The Chief wrote:It is obvious that many are missing the OP's point.
Since the mid 60's early 70's, when "rock climbing" per se was just getting started here in the US, the commercialized climbing industry was small and very selected. The hardcore individuals that the OP speaks of here in Cali, (The Stonemasters etc) didn't have jobs or lived separate lives along with their climbing. Climbing was their entire life. They ate, drank, slept and breathed climbing. They did all they could to live quiet lives amongst the hussel bussel of society around them. They chose to be very selective of those they allowed into their tight small "clique". They swore to secrecy many of if not most of their accomplishments. They swore amongst themselves to remain seclusive and wanted no identification with any of the "weak" outside world.
As I posted in the reads above, those individuals basically sought the same ideal in their climbing.
What I see the OP stating, is, for the most part, this once very seclusive 24/7 soul searching ideal that was lived by a very select few, has evolved over the decades into a part-time "week end recreational" life for many. Thus becoming just another form of get away recreational industry as fishing, golf, bowling etc.
The same goes for many hardcore old time surfers. They see what was once a very deep spirited life, grow into a commercialized multi-billion dollar a year global industry. Totally destroying the original concept of what was once considered the purest form of becoming one with nature etc.
willytinawin wrote:It was much easier to live on the ground in the 60s, 70s (80s &90s too). For one thing, camping was generally free, and park admission fees were low. Also, driving was way less expensive. To dirt bag legally in most national parks now, (to sleep on the ground or in your vehicle legally) would cost $300-$600 per month. You can still dirt bag in national forests but even those usually require a parking sticker (fee). Our "public" lands are not free, and will probably only become more expensive... so much for "freedom". I spent a part of my life dirt bagging and it was awesome. But as computers continue to play a larger role in our lives, freedom will diminish.
Marmaduke wrote:. Many come across as arrogant and self centered. But maybe to reach the pinnacle of climbing you have to have at least a little of that in you?
Fletch wrote:And if you're a bad ass climber and an asshole, trust me, no one will remember anything about you being a good climber. At the end fo the day, you're still an asshole.
The Chief wrote:Really? You certainly never had the opportunity to meet this dude at the crag. Probably the best "Rock Climber" to have ever walked this planet and will remain in the history journals as such. But, in reality, to most that met him once at any crag he was working on, he was certainly the most arrogant, self-centered and insulting/condescending dude that they ever met. Only those that really knew him, knew different....
SoCalHiker wrote: Btw, that same attitude underlies the celebrity worship in this country. People admire somebody for his talents (acting, sport, ...) and start idolizing him/her even though he/she might be the worst person.
AlexeyD wrote:I think that has to do with the fact that people in our society take the concept of "role model" WAY too far...
SoCalHiker wrote:Chief, I think there exactly lies another problem in our culture/society that bothers me a lot. No doubt I can respect and admire such a person for his climbing skills. That however does not give him the right to be an asshole to others. He can of course do whatever he wants but others will see him as such. You have to be able to differentiate between his enormous skills as a climber and his shitty personality. You can admire him for the first thing, but you should disrepect him for the other. Being good at something does not give you the right to act like an asshole.
Btw, that same attitude underlies the celebrity worship in this country. People admire somebody for his talents (acting, sport, ...) and start idolizing him/her even though he/she might be the worst person.
The Chief wrote:Only those that really knew him, knew different....
Fletch wrote:The Chief wrote:Only those that really knew him, knew different....
What the hell does this mean? He only had to be nice to people he did know (and knew him). Thats bullshit. You either are nice to everyone or you're not. How you measure a persons worth is how they treat people that they stand to gain nothing from. From the common man. From the person on the street. Not some climbing clique at the crag where everyone is blowing each other telling themselves how awesome they are.
Sorry Chief. As SoCalHiker said, I can't respect anyone if they're an asshole. Life's too short and if someone doesn't want to take the time to be nice (or at least appologize when they aren't), then I don't care if they can split the atom with a fart. They're still an asshole. Climbers included.
The Chief wrote:That is the jest of this entire OP. He could care less what you or anyone else that he chose not to associate with, thought about him or his personality.
The Chief wrote:He wasn't at all worried about his "Bad Boy Asshole" image. Nor where many of the dudes that got into this game way back when. That was the fundamental reason they did what they did and chose to live the life that they did. To get away from having to meet anyones expectations of what someone should act or be like. They could just do their thing and fuck those that didn't understand the deal.
Whether you or anyone else accepts or ordains this philosophy, is/was not important. They got it and that is all that mattered.
Users browsing this forum: Scott and 0 guests