RRC Archives

esthetically/stylistically it's garbage. ethically gray. emotionally depraved and psychologically imbalanced.

its not a gym .

I am not supporting nor condemning the ethics of the rumors here, but we should be honest about the complexities of developing sport routes. Everyone should re-read Bill Ramsey's article on the topic. What are the differences between and ethics of cleaning, comfortizing, chipping, removing, reinforcing, and drilling holds. Not to mention each of those things has a level of severity.

Go for it Andrew. Be "honest".

What's the fucking difference. We (online anonymous climbers) can't even agree that Kevin Wilkinson should not continue "making" routes.

JR wrote:Go for it Andrew. Be "honest".

What's the fucking difference. We (online anonymous climbers) can't even agree that Kevin Wilkinson should not continue "making" routes.

JR, step up and share specifics. And seeing as you are bringing up this, have you talked to Kevin about it personally yet? Seems like the place to start.

JR wrote:Go for it Andrew. Be "honest".

What's the fucking difference. We (online anonymous climbers) can't even agree that Kevin Wilkinson should not continue "making" routes.

I'll bite... but just a little. A few tidbits and scenarios to stir the debate.

Is it ever ok to alter the rock on a route? if you answered no, what about all the foot holds that crumble a little, hand holds that break, or drill holes for bolts. What about cam scars or even worse pin scars. Any route that has ever been climbed has been altered in some way since being climbed.

Every sport route (and trad route) at the RRG takes some sort of "cleaning" some of our most classics had significant cleaning. Most people can accept this as necessary, but is it ok to purposely remove a hold that you are sure won't break? What about in these two scenarios.

Climb A: You purposely remove a hold in the crux that won't ever break and it alters the sequence of the crux, but you do so because no matter what the rope runs across the hold that rubs the rope badly in a fall.

Climb B: You purposely remove a hold in the crux that won't ever break and it alters the sequence of the crux, but you do so because the removal of that hold creates a really unique and rad sequence of moves, making the climb significantly higher quality.

I am no Bill Ramsey, that is obvious, but the line between right and wrong when creating sport routes is blurred at best.

I really don't think most climbers really know the level of "cleaning" that goes into sport routes.

http://www.rockandice.com/articles/how- ... -the-grade

is that the article being referred to?

I hit yes when I wanted to hit no... Sorry. Most of the time yes is on top and no is on bottom and I just hit the wrong button. Carry on!

clif wrote:http://www.rockandice.com/articles/how- ... -the-grade

is that the article being referred to?

yep

It is ok if Kevin does it.

It is not ok if Andrew does it.

Happy now?