[north_country_boy]

Not intending to do anything if opinion is greatly against......however i'm sure it would get many repeats, ground up if the landing was a little more encouraging....

[Fiend]

Should be exciting.

[Sloper]

Is this the wall to the left of careless torque?  If so let those aspirants carry enough mats up to bring it within their comfort zone and leave it the f--k alone.

[Adam Lincoln]

Is this the wall to the left of careless torque?  If so let those aspirants carry enough mats up to bring it within their comfort zone and leave it the f--k alone.

What was your opinion about That's my lot being given the patio treatment. In my opinion, better to make the ground better and see loads of ascents than to leave as is and never get repeated.

[north_country_boy]

Is this the wall to the left of careless torque?  If so let those aspirants carry enough mats up to bring it within their comfort zone and leave it the f--k alone.

What was your opinion about That's my lot being given the patio treatment. In my opinion, better to make the ground better and see loads of ascents than to leave as is and never get repeated.

My opinion too, just for the record. Although all that is needed with Careless Youth is a quick rock tumble/movement...

[Drew]

I'd personally be in favour of making it as safe as possible (in James's own words, it's bouldering, not soloing), but I don't think my opinion holds much weight.

Incidentally, I'd rather see Iain's Prow/Boyager get the same treatment first. I only did it cos there were about 15 pads down!

[Jim]

what do you intend to do with boyager, fill in the hole with 30 tonnes of sand?

make it safe with some patioing and such like by all means as long as it doesn't look unsightly or ruin something else.

[Drew]

I don't know what would work, but if it's at all feasible, I reckon it'd be worth the effort.

[Johnny Brown]

I am totally against this. Leave it alone.

1. This is not an obscure quarried bay, it is the most iconic boulder in The Peak. Landscaping is not appropriate - this is a piece of natural sculpture on full public display.

2. That block is huge, far bigger than the one under White Hat for example, and entirely natural. Then what about the block underneath? Moving either will make scars that won't heal quickly, and where are you planning to put the moved blocks?

3. The blocks provide an alternate start to Careless Torque, and the departure point for the sitter project. The fact that these have yet to be done does not make them irrelevant - both will get done in the next ten years.

4. Have you tried it? Its okay to pad out. Far more limiting than the landing is the giant needle-crystal inside the mono.

Seriously, there are a lot of considerations to be met before doing something like this in a place like this. Props for asking and not acting though.

What was your opinion about That's my lot

First, its in a quarry, and one with a floor that is not consolidated. Second, the major hazard was a tree, fallen but still living. The landscaping was largely trimming the stump and filling out the stump-hole with branches and boulders, and building out a flatter landing with branches - ie not permanent. Its still high, and this week suitors have resorted back to top-roping.

The only other big reworking job I've done was Art of White Hat wearing. A quarried bay, hidden away, uneven piles of stone on floor, one big rock sat on the flat floor directly underneath. Rolling the rock into the dip to the left revealed the flat landing, and a few more rocks extended it. Three years later it looks as natural as the rest.

[erm, sam]

I'm with JB.
It is a much wider question than "will the problem be better or see more ascents with or without the death block". I don't understand how there can be such widespread outrage at the excessive tick marking of CT: despoiling an icon etc, but tacit support of a more potentially more significant alteration of the area.
Also, as a punter who is never going to attempt this problem but a keen climber no the less, I am a detached but generally sympathic observer. If I find it incredible that this would seriously considered, what would totally unsympathetic land managers, ramblers, sheep lovers et al think?

[Sloper]

I totally agree with JB, danger is an inherent part of climbing and while I or you may want to manage that, others may be happy to accept it.  As such I'm sure with the pads available now and the number that a suitor can call upon, it would be a desecration to destroy this block.

Now if you were suggesting the block under the Joker should be removed I might be pursuaded to lend a hand with a hammer. (only a semi serious troll, please ignore if your sense of humour reservior is near empty)

[Jim]

don't worry sloper, we tend to ignore you anyway 

[north_country_boy]

Cheers for the responses guys.... the skid steer Bobcat is getting delivered tomorrow morning and the local tree surgeons are dropping off a couple of tonnes of bark tomorrow afternoon ready to cover the new landing........Only jesting! 

Right, first of all I had/have no intention of moving/reorientating the block if there was/is well founded support for it to be retained, and therefore was just canvassing opinion to see what the general consensus was, following a brief conversation about the landing between friends at the Plantation on saturday. 

I totally agree, with the benefit of hindsight, with JB's comments above, which included many of the moral issues I had already thought about myself (hence the post) and enlightened me to the potential project/low start etc which I wasn't aware may use the block in question.....

So, alternatively, I will hopefully over the next week, get out midweek armed with a rope, grigri and an assortment of (non wire) brushes etc to give it a little clean and get it in fine fettle for a potential repeat......

In the meantime if anyone would like to arrange a get together of willing victims/volunteers (a la: Thats My Lot) who would like to offer their pads in to try the problem ground-up above a sea of foam (the way that James intended it to be remembered/enjoyed) then feel free and maybe someone will get an early Christmas Present, in the form of the long awaited 2nd Ascent?? 

[Drew]

I think JB makes a good point, and I'm finding myself agreeing with him. It is a landmark, and should probably be left as is. I must admit I've never looked at the landing, but couldn't aspirants just use as many pads as K Jorgeson (sorry for anyone who hasn't seen Progression), and essentially patio it with pads? Maybe throw a couple of Ronin Air Pads into the mix to make it even nicer?

[fatdoc]

Tap Graeme up at the works to borrow our Ronin test pad... we'll waive the fee for the sake of the block.

Can we gave some cool pics?

[dave]

Can we gave some cool pics?

i recon this could turn into an internet meme t-shirt slogan phenomenon.

[Aussiegav]

what next?
putting bolts in on Equilibrium or Dangermouse so more people can climb it?????
part of the the grit ethos , both climbing and bouldering is pushing the mental and danger factor as well as the physical
if you want safe problems, go to the foundry. 

don't forget that the peak is national park, i'm sure these landscaping actions would not go down well

[nik at work]

This makes interesting reading. I don't have a particular opinion on this specific case, I don't know the block in question especially well. However I think some valid points have been raised. Equally I think some not so valid points are also creeping in.
The comparison with That's My Lot is an obvious one to make. The patio for That's My Lot is made of wood and is easily removable, it is also obvious that it is a constructed patio. This means that as well as being easily removable it is possible to deduce exactly what needs to be removed to reach the "natural state". The fact that it is in a hidden away quarry rather than a popular honey pot boulder is completely irrelevant to my mind, you either respect the environment around you, or you don't. Random self justifying lines in the sand are just that.
The Art Of White Hat Wearing is slightly different, the rocks were moved creating a better landing. That can't be undone as there is no way of distinguishing moved rocks from original rocks. JB even says it isn't possible to see that anything has been moved now. Surely the same would eventually happen with the block under Keen Youth. It may take a bit longer but what's the difference?
The difference is people don't tend to walk past TAOWHW on a weekend stroll, whereas they do Keen Youth. Well that's no real difference at all.
I'd probably agree with JB's assertion that the block shouldn't be moved but I think some of his reasoning doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

(sorry JB, love ya really )

[dave]

part of the the grit ethos , both climbing and bouldering is pushing the mental and danger factor as well as the physical

no it isn't. if anyone has ever gone out to look primarily for an especially dangerous route to do then they're an idiot. danger has always been something which as accepted and dealt with, and where possible managed and reduced to whatever level is deemed acceptable. its certainly not ever been anything that has been actively "pushed" as far as I can tell.

[Johnny Brown]

The difference is people don't tend to walk past TAOWHW on a weekend stroll, whereas they do Keen Youth. Well that's no real difference at all.

Don't agree, its a massive difference. Hence why quarries are required to screen their operations from the public the large bunds. From my experience with land owners/ managers I can say they see it as a key issue too. I get a phone call from Bill every time he finds a rock scar on North Lees, and youths at Curbar were actually prosecuted for trundling last year.

You've also ignored the quarried/ natural point. Do you not consider that difference important? For me changing what was left by human hand carries less moral anguish than that left by nature.

[nik at work]

youths at Curbar were actually prosecuted for trundling last year.

Isn't TAOWHW at Curbar? What did you get, community service, suspended sentence

I can see how land managers may object, and I'd accept that. But that's not the point you made, perhaps it is what you meant and I'm being picky?

I see all these places as climbing venues, and as climbers we should respect them equally. Yes Stanage is different to Rivelin Quarries which again is different to a shady part of Curbar, but surely our approach should be consistent?

[Johnny Brown]

No, not at all. A landscape's value is based on many things, hence why we have national parks. Even within a national park, we have hillsides that are considered iconic and the reason for the parks existence, and others that are only good for crushing up and putting under roads.

Nice as it would be to preserve them all, we don't live in a world where that is possible, decisions have to be made and ultimately you have to rate a place's worth.

[abarro81]

The difference is people don't tend to walk past TAOWHW on a weekend stroll, whereas they do Keen Youth. Well that's no real difference at all.

I do think there's a difference. Not in terms of respecting nature but in terms of respecting the other people in the peak - walkers etc. - and what they will/wont see on their weekend stroll.

[Joepicalli]

part of the the grit ethos , both climbing and bouldering is pushing the mental and danger factor as well as the physical

no it isn't. if anyone has ever gone out to look primarily for an especially dangerous route to do then they're an idiot. danger has always been something which as accepted and dealt with, and where possible managed and reduced to whatever level is deemed acceptable. its certainly not ever been anything that has been actively "pushed" as far as I can tell.

Firstly, of course people go looking for dangerous routes and moreover argue to keep them dangerous. If you look at the recent controversy with the Llyn and Stievie cleaning what some thought was meant to be a ground up, loose, death ethic line it's obvious that their idea was keep it lethal rather than compromise the ethic.
When you say: 'danger has always been something which as accepted and dealt with, and where possible managed and reduced to whatever level is deemed acceptable.' you are saying it within the context that someone has suggested the moving of a boulder below an existing problem which was there when the FA was done. This begs the question - deemed acceptable by who? The first ascentionist? The second? My mum, who would pad out the bottom of the stairs with ronins every time I went up them if she had her way.

[Bonjoy]

There are many degrees of patioing or otherwise changing a landing, from kicking away a loose stone, to getting the JCB out, one is obviously ok, the other is obviously not, in between are many shades of questionable. For this reason the ethics around changing of landings are not black and white and arbitrary decisions are unavoidable if we aren’t to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If we are only going to use concrete, intrinsically consistent ‘rules’ then we will be forced by logic to change no landings in any way, not to mention never go bouldering in the first place as it damages the rock. What I mean is that the difference in look and feel and history of places does have a strong bearing on a question such as this, even if this difference can be dismissed as unreal/illogical, as suggested by Nik. Judging by the reactions to the original question I think the bouldering community pretty much has the right idea about what falls either side of the notional (random, self justifying) line.