milspecmark wrote:I will agree that sport climbers are pussies compared to trad climbers. But sport climbers are still better climbers.
tell that to caldwell, siegrist, gearing, and enzo. your distinction is meaningless at the top level.
My opinion of anything related to climbing is meaningless to those guys. Dustin, I really don't disagree with you, more just feeding Larry the troll. He seems hungry today.
the staunch division between disciplines (sport is king, trad is for old people, and bouldering is for Tennessee) is no doubt an oddball facet of Kentucky climbing culture, but it's not any more artificial than the other social divisions we create. it - like the more 'everything goes' vibe in the West - is the product of a particular milieu, and in the case of Kentucky simply underscores the following:
there is a great abundance of quality sport routes in the Daniel Boone National Forest
I first excited to climb the crack now called R. Kelly Ethics because from a distance, it looked like a really cool line. Upon closer inspection we realized that a line of bolts crossed the majority of this very obvious line of weakness. Simple climbing ethics dictate that a bolted crack is a bad thing, but one cannot raise real ethical concerns about a route’s style until the crack in question is climbed. So that’s what we did, we climb the crack and had a ball. It’s a wonderful long line that offers a really well rounded traditional adventure, from a bouldery crux to wide wiggling. It offers just enough protection (PG 13) and the underlying rock is good. The chicken heads on the face will clear up with time to make for fun varied climbing.
In climbing the crack, I was not trying to get my name online and add another squeeze job to the Red; I was trying to cover my bases before making an ethical point. This argument is not about which one is the real line, it is about style. Arthur, I do appreciate your positivity, but do not think these routs can never coexist. Real enjoyment of the crack requires the climber to ignore the bolts littering their line of natural protection.
The sport line was climbed first; no one can take this away from first ascensionists now that their line of bolts dot the cliff line. Mike and Andrew: why did you bolt this crack?
Regardless of what I think about the style in which the line should have been established, the simple fact remains that Mike and Andrew climbed it first and in doing so, made a decision for how the rest of the community must climb it. They have set the bar very low, but it was their decision to make. I do not advocate the chopping of bolted cracks by anyone other than by a reflective first ascensionist. However, this does not mean that as a climbing community we must speak out against these abuses. If we set the bar so low as to condone the bolting of cracks, even when they’re covered in face holds (as is the case for this crack), then we open the door to all out abandonment of traditional ethics. I’ll say it until I’m blue in the face:
Placing a line of bolts on top of or even overlapping with a natural line that can be readily protected with gear is wrong.
megmay wrote:Placing a line of bolts on top of or even overlapping with a natural line that can be readily protected with gear is wrong.
I agree. The Red would be less awsome if this were our usual ethic. Luckily it is not.
megmay wrote:Arthur, I do appreciate your positivity, but do not think these routs can never coexist. Real enjoyment of the crack requires the climber to ignore the bolts littering their line of natural protection.
In general I agree, but look at my point of argument. The real estate that the two lines share is an F-ing gumby ladder. In general I am with you, but this issue has more than a few shades of grey. More people get to 'enjoy' both lines if they both stay up.
