and you did all the moves cleanly. So why didn't you lead it trad? No shame that you didn't, and nobody really cares that you didn't. But you failed to climb it as a trad route and ended up getting your precious trad project bolted by claiming a first ascent of a sport route instead. In a batshit retrograde poor style that literally almost everybody thinks doesn't make any sense! :ras:
Dead horse well and truly flogged to death.
-
I think you get the jist of what I meant by 'agree'.
Yes, but I don't think that you did agree.
The rest of your reply is overly focused on semantics.
The rest of my reply is paras 1 and 3, which don't appear to me to have anything to do with semantics.
This is very boring now.
-
onsight solo with a copy of the bible rammed up your arse on one end
Shout out to one of the better contributions to the debate, and a style we can all aspire to, unless of course that onsight bible-plugged solo is next to, errr, umm, say, a hanging knotted rope for back-up :blink:
Hats off to Franco if this is all a performance art piece satirising the contemporary gender debate.
The same hats we're supposed to be eating, or different hats?? :blink:
-
Shout out to one of the better contributions to the debate, and a style we can all aspire to, unless of course that onsight bible-plugged solo is next to, errr, umm, say, a hanging knotted rope for back-up :blink:
And only the King James version obviously.
-
Shout out to one of the better contributions to the debate, and a style we can all aspire to, unless of course that onsight bible-plugged solo is next to, errr, umm, say, a hanging knotted rope for back-up :blink:
And only the King James version obviously.
Of course! Gideons strictly on the other side of the valley.
-
I just fundamentally disagree that I fucked up.
Like many things in this thread, 'fucked up' is a bit strong. Shot yourself in the foot, more like? You didn't want for it to be bolted, and it got bolted. You might not consider yourself accountable for that, but there's no question if you hadn't claimed it as a sport route then it wouldn't have happened? I think you made a misjudgement about how accepting the community would be about making your own rules/having cake and eating it, nothing worse than that.
-
...The fact there are edge cases is never a good argument for suggesting all categories are valueless and should be abandoned.
Hats off to Franco if this is all a performance art piece satirising the contemporary gender debate.
Lol!
-
Meanwhile, on the far end of a ledge partway up El Cap, Siebe is thinking to himself, Jesus, that English guy spends a lot of time on his phone…
-
Meanwhile, on the far end of a ledge partway up El Cap, Siebe is thinking to himself, Jesus, that English guy spends a lot of time on his phone…
:lol: fucking brilliant