RRC Archives

I am only a sport shit talker. That is, I shit talk only when I want to be entertained. On serious matters (bolt placements, world hunger, early childhood development) I am uber diplomatic.

im glad they talked to the equipper first. thats the way it should be handled.

hugh, this is ghey but.... thanks for what you have done while at the red, your routes have inspired me since i started climbing. i have to admit some of your old school spice routes are my fav in the red. trad face will be making a comeback this winter.

actually now that i think about it. its not you i like, its your kick ass family. your still old and suck,

Greg,
I appreciate that you think it is scarring the original line but you can still climb the original line with the new sequence (clip the 4th from a massive jug).

As I stated on my website I felt stupid for not seeing the massive hold down and right when I got on 50 words last year, in hind sight it seems so obvious. Instead I resorted to the standard - "grab chalked holds and pull" mentality. Had I tried the route more than once last year I may have seen the hold and probably moved the bolts then. I only moved the bolts to make the route easier to work, not necessarily easier to climb.

I also think that if the locals don't like it then take out the new bolts. This is your crag, not mine and although I love the area I know I am not a local and do not want to piss people off. Removing the new bolts won't discourage people from attempting the new sequence, which is a more fun sequence in my opinion.

Mike

I suppose if Hugh says that it is okay for the bolts to be there, then I have no buisness messing with them. Nevertheless, I have to disagree with Hugh.

Mike, I understand where you are coming from, and I think you put up a very good argument for why you put those bolts in. There is only one thing that bothers me about the new bolts, and that is that the first ascent of the route was done prior to the bolts being there.

It is okay to change a project because it cannot go. Changing a route that has been done, however, is not okay. The point is that the first ascent of the route was donein the original style and we have no business messing with it. I though that climbing was all about bringing yourself up to the challenge of the route. It bothers me that world class climbers like Doyle and Grahm did the opposite here and reduced the challenge of the route in order to do it.

The dillema of "to skip or not to skip" is not a new one at the red river gorge. Very classic routes, white man's overbite for example, are done with skipped bolts and the potential for dangerous falls. You either get strong enough to make all the clips or you take your chances by skipping. Bolt placements that reduce the necessity for skipping are great. Bolt placements the skip the crux of the hardest rock climb in the red river gorge, are a different story. The bolts should stay, but I think we can all agree that these are two completely different routes. Whoever first did the route with the new bolts should now name the route and grade it. Something like "50 words for pump, the Doyle variation"

Here's some photos:

http://www.brayackmedia.com/50words/

-Danno

gregkerzhner wrote:The bolts should stay, but I think we can all agree that these are two completely different routes. Whoever first did the route with the new bolts should now name the route and grade it. Something like "50 words for pump, the Doyle variation"

What I am trying to say is that they are not different routes, they are different lines of beta, one to the left of the old bolts and one to the right. You can clip the 'old' bolts from the 'new' beta but the old beta no longer makes sense to use. I also asked the first ascentionist and he did not care. In my opinion routes should be changed since as climbers we strive to find the easiest way up a line. As sport climbers the 'line' happens to be defined by bolts so we usually go 4-5' to either side of the bolts. This 'new' sequence climbs within the 4-5' and thus to make the route better, bolts should be moved. In this particular case I have done the beta both ways and think the beta to the right makes more sense.
Just as in Thanatopsis I think the beta going left makes more sense and I think the bolts should be moved there as well.
Bolts for a runout are one thing but using bolt placements as rules for making a route 'harder' are silly.

why are bolt placements sacrosanct? just two weeks ago on here people were spewing venom saying chop/move bolts if the "peer review" dictated such..now we are saying the FA has all the power as to whether bolts stay? what if I am the FA, and decide to move the bolts to make the route easier/more fun/safer for all who follow? Is that also blasphemy of self?

you guys confuse the hell out of me with all these "rules". do these rules only pertain to the cutting edge routes, and those put up by old crusties?

I just want clarification, not to stir shit.

That's where your messing up. It's not rules,it's consensus. And to the comunities credit, done very diplomaticly.

Read the fine print Pigmeister. The rules change each full moon.

I thought about this whole issue last night and the funny thing is I wrote an article about it last year.
http://www.mikedoyle.ca/roadtrip/roadtr ... ocal.shtml
I'm a roadtripper, you guys are local. You're trying to find harder routes so you have something to work, I'm trying to do routes the easiest way possible. Locals are more important. I'll be at Drive-By most of the day Sunday, I'll hike up to Bob Marley in the afternoon if you guys are around. I'm willing to remove the hangers that I added. I'll leave the studs.