Talk:Clean climbing

Bolts v. pitons

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

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

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

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

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]

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]