Forum

Gripped » Gripped Forums » Rock » OAC bolts TheJoke

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6
Presentational Image Author Topic: OAC bolts TheJoke
trad daddy
Member
Posts: 37
trad daddy
Post Re: OAC bolts TheJoke
on: December 6, 2007, 08:59

yes - in this case, ’safer’ climbing is weak.
Bolted belays is one thing - but they should not have replaced the pins with bolts (nor pins, although if done properly this is a viable option) - they should have left it alone.  In making it ’safe’ they have completely altered the nature of the climb and it’s long and noteworthy history.  The first ascent was done by John Turner in 1961 (without the benefit of modern equipment which makes the climb much more protectable than years gone by) - well ahead of its time - a la Royal Robbins - an impressive feat that has now been tainted.

weak and sad …

keep on jammin’

trad daddy
Member
Posts: 37
trad daddy
Post Re: OAC bolts TheJoke
on: December 6, 2007, 12:27

weak…

keep on jammin’

sks
Member
Posts: 1
S
Post OAC bolts TheJoke
on: December 6, 2007, 21:31

Two bolts were placed at each of the three belays on the face. One bolt was placed next to a cedar tree near the start of the climb (to prevent slinging of the cedar). Four other bolts were placed in separate locations where pitons were already in place, but no longer reliable. Two other bolts were placed near piton scars, where pitons had either fallen out or been removed, and no other gear could be placed. All of the equipment and gear was provided by the OAC.

 

 

 

 

slopey
Member
Posts: 156
pete
Post Re: OAC bolts TheJoke
on: December 6, 2007, 23:42

why is that weak?
is safer climbing weak? 
should they have replaced the pitons with pitons? 
were the fixed pitons somehow better than the new bolts?

_____________________

check your head.

rock scaling = yes.

david james
Member
Posts: 5
David
Post Re: OAC bolts
on: December 7, 2007, 07:30

PJF, are you defending the position of the OAC or criticizing my use of the word unilateral? If it’s the latter I understand that there were many people involved but suggest that perhaps their decision to focus on this particular route was somewhat self-serving, especially considering the outcome. I understand I am entitled to my opinion but certainly wouldn’t go so far as to disagree with bolting “any rock”. I am a huge proponent of sport climbing but feel, as do many, a line needs to be drawn on what should or shouldn’t be bolted. As for joining the OAC or ACC, why bother; in my opinion it’s an elitist organization protecting its own interests, i.e. Bon Echo. If they really want to do something progressive why not lift the bolting ban for everyone and try to infuse some new vision into the area.

I agree with Dave, if bolts were added to kill run outs that is weak. Its elements like this that gives a route character and a reputation. I’m sure the OAC could go around and replace lots of pins with bolts but that doesn’t make it right.

9zero9
Member
Posts: 32
ben
Post Re: OAC bolts
on: December 7, 2007, 07:45

I have spoken with ppl from the OAC about this and as the original post states the bolts are all placed where fixed gear had been previously. Fixed gear that was in no shape to hold a fall. The climb hasn’t been turned into a clip up!

I’m all for respecting the style of the FA but if he has been consulted what is the problem with replacing the gear? Why would anybody want to preserve fixed gear that is not going to hold sh/t? Pitons are not a reliable means of longterm fixed protection and they have to be replaced more often than bolts. Replacing pitons does obvious and unnecessary harm to the rock. 

The route is far from tame. It is still runout. With retrod gear maybe more people will choose to enjoy the historic significance of this route first hand.

The last paragraph of the post on the OAC website was omitted. Maybe this will calm some of you down:

The Joke remains a traditional route, still scary and a right of passage for many traditional leaders.  The Joke still has run-out sections and the gripping cruxes require careful arrangement of protection.

dave
Member
Posts: 13
dave
Post Re: OAC bolts
on: December 7, 2007, 09:39

Bolts were added to kill the two runouts that made the climb intimidating. Get a grip, its only 5.9, sorry boys, pin scars, even if you could clearly see them, don’t mean bolts go here. None of the old guys I spoke to, some of whom had done the climb just a few years ago, ever knew of a piton on those runouts. the UIAA (which the ACC belongs to) statement on bolting, To bolt or not to be said that redevelopment should be limited to frequently climbed routes -which the Joke was not- and runouts should not be neutralized by additional bolts. don’t take the edge off a runout. While they say a route should not be subject to redevelopment against the will of the first ascensionist that hardly means that the first ascensionist has permanent intellectual rights to authorize alterations to a climb. If you had called Harding and asked if he thought it was alright to put a via ferrata up the Nose and he said yes, woould you have the right to do it? Of course not. If you had called Turner and said Don’t worry John, we’re looking after your great route and are making sure no one bolts it. And he said, Shit, forget that, bolt that mutherfucker! according to your argument, you’d have to do it.

david james
Member
Posts: 5
David
Post Re: OAC bolts
on: December 7, 2007, 16:49

I agree with trad daddy. Replacing pins with bolts completely alters the nature of a climb. This was a weak move by the OAC and seemingly typical unilateral action. What right do they have to police the crags and decide which classic line needs retrofitting? Was access really in jeopardy or was it just that a bunch of old guys were too chicken sh*t to climb a scary 5.9 in its original fashion?

harihari
Member
Posts: 305
chris
Post Re: OAC bolts
on: December 8, 2007, 00:30

In Squamish, Unfinished Symphony for many years was an adventure route because it has loooong runouts with on the crux pitches only ancient pins for pro.  You were looking at 50 footers.  When it was restored, bolts were placed where the pins were and the old pins were removed.  The route is still a headspinner. 

The route’s first free ascentionist, Peter Croft, was asked about replacing pins with bolts.  Croft’s exact words were Sounds good– just keep the route’s character.  He then talked about how in Suicide, Tahquitz etc the same arguments were happening: people wanted to replace ancient pins with bolts; others thought that was sacrilege, bla bla.  He pointed out that until the mid-’80s, pins were much more practical than drilling, since you can pound a pin in a couple of minutes vs 45 minutes per hand-drilled bolt in granite, and so pins were meant to be treated as bolts are now.  He also said that it was, to him, sensible to replace pins with bolts.  If you are going to have fixed gear, let it be safe.

chris stolz

Watch an 18-pitch free route go up at
http://gumbiesoncrack.blogspot.com

trad daddy
Member
Posts: 37
trad daddy
Post Re: OAC bolts
on: December 8, 2007, 04:57

weak, sad and unnecessary.  I understand that the whole thing hasn’t been retro-bolted and that bolts were only placed where pins were - the point is that a bolt is not a suitable substitute for a pin - both are fixed gear, but they are not the same.  The point is that any deliberate alteration to the route that changes the character of its original ascent is weak.  There was nothing wrong with the route the way it was.  Sure it was a bit scary - hence its reputation and the air of adventure and sense of satisfaction gained from climbing the route.  It is by no means dangerous - sure its runout and the gear is tricky - hence the 5.9R rating.
If you don’t have the balls to pony up to climb a route the way it was climbed 45+ yrs ago with all of todays fancy ass technical gear, well, you don’t belong on the sharp end of that route.  Don’t take that experience away from the people that do.
Also - despite popular belief - pitons aren’t all bad.  Some can be absolutely bomber.  Others sketchy as all hell (as can bolts for that matter).  It is up to the leader to decide whether to clip/ trust them or not.  Pins can also be replaced with other pins very effectively.  Or pins could be pulled and left out, leaving a gear placement in their place.  The problem that most people are taking issue with is that protection bolts were added to an exisiting traditional line that had seen dozens of ascents without any issue.  Too scared to step up to it?  Well keep on paddling, there’s lots of other options to climb on the cliff.  All would be good if it had just been left alone…
If the ACC/ OAC was really horny to sink some bolts - why not take a step forward and establish some new climbs on new terrain (of which there is plenty of potential for on the cliff) rather than taking a step backwards and bastardizing an established and classic line.  I’m pretty sure nobody would have a problem with that …

keep on jammin’

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Guest  

Show or hide header

Welcome Guest, posting in this forum requires an account.

If you already have one you can login below. Otherwise, you can register for free.





Please leave these two fields as-is: