Trent -

Just because WG hasn’t had the bolts removed yet, doesn’t mean that it should not be done. It could just be a lag.

Peter Arbic and I once discussed this business of the BotL being retrobolted.  It sounds to me like the same logic as in Squamish’s Pet Wall: since there are relatively few trad climbers, if there were no bolts, the routes would just moss/munge over.  Though now, 20 years later, with the advent of gyms and bouldering caves which allow normal people to be much fitter than they used to be, and the elite to be freaks of nature, it would be easier to get more people onto gear routes.

This whole debate… unforgivable
http://youtube.com/watch?v=VX8_M-KI7IQ

Hmmm… I find your lack of logic appalling, Sark.

In fact, a better way to look at it would be to say BOLTED 5.14 trad routes are a dime a dozen.  With sufficient preparation, any sport route can become a trad route.  What is lacking, generally, is a level of natural protection that many would deem acceptable.

I suspect that there are no less than a half-dozen 5.14 ‘trad routes’ at BOTL alone.  Grab a rack and head out.  In fact, it looks like more than one 5.14 trad route could even be climbed on the same wall as The Path (simply head up and right, where Sonnie went up and left). 

The reason, as many have pointed out, why there are very few 5.14 trad routes is that (a) not many climbers can do them, and (b) not many of those who can are even interested.

The rock is certainly there.  I haven’t spent much time prowling around the BOTL, but come to Jasper and I could show you 4 5.14 ‘trad’ lines, just waiting to go on ‘marginal’ gear.

Hey HariHari

You had asked some questions about one of my previous posts. Been out of town and just thought i would respond. Your questions are below in red followed by my response.

a) You seem to imply that headpoint routes are a waste of time in north america. IE since few people do it, why not just throw bolts on there? Part of me agrees with this and part of me doesn’t. I probably won’t ever climb 14+ or E9 or whatever trad, and I love sport climbing, but on the other hand, the value of something it seems to me is not dependent on how many people are into it. EG In Squamish, there are lots of folks who would like to add bolts to some of the friction classics cos they have huge runouts. But leaving them preserves an important experience for those who want to work for it and a historical fact. So…are you suggesting that numbers shoudl run the show regarding elite routes?

b) Are you perhaps mischaracterising headpoint route sending a bit? While it is true that headpointing is a bastard climbing child, the extreme risk and focus which are part of the experience make it an entirely unique thing. It’s nto sport climbing, and it’s nto on-sight trad climbing. Seb Grieve for example has talked about the meditative timelessness of grit sends. While obviously 90% of climbers are going to be quite reluctant to push the boat out that far, the existence of headpoint routes is important for the 10% who do, because, in the long run, it is the avante-garde, so to speak, who change things for the rest of us.

I thought these issues might crop up. The problem with headpointing is that it actually marginalizes true adventure routes done in the ground up style like the Squamish friction slabs you mention. Although not as difficult as many headpioint routes, the first ascentionists actually risked more by venturing onto unknown territory and drilling on lead without knowing the ultimate outcome of the line. A better example might be the Bachar-Yerian in Tuolumne. Done onsight and drilled on lead off hooks, the 500-foot route contains only nine bolts and exemplifies the ideals valued in North American traditional climbing. Although the grade is only 11c the accomplishment in my opinion is more significant than any rehearsed headpoint ascent. Future parties wishing to repeat the route, experience the same exploration and commitment as the first ascentionists.

Proponents of headpointing say it allows for routes with increased physical difficulty and mental commitment. Unfortunately, employing sport climbing tactics results in a bastard route that is neither as hard as the most cutting edge sport routes and is arguably less committing than true ground up ascents. Headpoint routes are simply elaborate gymnastic routines attempted only when the climber is positive they can execute the line without falling. As such, there is no adventure as the outcome is almost assured and arguably less commitment than the more moderate slab climbs you mentioned. The argument has been made that headpointing is only the first step and climbers in the future will improve on the style eventually climbing the routes onsight. This may be true with real crack lines and some of the more obvious traditionally protected face routes but most headpoint routes require gear that can only be found while hanging on toprope and fiddling with marginal placements. The most egregious example of this that I have heard of, exists on a route in the UK called Nightmayor. This very sparsely protected E8 requires a number three WC Rock to be slotted in the back of a two-finger pocket to protect the crux. Good luck finding this hidden placement during the onsight. To make things more interesting, a DMM or BD nut will not fit! Without relatively obvious protection, headpoint routes will not see onsight attempts as climbers will not be able to find the gear.

I’m all for pushing the boat out and having standards move forward, but I would rather see this energy be placed in real gear/trad routes rather than contrived trad toprope adventures.

When describing headpointing, the famous British climber Adrian Berry said, “Getting to the top is everything. How you do it is nothing”.

Sounds like a step backwards to me.

Just saying.

PS - This is on of the most interesting threads in the Gripped BB in a long time. Refreshing.