Talk:Clean climbing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bolts v. pitons[edit]

Here in Ireland, bolts are not tolerated at all, but pitons are accepted where there is no alternative. Is that the case for "clean" cliffs elsewhere, and should the article be modified to make the distinction? Rwxrwxrwx 19:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about fixed pitons for belays? If you're talking about routine hammering as part of a standard ascent, then, no, that's not clean. A fixed piton might be a little bit cleaner than a bolt, but I personally don't think that either one really meets the ideal of a "clean" climb. Some might say that "clean" means to avoid hammering as a means of ascent, while they would concede a need for permanent, solid belay protection, but others might say that any damage to the rock is not "clean", even if it's a permanent fixture that will save all future parties from having to hammer or drill any more. In short, I think the case you're describing doesn't warrant any special treatment in the article. -Beanluc (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaking[edit]

I put in a bit more history. Also some slight re-writing. I tried not to trash anything that was in there previously. Hope I didn't.
I think there is still some confusion here. If "clean climbing" never existed and climbers used ony pitons and bolts, there would still certainly be a distinction between "trad" and "sport" climbing. So trad climbing isn't the same thing as clean climbing. If a mountaineer takes a couple of pitons and maybe uses them, he certainly isn't sport climbing, and I guess he's not "clean climbing." The old boys at the Gunks back in the 50s were "trad climbing" and used nothing but the occasional piton and a lot of run-out probably.
Another weak point: The article at present might give the mistaken impression to the uninformed that some climbers today might but for "ethics," still prefer to climb with a rack full of pitons instead of modern gear.
Also, "clean" devices cannot, obviously "replace" a bolt if it's placed where there are no cracks. The ethic of "clean climbing" can dictate, certainly, that bolts not be placed, in which case there are instances where you'd get nada for protection, which is partly the idea, I suppose. "Fair means" 'n all.....
Also, obviously, no citations. I should have bothered to add some. A bit tedious and the material is so obvious. Maybe I'll take a minor stab at it.

Calamitybrook (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More messing[edit]

Dunno if anybody cares but I've made more changes. The original article may have been slightly misguided.
There remains some confusion between the terms "clean climbing" and "trad climbing" and this problem continues. I tried somewhat to lessen this difficulty.
yet I continue to believe, somewhat, that an entry for "clean climbing" is justified as a very significant aspect of the history of rock climbing.

Calamitybrook (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


More re-writing[edit]

Out of boredom. Don't suppose it matters much. I think it's been improved.
I did remove the MSR guy. Certainly his views were interesting and significant at the time, but there was no real explaination of what he said, nor citation.

Calamitybrook (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit revert[edit]

A technique doesn't describe a value, obviously, though it may reflect values.Calamitybrook (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concede. So, I re-worded. But, you reverted a lot of other material besides that one point, so, I had more work here to do than just re-wording that one part. --71.198.34.87 (talk) 03:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currency since the 1970's?[edit]

I restored the historical context in lede.

It was an important term of the 1970s and no longer holds comparable significance.

The supposed contemporary definition is unsourced and questionable.

For example, banging pitons in the Gunks gets a different reaction than dipping chalk.

There are one or two other points I'd quibble with.

Calamitybrook (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I condede, sources are warranted and currently missing. But the statement "It was an important term of the 1970s and no longer holds comparable significance" might be true in your specific region, your specific experience, your specific climbing preferences, but you must not assume (or state, without citations of your own) that it's true in other places, in other cimbing sub-cultures, in other climbing technical or ethical paradigms.
That's for one thing. For another, there already is a lengthy section about "historical context". Specific details about 1970s discussions and the state of the art in the 1970's should not be in the first paragraph. What should be there is what the term, the concept, and the ethics and practices are today. Before going any farther with article editing, I'm saying so here. See you in a few days. Bring your references - I will. 71.198.34.87 (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: regarding that "The supposed contemporary definition is unsourced and questionable", I think we can agree that there's probably no single "contemporary definition". But, just between yourself and myself, do you think anybody anywhere does NOT regard chipping, gluing, gardening, etc. as "not clean"? That's not supposed to represent an argument that we shouldn't revise what was written, but, it's supposed to cue you to take a broader scope in your thinking about this subject. I don't mean to be inflammatory or disparaging to say, and I don't doubt you can recognize, that you don't know it all and you don't even appear to suspect that there's more to this story than what you wrote some time ago. Good job on that, by the way. I know you're the single major contributor to this article. Nice work in a sorely lacking area, thank s to you for that! In good faith, 71.198.34.87 (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're right. I learned climbing at Gunks in days of "Eastern Trade" newsletter. "Clean climbing" was a new and much-used term then, and one which proved very significant in very short order.

It's historic definition is fairly well sourced in this article. Its supposed contemporary definition and significance, if any, really, isn't sourced.

As you probably know, pitons aren't driven at Gunks today, or really at anyplace for ordinary cragging. Because of this, people don't debate or even use the term "clean climbing" much at all.

Very few climbers in Gunks or elsewhere raise significant objections to chalk, and those that do are seen as eccentric by most climbers.

If you google term "bolt wars" in contemporary context, you'd find plenty of commentary. I'd bet that mostly, however, you won't find much mention of the term "clean climbing" in that context (I might be wrong), because it's outmoded term and not current.

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my own experience is from free and aid climbing, all over the Sierra, though mostly Yosemite Valley, as well as Josh, Pins, Smith, Franconia/Kancamagus, and Acadia, for a 15-year period up until about 2001. Though not climbing since then, I continue to follow the field, and would say I'm pretty aware of the state of the art.
"...people don't debate or even use the term "clean climbing" much at all" [anymore].
Not in the free-climbing world, quite right as far as that goes. Among free-climbers, the entire matter is long since settled. On the other hand, in the aid world, "clean climbing" still enjoys much currency, and climbers daily continue to ponder, assess and choose which means to employ and which routes to climb, at times and in part based on whether they want or care to commit to clean means. Many guidebooks to aid areas include both the clean scale and the traditional scale in their route ratings.
I grant, even among aid climbers, I estimate a substantial portion of them today don't even own a hammer or a piton, because there are so many cleanly aidable routes available to enjoy, or to learn on as one develops one's experience. Aid climbers too, like free climbers, do possess a clean ethic and a desire to leave no traces, and very frequently will make choices which allow themselves to minimize impact. It's not necessary for an aid climber to spend his whole climbing career filling his face with rock dust.
On the other hand, beyond the "trade routes" which beginners and intermediate climbers prowl, there are also a substantial number of harder routes which either absolutely require pasting heads or tapping micropitons, or, are quite accessible to intermediate climbers but can only be cleanly climbed by very bold, very experienced climbers. There are routes which might only see a small handful of ascents per year, partly because they don't go clean, but partly because they're very difficult. There's no hue and cry to impose a strict clean ethic on these advanced routes. That would essentially close some of these routes, and generally climbing communities don't wish to see the resources diminished.
This article is about "clean climbing", not trad climbing, not free climbing, not Gunks climbing, not 1970's climbing. This is my objection to the continued characterization of "clean climbing" as a dead debate, a historical curiosity. This is also the reason no single, unequivocal definition will likely be possible, but only an encyclopedic treatment of the historical and contemporary range of issues, attitudes and practices. 71.198.34.87 (talk)
I've very little dispute with what you say, but please find citations.
The early documents by Chouinard, Frost, Stannard, are cited.
Am certain you appreciate that the contemporary significance of the term is vastly different than when in was introduced in the days of piton bashing. The article must reflect this somehow.
A rack of pitons today gets one reaction: A chalk bag another.

Calamitybrook (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New ultra-clean standards[edit]

I watched a climbing movie that had a bit in it on Czech climbing standards where no nuts or bolts but only slings and ropes with knots it was used for protection and no chalk was allowed. I forget the name of the movie but I feel as though this must be know-of at least to the extend that it deserves a section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.52.201 (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Clean climbing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clean_climbing&oldid=1200958571"