The Legend - first set of anchors

Post by **Paul3eb** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 3:51 am

and putting people down for putting people down is lame, too..

Post by **kafish2** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 5:01 am

based on the seeping that this route has seen over the last few months I think that this question of ethics is invalid...

The real questions should be... is this route ever going to dry up again? will the new grade be A0 to the first bolt followed by 5.easier than before climbing?

Post by **512OW** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 5:05 am

Climbing is a black hole. It sucks your life away.

Post by **SCIN** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 5:07 am

kafish2 wrote:based on the seeping that this route has seen over the last few months I think that this question of ethics is invalid...

The real questions should be... is this route ever going to dry up again? will the new grade be A0 to the first bolt followed by 5.easier than before climbing?

No shit. Just found out about the seeping problem today. Sucks.

Post by **flashmaster** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:46 pm

As some of us have determined......to get credit, go to the original set of anchors for the send. The second/lower/wanker anchors were put in for training purposes so that you wouldn't have to lower off of a single bolt when you just want to do the crux section after sending it. As for the seeping I hope it dries out so that others can enjoy the shitty hard first moves of this gem once again!!

Post by **Huggybone** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:14 pm

Life is a black hole. It sucks your climbing away...

Post by **pigsteak** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:01 pm

ah dave..you must be new to the board....yawn.

I quote you:
"if you are not clmbing just to have fun you have the wrong attitude"

......hmmmm, seems like someone else is trying to dictate WHY I should climb, and determine how I have fun..... isn't that so convenient how we all love for folks to subscribe to our world view?

Post by **Astroman** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 11:24 pm

NO WAY can you call a route "sent" if you bail at a sub-set of anchors. They all ought to be removed. And the fact that these sub-anchors on "The Legend" were placed for "training" purposes is even more ridiculous and offensive.

The first (original) set of anchors on BOHICA would've been gone a long time ago if they weren't completely rusted and welded into the wall. "Last of the Bohicans" is the route now. There shouldn't be a silly distinction once the pitch has been taken (logically) further. (The same was true with "The Madness" but unlike BOHICA, it's first set of anchors were able to be removed without tearing up the rock).

Same should be true for "Biographie" and "Realization." There should be no such thing as "Biographie" any longer.

Post by **Spragwa** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 11:39 pm

I think it's easy to get judgmental and snotty about the first set of anchors. The FA surely had his own reason for putting them there. Why not ask him?

If this type of second guessing were being done to Team Muir or Team Suck, people would file out of the wood work to support them and tell people to stop bashing the bolting or question the reasons. The FA can take it but I just want to point that out.

I've not posted about it b/c I'm no where NEAR climbing the legend. But I know the FA and I know why he put the anchors there. His reasons are valid and my understanding is that he put them there under duress.

Post by **pigsteak** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:23 am

so astroman..if we make a rope long enough.....should the Nose be only 2-3 pitches? that seems logical to pigsteak.