Michel Piola, Rolando Larcher and Maurizio Oviglia draw attention to the importance of style when setting up new routes in an open letter entitled โGround-up first ascents of alpine sport climbing routes: An art of climbing is threatened with trivializationโ. So far, almost 100 climbers from all over the world have signed it.
Open letter from Michel piola, Rolando Larcher and Maurizio Oviglia
Climbing is our passion - be it walking existing routes or opening up new paths. The alpine sport climbs that we love so much have been accessed by passionate climbers in two main ways: roped-in (using fixed ropes) or ground-up (climbing from the base of the wall).
On multi-pitch routes, but sometimes also on single-pitch routes, the "ethically rigorous" ground-up method is considered the highest form of sportsmanship, as it puts first-time climbers on an equal footing with those who want to repeat the route. It also adds layers of uncertainty and commitment.
To set hooks, first-timers often find themselves in precarious positions, relying on precarious skyhooks or holding a hold with one hand while drilling with the other.
We believe this is the fairest method of opening up a new route because it allows us to climb only those rock faces whose inherent difficulties we can overcome. This philosophy ensures that we leave challenges for future generations whenever we lack the necessary physical or mental strength.
We believe this is an extremely important aspect of the new route development and the fairest approach. It prevents us from climbing all untouched walls and ensures that we only climb what we are truly capable of.
The introduction of various removable securing anchors (intermediate drill holes, initially โremovable boltsโ, now โpulsesโ) has diversified the methods of ground-up route development. These range from the purest ethical methods (full free climbing between each hole) to full technical climbing (additional drilling between bolts, A0, etc.).
Ground-up first ascents with these โartificialโ aids can be carried out by anyone, regardless of their climbing ability. Temporary belays can be removed and permanent bolts added while post-climbing or top-roping to complete a route. This means that potentially any rock face in the world can be drilled and climbed with minimal effort and very quickly.
Overall, these differences in first ascent style are difficult to recognize for those repeating a route, but are of utmost importance.
For a ground-up first ascent, it is not only important to climb a route freely like sport climbers, but above all to approach an untouched line with the greatest respect.
The differences between the two extremes are significant: on the one hand we have a "mixed" ground-up drilling style without any athletic or historical significance (comparable to rope drilling), and on the other hand a real performance, which sometimes even deserves a place in climbing history.
We are concerned that the proliferation of such ethically questionable route developments could lead to the indiscriminate development of the world's most beautiful pristine rock faces, depriving future generations of climbers and new explorers of pristine challenges.
While individual freedom in climbing and route development is of the utmost importance, we appeal to commentators and journalists in digital and print media to indicate the style of the first ascent if it is known.
Likewise, we encourage climbing guide authors to use universally recognized symbols to identify bolting style:
โง Setting up from the rope
โฅ Ethical ground-up bolting
โฆ Mixed ground-up style
Finally, we, the undersigned, commit ourselves to the following principles for drilling new ground-up first ascents:
- On multi-pitch routes we will prefer ground-up ascents to drilling in from the rope.
- We will avoid technical climbing (intermediate drill holes or other aids) between the final bolts.
- We will avoid any form of โcheatingโ, such as taking detours and later correcting the route from above or abseiling to carry out reconnaissance in advance.
- Essentially: We will never force future repeaters to climb sections that we ourselves did not master on the first ascent and offer them the same conditions that we encountered.
We wish you all wonderful climbing adventures.
If you would like to sign this open letter, please send an email to one of the following addresses:
Rolando Larcher [email protected]
Maurizio Oviglia [email protected]
The signatories:
Daniel Anker (CH)
Filippo Arrigoni (IT)
Federico Asciolla (IT)
Sara Avoscan (IT)
Simone Banal (IT)
Christos Batalogiannis (GR)
Vangelis Batsios (GR)
Alessandro Bau (IT)
Alessandro Beber (IT)
Tiziano Buccella (IT)
Fabian Buhl (AT)
Michele Cagol (IT)
Mauro Calibani (IT)
Michele Caminati (IT)
Franรงois Cazzanelli (IT)
Marco Cordin (IT)
Luca Cornella (IT)
Pietro Dal Pra (IT)
Gianguido Dalfovo (IT)
Stefano Dellantonio (IT)
Matteo Della Bordella (IT)
Marco Della Nave (IT)
Hanspeter Eisendle (IT)
Nasim Eshqi (IR)
Massimo Faletti (IT)
Matteo Faletti (IT)
Nicolas Favresse (BE)
Dario Feller (IT)
Marco Ferrari (IT)
Mauro Florit (IT)
Mauro Fronza (IT)
Rolando Garibotti (AR)
Helmut Gargitter (IT)
Andrea Gennari Daneri (IT)
Omar Genuin (IT)
Luca Giupponi (IT)
Filippo Ghilardini (IT)
Gabriele Gorobey (IT)
Nicola Guzzo (IT)
Sina Heidari (IR)
Recep Ince (TR)
Jacopo Larcher (IT)
Rolando Larcher (IT)
Alessandro Larcher (IT)
Fabio Leoni (IT)
Ben Lepesant (LU)
Rossano Libera (IT)
Enrico Lovato (IT)
Beat Kammerlander (AT)
Michael Kemeter (DE)
Heinz Mariacher (AT)
Giovanni Massari (IT)
Samuele Mazzolini (IT)
Federica Mingolla (IT)
Leonardo Meggiolaro (IT)
Bruno Menestrina (IT)
Sergio Morra (IT)
Juan Sebastian Muรฑoz (CO)
Alessandro Neri (IT)
Franco Nicolini (IT)
Adam Ondra (CZ)
Maurizio Oviglia (IT)
Cesare Pastore (IT)
Fabio Palma (IT)
Roberto Pau (IT)
Francesco Piacenza (IT)
Michel Piola (CH)
Andrea Polo (IT)
Benjamin Ribeyre (FR)
Berni Rivadossi (IT)
Nicola Sartori (IT)
Stefano Salvaterra (IT)
Simone Sarti (IT)
Riccardo Scarian (IT)
Roger Schรคli (CH)
Raphaรซl Schmid (CH)
Reini Scherer (AT)
Martin Scheel (CH)
Adriano Selva (IT)
Stephan Siegrist (CH)
Andrea Simonini (IT)
Erik Svab (IT)
Marco Sterni (IT)
Silvan Schรผpbach (CH)
Nicola Tondini (IT)
Aykut Turem (TR)
Geremia Vergoni (IT)
Roberto Vigiani (IT)
Beppe Villa (IT)
Ermanno Zanetti (IT)
Alessandro Zeni (IT)
What is your opinion? Write it in the comments and join the discussion!
That might interest you
- New climbing hooks need the land
- New multi-pitch route in the Sanetsch area: Utopia
- Does the renovation of Oliana even make sense? | Interview with Chris Frick
+ + +
Credits: Cover picture Rolando Larcher
Hi
As a route setter, I will not sign this mandatory catalog because it is too absolute. I have the following reasons for this:
On a number of first ascents ground up, I found myself in precarious situations, but when abseiling it turned out that with a different route choice, which was just ground up, which was not foreseeable without checking in advance, a corrected route would be both safer and nicer for repeaters becomes. I see no reason to forego the more beautiful and safer option, since even if I were to repeat my own route I would definitely not choose the more precarious option, where I had discovered the better line while abseiling.
Is it also considered โcheatingโ if I check potential rocks for possibilities in advance with a drone or binoculars? I've already given up on setting up a line several times because I realized when checking in advance that nothing clever would come out of it, even though it looked promising. Maybe another generation will see it differently. It is difficult to draw a general boundary here.
For climbing gardens, I see no reason not to set up โfrom aboveโ, as long as the route is actually climbed in the top rope first and the good clip points are marked. Unfortunately, I always notice that routes are probably drilled from above, but carelessly. This โextra effortโ has to be made. And that's exactly why I don't renovate routes that are significantly above my level, because I can't check out their correct moves and therefore good clip points.
What I can support is honesty when declaring style. This makes it possible to classify the respective performance.
Alen climbers have a great season, whether climbing garden or wild multi-pitch
Patrik Mรผller
I think the idea is good, but everything has to be regulated straight away. In my opinion, it is normal to drill in first ascents and especially multi-pitch routes from below. But does that mean everyone has to do it that way?
This belief should come from the first climber himself and cannot be prescribed.
Not every route opened from below is good and every route opened from above is bad. It takes a good deal of experience to put the hooks in the right place and this is usually more logical from below than from above.
Nevertheless, rules that are too rigid are a hindrance to the development of the sport. When entering from below for the first time, there is also the risk that important grip structures will be destroyed by using the skyhook when setting the hooks.
In the past, people would stubbornly drill upwards using petrol drills and leave a hook in every 4th or 5th hole. In my opinion, it would be enough to appeal to the first climbers to please leave a hook in every hole they used to move upwards so that all repeat climbers have the same chances.
ps I set >500 hooks on the first ascent from the bottom and repeated several 100 difficult multi-pitch lengths. I also come from the Elbe Sandstone. So I would say I know what I'm talking about.
"By fair means" has obviously taken a back seat. Show character and only use the means necessary to make a first ascent, and that means: only from below. Use all the means used sparingly so that safety is ensured. Climbing is not a playground, but rather a battle of ability, skills and talent with nature. Anything beyond that is incompetence. Anyone who is not up to the challenge must abandon the first ascent and leave it to someone who can implement the skills. We have a moral obligation to do so. "Back to life in 25 seconds" knows why he takes a stand on this.
In my opinion, the focus should not be on the style of drilling, but rather on the result. Safeguards must be in the right places and appropriate to the difficulty and ability to be secured with wedges and friends. No first-time climber should wantonly set bolts far away and produce long runouts on the key pitches. If you want to show courage, you can do so without bolts
Typical elitist, non-inclusive Old White Men behavior! For nature and the rock, it doesn't matter how the hooks were set. The climbers want a safe tour that leads through beautiful rock and where the hooks can be clipped easily. Whether someone played the hero doesn't matter. For me, such behavior contradicts the climbing spirit.
Disclaimer: In the text below, for the sake of simplicity or unintentionally, the masculine spelling/form is sometimes used. But all other gender forms are always included.
I don't entirely agree! The rock certainly doesn't care who, how, why or what. But if you argue with the climbing spirit or with security, it gets tricky: Because these points are extremely versatile.
Security: Super relative, because it is anything but just about securing a route. A lot of soft skills come into play, because where I move safely, others, depending on the situation, get pure horror. It can be the same with the โbeautiful rockโ. What is beautiful?
Climbing spirit: There is definitely the absolutely relaxed type. For him, the enjoyable get-together is at least as important as the climbing itself. then there is the ambitious competitive type. Dogged and meticulous about the project. The unfortunate thing about it is that the vast majority of climbers always come across mixed forms of each โspiritโ. Changing depending on your mood.
On the โelitist, non-inclusive old white man behaviorโ. I have to be careful what I press on the keys so that I don't find myself in some very precarious corner of the rainbow. I suspect (prove me wrong) that you are a climbing route consumer. This should not be understood as a reproach, because route setters โliveโ, or at least those I know, from the fact that their โworks of artโ are repeated and commented on.
As a route designer, there will be an internal debate about the style of the project with every new route or renovation. Always. What may be considered elitist from the point of view of someone repeating a route must not appear elitist at all from the point of view of the opener due to a possible difference in level to the repeaters. The designer decides for which โaudienceโ he leaves his creation (hero or atrocity).
Where I agree with you is the fact that route setting and clean climbing (in the lead) is often a male-dominated affair. However, to accuse climbing (sport) of being racist is unfair and unjustified, since as far as I know, it is allowed worldwide, even in the most remote and traditional climbing areas, for people of all stripes to create new routes. It is also true that there are/were installers who consciously secure their routes, let's say โidioticallyโ. In my opinion, that has nothing to do with elitism. This will always exist, but they are usually not showered with much honor in the climbing community and โtheirโ route falls into oblivion or is completely rebuilt later anyway.
I can also definitely live with the โdiversityโ of climbing areas due to their history and tradition. Yosemite, Elbsandstein or Wendenstรถcke. It doesn't matter who travels to these areas to climb, gets involved in a very specific form of play. He will prepare accordingly. Enjoy it, or leave disappointed.
What I donโt support is โcultural appropriationโ, that with us โit MUST be like in Yos or in the Elb. And also no cultural leveling out, in the sense of โit has to be like Orpiรจrre everywhereโ. There are simply too many rocks in our world!
But who decides what the style of an area is? And does the style of the future also have to be the style of the past just because it has always been that way? At least we no longer climb with hemp ropes and wooden wedges, just because that's how it used to be done and was good enough. When we talk about the diversity of climbing areas, we should also accept that there can be different styles in one area without getting on each other's toes. We were recently on the second Kreuzberg. There is the south face intersection as a classic tour with a logical line and mainly pitons. And less than 10m away, a sport climbing tour starts with Elysium. Does one tour hurt the other tour? Certainly not. And then I just think it's wrong when Mr. Glatthard comes along and saws off other people's hooks just because it doesn't fit with his view of the Wendenstรถckes. There are similar stories in almost every major climbing area. Anyone who insists that there should only be one particular style in an area is ultimately supporting exactly such people.
Falls roughly into the category of Markus the Clipstick Hutter...narcissistic old white man attitude. A complete exaggeration and moralization of a leisure activity.
When in doubt - less is more - just let nature be nature. In most cases nobody cares who "drilled" what, how and where. This idea of โโimmortalizing yourself and becoming admired or famous beyond your own existence usually doesn't work anyway (the best example is this embarrassing macho argument in the Franconian Jura - in this case too, I think one of the men was annoyed with a colleague and now this discussion is taking place). Above all, whether anyone would say, oh nooooo, the route wasn't set up with ethical ground-up bolting in mind.... So in future please only use ecopoint to get to the rock and do ethical ground-up bolting.