SummitPost.org

It's really pretty simple. it has nothing to with climbing or hiking. If you're a great surfer, has nothing to do with surfing either. It comes down to, are you an asshole or a good person. If you blow off people and don't give them the time of day because they either aren't up to your standards within your sport. Or they do not even participate in the sport but they are interested and you blow them off, well, I think you're an asshole.

Marmaduke wrote:It's really pretty simple. it has nothing to with climbing or hiking. If you a great surfer, has nothing to do with surfing either. It comes down to, are you an asshole or a good person. If you blow off people and don't give them the time of day because they either aren't up to your standards within your sport. Or they do not even participate in the sport but they are interested and you blow them off, well, I think you're an asshole.

I refuse to talk to people that sell ice cream.

I was ready to defend the traditional ethic right next to you guys...decry the overuse of bolts, all that stuff. But seems like I'm not old enough to hold those opinions with validity. I had cams right out of the gate. Along with Neutrinos, Dyneema and tons of beta on the internet. I am Modern Climber: the weak victim of too many of you oldsters coming up with technological solutions to your problems (which you now claim are dumbing us down). :p

While I'm on my soapbox, I too worry about the commidification of climbing. But I see a direct line from the "pure" old heros to what we have today. Many of them wanted to build their lives around climbing, and for some this meant publicity, books, guiding, highly paid corporate retreat speeches. They were selling the dream of what they were (and are, I don't mean any disrespect), and it's natural for the greater society, starved of adventure as they are, to buy it.

I started climbing sometime after the 1996 Everest tragedy, and admit that it's hard to tell now how much of the impetus came from within me and how much came from listening to the greater society around. Look at David Breashers...nobody can touch his trad hardman credentials...but he made his living by filming and glorifying mountains.

So don't act like this "lowest common denominator" style of climbing just sprang up out of nothing. It's existence is the price we paid so that our heros could continue to climb after everyone else got day jobs. Again, I don't mean that disrespectfully. Climbing is a huge part of my life, and probably wouldn't be if it weren't for these cresting waves of promotion.

JasonH wrote:

Marmaduke wrote:It's really pretty simple. it has nothing to with climbing or hiking. If you a great surfer, has nothing to do with surfing either. It comes down to, are you an asshole or a good person. If you blow off people and don't give them the time of day because they either aren't up to your standards within your sport. Or they do not even participate in the sport but they are interested and you blow them off, well, I think you're an asshole.

I refuse to talk to people that sell ice cream.

More for me!

JasonH wrote:I refuse to talk to people that sell ice cream.

That was funny! You're posting though.

mvs wrote:More for me!

You got it!

The best climbers I've ever met tended to be humble and approachable. Proud people and bigshots usually tend to repel others, no matter what their profession.

sarah.simon wrote:Summary of OP: If you had the gaul to be born after 1965, you suck.

Feedback: Being young ain't so bad, either.

Cheers,
Sarah

I don't think that's what he intended, nor did I. I know your response was kind of tongue in cheek, but some are going to interpret it pretty literally.

For the record, Tommy Caldwell, Sonny Trotter, Dean Potter, Steph Davis, Alex Honnold, Stephan Sigrist, Alex Huber, etc., etc., are absolutely AWESOME climbers born well after 1965. However, they embody the tradition of making yourself equal to the climb, not dumbing down the climb so you can preen for your friends, who are all standing around shirtless wearing beanies.

fatdad wrote:...
For the record, Tommy Caldwell, Sonny Trotter, Dean Potter, Steph Davis, Alex Honnold, Stephan Sigrist, Alex Huber, etc., etc., are absolutely AWESOME climbers born well after 1965. However, they embody the tradition of making yourself equal to the climb, not dumbing down the climb so you can preen for your friends, who are all standing around shirtless wearing beanies.

Granted, they are awesome. Amazing climbers. But they support their advancement by selling a lifestyle. Thus increasing the velocity of the dumbing down process you decry. I'm just sayin'.

Mr Leghorn wrote:

McCannster wrote:Interesting topic indeed. I guess I'm lumped into the "new generation" of climbers who put bumper stickers on their cars, wear climbing clothes, and talk about climbing to non-climbing people. I do it because I'm really psyched on climbing. It comprises a huge chunk of my life. So, in order to talk to people who I am going to be getting to know, it's kind of hard not to bring up climbing. I also just love talking about climbing in general. Climbing has changed a lot of over the years. I don't think it's a bad thing, it's just different from what it used to be.

If you changed the climbing bumper sticker, climbing talk, and climbing clothes to "Jesus fish" and "Jesus loves you" bumper stickers, and "WWJD?" T-shirts, most people would find you really, really irritating or just plain stupid.

Let's experiment:

Interesting topic indeed. I guess I'm lumped into the "new generation" of Christians/Jesus Freaks who put bumper stickers on their cars, wear Jesus approved clothes, and talk about Jesus to non-Christians. I do it because I'm really psyched on Jesus. He comprises a huge chunk of my life. So, in order to talk to people who I am going to be getting to know, it's kind of hard not to bring up Jesus. I also just love talking about Jesus in general. Jesus (loving) has changed a lot of over the years. I don't think it's a bad thing, it's just different from what it used to be.

Sheds new light on the idea of a convert, no matter what they convert to.

Difference between those Jesus freaks and climbers is that the Jesus freaks are pressuring you to become a Christian. Climbers don't really pressure others to become a climber.

McCannster wrote:Difference between those Jesus freaks and climbers is that the Jesus freaks are pressuring you to become a Christian. Climbers don't really pressure others to become a climber.

Except on SP.

Steve1215 wrote:The climbers of my generation I consider to be humble and modest about their high-risk achievements; whereas it seems to be the current gen that crows about their sport routes and bouldering and slack-lining on the Internet and on YouTube or whatever.

Doing tricky moves above marginal stopper placements or way above skinny bolts engendered true humility, believe it or not. Non-climbers are "ignorant" of such risks, ignorant simply meaning unaware of the pertinent facts. Old school climbers saw no need to explain, nor to toot their horns endlessly. We all understood the situation, not much need to talk about it.
---

Is that tooting I hear? I don't think it's a horn though.

DanTheMan wrote:

Steve1215 wrote:The climbers of my generation I consider to be humble and modest about their high-risk achievements; whereas it seems to be the current gen that crows about their sport routes and bouldering and slack-lining on the Internet and on YouTube or whatever.

Doing tricky moves above marginal stopper placements or way above skinny bolts engendered true humility, believe it or not. Non-climbers are "ignorant" of such risks, ignorant simply meaning unaware of the pertinent facts. Old school climbers saw no need to explain, nor to toot their horns endlessly. We all understood the situation, not much need to talk about it.
---

Is that tooting I hear? I don't think it's a horn though.

Nope, I think it's coming outa the other end.

Steve1215 wrote: Funny how this discussion got ... all twisted around backwards.

Welcome to the internet!

climbers of my generation I consider to be humble and modest about their high-risk achievements

Always risky to generalize about a 'generation'. I'm sure Colin Haley does not want to be lumped in with David Lama. Maybe they just acted 'modest' because they felt compelled to by society and their peers? You may just be dressing up societal conformity as personal virtue.

...whereas it seems to be the current gen that crows about their sport routes and bouldering and slack-lining on the Internet and on YouTube or whatever

Because they can. They have the means. Older generations did not. Do you think Bachar, Long etc would have kept totally quiet if they had blogs, YouTube etc? Some of them just boasted and sprayed in quiet, around the camp, after a few beers. The media situation was quite different - you are comparing two quite different environments and expecting the inhabitants to act the same.

Old school climbers saw no need to explain, nor to toot their horns endlessly.

Again, they didn't have the means to so so publicly, and to do so face-to-face was considered unseemly. And there were always exceptions, particularly in Europe. Many climbers like Messner, Bonington, Galen Rowell and others were criticised for publicizing their climbing, with smug little sniggers amongst their so-called peers, gossiping around campfires and basecamps, scared to step out of line, when much of that criticism was just narrow-minded jealousy and insecurity.

... not much need to talk about it.

Maybe there was, and they wanted to, but they just didn't. That way they wouldn't store it up for years and come out decades later with envy and regret disguised as nostalgia? There's a lot of unrequited desire for recognition and acknowledgment out there in the 'old school'.

Most of the famous old climbers I know are surprisingly supportive and admiring of the current crop of high-achieving youngsters. They see Alex Honnold free-solo Half Dome or Moonlight Buttress and just marvel at his skill and boldness. They know their generation would have done it if they could, but they didn't, so that's that. They are gobsmacked at Colin Haley's consistent success on hard mountains, and the skill with which writes about it. He has silenced a generation of 'hard men' constantly regaling us with the reasons they didn't get stuff done.

The fact that YouTube or blogs may also be used by climbers of lesser ability is irrelevant - just ignore them. Colin's comprehensive (blogged) coverage and measured comments on the Lama/Compressor situation - at which he was on site, unlike nearly everyone else making noise - shamed many older, 'experienced' climbers drooling anger into their keyboards, parroting the catchphrases and cant of others. They'd rather hear Largo bang on endlessly about the Stonemasters, or glorify Yabo or some other self-indulgent nostalgia to numb their bitterness.

So a climber is sponsored? So what? Before anyone points the finger of so-called 'ethics' at sponsored climbers they might want to examine a bit more deeply the ethics - real world ethics - of whatever it is they do for a living. People in glass houses etc. Some think climbing should be immune, because it's different, special, unique ......and because they themselves never got sponsored.

The most accomplished of the old guys are genuinely satisfied with what they did, and what they got out of it, even if they never made a cent from it. It's the lower to middling guys with a distorted view of 'back in the day' that get all riled up about the terrible youth on the internets. The truly accomplished hard men now see young people doing things better and faster than they did it and just smile on in admiration. They don't read the websites of Seven Summiters, Highpointers or faux-dirtbag boulderers. Who would? When I talk with someone like John Evans, who made an early ascent of The Nose, the FA of the Hummingbird Ridge, the first ascent of the three highest mountains in Antarctica, the west face couloir of Huntington, 1970s climbs on Nanda Devi and Everest SW face, I'm in awe of what he did, but he's just full of praise for what good young climbers are doing now - as are people like Chris Bonington, Barry Blanchard etc.

The title of the thread was obviously meant to ironic.

Of course it was ...

You sound like an asshole and this is probably just one of the many ways you express it.

There's tougher and greater things in the world than climbing. People who risk their lives and get shot at for the sake of others.

Damien Gildea wrote:

Steve1215 wrote: Funny how this discussion got ... all twisted around backwards.

Welcome to the internet!

climbers of my generation I consider to be humble and modest about their high-risk achievements

Always risky to generalize about a 'generation'. I'm sure Colin Haley does not want to be lumped in with David Lama. Maybe they just acted 'modest' because they felt compelled to by society and their peers? You may just be dressing up societal conformity as personal virtue.

...whereas it seems to be the current gen that crows about their sport routes and bouldering and slack-lining on the Internet and on YouTube or whatever

Because they can. They have the means. Older generations did not. Do you think Bachar, Long etc would have kept totally quiet if they had blogs, YouTube etc? Some of them just boasted and sprayed in quiet, around the camp, after a few beers. The media situation was quite different - you are comparing two quite different environments and expecting the inhabitants to act the same.

Old school climbers saw no need to explain, nor to toot their horns endlessly.

Again, they didn't have the means to so so publicly, and to do so face-to-face was considered unseemly. And there were always exceptions, particularly in Europe. Many climbers like Messner, Bonington, Galen Rowell and others were criticised for publicizing their climbing, with smug little sniggers amongst their so-called peers, gossiping around campfires and basecamps, scared to step out of line, when much of that criticism was just narrow-minded jealousy and insecurity.

... not much need to talk about it.

Maybe there was, and they wanted to, but they just didn't. That way they wouldn't store it up for years and come out decades later with envy and regret disguised as nostalgia? There's a lot of unrequited desire for recognition and acknowledgment out there in the 'old school'.

Most of the famous old climbers I know are surprisingly supportive and admiring of the current crop of high-achieving youngsters. They see Alex Honnold free-solo Half Dome or Moonlight Buttress and just marvel at his skill and boldness. They know their generation would have done it if they could, but they didn't, so that's that. They are gobsmacked at Colin Haley's consistent success on hard mountains, and the skill with which writes about it. He has silenced a generation of 'hard men' constantly regaling us with the reasons they didn't get stuff done.

The fact that YouTube or blogs may also be used by climbers of lesser ability is irrelevant - just ignore them. Colin's comprehensive (blogged) coverage and measured comments on the Lama/Compressor situation - at which he was on site, unlike nearly everyone else making noise - shamed many older, 'experienced' climbers drooling anger into their keyboards, parroting the catchphrases and cant of others. They'd rather hear Largo bang on endlessly about the Stonemasters, or glorify Yabo or some other self-indulgent nostalgia to numb their bitterness.

So a climber is sponsored? So what? Before anyone points the finger of so-called 'ethics' at sponsored climbers they might want to examine a bit more deeply the ethics - real world ethics - of whatever it is they do for a living. People in glass houses etc. Some think climbing should be immune, because it's different, special, unique ......and because they themselves never got sponsored.

The most accomplished of the old guys are genuinely satisfied with what they did, and what they got out of it, even if they never made a cent from it. It's the lower to middling guys with a distorted view of 'back in the day' that get all riled up about the terrible youth on the internets. The truly accomplished hard men now see young people doing things better and faster than they did it and just smile on in admiration. They don't read the websites of Seven Summiters, Highpointers or faux-dirtbag boulderers. Who would? When I talk with someone like John Evans, who made an early ascent of The Nose, the FA of the Hummingbird Ridge, the first ascent of the three highest mountains in Antarctica, the west face couloir of Huntington, 1970s climbs on Nanda Devi and Everest SW face, I'm in awe of what he did, but he's just full of praise for what good young climbers are doing now - as are people like Chris Bonington, Barry Blanchard etc.

The title of the thread was obviously meant to ironic.

Of course it was ...

This post shows that you have never lived in the dirt and eaten outta trash cans etc, all to climb day in and day out. BTW, what tech clothes manufacture/s sponsors you and your endeavors?

Those that Steve speak of, JB and the likes of "The Stonemasters" of SoCal, did in fact live in that manner for years. And those dudes were very "territorial". Hell, when this dude showed up in the Valley and took the free ascent of Butterballs from JB, shit hit the fan the likes no one had seen before.



This deal also occurred regularly in Josh and other Cali areas. Suicide ring a bell and the likes of Jim Erickson etc.

All those dudes were bonafide Dirtdwellers of CAMP 4 and J-Tree. Very special and select group of derelict rock climbers.

Here are some others that Steve speaks of. The one on the lower left never gave up the very simple and elite lifestyle...



Here is another dude that lived in the dirt and survived out of trash cans and on PBers for years, just so he could climb every fking day!


And this dude was the King Of the Rock Climber Derelict society of that day and one of my all time heroes....