RRC Archives

What is up with the anchor placements lately? I have not bothered to single out which bolters are doing this but I would love to hear the rational behind anchor placements lately. It seems like something is going on that I can't quite understand.

Here is the scenario. You climb near the end of a route( not the top of the cliff mind you) and you reach a giant ledge. You look up to see the anchor 5 to 10 feet higher (still not the top of the cliff mind you).

Granted I have alway thought "more bolts equal more fun". But it seems like eeking out 5 more feet of climbing in some situations lowers the overall quality of the route.


P.s. I do appreciate even the worst routes out there.

Considering what you ticked recently, I am guessing is those Wheatleys.

Laziness and low IQ are the clear answers.

Maybe instead of relocating the beavers, we could relocate the Wheatleys? Especially the young one.

One-Fall wrote:Maybe instead of relocating the beavers, we could relocate the Wheatleys? Especially the young one.

I vote we leave the beavers and the Wheatleys, and relocate the anchors. To a spot where they can be stick-clipped from the ground, preferably.

I think the Wheatleys just stand on the ledge and clip the anchors due to their unnatural height.

Andrew wrote:Laziness and low IQ are the clear answers.

I do enjoy a little self-deprecating humor. However, can you give me a little insight into your thought process about anchor placements?

Feel free to chime in Pigsteak and Dustin.

To be fair, it might just be my own hang-up. Beside one of the most egregious examples of this is Chainsaw and it is one of the most popular routes out there.

On at least two occasions I have lowered anchors on a route. In both instances I knew the anchors should have been in the lower location but the temptation of a longer route got the best of me.

For me I do think it has to do with route length and the visual from the ground. 10 feet longer of a route is a huge improvement in almost any scenario. A 30 foot route is almost unacceptable, but 40 feet is ok. A 90 foot route is awesome, but a 100 foot route is something special.

The other really big issue is rock quality and rope management. Sometimes anchors just can't go where you want them to go, and so you must compromise.

I am curious to see what others say.

I am by no stretch of the imagination an expert on development but I agree with Andrew. For me, it is simply about more climbing, pure and simple. I like long routes, always have. It is just my bias. The first time I found myself on a route that I wished the route developer had “stopped” the route at the last bolt was on a John Bronaugh route. I was wandering around on sketchy slab after climbing 80 feet of sinker pockets. I hated it and thought to myself what a shame to detract from such a great route. But I got over it and learned to expect, if not look forward with some mix of dread and amusement to these Bronaugh finishes.

When I started putting up my own routes I found myself tempted to squeeze every foot of reasonably climbable rock out of a route. It is a judgment call and no doubt very much personal preference. Sometimes even a mistake. Sometimes it has to do with getting the rope to run clear of the lower rock. But through the years I think one can see distinct patterns emerge that reflect different developers’ unique style. I for one have come to accept, even appreciate other’s unique signature development, even the occasional “adventure sport climbing”.

I do draw the line at unsafe rock or dangerous falls…although that too can be a judgment call. About my only, I-hate-that-finish-and-won’t-do-that-route-again are anchors that shred my rope when I lower off. But of course, I could just rap down and all would be fine

To add to what Shannon said (although she summed it up perfectly), it's all personal preference. Some people like longer routes with adventurous finishes, some people don't. Others hate short routes that stop in the middle of the wall, other folks prefer it. Can't please everyone. If the rock is still good I'll generally keep it going. If the rock turns abruptly to crap I'll stop. And a lot of it has to do with seasonal rainfall patterns as well as getting the rope to run clean (ie. putting the anchors up on a bulge for better clearance down low).

Thanks for the replies!

It seems like pushing the length is pretty important to you guys.

What do you think about Paradise Lost? Sort of a strange setup. A route that goes to the top of the cliff but has a anchor halfway. Would it be as popular with just one set of anchors at the top?

What about the Legend? Anchors added to the middle of a route?

What about Tequila Sunrise? Cut short by 10 feet because it changed the grade.