Regardless of who puts up what route where- if the route is out there for public consumption, then it (the choice of line, the bolt placements, the hardware choices, the grade, etc...) is open to comment and criticism. If you don't want to hear people comment on your route (or cliff) then don't listen, or don't develope a route or a cliff.
Peer review is tried and true in this sport. Sometimes it takes ugly forms, but always it is there.
I have said for many years, the first thing a someone bolting a route needs to be able to do is take criticsim, and if it is valid, be humble enough to fix the problem.
I personally have had many of my routes fixed by other people or fixed them myself after it was brought up that it could have been done better.
No one is unassailable.
Muir Valley or Sandy's ass - as good as they say?
-
the lurkist
- Posts: 2240
- Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 2:07 pm
Hmm I always wondered how many different factors made a line a classic. I never considered sustained as one. I thought it was about quality of movement and rock. I dont want to do the same move for 60 feet. If it's about quality then there should be instant classics. If it's about top 5 in the grade then OK. If its about a long standing conscensus thats Ok with me too. I know a great line when I'm on it.
"Everyone should have a plan for the zombie apocolipse" Courtney
[quote="rhunt"]to me 'classic" means more when its a past tense term. and so I agree, its hard to say a route is classic when its only been bolted and "up" for about 2 years.
I see what you mean, rhunt, but what about All That Glitters? Its only been around for about a year and I believe most would consider it (as ynot says) an instant classic.
I see what you mean, rhunt, but what about All That Glitters? Its only been around for about a year and I believe most would consider it (as ynot says) an instant classic.
Can't we all just get along?
Ask Webster.