[pct-l] reliance on gear

[dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (David Davis)]

GREAT QUESTION!

I can't speak to rock climbing, but I know that in hiking, gear can
overwhelm other aspects of the hike.  As my skill has grown, my toy
collection has shrunk.

----- Original Message -----
From: <CMountainDave@aol.com>
To: <pct-l@backcountry.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 8:24 PM
Subject: [pct-l] reliance on gear


> Who is the better climber? One who can climb a 5-10, but is so tied to his
> safety gear that he is unable to climb a simple class 4 without it. Or the
> old time climbers who never climbed above a 5.4 (the limit that evolved
over
> decades of climbing experience) but never used protection at all.
>  I read a book (Where Clouds Can Go - an autobiography of the famous
Canadian
> guide Conrad Kain of the early 1900s who had over 300 first ascents in the
> Canadian Rockies.) and was amazed at the furor that protection (first
pitons
> and then chocks) caused in the climbing world in the 1930s. Protection was
> considered cheating by some, because it enabled climbers to go beyond
their
> abilities and not pay the ultimate price if they guessed wrong. In other
> words, one no longer had to be absolutely sure of their limitations
because
> safety gear would come to the rescue when friction turned out to be a
> variable instead of an absolute.
>  The old rule was the leader never falls -- he knows his limitations and
> accepts them. This attitude is what makes him safe.
>  The new rule was that it is okay for the leader to fall sometimes because
of
> the safety system set in place, and therefore there are no limits. The
safety
> system makes it safe.
>   But the gear does fail from time to time when the leader falls. So in a
> sense, gear gives false confidence to extend ones limitations based on
gear
> expectations as much as personal skill -- after all friction is indeed a
> variable. But the margin for error is reduced to zero. And a 5-10 could
not
> be done without specialized gear -- such as rock climbing shoes. So the
> rating is a function of gear, made possible by gear.
>  The gear head becomes so tied to his technology that his performance
would
> falter without it. One a climb of, say 5.2, he would still need to use
> protection where a climber of the old school would know the climb is well
> within his experienced abilities without it. The new age climber would
insist
> that because he has and uses protection on that 5.2, he is safer than the
old
> school climber, even though he ventures into territory that any old
schooler
> would say is obviously not safe. A conundrum, eh?
>   So which is it. Does, as Clint Eastwood says, a man need to know his
> limitations, or is it okay for the leader to rely on gear and boldly fall
> without expecting consequences
>
> _______________________________________________
> PCT-L mailing list
> PCT-L@mailman.backcountry.net
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l