RRC Archives

And when you do them without sticky rubber, chalk or top rope, you'll be just as good, and almost as bold, a leader as the local hicks were twenty five years ago.

I certainly feel like a badass when I finish my taxes using an abacus

Good one L. Day.

Let me try this game.

....When you or any 50 year old start cruising moves harder than v3 (5.11) you'll have something to say. Until then you're just yapping.

Boy, this is fun. One more.

.....And when you do those routes you'll be just as good, and almost as strong as the locals that currently climb at the Red.

OK, so I lead lots of 5.10 and 5.11 Rs and Xs in my day, but today's badasses are afraid to lead 5.10R, even though they got the sticky rubber and the little bag of courage, that's just the way it is. Say it loud "I'm chicken shit and I'm proud".

And besides, if you review this thread, you'll see that I conceaded the point that you punks are climbing way harder than we ever did, and you have a strength to weight ratio, that far exceeds what we were able to achieve. It's just that I don't think that cutting off your balls, in order to achieve that strength to weight ratio, was a fair trade.

I'm chicken shit.

Correctly me if I am wrong on this.

I feel like an R or X route suggests rock quality that is suspicious. The protection wouldn't really hold a fall. The avant-garde has shifted to soloing something harder(difficulty wise) with more secure rock a la Greg K on Bohica. Some might argue that the rock quality is not great on Bohica after hundreds of climbers have yarded on all the holds, but compared to routes at Tower rock Bohica is super solid.

I personally don't like climbing crap rock. But make no mistake, I think your ascents are way dangerous. Going ground up on an unclimbed pile is way more ballsy than perfoming a rehearsed solo on an established route regardless of difficulty(grade).

P.S. "little bag of courage" Pun? or just talking about chalk?

Now Greg K, he's a different case. I'm pretty sure he's got balls, but please, let's not post any pictures.

L Day wrote:Now Greg K, he's a different case. I'm pretty sure he's got balls, but please, let's not post any pictures.

So you put yourself in this group? You both have performed stunts that are worthy of being called ballsy? And in your opinion this is the direction that climbing should continue to go in rather than what you call strength to weight ratio climbing?

Now, I didn't say that, I'm just saying "expand your horizons" that's all. Some of the old routes that never get repeated would probably be just as much fun today as they were back then, presuming a somewhat more expansive definition of the word "fun" anyway.

Of course, certain dangers exist, don't get in over your head, all other appropriate disclaimers, and etc.

As skills have evolved, so has common sense.

Now, now odub. The only really dangerous thing I ever did in the red was take such a big hit off the hash pipe that I passed out, and pitched head first off Courthouse Rock. Now that was a stunt!

Heres my take on the "boldness" factor...

Its not that people are less bold, or that climbing has been softened. Climbing has simply evolved. In turn, so have people. If we HAD to be bold, we would be. I've had to run it out into the death zone umpteen times, but I don't CHOOSE to.

The ethics of that day demanded runouts. The ethics of today aren't afraid to toss a bolt in whenever you want...

Sport climbing=more climbing.

Back in the day, a very, very, very small percentage of rock in the Red was developed. The crazy thing is that the rock that was popular back then was some of the worst rock in the area. The things that have gone up in the past 10 years are SOOO good, that it'd be silly for people to go do lower quality climbs, even just for the adventure....

I'd also guess that there are at least as many bold, and more bold, climbers than there were yesteryear. Its just that now, that is a very tiny percentage of the full community.