Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Topic Date User

THE AUSTRALIAN RE, RETRO-BOLTING OPEN FORUM 13-Feb-2004 At 12:09:51 AM Onsight

Message

Cheers for the thought proving thoughts Hex. Mind if I share some of this campfire heat for a bit?

Re-bolting: IMO replacing bad bolts with good is a darn good thing and I take my hat off to whoever is prepared to do it. And while at it, I see no problem with a little re-positioning of the odd “clip” if it is poorly positioned — because, lets face it, it’s often hard to always choose the bests spots the first time (often it’s only when it’s climbed that we realise we didn’t get it "quite right"). After all, who like likes the crux of the climb to be clipping a bolt? We’re talking “sport climbing” — not “sport clipping”.

Retro-bolting: Clearly a different beast. I think we are all agreed that it is about “respect” — and therefore if the FA is done in perfect style (ground up) then that is something we should all “respect”. For example, no-one would dare seriously suggest retro-ing the Bachar-Yarien because that (FA) is so unquestionably bold, visionary, and fully deserving of resect.

But what then if the FA style was a bit less “perfect”? Does that mean the FAionist (anyone coined that yet?) still has the right to impose say *excessive* run-outs (a subjective term) or even *dangerous* run-outs (a bit more objective) when they have had the (sometimes huge) “advantage” of abseil pre-inspection or even extensive top-rope rehearsal prior to the FA? As B&T said re retro-ing; ”That is lowering a climb to your ability as apposed to repeating it in its original first accent state.” That’s right, but the only problem with that I see, is that in some (maybe just a few) cases, the only way you can repeat the route in the same FA style is by walking around to the top and top-roping the living daylights out of it first. I see the VCC even recommends top-roping first before bolting, and I think it’s fine and good if it’s used so that the clips are optimally positioned, but not so cool if it’s used to create a run-out route which is perhaps supposed to make the FAionist look bad-arse bold. It’s a little easier to be bold when you’ve got it dialled. It’s harder to be bold when it’s onsight. Anyone else think that’s perhaps just a little unfair?

Don’t get too upset folks. I’m not talking many routes here. I just think that if a routes not bolted in a reasonable fashion for the onsight climber — a competent and bold climber who’s prepared to take the odd risk — and if the FAionsist had used an advantage here, then why shouldn’t it be up for a little, er, “re-consideration?”.

Re-naming: Nice concept Hex. I’m all for it. If a route has been named in a way that’s so obviously meant to offend, then why not? It’s the guidebook editors prerogative to re-grade things they know to be sandbags, then while not a little re-naming while we’re at it? Offensive names like that are hardly deserving of respect now are they? Let’s face it – times change, and Ice-T and his rapper mates didn’t exactly have the finest influence on route naming in the early ‘90’s. If you don’t know what we’re talking about then get hold of a Nowra guide – I‘d prefer not to have to give you the examples… Kieran, I don’t think Hex is a misogynist, his views here are rather enlightened (not so sure he'd suggested H had chipped on Gmesh either - perhaps it was just an example?).

Simon Carter