Intriguing “take” on evolving/(devolving?) criteria of what constitutes a “good” ascent. I’ve been climbing now some 56 years. As body (particularly joints) has degraded, so has upper limits. But I maintain ground up notions, even as many ignore, disdain such archaic beliefs. Yes, the standards keep changing, and the Dawn Wall surely would not have been possible without hanging bolt placements, hundreds if not thousands of tries, multiple days on the wall.
Despite this clear drift away from previously predominant notions, I think Chouinard’s (& Patagonia’s & Black Diamond’s) emphasis on preservation of environment is an essential, non-negotiable core principle. Locally (southeast US) many well intentioned efforts focus on bolt replacements & trail maintenance. This makes sense to some degree; erosion & questionably safe bolts are clear negatives. But, at the same time, the placement of un-needed bolts where cracks provide ready placements of chocks, reveal a tendency to forget environmental protections, as more & more people enter the climbing community. The growth of climbing gyms also seems a negative influence; one lad put up a line in the Cashiers, NC area placing bolts every 10 feet, thus allowing using a single rope, as one could rappel “from anywhere on the route.”
I can imagine a not-too-distant future where a climber could walk up to a line, put in a credit card, clip into a top-rope auto-belaying machine, and then climb. I know…unlikely, but the drift is heading towards such inane potentials. The route “To Bolt or Not To Be,” backhandedly dismissed (or at least, diminished) negative feelings about bolts. In Europe, there is long-standing use and acceptance of permanent hardware on climbs. Fortunately that attitude has not been fully accepted in the US.
So, for me, environmental concerns provide a core principle that, regardless of other ideas or trends, needs to be foremost. Ground up remains the optimal approach, demanding the most from climbers. But even as I try to maintain such an ideal, I myself have made exceptions. On Excess Reality, I rappelled to clean a crack of vegetation; on Spooky Delusions, after a terrifying first ascent, later I rappelled to place a bolt at the crux, which had been impossible on initial effort. So, safety takes precedence over environmental safety, after having stuck my neck out far too much.
But each of us needs to weigh carefully how we are dealing with, hopefully respecting a fragile environment. That core would seem to me to be requisite.
Thanks for your comment Peter. Always interesting to hear how the passage of years can influence our understanding of what is valid. There is certainly a different culture and expectation emerging from climbing gyms, with a non-traditional outdoor community coming to the sport with different ambitions and understanding of place and history. I think in the past access to that culture through magazines was more one-dimensional, which has drawbacks, but helps to evolve a more consistent approach. These days it's very multifaceted and I think there's a real danger that the quick hit popularity contest of social media makes certain things "cool" while not actually having substance. On the flip side it also seems to have the effect of helping many new people feel welcome in our community. Here in the UK the trad ethic is still strong, although sport climbing is thriving and there's certainly an attitude among newcomers that trad is dangerous, and sometimes even unjustifiable. I always loved that flirt with danger. What could be more powerful in life than the freedom to experience such things on your own terms?
Intriguing “take” on evolving/(devolving?) criteria of what constitutes a “good” ascent. I’ve been climbing now some 56 years. As body (particularly joints) has degraded, so has upper limits. But I maintain ground up notions, even as many ignore, disdain such archaic beliefs. Yes, the standards keep changing, and the Dawn Wall surely would not have been possible without hanging bolt placements, hundreds if not thousands of tries, multiple days on the wall.
Despite this clear drift away from previously predominant notions, I think Chouinard’s (& Patagonia’s & Black Diamond’s) emphasis on preservation of environment is an essential, non-negotiable core principle. Locally (southeast US) many well intentioned efforts focus on bolt replacements & trail maintenance. This makes sense to some degree; erosion & questionably safe bolts are clear negatives. But, at the same time, the placement of un-needed bolts where cracks provide ready placements of chocks, reveal a tendency to forget environmental protections, as more & more people enter the climbing community. The growth of climbing gyms also seems a negative influence; one lad put up a line in the Cashiers, NC area placing bolts every 10 feet, thus allowing using a single rope, as one could rappel “from anywhere on the route.”
I can imagine a not-too-distant future where a climber could walk up to a line, put in a credit card, clip into a top-rope auto-belaying machine, and then climb. I know…unlikely, but the drift is heading towards such inane potentials. The route “To Bolt or Not To Be,” backhandedly dismissed (or at least, diminished) negative feelings about bolts. In Europe, there is long-standing use and acceptance of permanent hardware on climbs. Fortunately that attitude has not been fully accepted in the US.
So, for me, environmental concerns provide a core principle that, regardless of other ideas or trends, needs to be foremost. Ground up remains the optimal approach, demanding the most from climbers. But even as I try to maintain such an ideal, I myself have made exceptions. On Excess Reality, I rappelled to clean a crack of vegetation; on Spooky Delusions, after a terrifying first ascent, later I rappelled to place a bolt at the crux, which had been impossible on initial effort. So, safety takes precedence over environmental safety, after having stuck my neck out far too much.
But each of us needs to weigh carefully how we are dealing with, hopefully respecting a fragile environment. That core would seem to me to be requisite.
Thanks for your comment Peter. Always interesting to hear how the passage of years can influence our understanding of what is valid. There is certainly a different culture and expectation emerging from climbing gyms, with a non-traditional outdoor community coming to the sport with different ambitions and understanding of place and history. I think in the past access to that culture through magazines was more one-dimensional, which has drawbacks, but helps to evolve a more consistent approach. These days it's very multifaceted and I think there's a real danger that the quick hit popularity contest of social media makes certain things "cool" while not actually having substance. On the flip side it also seems to have the effect of helping many new people feel welcome in our community. Here in the UK the trad ethic is still strong, although sport climbing is thriving and there's certainly an attitude among newcomers that trad is dangerous, and sometimes even unjustifiable. I always loved that flirt with danger. What could be more powerful in life than the freedom to experience such things on your own terms?
I could talk for hours. For more on changing culture you might enjoy this piece I wrote for UKClimbing https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/in_focus/white_gold_-_a_cultural_history_of_climbing_chalk-14190
Great reads! I am also writing about historical topics on substack. The app is ideal newsreader for posts like this. Thanks.