[Bubba]

I dare say bbcode has been around for years. It was probably cutting edge when this forum was built, but others have better and simpler methods, and so should you. Or you could shoot the messenger, of course.

Ok, I'm not going to derail this topic any further because of your rather sad whining - go and look at any of the "cutting edge" forum solutions out there - they will all use BBCode.

And please don't use UKC as an example of good forum software - it isn't, it's horrible. But anyway, if you prefer a forum that uses a simpler method then you could just post
there instead.

You've come on here with a terrible attitude; you're lucky I still don't own the place.

[slackline]

I dare say bbcode has been around for years. It was probably cutting edge when this forum was built, but others have better and simpler methods, and so should you. Or you could shoot the messenger, of course.

Really? What are these alternatives?  UKC's quote system far from cutting edge it only allows quoting of one past quote, and not nested quoting as can easily be achieved here.

I'm genuinely interested (as I've a geeky streak) as to what this software is because as others highlight, bbcode based forums are the most prevalent (UKC's system is developed in-house and is why it is different from most others).

[shark]

I thought we were talking generally about anti-bolters not you. Whilst not all trad climbers are anti-bolt the anti-bolters are trad climbers and therefore as likely guilty of littering as a bolter. To say that pegs etc in principle can be removed is no different to bolt hangers that can be removed. 

So bolts as litter doesnt hold true except for the honourable leave-no-trace-trad-climbers like yourself - I presume you use no chalk?

The artefactual nature of routes is both physical and conceptual and in the realm of ethics both spheres are important.   

[Nemo]

Blimey – what a fuss.  I was going to leave this thread well alone, because like JB, I haven’t been to CV and agree with him that people should have local knowledge before jumping on bandwagons.  However, I do know what arguments would persuade me one way or the other, and also some of the more general things said on this thread really need challenging.  So here goes….

“I challenge anyone to articulate the current "rules"/ status quo in less than 100 words…” - thesiger

Clearly there is no simple rule which explains everything which has been done.  However, I think that the following is a very good guide and explains the vast majority of the bolting decisions which have been taken:

Trad climbing has priority in the UK and will have for the foreseeable future.  Thus the question asked before developing a sport crag / area / route has pretty much always been – is it any good as a trad crag / area / route?  If so then it remains or becomes trad.  That really is pretty much it in a nutshell.   

Thus anyone trying to explain bolting policy in terms of a particular type of rock, or type of environment will always fail, because whilst those are certainly factors which affect whether or not a crag is any good as a trad venue, the type and quality of the climbing itself is also a major factor.

How does this “rule” work in practice?  Well for easier grade climbs (roughly those up to around Fr7a), the vast majority of the decent climbing in the UK was already trad before bolts came along and so it has remained.  For the most part the easy grade venues which are now sport crags / areas are those which are poor quality enough for very few trad climbers to care about losing them.  In other words, quality has dictated the allegiance of low grade climbing.  For higher grade climbing, the determining factor has usually been whether or not it is actually suitable for trad or not.  This is a tricky distinction and depends on a whole variety of factors from the nature of the climbing to whether the rock is too compact to take any gear etc etc…  So all of grit is great for trad, even though some of it has little gear, whereas somewhere like the Anvil or Malham central wall is terrible for trad.  I actually think that a lot of bolting arguments have been due to some lower grade climbers not understanding the distinction (which admittedly is hard to articulate) as to what makes for good hard trad and what does not. 

Of course, the “rule” isn’t perfect and there are a relatively small number of routes and areas which have strayed outside of it.  Some of these are cases where bolting has been done in inappropriate places without any consultation (presumably the stuff JCM refers to in Lundy comes into this category?).  This, like chipping is pretty much impossible to eradicate completely.  All you can do, is remove those bolts, repair any damage as best as possible and condemn the actions to deter others.  In other cases, there has been a debate, but for a variety of possible reasons, the “trad has priority” rule has been overridden.  (e.g routes like Yosemite Wall and Dominatrix in Yorkshire would actually make great trad routes.  The argument for bolting in those particular cases is that historically they have always been clip ups of one sort or another – we certainly don’t want to go back to bashing lots of pegs into them every few years as this actually damages and changes the holds and so bolting seemed the best option to keep the character of the routes as close to how they were originally climbed as possible.  For what its worth I think this argument is weak and there is a very good case for removing all fixed gear from these routes although they would certainly then have a very different character to what they have ever had before – i.e: Dominatrix in particular would be considerably harder.  Of course, this isn’t likely to happen in the foreseeable future as there is pretty much zero interest from trad climbers in these routes at present.  I’m merely pointing out that these ARE exceptions to the normal “rule” and as such it wouldn’t surprise me if they changed allegiance from sport to trad from generation to generation.)

Of course, these exceptions to the general “rule” are precisely the routes and areas which have caused most of the angst.  But, I do think that the number of these exceptions is pretty small in the wider scheme of things.  This “rule” has, pretty much everywhere in the UK lead to a very sensible bolting policy which has lead to a great diversity of climbing making the best use of the rock we have. 

It is also worth pointing out that it is precisely this “rule” which keeps at bay Sloper’s argument that “bolt routes destroy the future projects of trad climbers”.  Clearly no future trad climber is going to be upset about the easier stuff which has been bolted because it is so rubbish.  And for the harder stuff, it really is the case that the routes which trad climbers are interested in as projects, and the current hard sport routes, have very few routes in common.  For example, at Malham the current sport routes would be utterly terrible trad routes.  Most would still need bolt belays as they finish under ridiculous roofs.  And as noone in the world has onsight soloed harder than 7b+ as far as I’m aware, to climb most of these routes you’d have to abb in, reverse aid climb a roof to gain the bolt belay, wire them on a top rope and then solo them…  It hopefully doesn’t take a genius to see why crags like these are NOT good venues for trad climbing – not now and not ever.  That doesn’t of course mean that there aren’t people who are capable of soloing lots of these sport routes once they have them dialled – people are soloing up to Fr8b+ ish, so it is perfectly possible for lots of current sport routes to be soloed, and plenty have been.  But that can be done when they are bolted and does NOT in any way make them decent trad routes.  (You don’t see people clamouring for Revelations to be stripped just because Le Menestral soloed it.)  There is all the difference in the world between an 8c(+) like Echo wall and an 8c(+) at a venue like the Anvil – one makes a great trad route, and one does not.  Dave Macleod can easily see the distinction but unfortunately it usually takes people who are climbing reasonably hard to be able to see the difference in the types of climbing and compactness of the rock, and so it is difficult to persuade lower grade climbers that one REALLY isn’t suitable for trad climbing. 

So, coming to the roof at Carn Vellan (which seems similar to the Anvil in a number of respects).  To repeat - I haven’t been there and seen it so the following is based on assumptions – which if wrong, negate the argument.  The assumptions are simply that the routes there are all massively steep, upwards of Fr7b+ and that the rock is very compact with very few natural placements.  IF these assumptions are true, then the crag would make a terrible trad climbing venue and this seems to be borne out by the fact that none of the routes have had ascents since the bolts were stripped.  (Rewind seems to be similar to something like Revelations in that it was worked using the bolts before being headpointed – it is hardly a “normal” trad route by any stretch and probably isn’t going to get climbed unless it is rebolted.)  Accordingly, it seems like CV fits perfectly well into the standard “rule” used elsewhere in the UK, and IS appropriate to be developed as a sport venue – assuming of course that there are no objections from a non-climbing perspective to climbers being there at all…   (If however Jasper is right and the routes are in fact 6th grade jugfests, then that would change the situation dramatically.  However, whilst I don’t doubt that there is a bit of overgrading here and there, I suspect that the assumptions I’ve made are in fact valid.)

[Nemo]

So now lets try and answer JCM’s original points:

1.  “but if we let a few ‘8b+’ sport routes or whatever go up what are we going to say – and what are bolters in general going to say – once the masses start saying it’s not Fair and it’s Elitist and why aren’t there any nice bolted 5+s in Penwith?”

The roof at Carn Vellan isn’t any good for trad climbing.  The potential 5+’s are. 

2.  Valid point – anyone who is prepared to drive to a BMC meeting deserves their say.  Having said that, I can’t help thinking that the people who should be deciding about bolting at Vellan, are the people who are interested in actually climbing there, rather than people hundreds of miles away who have no interest whatsoever in actually climbing there, but are simply interested in forcing their particular ideology on everyone else.  So a suggestion – how about some of the pro CV bolting folks get in touch with some of the top headpointers in the UK to find out if any of them actually have the slightest interest in trad climbing on the roof at Vellan.  If the pro bolting folks could turn up to the next meeting with assurances from a bunch of well known hard trad climbers that they have no interest in CV then I think their case would be considerably strengthened.

3.  Agree up to a point.  In general I think that if you are going to strip bolts, then either do it properly or don’t do it at all.  Ie. Making ideological statements by making a bigger mess doesn’t help anyone.  However, in this particular case, due to the history in Cornwall, I think that the bolt cutters were genuinely concerned about the “rot” spreading to other areas and so felt that urgent action was required – thus I don’t think criticism aimed at them is necessary or helpful.  Now after a period of reflection, hopefully the CV roof can be considered in isolation without concerns about other areas. 

4.  The way to go is to disassociate sport climbing from the actions of past sport climbers in the area.  But the history should not be forgotten.

5.  I think you are reading something into what thesiger said which isn’t there.  He was merely pointing out that there is no simple explanation for the bolt policy in the UK based on rock type or geographical environment. 

Some of JCM’s later points:

“You could point out more politely (what I suspect is true) that if the Edwardses had never existed and the crag were discovered now for the first time bolting it would cause much less controversy.”

Agree entirely.  And this is a pretty important point.  Is there really that much difference between the roof at Vellan and say Anstey’s Cove or the Anvil – other than the history? 

“about three weeks ago when I did Lundy Calling…”

I think if you’d come on this forum arguing about bolting on Lundy, then I suspect 99.9% of the people on here would be supporting you and not arguing.  Hopefully you can at least see that the CV roof is a very different case precisely because it isn’t (as far as I’m aware) affecting any normal trad routes. 

“sticking a line of bolts up a cliff because you can't climb it otherwise is simply ludicrous, exactly on a level with leaving crisp packets behind.”

Agree with Shark’s response to this.  I’m actually sceptical about whether JCM even believes it himself.  In short, the visual impact argument against bolting is a non starter - to non-climbers the belay stakes at Pembroke are far more of an eyesore than any bolts anywhere.  Similarly the environmental argument is a nonsense too.  The environmental argument is against climbers and climbing in general (as well as most other outdoor activities) and not against bolting in particular.  I.e – People lead to path erosion, litter etc etc.  Clearly bolting leads to an increase in popularity of some crags and volume of people can be an issue in some places – but that’s no different to any trad crag.  The argument that the drilling itself is somehow sacrilegious holds a little more water, but isn’t a feeling I share - Considering what trad climbers regularly get up to – lobbing off onto cams in flakes and breaking them, hammering in of pegs, the endless feet polishing the rock etc etc.  Now JCM may have wings – he may fly to the crags without affecting a blade of grass and levitate up them without polishing the rock.  Unfortunately the rest of us are human - I think the truth is more that all climbing has a significant impact on the rock.  All we can do is try to manage it.

No, as Stu says, most of these arguments are made from time to time and I’m not sure anyone including the people making them really believe them.  The only real argument JCM, Sloper etc have with bolts is the one Stu outlined earlier, which is that it goes against their romantic, adventurous view of what climbing should be…  I grew up reading stuff like Smythe’s Spirit of the Hills so I fully understand this, but I have always felt there is plenty of space for both views of climbing to coexist.

“The pomposity, the self-obsession, the sheer absurdity of taking a drill to a cliff in order that you can climb up it, when there are so many cliffs to climb without doing that.”

You need to accept that for lots of people, myself included, the primary thing we enjoy about climbing is the movement aspect of it, and that standing around fiddling bits of metal into holes detracts for a lot of people from the feeling of actually climbing.  Now, I grew up trad climbing, I’ve done lots of it and enjoy it too – but at times I have felt restricted, tied down and not able to move when doing it.  Of course, in the place of freedom of movement, you have the danger and the spirit of adventure – but that appeals to either different people, or the same people at different times.  In short, there is a place for both and writing comments like the above helps no-one and just makes people not take some of the more sensible things you say seriously.

“Chalk is obviously deplorable too…  the damage is being done anyway…”

Chalk doesn’t damage anything – it washes off.  What it is, is a visual eyesore – there’s no denying that.  But it’s something which people have decided to live with, because without it, genuinely hard climbing is impossible, and fingers sliding around leads to injuries and makes climbing generally unpleasant.

“It would certainly improve relations generally if bolters could be persuaded not to carry on unilateral bolting outside the agreements.”

Fully agree – but it would also help if everyone agreed to abide by whatever agreements ARE made, and not threaten to strip bolts in accepted areas.  That will just wind up extremists of the opposite persuasion to go and stick a bolt in the Indian Face.  None of this is necessary if people just calm down a bit and stop getting carried away with the ideological rhetoric…

“I know the bolters will win at Carn Vellan in the end”

Not necessarily.  If you were to find some hard trad climbers who were genuinely interested in climbing here, and they were to go and do some of the routes there without bolts, then I think the argument would change fundamentally.  However, I suspect this isn’t going to happen because of the nature of the crag – which of course is precisely the point.

“Do you really think CV would be the end of it in Cornwall, if it were bolted?”

Yes for the forseeable future, unless there are other crags which are geomorphologically suitable, and I’m not aware of any others.

Now to some of the points made by others -

“It's better to acknowledge that bolting has lead to chipping and sica” – Stu Littlefair

Methinks you’ve gone dizzy from either watching binary stars or arguing with JCM!  Sika and chipping have no more to do with sport climbing than they have to do with trad or bouldering.  Chipping is something that certain individuals have done in all aspects of climbing and should be (and usually is these days) roundly condemned by everyone (there is far more chipping at trad venues like Caley and Ilkley than at any sport crag I’ve ever been to in the UK…)  Sika has its uses for repairing and preventing damage, but creating or altering holds should be totally out of bounds.  Clearly there is more sika in use on sport routes than trad routes or boulders in the UK, but that is precisely because of the “rule” at the top of this post – the vast majority of trad venues are of high quality, whereas all sorts of utter choss has been bolted, thus requiring glue to hold it together.  That does NOT mean that bolting LEADS to sika in any way whatsoever.  People climbing on chossy crags leads to sika.

“I see the argument as one between two user groups competing for the same resource...” - Stu Littlefair

This is only true for low grade climbing.  At higher grades they are definitely NOT currently competing for the same resource and at the really high sport grades almost certainly never will – and definitely won’t unless the trad climbers get better by errrrr, going sport climbing!  (Walls have their uses but are no substitute.)  As you say though, there certainly is a demand for quality low grade sport climbing and that ineveitably is going to lead to some problems.  Obviously it is theoretically possible that there may come a time when the numbers playing each game have changed to such an extent that some sort of comprimise may have to be made allowing the conversion of some of the quality low grade trad to change to sport.  But we are certainly not there now and I’m not sure we ever will be.  If anything, after the initial surge in sport climbing in the 80s and 90s, I think for most of the last decade we’ve been heading in the other direction.

“Bolting is categorically different and relies on solipsistic sophistry to justify the practice” - Sloper

What on earth are you babbling about? 


To sum up – For the most part in the UK the sets of rock which each aspect of the climbing game is played on are very different and there is only a small overlap at the edges which is what causes all the angst.  Thus I can understand trad climbers getting upset about routes like Dominatrix, Yosemite Wall or the stuff JCM is talking about in Lundy being bolted – they are in one of those overlaps in the Venn diagram.  What is utterly ridiculous about all the fuss about the CV roof is that as far as I can tell, it IS NOT in one of those overlaps.  If it isn’t a sport venue, it isn’t anything.  In other words, the anti bolters are wanting to stop other people having fun, NOT because they want to have a different kind of fun in the same place – that I would understand, and as I’ve said already – trad should have priority.  But that isn’t the case – they’re just wanting to stop people having fun and leave the place completely unused because of a romantic ideological position. 

I guess at least the positive thing from all this yacking is that at least people are talking about it rather than repeatedly placing and stripping bolts.  And hopefully everyone will accept the eventual outcome whichever way it goes…

And finally JCM – perhaps your time might be more productively spent by being directed at Lundy and some of the other venues you mentioned where by the sounds of things proper trad routes are being directly affected by ill thought out bolting?  Then I think you’d be getting full support from everyone on here.

[petejh]

  Edit: I've just read Nemo's posts and he basically points out everything I wanted to but he expresses it in a far more intelligent way than I could.

to quote jcm:

The pomposity, the self-obsession, the sheer absurdity of taking a drill to a cliff devoting many years out of the only life you have, in order to to get better at climbing...., when there are so many other cliffs to climb things to do with your life without doing that. To me it's got very little to do with the nature of climbing; if cliffs existed with bolts already in them, that would be fine.

Please don't try to claim your preferred style of climbing is any less absurb, self obsessed and pompous than any other style. Your half-baked arguments against bolted climbing boil down to mere personal ethical beliefs about how 'best' to conduct a pastime which is, at heart, absurd and self-obsessed. Fine, if you want to stick to your ethics do so, and I'll try to respect them as much as possible happy in the knowledge that neither of us is any more or less ridiculous and pompous than the other.

and:

However, there is this difference with leaving pegs and fixed threads behind; in principle they are removable at any time (or at least so it was thought; in practice we know that pegs are not sustainable and that's why we don't really use them any more). There is however some merit in leaving them there for the next person, so I certainly wouldn't condemn doing so; it's not necessarily what I would try to do, but I understand it.

And there lies the heart of the reason for your beliefs. You understand trad climbing, probably because it's just what you've always done. Fine. I understand trad climbing too, just like I understand winter climbing, and bouldering, dry-tooling, ice climbing and sport climbing, because I spend a lot time doing all of them and I enjoy them all deeply. I think it's fair to say many on here excel at both trad and sport climbing (and bouldering etc etc), or at least are very experienced at both, and many posters on here have a fuller and more rounded perspective of the current climbing scene than you appear to from your ranting.

Going back to your original post -
Firstly, you asked for a positive case to be made for bolting CV, and it has been, - 'sport climbing is just really good fun'. I'll reinforce that by adding that sport climbing makes you a better all-round climber (ref Macleod, Robbins, McHaffie, Birkett et al...). Better all round climbers will want to test themselves against harder sport and harder trad routes. For harder trad routes read less well protected trad routes. It therefore follows that there remains a demand for many of the last untouched trad walls to remain untouched for the honed climbers of the future.
Second, you asked people to stop whining about climbers from outside an area swinging a vote. You're right, it's ancient history and no use in thinking about it if we're to move forward, but thanks for the reminder jcm.
Thirdly you ask for 'bolters' or, as I like to say, 'climbers who place bolts' to stop whining (again) about previous bolt chopping and the resultant mess. OK, - I as 'a climber who places bolts' entirely agree that the noble way to proceed would be to ab in to CV and clear away all the mess.  I don't see how anyone could really disagree and keep face. Thanks for explaining what we all already know but which no-one - traddie puritan nor sport-climber - has bothered their arse to go and do yet.
Fourthly you state that 'we' (noted how you're dividing us climbers) need to stop bleating about being associated with the edwardses's. Like you wouldn't?
You then go on about an introduction in a North Wales Limestone guidebook which was published in 1992 and has been out of print for over a decade and which has been superseded by another guide which is also now out of print and nearly unobtainable. So not really a relevant point, more like dragging up ancient history. Which describes you quite well I think, ancient history, becoming irrelevant.

Finally can you please try to drop your ridiculous tone of intellectual authority and save it for something more deserving of the grey matter. Do we have to come across all Oxford uni debating society just to talk about fucking rock climbing, I don't think we do. There's climbers who are 'anti-bolt' and who's views I respect a million times more than yours jcm because they are out there climbing even though they may not be able to construct the philosophic arguments that you do.

Tittyfuckingchrist that's 30 minutes I'll never recover.

[jcm]

Nemo, that was a f*cking great post, in fact probably the best I've ever read about bolting, naturally excluding some of mine.

>The roof at Carn Vellan isn’t any good for trad climbing.  The potential 5+’s are. 

Well that's all very well, but that's Elitist and Not Fair in the eyes of many wall-bred climbers (as you acknowledge yourself). I think we'll see further trouble down the line, myself. And I know the locals think so, and they're probably better placed to judge than either of us.

>I can’t help thinking that the people who should be deciding about bolting at Vellan, are the people who are interested in actually climbing there

Really? Just them? We know what the people who are interested in doing sport climbing at any cliff think, surely?

>Hopefully you can at least see that the CV roof is a very different case precisely because it isn’t (as far as I’m aware) affecting any normal trad routes. 

Yes, of course it's different from retroing existing routes. (Lundy Calling isn't on Lundy, btw - your post suggested you might have thought it was).

>I’m actually sceptical about whether JCM even believes it himself.

OK, back on my presentational theme - you've really got to stop telling me what I believe. I know better about that than you. As I've already said several times, I didn't explain that in order to try and defend that position. It's not worth arguing about; that's how I feel and it won't change. I explained it because if probolters want to rebolt CV and not have their bolts stripped, they need to address how the anti camp feel. Telling them they don't actually believe what they feel is really, really, not going to help achieve that. It irritates the bejasus out of them and makes them think, well, fuck you, I'll just strip your bolts. It makes me feel like that, and I'm 300 miles away.

I'd also hold back on the you-drive-to-the-crag-and-polish-holds-so-you-can't-have-any-say-about-anything-else-that-happens-to-the-environment argument as well. I assure you it won't work. It seems to me that a moment's examination of it would probably convince you that it isn't a very good argument either.

>You need to accept that for lots of people, myself included, the primary thing we enjoy about climbing is the movement aspect of it,

Obviously - indeed virtually everyone, I should have thought. Clearly placing protection's a bore and it would be nice if we could magically avoid it, but we can't. Or not without either soloing or doing something which I don't find acceptable. You don't know me very well. I'd bloody love sport climbing if it didn't involve placing bolts.

>Chalk doesn’t damage anything – it washes off.

Oh come on, this is nonsense. Seriously. Ask any environmentalist, or just go to Nesscliffe and look at the blackened holds on the traverses there.

I'm rather ignorant about where the 50+ sikaed and glued holds Rupert D said in some other debate he could think of immediately are. I rather imagined a fair number were at Raven Tor. Is that particularly chossy? I think Stu is right about bolting leading to, breaking down inhibitions about, going hand in hand with, or whatever, sika, and indeed chipping too, although of course there have been notable chipping episodes in the past. My impression is that these are famous precisely because they were exceptions, whereas in some sport climbing circles I have the impression that comfortisation of holds (to put it nicely) has been so common it doesn't even call for comment. The great MR wrote a good article about this in Yorkshire sport climbing, I remember.

>perhaps your time might be more productively spent by being directed at Lundy

I think if you reread my initial post you would see that what I said was that IF people want to rebolt CV they need to go about it differently. I didn't come on here to try and persuade people bolting's a Bad Thing. I think it is, but that's not the point. The point is that what's certainly a Bad Thing is placing and chopping and so forth, and that's what will happen at CV unless the likes of Andy W drop their sense of entitlement and start talking more like you, if I might say so.

[jcm]

Nemo - can I propose a thought experiment to you?

Let's suppose some bolters discovered a new gritstone cliff, and developed it in secret as a sport climbing venue. What would you think about that?

[jcm]

As to petejh, I was going to reply but on closer inspection you didn't have anything to say worth replying to.

You do prove how very right Toby was once to tell me that self-deprecation of any kind had no place on the internet, mind. I think I might climb a bit more than you imagine.

And of course there are anti-bolt climbers you respect a million times more than me. Pat Littlejohn, for a start, I hope.

Now, is one of those irritating icons a listen-to-me-you-stupid-cunt one (is that dropping the ridiculous tone of intellectual authority enough for you?)? I'm new here, so perhaps we could just imagine it. I'm getting tired of saying this, so just one more time. I didn't come on to tell you why CV shouldn't be bolted. I came on to tell you why IMHO if people want it bolted and not shortly thereafter debolted they're going to have to act differently.

[slackline]

Nemo, that was a f*cking great post, in fact probably the best I've ever read about bolting, naturally excluding some of mine.

And it made sense due to the utilisation of quotes!

Seriously if you read the previously linked articles on "How to Use Quotes" and took a few moments to educated yourself on this front you might understand how simple it is.

[tomtom]

[GCW]

Bird Money?  WTF?

[petejh]

You do prove how very right Toby was once to tell me that self-deprecation of any kind had no place on the internet, mind. I think I might climb a bit more than you imagine.

Oh, glad to hear it. Toby was correct - your attempt at self-deprecation doesn't work on the web.

Now, is one of those irritating icons a listen-to-me-you-stupid-cunt one (is that dropping the ridiculous tone of intellectual authority enough for you?)? I'm new here, so perhaps we could just imagine it. I'm getting tired of saying this, so just one more time. I didn't come on to tell you why CV shouldn't be bolted. I came on to tell you why IMHO if people want it bolted and not shortly thereafter debolted they're going to have to act differently.

(I'm now using the same 'listen to me you stupid cunt' icon as you found earlier) -  I understand what you're saying, it isn't complicated. I respect you for coming on here and making the effort to explain your view because it's more than than most people would do.

The bolt debate will always polarize a few people like yourself at either ends of the argument - most climbers nowadays dabble with different climbing styles in the UK and you're in a minority who don't (I'm guessing you don't?), happily that minority is getting smaller each year. I don't see what more could reasonably be said to you than has already been said, perhaps if all climbers were as good at expressing their views as Nemo then it'd be a lot easier to get along but people 'aint like that.
Like I alluded to before it's just climbing it's supposed to be a good time for fucks sake not an ethical thought experiment. I wonder what you gain by turning your chosen pastime into an ethical battleground?

My final point - for your views to be worth much more than they are you'd need to adopt the same rigorous standards of behavior and understanding that you're demanding from other people, but so far you haven't demonstrated anything like that; instead you've decided to categorize sport climbing as, in your words, absurd, pompous and self-obsessed. I don't see anyone else on here or out on the crags being as divisive as you are, although I've never met Ken Wilson.

[tomtom]

Bird Money?  WTF?

Seeing as its Monday morning.... Mr Birds first name (shortened) and the opposite of punter...

[Stu Littlefair]

“It's better to acknowledge that bolting has lead to chipping and sica” – Stu Littlefair

Methinks you’ve gone dizzy from either watching binary stars or arguing with JCM!  ... People climbing on chossy crags leads to sika.

Ace set of posts Nemo. And you're quite right that much of the chipping, sika etc that goes on at sport crags is due to chossy rock. Quite a lot of it isn't though. To pick two examples that come straight to mind; what about Ecstasy and Justified and Ancient? Both on excellent rock; both with artificial holds. The one on Ecstasy has been accepted and the route even described as a classic.

Bolting fosters a different attitude to the crag which leads to this stuff going on. Remember when the jug fell off Mecca? Lots of support for industrial intervention including tons of sika and steel support rods. Remember when the jug fell off the Ace? Ton's of controversy about it being glued on with a barely visible bit of sika. We think of the Tor as an industrial project, but Stanage as a natural wilderness (alright, that's overstating it a bit).

In general, we might get a lot more support if we were totally accepting that sport climbing comes with a lot of negatives. We're not going to change people's minds about it anyway, so why waste time arguing the point and causing friction. Instead, we can focus on why sport climbing is so good on some cliffs, as you so brilliantly did, and (with the brownie points earned by so graciously accepting some opposing views) reach a happy consensus eventually. Maybe.

[Jaspersharpe]

OK I'll just clear up a couple of points as it's lunchtime and I have a few minutes to kill.....

Your original statement was:

As to your overgrading theory, by the way, I saw some videos of 1980's Jerry the other day, and he didn't exactly look like Adam Ondra footworkwise either. I think even the very very good just weren't so good in those days.

Which you totally contradict with:

>You are seriously comparing serial overgrader, liar, chipper, cheat and bullshit artist Medwards with Jerry

I don't see what many of those descriptions have to do with it. I thought I read you saying that Monster Munch couldn't be 8b+ because on the video of it ME was displaying poor footwork. I'm just pointing out that that isn't a very reliable criterion for grading routes, nor indeed climbers, because if you watch someone who obviously was very good, he doesn't look that stylish either.

Presumably quite a lot of people have been on Monster Munch, after all? Admittedly a lot of them Edwards acolytes, but still, it would be interesting to hear from someone else who was on it,

Also, I assume the post you were talking about re footwork and overgrading was on this thread:

http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,15391.msg270294.html#msg270294

As you can see (from my correct use of the quotes system) it wasn't me who said that. I DID agree that the route does not look to be anywhere near 8b+ and I did say that Medwards shows shocking technique in the video.

I don't think anyone would argue with either of those statements?

The reason it doesn't look to be 8b+ is because of the size of the massive jugs all the way up it and the numerous obvious rests in between the massive jugs (at which he spends most of the video shaking out). The shocking technique is shocking technique because I have eyes.

This is completely different to saying "he's got shit footwork so it can't be 8b+" which I don't think anyone said on that thread and which, it seems, you have made up to fit in with what you wanted to write.

 

[GCW]

Bird Money?  WTF?

Seeing as its Monday morning.... Mr Birds first name (shortened) and the opposite of punter...

Seeing as it was monday morning....... I was being facetious.

[jcm]

>Though you're right that it isn't tactful to keep pointing this out, that sentiment seems especially hypocritical coming from climbers in places like Bristol whose local crag ethics seem to obey no discernable general principal whatsoever. The carefully-preserved "trad" end of Brean Down even has drilled pegs FFS.

Och, come on, man, that's nonsense. It would be hypocritical if Martin Crocker had driven down to oppose it, I grant you.

>You skipped over a subtle but important point here, John. Nemo wrote "climbing", you read and responded to "sport climbing".

Yes, I know what he wrote. But I don't agree that the only people who should have a say in whether development occurs are those who want to use the development in question.

Maybe the most analogous case recently has been the Gogarth bolt ladder. That wasn't somewhere anyone is going to want to free/trad climb any time soon. It was widely disapproved of and chopped precisely because of where it was and because it was seen as an aesthetic disgrace, not because of any conflict about use of resources. The only difference in the present case is that more people enjoy sport climbing than aid climbing. These things are always about value judgments, not black and whites.

[jcm]

>I understand what you're saying, it isn't complicated. I respect you for coming on here and making the effort to explain your view because it's more than than most people would do.

Curious way you have of showing it. I thought you said you respected other anti-bolt climbers a million times more?

>and you're in a minority who don't (I'm guessing you don't?),

Wrong, as it happens

>happily that minority is getting smaller each year.

Why happily? What does it matter to you?

>I don't see what more could reasonably be said to you than has already been said,

Nothing needs to be said at all. I'm not interested in arguing about whether bolts are a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. People telling me my feelings are illogical, or worse still don't exist, are missing my point.

[jcm]

>it's supposed to be a good time for fucks sake not an ethical thought experiment.

Well, at the risk of sounding like St Cecilia, surely it's desirable to behave ethically even while having a good time?

>I wonder what you gain by turning your chosen pastime into an ethical battleground?

Nothing at all. I absolutely fucking hate it. In the two days I've been posting on this thread I haven't trained (unusual for me), or felt anywhere near the same enthusiasm for climbing. It sucks.

> instead you've decided to categorize sport climbing as, in your words, absurd, pompous and self-obsessed.

I didn't say that. I said placing bolts was those things, and I didn't say it was those things, I said it appeared to me to be those things. I'm afraid that's the way it is; it does appear to me to be those things. I said that to try and get bolters to appreciate the other point of view, not because I expect that sentiment to be the majority feeling or to prevail.

>I don't see anyone else on here or out on the crags being as divisive as you are, although I've never met Ken Wilson.

I am Ken Wilson. Surely you knew that?

And anyway, you think that the gentleman above with his picture isn't being divisive? Of course he's in a gang the way bullies like, so perhaps he isn't dividing his peer group.

[slackline]

I'm not interested in arguing about whether bolts are a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. People telling me my feelings are illogical, or worse still don't exist, are missing my point.

But you clearly do have an opinion on whether bolts are good/bad, and its one that you find highly emotive (as you have gone to the effort of registering at this site and repeatedly posting in this thread).  You indicate that you can't control your emotions, but are not controlling how you act in light of your emotions as its transparent that you have your tent squarely pitched in the anti-bolt corral.  Its very egalitarian of you to take the time to say what you (amongst the many anti-bolters) would find a convincing argument for bolting a given area but given the stance that all "bolts are bad" which you hold whats the point?  You'll still think they're bad, no matter what case is made. 

Why not save yourself the time and effort of posting here and just attend the BMC meetings (despite the ~300 miles involved) because that is where a compromise will be reached and not here.  Not everyone who attends those meetings is registered here and will read your posts.

HowTo Use Quotes

[jcm]

Jasper, you're right, it wasn't you who said bad footwork therefore must be overgraded. I still think Baron was slightly implying that, but on the whole mine was a rather bad point.

[Doylo]

> instead you've decided to categorize sport climbing as, in your words, absurd, pompous and self-obsessed.

I didn't say that. I said placing bolts was those things, and I didn't say it was those things, I said it appeared to me to be those things.

How can sport climbing be ok but bolting be bad? Sport climbing without bolts is called soloing 

[Doylo]

>and you're in a minority who don't (I'm guessing you don't?),

Wrong, as it happens

Are you saying you actually go sport climbing?

[jcm]

>would find a convincing argument for bolting a given area but given the stance that all "bolts are bad" which you hold whats the point?  You'll still think they're bad, no matter what case is made.

You're right, I will. The point of posting was not to give people an opportunity to change my view, but that if bolters don't behave less stupidly than they did at the last CV fight then they will annoy people so much that their bolts will probably get chopped. This would be a Bad Thing and better prevented. My suggestions were my small effort in that direction.

>Why not save yourself the time and effort of posting here and just attend the BMC meetings (despite the ~300 miles involved) because that is where a compromise will be reached and not here.  Not everyone who attends those meetings is registered here and will read your posts.

I think I probably will: I didn't intend to but some of the views expressed on here have so incensed me that I just might.