Same Board, Different Rules
Same Board, Different Rules M ic h a e l K e n n e d y
a n d J o h n S t e ig e r
“G ee, in the old days people used aid to m ake things easier, now adays they use aid to m ake things h ard er.” — Juanita D onini, com m ent on the debate
R O C K C LIM B IN G in the U .S . has been in a state o f flux over the past several years. European clim bers, particularly the French w ith their very high standards o f gym nastic rock clim bing, have had great influence on the m ethods deem ed acceptable in this country for pioneering new routes. Both in print and through their actions on the crags, A m erica’s leading clim bers have also sought to influence the direction o f U .S . free clim b ing as we move into the latter h a lf o f the decade. T here appear to be tw o conflicting areas o f style in the country today. In traditional style, the clim ber starts from the bottom of the proposed route, with the eventual goal o f free clim bing to the top w ithout falling. W hen falls are taken, the leader typically low ers to the ground or to a no-hands or sim ilarlyrelaxed stance, com m only leaving the rope through the last piece o f protection. This is know n as yo-yoing. All protection is placed on lead. Sim ilarly, the goal in F rench style is to free clim b the route from the bottom to the top w ith no falls. H ow ever, anything goes to figure out the m oves. This includes inspecting the proposed route from rappel, placing fixed protection from rappel, and rehearsing. R ehearsing may be from a toprope o r on lead. Lead rehearsal is often re ferred to as hangdogging, w hich denotes using direct aid or the rope to rest w hile figuring out individual m oves or sequences. The final ascent, w here the leader clim bs the route from the bottom to the top w ithout w eighting the rope or any protection, and com m only placing and clipping all non-fixed protection, is know n as a redpoint ascent. Several other term s are being w idely used to differentiate style, prim arily for repeat ascents. A vue or on-sight denotes absolutely no prior know ledge o f the route. F irst try im plies that a previous attem pt by another clim ber has given the leader crucial m ove inform ation. The term fla sh , originally coined by Jim B ridw ell in an early issue o f M o u n tain, has been used to describe both on-sight and first try ascents. M ost clim bers now use on-sight fla sh to describe w hat all styles view as a perfect ascent: on-sight, w ith no falls.
In an effort to prom ote a reasonable dialogue on this subject, the A m erican A lpine Club sponsored “The G reat D ebate (O r, Is 5 .1 4 W orth It?)” , w hich took place last D ecem ber during the 84th A nnual M eeting in D enver. This was cer tainly a political coup for the C lub, but as could have been expected, nothing w as resolved. Perhaps a m ore appropriate title w ould have been “G reat O pinions— For Those W ho D o n ’t K now A lready, O r C an ’t G u e ss.” Still, it was im pressive to have John B achar, H enry B arber, C hristian G riffith, Lynn H ill, Ron K auk, Rob R obinson, Todd Skinner, R andy V ogel, and A lan W atts sitting together at the sam e table, having an am iable discussion on rock clim bing’s “new style”— nam ely, bolting on rappel and hangdogging. The debate turned out to be a loose-knit slinging o f ideals rather than a point-by-point analysis. N ot surprisingly, the 400-strong audience displayed a clear preference for the traditionalist side o f the table, and the out-m anned “eurodogs” (a term coined by R uss R affa and L ynn Hill earlier in the day) seem ed destined to be overw helm ed during the question-answ er period follow ing each p anelist’s statem ent o f position. N evertheless, all concerned held their positions w ell, first through a pointed, one-by-one grilling by A A C President Jim M cC arthy, and later through questioning by the audience. C learly, no side “w o n ,” but the points raised appear to have sum m ed up virtually all the concerns voiced throughout the country, as E uropean tactics are slowly but surely becom ing accepted, and traditionalists struggle to m aintain “The W ay .” Issues o f clim bing style reflected the broadest range o f opinion, although m ost seem ed to agree that style is a personal m atter. T actics such as hangdogging, preview ing on rappel, and toprope rehearsal w ere w holeheartedly em braced by G riffith, S kinner and A lan W atts, w ho was perhaps the m ost eloquent spokesm an for these neoeuropean traditions: “Personally, I am strongly a proponent o f European tactics. H angdogging is essential to acquire the skills necessary to succeed on to d ay ’s hardest clim bs. T raditional tactics, as com m endable as they are, sim ply are not a m eans to succeed on 5.14. “M any critics o f European tactics feel that high num bers are not everything— they point to adventure, danger, and inner grow th as vital com ponents o f the sport. Indeed, num bers are not everything, but difficulty has alw ays been an im portant part o f clim bing tradition. “The Europeans are w ay ahead o f us in the free clim bing gam e. The w o rld ’s hardest routes, the boldest solos, and the m ost rem arkable flashes have all been accom plished by Europeans. T hroughout the 1960’s and 1970’s, the U .S . was on top o f the rock-clim bing w orld, and I ’ve alw ays been proud o f this. Frankly, it bothers me w hen I hear the top French clim bers referring to U .S . clim bing as a ‘m y th .’ The only w ay for us to im prove enough to clim b their hardest routes is to adopt their style. “C lim bing the hardest routes is not im portant to everyone, an d th ere’s no reason why it should be. But for those o f us who have m ade it our goal to put the
U .S . on top again, the path to take is clear. A m ong these individuals, there is no d eb ate.” In sharp contrast, B achar, B arber and K auk took the strongest stands against these European tactics. H enry B arber disagreed w ith the im portance W atts put on com peting in the international clim bing arena: “I d o n ’t really see clim bing as com petition. I see clim bing as an activity that is sensitive to the environm ent. It’s an activity in w hich we can develop ethics and style, and w here we can develop long-lasting friendships, experiences, and cam raderie. “I’ve been clim bing for 18 years, I ’ve been fortunate to travel all over, and I have a really good feel for the history o f rock clim bing throughout the w orld. I have never used Friends for protection. I d o n ’t hangdog, I d o n ’t toprope. I rely on doing a lot of clim bing with a lot less. “Since 1975, w hen confronted with a possible fall, I ’ve either dow nclim bed to a restpoint or to the belay, and then started back up. In the event o f a fall, or if I have to be low ered to a restpoint or the belay, I go dow n and pull the rope back through. “ I think that style m atters in life. I think that tom orrow is another day. W e should leave som e o f these gem s o f clim bs and real challenges for clim bers who will be really inspired to do them in the best possible sty le.” Hill, R obinson, and Vogel all took a more m oderate position on m atters of style, prim arily from the view point that differences in style do not affect others directly. Rob R obinson, speaking about the relatively-recent developm ent o f the Southeastern Sanstone Belt, sum m ed up the attitudes of many: “The South is a sanctuary w here clim bers could care less w hether you are a eurodogger, redpointer, or believe that the earth is flat. It is enough that you are a clim ber who shares in the spirit, pow er, and aesthetics that guide us in our dream -like existence in the vertical w orld. That you love the sport is, in the final analysis, enough for us. Lynn Hill com m ented, “W ith my background as a gym nast, I view hangdogging as a technique for training, not clim bing. C learly, it has produced some very hard routes. I d o n ’t see anything w rong with it— it d o esn ’t hurt anyone e lse.” V ogel continued along the sam e lines: “H angdogging and preview ing may erode a clim ber’s personal integrity, but once that person is gone, I can still experience the rock the w ay it was b efo re.” This statem ent reflected the stand-off on style very concisely. A lthough m ost o f the panelists felt that o th er’s style d id n ’t interfere in their ow n clim bing, they w ere quick to criticize. E ither the others w eren ’t clim bing as hard because they were too attached to an antiquated style or the others w eren’t reaping the full benefits o f experience because they w ere adopting styles w ith no basis in adventure. C om paring the tw o styles is difficult, to say the least. To R obinson, the question that sums it up is, “W hat is harder, doing a 5.12c/d on-sight in tradi tional style, or doing a 5 .14 hangdog?” This feeling that higher num bers d o n ’t
represent a higher quality o f experience is a point well taken by clim bers o f all standards, 5 .4 to 5.1 4 . T raditionalists m aintained that the traditional quality o f experience is higher, as can be seen by K au k ’s statem ent: “To truly raise the standards o f freeclim bing, you c a n ’t sacrifice style or purity for a higher n u m ber.” Issues concerning clim bing ethics elicited far more disagreem ent. Even the definition o f the term seem ed hard to pin down: do ethics involve only the physical alteration o f the rock, or do ethics include actions w hich infringe upon the rights o f others? O r both? Probably the biggest area o f contention centered around the gray area w here personal style and com m unity ethics overlap, very specifically the practice o f placing bolts on rappel. Todd Skinner sum m ed up the essential new -w ave argu m ent: “ E thically, drilling bolts on the lead, bolts how ever they are drilled, it d o esn ’t m atter. The perform ance is the e n d .” W atts again brought the place o f the A m erican clim ber in the w orld scene to the forefront: “B olting on rappel is the only w ay to protect (these) futuristic routes. D enying the validity o f hangdogging and pre-placing bolts closes o n e’s eyes to one o f the best tools available to im prove. Sim ply put, (these tactics) allow a clim ber to do a hard route faster, and I feel that the m ore hard routes you do, the better clim ber you will be. Tim e is spent facing new challenges, rather than w iring the sam e old problem . But if this fails to convince you, I suggest a trip to Sm ith R ock to attem pt A m erica’s first 5 .1 4 , the Sunshine W all, a route recently pioneered by Frenchm an J. B. Tribout. This one route does m ore to show the benefits o f European tactics than any am ount o f d eb ate.” In contrast, John B achar sum m ed up the traditionalist’s argum ent that routes should be started from the ground: “I d o n ’t really believe bolts should be placed on rappel— it offends the guys who are out to do first ascents (from the ground up). I travel around looking for virgin rock; I ’m looking for gym nasticallydifficult stuff. But I like to do it on the lead. I d o n ’t know anything about it; I ’m up there pushing gym nastics; I ’m trying to put it all together for that first ascent. “For exam ple, I ’ve w orked on routes before, fallen off, gotten hurt, then cam e back to find that som e guy put bolts in on rappel and did the ‘first a sc en t.’ It seem s that he copped out on the challenge by w alking around the back. I w ould have m ore respect if the guy drilled a bolt ladder and freed it— at least he faced up to the fact that he had to clim b the route. “A nother reason for not bolting on rappel is that after som eone has toproped it, the bolts m ight be too far apart for som eone to attem pt it on-sight. For exam ple, if I got into this business o f placing bolts on rappel after toproping, I could produce som e death routes. “Should I expect a person to w alk up and clim b som ething on-sight, after I had it thoroughly w ired? T hat w ould be unfair. So the only w ay to bolt is on the lead, on-sight, w ithout prior know ledge o f the route. A nd if you c a n ’t do it, leave it for som eone else .” And w hat o f the difference betw een bolts placed on hooks and those placed on rappel? A lthough B achar acknow ledged that a bolt placed on hook is aid, the
sim ilarities stop there. “The big difference is w hether or not you start from the ground. A lot o f these new routes placed on rappel are really abstract, in the sense that the m ethods used have no practical sense in the w orld o f alpinism . Placing a bolt on rappel is not a choice in the m o u n tain s.” Randy V ogel sees an analogy betw een w hat industry is doing to the environ m ent and w hat the current trend o f placing bolts on rappel is doing to the rock. “The oil industry is saying, ‘W e need to exploit our environm ent so we can insure our great status as a nation, do w hat ever it takes to stay a h e a d .’ T h ey ’re looking at the short term , not the long te rm .” This them e, that first ascentionists who place bolts on rappel are depleting the potential for first ascents too quickly, was echoed by R obinson. “T oo me it looks like they the Europeans are burning the rock reserves up. T h ey ’re not going to have anything left.” H enry B arber added an interesting tack to the traditionalist argum ent, in voking the nam e o f diversity. “I really d o n ’t w ant to tell people how to clim b, but I really believe that when you are in R om e, you do as the R om ans do— and I don’t w ant to build Rom e here. I w ant to go to R om e, I w ant to travel all over the w orld and experience the different types o f clim bing available in different areas. I d o n ’t w ant to m ake it all the sam e.” Lynn Hill took perhaps the m ost m oderate position on the issue o f rappelplaced bolts. “I d o n ’t look dow n on people who place bolts. T here are obviously different types o f rock, lim estone in F rance, w elded tu ff in Sm ith R ocks, and I have enjoyed doing routes that have been bolted on rappel. … Each area is unique and it is the responsibility o f the local clim bers to organize them selves and decide w hat should be d o n e.” C ertainly, this deference to local practice w eaved through m any o f the p an elists’ com m ents. N ot surprisingly, the question o f com m unity enforcem ent, nam ely chopping bolts, soon cam e up. If there was a unanim ous agreem ent on anything, it was on m anufacturing holds. V irtually every panelist denounced this practice, despite style. G riffith, w ho apparently em braced the concept in his opinion article “M anifesto” (C lim b ing no. 98), addressed M cC arthy’s query on the issue: “M ost people up here consider chipping holds as being com pletely disadvantageous. I really agree w ith that right n o w .” He further qualified his position by stating, “I consider extrem e difficulty as being relatively unnatural. You have to have ju st enough that you can clim b it but not so m uch that it is easy, and the variation in betw een is very, very lim ited. T here may com e a tim e w hen there isn ’t a natural place for a 5 .1 5 , or 5 .1 6 .” O thers w ere far m ore vocal on this issue. Skinner stated that m anufacturing holds is w here the quest for ultim ate difficulty ceases. “That is the point w here you adm it the route is too hard for y o u .” Vogel sum m ed up the traditio n alist’s argum ent against alteration o f the rock itself: “People think, ‘W ell, nobody really chops h o ld s,’ but there are som e very revered clim bers who have been know n to participate in this activity. W hat those clim bers w ere saying is that they were the best clim bers in the w orld, and that nobody w ould ever be any better.
“People are justifying what th e y ’re doing because o f the extrem e level of clim bing th ey ’re participating in. T h ey ’re doing a 5 .1 3 , therefore it is justifiable to do som ething a little quasi-ethical. H ow ever, five or ten years from now, dozens o f people will be doing 5 .1 3 ’s every day— to think otherw ise is very naive.” B achar reiterated the idea o f leaving the rock intact for future generations, pointing out that in B uoux, “C hiseling is com m onplace. Some 7 c ’s that were the hardest routes o f the tim e were chiseled, m anufactured to make them go. Now 7 c ’s are com m onplace, and th ey ’re looking for 8 b ’s and 8 c’s to do. T hey had them— they chiseled them to m ake the 7 c ’s— and now the new 8 b ’s are (being) m anufactured.” A nother area o f agreem ent was on the need for com m unication and honesty in reporting new routes. A concensus to respect local traditions was also reached, although tradition is subject to change. W atts pointed out: “C hange is inevitable. W hen a m ajority o f the local clim bers in each area decide it’s tim e for a transition, then change will occur, despite tradition. C hange, as much as anything, is what tradition in clim bing is ab o u t.” C learly, every panelist cam e to the podium hoping to explain their position and sway attitudes. Equally clear, how ever, was the feeling o f com m unity as the panelists lined up for photographs shortly after. B arber’s closing rem ark seem ed to be dead-center on the proverbial nail: “T ogether, the old chum sters like me and these guys today, we can all walk away from here talking the same language even though we d o n ’t agree. think this is really w here the future o f the sport lies.”
a n d J o h n S t e ig e r
“G ee, in the old days people used aid to m ake things easier, now adays they use aid to m ake things h ard er.” — Juanita D onini, com m ent on the debate
R O C K C LIM B IN G in the U .S . has been in a state o f flux over the past several years. European clim bers, particularly the French w ith their very high standards o f gym nastic rock clim bing, have had great influence on the m ethods deem ed acceptable in this country for pioneering new routes. Both in print and through their actions on the crags, A m erica’s leading clim bers have also sought to influence the direction o f U .S . free clim b ing as we move into the latter h a lf o f the decade. T here appear to be tw o conflicting areas o f style in the country today. In traditional style, the clim ber starts from the bottom of the proposed route, with the eventual goal o f free clim bing to the top w ithout falling. W hen falls are taken, the leader typically low ers to the ground or to a no-hands or sim ilarlyrelaxed stance, com m only leaving the rope through the last piece o f protection. This is know n as yo-yoing. All protection is placed on lead. Sim ilarly, the goal in F rench style is to free clim b the route from the bottom to the top w ith no falls. H ow ever, anything goes to figure out the m oves. This includes inspecting the proposed route from rappel, placing fixed protection from rappel, and rehearsing. R ehearsing may be from a toprope o r on lead. Lead rehearsal is often re ferred to as hangdogging, w hich denotes using direct aid or the rope to rest w hile figuring out individual m oves or sequences. The final ascent, w here the leader clim bs the route from the bottom to the top w ithout w eighting the rope or any protection, and com m only placing and clipping all non-fixed protection, is know n as a redpoint ascent. Several other term s are being w idely used to differentiate style, prim arily for repeat ascents. A vue or on-sight denotes absolutely no prior know ledge o f the route. F irst try im plies that a previous attem pt by another clim ber has given the leader crucial m ove inform ation. The term fla sh , originally coined by Jim B ridw ell in an early issue o f M o u n tain, has been used to describe both on-sight and first try ascents. M ost clim bers now use on-sight fla sh to describe w hat all styles view as a perfect ascent: on-sight, w ith no falls.
In an effort to prom ote a reasonable dialogue on this subject, the A m erican A lpine Club sponsored “The G reat D ebate (O r, Is 5 .1 4 W orth It?)” , w hich took place last D ecem ber during the 84th A nnual M eeting in D enver. This was cer tainly a political coup for the C lub, but as could have been expected, nothing w as resolved. Perhaps a m ore appropriate title w ould have been “G reat O pinions— For Those W ho D o n ’t K now A lready, O r C an ’t G u e ss.” Still, it was im pressive to have John B achar, H enry B arber, C hristian G riffith, Lynn H ill, Ron K auk, Rob R obinson, Todd Skinner, R andy V ogel, and A lan W atts sitting together at the sam e table, having an am iable discussion on rock clim bing’s “new style”— nam ely, bolting on rappel and hangdogging. The debate turned out to be a loose-knit slinging o f ideals rather than a point-by-point analysis. N ot surprisingly, the 400-strong audience displayed a clear preference for the traditionalist side o f the table, and the out-m anned “eurodogs” (a term coined by R uss R affa and L ynn Hill earlier in the day) seem ed destined to be overw helm ed during the question-answ er period follow ing each p anelist’s statem ent o f position. N evertheless, all concerned held their positions w ell, first through a pointed, one-by-one grilling by A A C President Jim M cC arthy, and later through questioning by the audience. C learly, no side “w o n ,” but the points raised appear to have sum m ed up virtually all the concerns voiced throughout the country, as E uropean tactics are slowly but surely becom ing accepted, and traditionalists struggle to m aintain “The W ay .” Issues o f clim bing style reflected the broadest range o f opinion, although m ost seem ed to agree that style is a personal m atter. T actics such as hangdogging, preview ing on rappel, and toprope rehearsal w ere w holeheartedly em braced by G riffith, S kinner and A lan W atts, w ho was perhaps the m ost eloquent spokesm an for these neoeuropean traditions: “Personally, I am strongly a proponent o f European tactics. H angdogging is essential to acquire the skills necessary to succeed on to d ay ’s hardest clim bs. T raditional tactics, as com m endable as they are, sim ply are not a m eans to succeed on 5.14. “M any critics o f European tactics feel that high num bers are not everything— they point to adventure, danger, and inner grow th as vital com ponents o f the sport. Indeed, num bers are not everything, but difficulty has alw ays been an im portant part o f clim bing tradition. “The Europeans are w ay ahead o f us in the free clim bing gam e. The w o rld ’s hardest routes, the boldest solos, and the m ost rem arkable flashes have all been accom plished by Europeans. T hroughout the 1960’s and 1970’s, the U .S . was on top o f the rock-clim bing w orld, and I ’ve alw ays been proud o f this. Frankly, it bothers me w hen I hear the top French clim bers referring to U .S . clim bing as a ‘m y th .’ The only w ay for us to im prove enough to clim b their hardest routes is to adopt their style. “C lim bing the hardest routes is not im portant to everyone, an d th ere’s no reason why it should be. But for those o f us who have m ade it our goal to put the
U .S . on top again, the path to take is clear. A m ong these individuals, there is no d eb ate.” In sharp contrast, B achar, B arber and K auk took the strongest stands against these European tactics. H enry B arber disagreed w ith the im portance W atts put on com peting in the international clim bing arena: “I d o n ’t really see clim bing as com petition. I see clim bing as an activity that is sensitive to the environm ent. It’s an activity in w hich we can develop ethics and style, and w here we can develop long-lasting friendships, experiences, and cam raderie. “I’ve been clim bing for 18 years, I ’ve been fortunate to travel all over, and I have a really good feel for the history o f rock clim bing throughout the w orld. I have never used Friends for protection. I d o n ’t hangdog, I d o n ’t toprope. I rely on doing a lot of clim bing with a lot less. “Since 1975, w hen confronted with a possible fall, I ’ve either dow nclim bed to a restpoint or to the belay, and then started back up. In the event o f a fall, or if I have to be low ered to a restpoint or the belay, I go dow n and pull the rope back through. “ I think that style m atters in life. I think that tom orrow is another day. W e should leave som e o f these gem s o f clim bs and real challenges for clim bers who will be really inspired to do them in the best possible sty le.” Hill, R obinson, and Vogel all took a more m oderate position on m atters of style, prim arily from the view point that differences in style do not affect others directly. Rob R obinson, speaking about the relatively-recent developm ent o f the Southeastern Sanstone Belt, sum m ed up the attitudes of many: “The South is a sanctuary w here clim bers could care less w hether you are a eurodogger, redpointer, or believe that the earth is flat. It is enough that you are a clim ber who shares in the spirit, pow er, and aesthetics that guide us in our dream -like existence in the vertical w orld. That you love the sport is, in the final analysis, enough for us. Lynn Hill com m ented, “W ith my background as a gym nast, I view hangdogging as a technique for training, not clim bing. C learly, it has produced some very hard routes. I d o n ’t see anything w rong with it— it d o esn ’t hurt anyone e lse.” V ogel continued along the sam e lines: “H angdogging and preview ing may erode a clim ber’s personal integrity, but once that person is gone, I can still experience the rock the w ay it was b efo re.” This statem ent reflected the stand-off on style very concisely. A lthough m ost o f the panelists felt that o th er’s style d id n ’t interfere in their ow n clim bing, they w ere quick to criticize. E ither the others w eren ’t clim bing as hard because they were too attached to an antiquated style or the others w eren’t reaping the full benefits o f experience because they w ere adopting styles w ith no basis in adventure. C om paring the tw o styles is difficult, to say the least. To R obinson, the question that sums it up is, “W hat is harder, doing a 5.12c/d on-sight in tradi tional style, or doing a 5 .14 hangdog?” This feeling that higher num bers d o n ’t
represent a higher quality o f experience is a point well taken by clim bers o f all standards, 5 .4 to 5.1 4 . T raditionalists m aintained that the traditional quality o f experience is higher, as can be seen by K au k ’s statem ent: “To truly raise the standards o f freeclim bing, you c a n ’t sacrifice style or purity for a higher n u m ber.” Issues concerning clim bing ethics elicited far more disagreem ent. Even the definition o f the term seem ed hard to pin down: do ethics involve only the physical alteration o f the rock, or do ethics include actions w hich infringe upon the rights o f others? O r both? Probably the biggest area o f contention centered around the gray area w here personal style and com m unity ethics overlap, very specifically the practice o f placing bolts on rappel. Todd Skinner sum m ed up the essential new -w ave argu m ent: “ E thically, drilling bolts on the lead, bolts how ever they are drilled, it d o esn ’t m atter. The perform ance is the e n d .” W atts again brought the place o f the A m erican clim ber in the w orld scene to the forefront: “B olting on rappel is the only w ay to protect (these) futuristic routes. D enying the validity o f hangdogging and pre-placing bolts closes o n e’s eyes to one o f the best tools available to im prove. Sim ply put, (these tactics) allow a clim ber to do a hard route faster, and I feel that the m ore hard routes you do, the better clim ber you will be. Tim e is spent facing new challenges, rather than w iring the sam e old problem . But if this fails to convince you, I suggest a trip to Sm ith R ock to attem pt A m erica’s first 5 .1 4 , the Sunshine W all, a route recently pioneered by Frenchm an J. B. Tribout. This one route does m ore to show the benefits o f European tactics than any am ount o f d eb ate.” In contrast, John B achar sum m ed up the traditionalist’s argum ent that routes should be started from the ground: “I d o n ’t really believe bolts should be placed on rappel— it offends the guys who are out to do first ascents (from the ground up). I travel around looking for virgin rock; I ’m looking for gym nasticallydifficult stuff. But I like to do it on the lead. I d o n ’t know anything about it; I ’m up there pushing gym nastics; I ’m trying to put it all together for that first ascent. “For exam ple, I ’ve w orked on routes before, fallen off, gotten hurt, then cam e back to find that som e guy put bolts in on rappel and did the ‘first a sc en t.’ It seem s that he copped out on the challenge by w alking around the back. I w ould have m ore respect if the guy drilled a bolt ladder and freed it— at least he faced up to the fact that he had to clim b the route. “A nother reason for not bolting on rappel is that after som eone has toproped it, the bolts m ight be too far apart for som eone to attem pt it on-sight. For exam ple, if I got into this business o f placing bolts on rappel after toproping, I could produce som e death routes. “Should I expect a person to w alk up and clim b som ething on-sight, after I had it thoroughly w ired? T hat w ould be unfair. So the only w ay to bolt is on the lead, on-sight, w ithout prior know ledge o f the route. A nd if you c a n ’t do it, leave it for som eone else .” And w hat o f the difference betw een bolts placed on hooks and those placed on rappel? A lthough B achar acknow ledged that a bolt placed on hook is aid, the
sim ilarities stop there. “The big difference is w hether or not you start from the ground. A lot o f these new routes placed on rappel are really abstract, in the sense that the m ethods used have no practical sense in the w orld o f alpinism . Placing a bolt on rappel is not a choice in the m o u n tain s.” Randy V ogel sees an analogy betw een w hat industry is doing to the environ m ent and w hat the current trend o f placing bolts on rappel is doing to the rock. “The oil industry is saying, ‘W e need to exploit our environm ent so we can insure our great status as a nation, do w hat ever it takes to stay a h e a d .’ T h ey ’re looking at the short term , not the long te rm .” This them e, that first ascentionists who place bolts on rappel are depleting the potential for first ascents too quickly, was echoed by R obinson. “T oo me it looks like they the Europeans are burning the rock reserves up. T h ey ’re not going to have anything left.” H enry B arber added an interesting tack to the traditionalist argum ent, in voking the nam e o f diversity. “I really d o n ’t w ant to tell people how to clim b, but I really believe that when you are in R om e, you do as the R om ans do— and I don’t w ant to build Rom e here. I w ant to go to R om e, I w ant to travel all over the w orld and experience the different types o f clim bing available in different areas. I d o n ’t w ant to m ake it all the sam e.” Lynn Hill took perhaps the m ost m oderate position on the issue o f rappelplaced bolts. “I d o n ’t look dow n on people who place bolts. T here are obviously different types o f rock, lim estone in F rance, w elded tu ff in Sm ith R ocks, and I have enjoyed doing routes that have been bolted on rappel. … Each area is unique and it is the responsibility o f the local clim bers to organize them selves and decide w hat should be d o n e.” C ertainly, this deference to local practice w eaved through m any o f the p an elists’ com m ents. N ot surprisingly, the question o f com m unity enforcem ent, nam ely chopping bolts, soon cam e up. If there was a unanim ous agreem ent on anything, it was on m anufacturing holds. V irtually every panelist denounced this practice, despite style. G riffith, w ho apparently em braced the concept in his opinion article “M anifesto” (C lim b ing no. 98), addressed M cC arthy’s query on the issue: “M ost people up here consider chipping holds as being com pletely disadvantageous. I really agree w ith that right n o w .” He further qualified his position by stating, “I consider extrem e difficulty as being relatively unnatural. You have to have ju st enough that you can clim b it but not so m uch that it is easy, and the variation in betw een is very, very lim ited. T here may com e a tim e w hen there isn ’t a natural place for a 5 .1 5 , or 5 .1 6 .” O thers w ere far m ore vocal on this issue. Skinner stated that m anufacturing holds is w here the quest for ultim ate difficulty ceases. “That is the point w here you adm it the route is too hard for y o u .” Vogel sum m ed up the traditio n alist’s argum ent against alteration o f the rock itself: “People think, ‘W ell, nobody really chops h o ld s,’ but there are som e very revered clim bers who have been know n to participate in this activity. W hat those clim bers w ere saying is that they were the best clim bers in the w orld, and that nobody w ould ever be any better.
“People are justifying what th e y ’re doing because o f the extrem e level of clim bing th ey ’re participating in. T h ey ’re doing a 5 .1 3 , therefore it is justifiable to do som ething a little quasi-ethical. H ow ever, five or ten years from now, dozens o f people will be doing 5 .1 3 ’s every day— to think otherw ise is very naive.” B achar reiterated the idea o f leaving the rock intact for future generations, pointing out that in B uoux, “C hiseling is com m onplace. Some 7 c ’s that were the hardest routes o f the tim e were chiseled, m anufactured to make them go. Now 7 c ’s are com m onplace, and th ey ’re looking for 8 b ’s and 8 c’s to do. T hey had them— they chiseled them to m ake the 7 c ’s— and now the new 8 b ’s are (being) m anufactured.” A nother area o f agreem ent was on the need for com m unication and honesty in reporting new routes. A concensus to respect local traditions was also reached, although tradition is subject to change. W atts pointed out: “C hange is inevitable. W hen a m ajority o f the local clim bers in each area decide it’s tim e for a transition, then change will occur, despite tradition. C hange, as much as anything, is what tradition in clim bing is ab o u t.” C learly, every panelist cam e to the podium hoping to explain their position and sway attitudes. Equally clear, how ever, was the feeling o f com m unity as the panelists lined up for photographs shortly after. B arber’s closing rem ark seem ed to be dead-center on the proverbial nail: “T ogether, the old chum sters like me and these guys today, we can all walk away from here talking the same language even though we d o n ’t agree. think this is really w here the future o f the sport lies.”
