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
6 kommentarer:
Gör de standplatserna på naturliga säkringar med?
/erik s
När någon lägger vikt vid att de har klättrat "clean" eller "trad" eller nåt annat specifikt, så är det nog som regel lika bra att tydligare ange hur det gått till och _varför_ man valt just det sättet. Att topprepa nånting (lägre än man vanligen klättrar i Tuolumne), är ju i och för sig också potentiellt skonsamt mot klippan. Men som prestation, så är det förstås skillnad mellan TR och att leda. Slarvigt uttryckt kan man ju också säga att solo kan vara mindre krävande än att lägga egna säkringar... samt skonsamt mot klippan.
Sen är det förstås så att själva klättringen och troligen rensningen, kan ibland eller kanske ofta lämna större spår än borrbultar eller slagbultsärr eller skadad klippa efter hooks eller liknande.
Och jag tror att många väljer stil, och etik, inte bara utifrån att primärt inte lämna spår, utan svårigheten att lägga eget, säkerheten osv. På så sätt finns det säkert de som väljer att klättra "clean" utifrån att det just är farligare och/ellersvårare, inte utifrån att det är mer spårlöst. Bristande säkerhet ses ju normalt som en nackdel, men jag tror att det (är ovanligt men) förekommer att man resonerar lite tvärtom som klättrare.
Det mesta av ovanstående är allt annat än självklarheter för personer som aldrig klättrat, men egentligen kanske man bör ifrågasätta sitt beteende om det "bara är klättrare som förstår"?
@ Erik S
"The whole bolt skipping headpointing idea gets even more arbitrary when Ullrich used the bolted belay anchors."
Även under andra repetitioner, där man använt bultarna, så har man t ex slingat knoppar på väggen. http://www.blackdiamondequipment.com/en-us/journal/climb-video/video/video-black-diamond-athlete-hayden-kennedy-on-the-famed-ibacharyeriani/
Kolla 4 minuter in i videon.
Vet inte hur vanligt det är på den här leden, men det är kanske inte orimligt att anta att det har skett av fler klättrare genom åren.
Det svarar ju förstås inte på frågan om det är etiskt riktigt eller inte. Det får jag återkomma till i så fall, om jag orkar. En intressant fråga är det.
Den stil som leden gjordes i från början var ju inte direkt någon dålig stil, inte ens med dagens mått.
Eller ja, det beror ju på hur man definierar begreppet "god stil" förstås...
There are more people than Hayden Kennedy that use the knobs as protection. But I will have to quote you: " It doesn't answer the question whether it is morally correct or not".
Just because people do it doesn't make it legit of the reason that "other people do it". Old aid routes were climbed with pegs and peckers before and go clean today - a true evolution in style.
Sorry Robo for my poor English :-)
It'll be interesting to see what the Americans have to say. I don't know much about the history about the route, how many ascents it has had and in what style they where done and how many people have taken falls on it, and if those falls where taken on the bolts or on tied off knobs.
The ethical or moral consequences of a POTENTIAL fall are interesting however and to use that as a reference for good or poor style is tricky indeed. Should the style concept be measured in how you treat the rock or how you respect other climbers/people?
If the treatment of the rock is the most important, then is it just the environmental aspect of it that you question, the potential destroying of the rock/route, or the potential effect that it might have to other climbers who want to climb the same route?
Would it be fair to say that a successful ascent of BY without the bolts is an ascent in good style, but an unsuccessful ascent where you fall and break the knobs would be an ascent in poor style?
Maybe a climber who steps onto that route takes all this into consideration, just adding another reason to not fall off (as if getting seriously injured wouldn't be a good enough reason...)?
Tough call! I will have to think some more on this I'm afraid... :-)
Skicka en kommentar