Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Topic Date User

34? 31-Mar-2004 At 6:58:14 PM Onsight

Message

Sorry for the delay everyone - bit busy right now.

Will – I’m in total agreement with you. Re your last point: I think the only way we can be fair to future ascentionists is to credit them with their ascents at the grade the route eventually settles on (they didn’t chip off the holds so why should they be further disadvantaged than they already are?). Also, to be really fair to them (and if you if are the least bit concerned about taking a stance as to what is ethically acceptable) then Ben’s once legit ascent is now invalid – and so there’s no reason why the next ascentionist shouldn’t be credited with the first ascent of this “new” open project. Good to see so many are in agreement on this.

Neil – yes, that might be interesting… It appears some climbers may have been quoted out of context (at least) and so one might expect that will be corrected… (not Rock’s fault if no-one provides them w the info though).

Jac – good on you for having the guts to speak your mind on something you obviously feel strongly about. It not always easy. (And you seem to understand the issues).

A5 – I reckon many of your comments are “right on the money”. When it comes to the validity issue, then obviously people will differ as to what they see as the best way to way to get the message across… You said: “Don't rely on ignoring it because controversy dies out in time, .. and we should pass on our history / inheritance.” I agree entirely, it’s an important point – and all the more reason we shouldn’t ignore this issue now (lest the details get lost to history). Perhaps the Yvon Chouinard quote (boulder & sport not being valid) was pushing it a bit though, so I’m in agreement with Joe on that point.

Joe – This isn’t, and never was, as discussion of chipping per se, nor anything to do with enhancing or comfortising holds (so I think we can all pretty safely have this debate without worrying about being hypocritical).

The discussion has been specifically about the unnecessary removal of some holds (after the valid ascent). Whatever the reasons (it was deliberate and unnecessary, other than that the reasons are perhaps interesting but essentially irrelevant), the effect has been that numerous (I now know of at least three) other potential ascentionists who were also close to doing this “open” project, have had their preferred sequence taken away from them. And we also know that had this not happened then the route would have been SIGNIFICANTLY easier for them. Of course it doesn’t mean other ethical issues should be ignored, just that they can be the topics of other discussions (as many of them are).

Martin – I understand your caution in commenting but think Rupert makes some very important points.

Chris – not totally sure of your point. If you know that Wolfgang never chipped Punks, nor glued the hold up again years later, then perhaps you’re making the same point as A5’s and I - about how details will likely get lost in time?

In the scheme of things this whole debate would possibly be trivial, except that in this country we have climbers who are trying to be “professional”, or as close to is as possible, and I know it’s not trivial to all of them. I’d like to see them get a fair go… that’s all. Oh, I also do care about climbing ethics, the legacy we leave, and how Australian climbing is perceived elsewhere…

Simon