Original High illustration: Unattributed
A casual bystander
might be forgiven for not being able to differentiate between a
free-climb and an artificial climb. On a hard modern route on a crag
like Ravenstor you may see a climber spending several hours on the
same few feet of rock, despite its fiercely overhanging nature.
Certainly he will lower to the ground from time to time. He may be
employing any of the modern armoury of preparation,hang-dogging,
yo-yoing, pre- clipping ropes at the previous day's high points. If
he is trying a new route you may well notice ropes starting from the
top of the crag. We have a complex and curious code of practice which
has grown up by historical accident. It is comprehensible and logical
to those involved but mysterious to the uninitiated. Our system is
creaking at the seams. We have a need of rules to preserve our very
limited resources of rock and to keep a meaningful and enjoyable game
for everybody. However, out of necessity, our rules have been bent
out of immediate recognition by the leading protagonists of rock
climbing. Perhaps it is time to clarify and reassess those unwritten
rules.
Traditionally rock
climbers started at the base of the crag and climbed upwards. This
was very logical and efficient on most climbs done until about 1970.
It was satisfying and adventurous but, because of the nature of most
British crags and routes, was doomed. Unprotected outcrop routes on
grit or sandstone always maintained a different set of rules. Top
roping prior to a lead was common on sandstone and not infrequent on
grit. On sandstone top-roping became an end in itself but gritstone
always maintained a strong leading tradition. Grit routes only
appeared in the guide after they had been led but top-rope problems
which had never been led were traditionally recorded in places such
as Harrisons Rocks or Helsby. The ethics on these rocks have been
maintained to the present day and most people find them entirely
satisfactory even now. Although it is not always overtly stated the
cognoscenti are well aware that very few new routes are done on grit
without some form of prior inspection, usually including trying moves
on the abseil rope if the route is of substantial difficulty.
Sometimes they are top
roped but this is scarcely different in my opinion to trying the
moves first as gritstone climbs are rarely of sustained difficulty.
The situation is far more complicated on other types of rock. Many
limestone crags or volcanic crags are loose and vegetated in their
pristine state and would not offer good climbing until thorough
cleaning had taken place. Consequently climbers began to abseil down
and clean routes prior to their lead of the first ascent. Of course
while abseiling it was possible to check out runner placements and
even try moves on the abseil rope and naturally enough this was what
happened in many cases. This trend was started in earnest by Ed
Drummond who extensively prepared his routes prior to a lead. He was
able to create many fine routes while his contemporaries, who
employed traditional tactics, languished in a stalemate; doing new
routes on-sight was so scary at the increasing standards of the day,
which were dictated by the availability of unclimbed rock, that they
could only do occasional new routes. Doing new routes on sight often
meant employing aid to garden a crack and many new routes around this
time used a few points of aid, which could subsequently be eliminated
as the climb became cleaner and better known.
Ed Drummond demonstrating top rope technique on Nelson's Column!
Limestone was so loose
in general on the sort of terrain that could be climbed at the time,
that cleaning was essential. Tom Proctor was well aware of this and
he prepared routes thoroughly, allowing him to reach new standards of
difficulty at places like Stoney Middleton. Pete Livesey was the
first to really apply limestone methods to mountain crags and he was
able to do a magnificent series of first ascents. I remember when
Livesey used yo-yoing tactics to do the first ascent of Fingerlicker.
It was regarded as outright cheating at the time by many leading
climbers. Yo-yoing was soon to become the norm for very hard climbs.
More recently climbs have been developed which involve long complex
series of moves and if a yo-yo to the ground was taken after each
failure or fall it might take hours to work out one hard move at the
end of a difficult sequence. Each time you may get a few seconds to
work out the desperate move but you need to expand a great amount of
energy to get to that point. Consequently climbers have begun to use
hang dogging tactics which more or less involve hanging off gear,
inspecting holds and moves. After the inspection the climber must
lower to the ground again to do a proper ascent.
Numerous variants of
the system outlined above have been employed, each climber having his
own carefully guarded internal set of ethics. For instance the
climber may just lower down to a hands-off rest rather than the
bottom of the pitch. What constitutes a hands-off rest is the subject
of fierce argument. This complex system of ethics was developed for
very hard climbs when there was no other way of doing the routes
within existing concepts and methods. Of course, methods employed at
the top end gradually percolate down through the ranks and now we see
climbers yo-yoing VS climbs. That does not affect anyone and so it
does not really matter. Foreign climbers have developed their free
climbing along different lines, each style appropriate to the area in
which it developed. Bolts are totally accepted in places like
Yosemite and Tuolumne where many climbs would be totally unprotected
without them. In Tuolomne bolts are usually placed on the lead
because of the relatively easy-angled nature of much of the rock.
This would of course be totally impossible on a fiercely overhanging
limestone climb such as Hangman in Gordale. Americans otherwise have
a similar system to us in Britain. France has a different system,
probably because their historical traditions were inappropriate for
putting up hard climbs in places like the Verdon Gorge. Basically you
can do whatever you like so long as you do one clean lead in the end.
Climbs in the Verdon are often done from the top down. The top pitch
of a route is top-roped first to see that it is climbable. Then
protection bolts are placed on abseil and the sequence is repeated
for the pitch below until a whole route is created. This system has
been highly successful in creating magnificent and very hard free
climbs. In a way French climbers started from scratch, rejecting
traditional alpine climbing methods as inappropriate for modern
climbs. Perhaps the time has come in Britain to do the same.
Alan Rouse
On many modern climbs
the climber is employing a whole array of tactics to avoid the
dreaded top-roping but often in practice what he is doing is a highly
inefficient way of top-roping. Maybe we should look to the French for
our future climbs if we are to progress in standard. Judging by the
recent solo of Revelations by a Frenchman their system turns out some
brilliant climbers. (Of course their sunshine helps as well). Many
modern climbs have not had leads without yo-yos or falls. It would be
interesting if a truly clean ascent were to get more credit. The
basic idea of free rock climbing is to climb a piece of rock without
any physical assistance from the rope. The rope and protection should
only be for assurance — as it is they are often extensively
employed even in the final ascent. Apart from tactics employed the
other issue which needs some thought is that of bolts for protection.
Bolts have arrived because the remaining unclimbed rock is otherwise
unprotectable. It is fair enough to have the occasional death route
but if, for example, bolts had been prohibited at Malham then nearly
all the recent new routes would be death routes and no one would want
to do them. Yet it is very obvious that people get great pleasure
from bolt-protected routes. Bolts are here to stay in British
climbing.
Few people would
advocate placing bolts on routes traditionally done without them but
for the future it is now clear that bolts will play a major role in
creating fine new routes of the highest standards. In the past the
development of more and more sophisticated nuts and then the advent
of Friends kept pace with the climbs that people wished to do at the
time. This is no longer true. Everyone has private reservations about
just where bolts should be placed. Most people agree that Stanage,
for instance, should remain free of bolts but most people who climb
very hard routes are perfectly happy with bolts on limestone and
North Wales slate. They have not been fully accepted anywhere in the
sense that most placing of bolts is still the subject of debate. Some
climbers feel that the bolts should. be placed at respectably large
intervals so as to simulate the traditional excitement and danger of
British free-climbing. This has an intrinsic problem in that you will
often end up with only one bolt of dubious holding power between you
and the ground. With repeated falls this bolt will eventually fail
and a serious accident will ensue. If you are going to place bolts
you may as well make the route reasonably safe rather than contrive
an artificial danger level based on the quality of the metal in the
bolt and the solidity of the rock in which it is placed.
If, as is often the
case, the first ascensionist has done extensive preparation of the
route then he is in a position to climb the route with very limited
protection if he chooses to do so, but where does that leave the next
climber who wishes to do a repeat ascent? Prior knowledge may be
essential if hidden holds and hidden runner placements are involved.
It has become a dodgy business going to repeat a new route in
Derbyshire unless you have the inside information. It seems better
to create a route which subsequent climbers can do from the ground
upwards. It is highly inconvenient if a prior abseil inspection is
necessary to do a subsequent ascent. A climber cannot add bolts or
pegs to a climb done without them, therefore, the first ascensionist
has a responsibility to future climbers. He should seriously consider
the problems that will face a climber who is not armed with the
knowledge which he learned from the prior inspection.
Alan Rouse: 1985.
First published in High-November 1985.
