Sticky Fingers

[theriault]

So I just re-read this whole tread... this sounds more like a trial than an other bolt war LOL

[john]

The climbing is easy near the bolt compared to the 2cruxes of the climb and there is gear there if desired. If the original had to go and could not be replaced why not leave bolt out altogether seems as reasonable as adding 2?

[max]

Climbed it for the first time when I was home for a visit in May. Loved it! Thought it had good spice and wonderful climbing. I also saw the mess and it didn't seem appropriate for CL or any climbing area. I think leaving the route it as is and cleaning up what has been left behind then moving on would be my thought. This route is a great test piece for pushing into harder 5.10 climbing.

[Adam]

Ha Shawn you're such a $h!t discturber

It's a tough discussion with no real answers. The best course of action is dialogue. While I might have seeked further community input before replacing 1 with 2, I feel that the fact that there seems to be a fair bit of support for the result validates my actions. Of course since the FA cannot comment, we'll never know what he would have wanted.

In spite of the claims that were made, I feel it folly for anyone to suggest they know his wishes so many years later, and thus feel updating equipment must at some point become a community decision (really, this happens when the FA dies since no one can speak for another person). I took a quick survey of climbers around me that day and took action based on the results of a very small sample size (albeit of a very small community to begin with). I believe I posted here somewhere (too lazy to look but someone correct me if i'm wrong) to suggest that anyone who wanted to take action allow all interested parties go up there and climb it together to assess as a community, but I was not contacted by either Cory nor Ian to do so. IMHO that was the least well handled part of the entire episode and so I was not impressed with the way the chopping took place, more than the shoddy workmanship. If the community had decided to chop, perhaps the job could have been with some experience and avoid the blemish.

I have climbed it since and feel the route is safe if you go right and place in Mammalian before moving up to the bolt, since I would not trust the shallow little cam in the horizontal (it is a good aid piece, but the forces of a lead fall make such shallow placements a gamble). I would agree that if Ian and Cory feel the gear is bomber, that they should back up their actions and be willing to take a whipper onto said gear and prove it's bomberness. Otherwise all they did was fuC|( up the rock for a bad reason.

lots of opinion here and lots of passion - love it!

- Adam "The Kind Gentleman" Morgan

[GKelly]

Adam, the suggestion that Cory and or Ian whip on that pro is not going to work. I think given their weight I they would have to both whip at the same time, on the same peice in order to equal the force generated by a normal human.
Seriously though, There are tonnes on G rated routes out there where you wouldn't be willing to voluntarily take a fall on all your gear. I think if the route was changed to PG the debate would be over. In my opinion the spice factor of sticky fingers is greater than that of catholic girls and that spice comes after the bolt.

[Adam]

There are tonnes on G rated routes out there where you wouldn't be willing to voluntarily take a fall on all your gear. I think if the route was changed to PG the debate would be over. In my opinion the spice factor of sticky fingers is greater than that of catholic girls and that spice comes after the bolt.

You're right on the first point. However, we're not talking about just any route. It's a route that Cory and Ian felt so strongly about that they took action to remove a bolt on the grounds that the gear there is solid and would hold a lead fall. I'm not debating the G rating. The fall is clean *if* the gear holds.

And it's not about 'spice'. I move right and put a big nut in on mammalian b/c i don't really trust that horizontal cam placement. If it were about spice there would be no bolts to begin with. The FA wanted that section to be safe without moving right to mammalian, and the ORIGINAL bolt was 12" away from this supposed 'bomber' horizontal cam placement. If it were so bomber, why would he have put the original in? The bolts I replaced it with were further away from the placement than the original bolt.

[Shawn B]

Anyone know if this has been cleaned up yet? I agree with those that are of the opinion that the eyesore should be repaired and leave the route in its current state and move on. My last piece on this is that I still don't agree in the manner in which the chopping took place and that I still have not heard one valid arguement to support the chopping. The carte blanche reply..."you just don't add bolts to a route" arguement is not valid. Many people have asked many questions to the reasoning behind and not once has any proponent of the chopping had a reply. Might lead one to believe there was no reasoning!? Off belay.

[theriault]

I was on the route Saturday and it had not been fixed, and today, from what I could tell from the ground.... no change...

[theriault]

Ian and I fixed the bolt holes last week..... Couldt his be the end of this drama?

[PeterA]

Couldt his be the end of this drama?

Ha, you haven't been given the tour of the internet, have you?

-PJ

[motanb]

My experience on this great route- I'm guessing I first lead it back in the late 90's and have since climbed it (on lead) many more times, albeit NOT SINCE the amusing escapade unfolded above- has always been positive both in regard to protection available and the original bolt placement. Never IMHO has this climb entailed risky protection notwithstanding subjective accounts to the contrary; alas, this is but my own subjective account;) It's kinda funny thinking back to the mid and late 90's regarding this route (makes me sound kinda old). I don't recall anyone making a fuss over this climb in any way. I understand new bolt placements change the context and essentially that is what this exchange is about.

I gotta say, asking someone to bail on gear perceived as 'questionable' in order to 'prove' said placement as bomber is a wee bit draconian.. or was that just Adam being sarcastic??

[Adam]

I gotta say, asking someone to bail on gear perceived as 'questionable' in order to 'prove' said placement as bomber is a wee bit draconian.. or was that just Adam being sarcastic??

draconion? perhaps. i DO think they should prove the worthiness since their action made the 'questionable' placement required if you want to protect the move (without placing on mammalian).

obviously i don't want anyone getting hurt, hence why i took my initial action and removed a potential groundfall potential (yeah ok subjective). if they aren't willing to whip on that piece, then i'd ask, are they wanting someone to trust a bad piece and potentially get hurt? i really doubt they do, but then they should have taken more thought about repercussions before removing the bolt. i believe my reasoning is pretty simple.

[PeterA]

I gotta say, asking someone to bail on gear perceived as 'questionable' in order to 'prove' said placement as bomber is a wee bit draconian.. or was that just Adam being sarcastic??

draconion? perhaps. i DO think they should prove the worthiness since their action made the 'questionable' placement required if you want to protect the move (without placing on mammalian).

obviously i don't want anyone getting hurt, hence why i took my initial action and removed a potential groundfall potential (yeah ok subjective). if they aren't willing to whip on that piece, then i'd ask, are they wanting someone to trust a bad piece and potentially get hurt? i really doubt they do, but then they should have taken more thought about repercussions before removing the bolt. i believe my reasoning is pretty simple.

Food for thought here on the whole "gear is bomber so go whip on it and prove it" train Adam. The gear is pretty bomber on it's a way of life. Would you be willing to place a piece, low or high, and whip onto it with your feet a meter above your piece? Or on snakepeel? How many routes in cochrane lane would you be willing to purposefully whip onto your bomber gear from a little ways above it? We aren't exactly the land of clean falls I'd feel pretty silly if I screwed my ankle up or something on an intentional whipper.

To summarize, bomber gear ≠ safe fall

-PJ

[Adam]

Food for thought here on the whole "gear is bomber so go whip on it and prove it" train Adam. The gear is pretty bomber on it's a way of life. Would you be willing to place a piece, low or high, and whip onto it with your feet a meter above your piece? Or on snakepeel? How many routes in cochrane lane would you be willing to purposefully whip onto your bomber gear from a little ways above it? We aren't exactly the land of clean falls I'd feel pretty silly if I screwed my ankle up or something on an intentional whipper.

To summarize, bomber gear ≠ safe fall

-PJ

do you purposely miss the point?

[PeterA]

Food for thought here on the whole "gear is bomber so go whip on it and prove it" train Adam. The gear is pretty bomber on it's a way of life. Would you be willing to place a piece, low or high, and whip onto it with your feet a meter above your piece? Or on snakepeel? How many routes in cochrane lane would you be willing to purposefully whip onto your bomber gear from a little ways above it? We aren't exactly the land of clean falls I'd feel pretty silly if I screwed my ankle up or something on an intentional whipper.

To summarize, bomber gear ≠ safe fall

-PJ

do you purposely miss the point?

Typical politician You could educate those of us beneath you better with answers rather than belittling comments. For the sake of humoring me, could you answer the questions I posed to you? Use small words though, I confuse easily

[Adam]

Typical politician You could educate those of us beneath you better with answers rather than belittling comments. For the sake of humoring me, could you answer the questions I posed to you? Use small words though, I confuse easily

oooh, them's fighting words! i feel i am far too dependent on logic to pretend to be a politician!

still, i find it hard to believe a smart guy like u would miss the point. confusing the issue by comparing to a countless number of other potential pieces is not a strong argument.

we are talking about a specific situation, not any potential piece on some arbitrary route. rather, a piece that several have called questionable and very much not bomber, but Cory and Ian insist thru their actions that they feel the piece is worthy of catching falls. i think it was folly to chop if they are not themselves willing to whip on it to prove its quality, b/c someone else most likely WILL at some point. hopefully it is good enough to hold.

[PeterA]

Typical politician You could educate those of us beneath you better with answers rather than belittling comments. For the sake of humoring me, could you answer the questions I posed to you? Use small words though, I confuse easily

oooh, them's fighting words! i feel i am far too dependent on logic to pretend to be a politician!

still, i find it hard to believe a smart guy like u would miss the point. confusing the issue by comparing to a countless number of other potential pieces is not a strong argument.

we are talking about a specific situation, not any potential piece on some arbitrary route. rather, a piece that several have called questionable and very much not bomber, but Cory and Ian insist thru their actions that they feel the piece is worthy of catching falls. i think it was folly to chop if they are not themselves willing to whip on it to prove its quality, b/c someone else most likely WILL at some point. hopefully it is good enough to hold.

Whether the piece is good or not, I have no idea. Haven't looked for myself. I was just providing a reason why people would be reluctant to whip onto gear, even bomber gear

[Shawn B]

Ahemmm!!!

Nothing to say, just let me grab my popcorn

[PeterA]

Ahemmm!!!

Nothing to say, just let me grab my popcorn

And at the time, I had nothing to say. Didn't say I would never have anything to say

-PJ

[Adam]

Whether the piece is good or not, I have no idea. Haven't looked for myself. I was just providing a reason why people would be reluctant to whip onto gear, even bomber gear

I fully understand why people don't want to whip on gear. But this supports my point. If they are not super confident in the piece, then removing the bolt makes that piece mandatory (ok, subjective, but most people will place there i think) and they're now putting everyone else in the position of potentially whipping on it.

If the placement in question were just an inch deeper, i'd be willing to agree it might be bomber, but as i recall, it is quite shallow.

[PeterA]

Whether the piece is good or not, I have no idea. Haven't looked for myself. I was just providing a reason why people would be reluctant to whip onto gear, even bomber gear

I fully understand why people don't want to whip on gear. But this supports my point. If they are not super confident in the piece, then removing the bolt makes that piece mandatory (ok, subjective, but most people will place there i think) and they're now putting everyone else in the position of potentially whipping on it.

If the placement in question were just an inch deeper, i'd be willing to agree it might be bomber, but as i recall, it is quite shallow.

Personally, I'm just as hesistant to fall on a bolt. Falling sucks

-PJ