The notorious mental testpiece route Bachar Yerian (BY) was really pushing the envelope at its time of birth. Doing a route of that difficulty, ground up, placing the bolts on lead by hanging on skyhooks and tied off knobs was way ahead and beyond the standard of early eighties. It was a testpiece then and even today it stands tall, keeping most people off to be let alone even though it gets repeated a couple of times every year and probably still delivering a full on experience for a bold few.
BY is known for its super exposed fingery knob climbing high above gear and even Wolfgang Güllich failed on his try, ending up with a 20 meter whipper onto the belayer. In an attempt to make the style of climbing the BY even a notch better british young gun George Ullrich tries a clean ascent, skipping the lonesome 9 bolts on the total of 150 meters of climbing and four pitches.
But on second thought, is the attempt really as clean as it appears?
If George falls on the tied off knobs my guess is that he would possibly break the knobs off, as same with falling onto skyhooks. Either the rock breaks or the skyhook. I feel the later is accepted, the first is not. So what could be a better style would only be so if he succeeds with the attempt. Isn't that really a kind of inconsistent and/or utterly odd ethical approach?
Just because the gear is marginal and the attempt is serious doesn't make it right to possibly destroy the route's delicate sea of knobs. Climbing is like all sports inherently egoistic in the non philosophical sense; we do it because we just feel good, but that usually doesn't come with potential complications for other climbers. Should we accept that other peoples failure affect the very rock we all climb on and rather keep intact for others to climb? I don't think we should.
A style of climb is not better than the impact on the rock an eventual failure makes.
In this case a fall would probably lead to broken off pieces of rock due to skyhooks and tie offs. Seriousness doesn't imply a moral free-to-do-whatever card. So instead of praise we should consider an other approach where clean means Clean, in the sense that impact on the rock in a fall is taken in consideration. This makes a clean ascent even stricter, and more accurate in an environmental point of view.
This position on clean ascents means that there might be situations where bolts are the cleanest solution possible, except solo climbing. The mega classic Wheat Thin is Yosemite Valley didn't raise as much controversy when it was rap bolted. The reason was the bolts saved the thin layback flake from cams breaking it, protecting the climb for future ascents - a perfectly pragmatic and legit reason in my ears. In contrast the route could have been done "clean" with cams, but a fall would destroy the route.
This all adds up to the following conclusion: There are only two ways of doing BY in a clean style. Either use the bolts as protection or solo the route, or to be more exact don't use skyhooks and tie offs. Both these styles make little impact on the route, that hasn't been done yet (i.e. the bolts). The few originally placed bolts doesn't affect the rock when you get airborne on a massive 20+ meter screamer.
The whole bolt skipping headpointing idea gets even more arbitrary when Ullrich used the bolted belay anchors. What is his statement really when skipping most but not all bolts? George Ullrich should do Bachar Yerian either on the existing bolts or without hooks and slings, and instead of taking two steps back he could take one step forward, creating a dream for a future generation - an onsight in the cleanest of all styles.
Ullrich's attempt on BY can be seen in the movie "Call It What You Want", indeed a suitable name, however of other reasons than its ambition.
Inlägg
