From: rgo@druhi.att.com (Ron Olsen)
Newsgroups: rec.climbing
Subject: Re: Reasons for using chalk
Keywords: let's be reasonable
Date: 10 Sep 92 00:01:49 GMT
Reply-To: r.g.olsen@att.com
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Denver CO

Bill Wright writes:

<Lots of wild raving against the use of chalk>

Wow! I really hit Bill's hot button!
This is getting to be like a pro-life vs. pro-choice debate!

Rather than answer Bill's comments point by point,
let me clarify a few things:

1. Climbing is a set of games, each with its own rules:
   free climbing, aid climbing, red point, pink point, etc.
   Each climber has the choice of which game to play, and which rules
   to follow.  Trying to enforce one's rules on other climbers is a no-win
   proposition.  For me, climbing is a fun, exciting, challenging,
   and risky game, a key part of which is coming home safely
   to play again another day.  Each climber must use his/her
   judgment as to what is an acceptable level of risk.

   Is it OK to yard on pro when a move is too hard to do free?
   Or should one who is "free climbing" be required to back
   off or fall if the move is too hard?
   Bill's posts show that he chooses to yard on pro to
   get up climbs that are over his free-climbing limits.
   Should I tell him to stay off those climbs until he is good enough
   to do them free?  That it is just his desire to tick off a famous
   route that leads him to climb in such an impure style?
   That he should "just climb a lower grade?"  Of course not.

   Other climbers playing the free-climbing game, however,
   consider yarding on pro to be "failure" or "cheating"
   when one is attempting a free ascent.  They will lower
   off or downclimb rather than get up the pitch by any means. 
   Each climber decides what rules he/she wants to follow.
   Bill can climb any way he wants; I don't presume to tell him how to climb.
   The converse is also true.

2. Bill argues that all climbers who use chalk just do so
   to climb a higher grade.  Of course,
   most modern climbing equipment "lets us climb a higher grade",
   not just chalk.  Advances in shoe, protection, and rope technology
   have all contributed to making many of yesterday's test pieces
   accessible to less-than-expert climbers today;
   chalk should not be singled out.  Perhaps some climbers
   are offended by the "unsightly" black marks left on the rock
   by sticky rubber shoes.  Where does one draw the line between
   acceptable and unaccepatble climbing technology?
   Most climbers would not consider it appropriate to
   return to old technology for shoes, ropes, and protection
   because they give an "unfair" advantage to today's climbers
   over those of past generations.  Chalk, or any other substance
   which inhibits perspiration and provides a better grip,
   falls into the same category.

3. Of course I'm not proposing that all climbs should be safe.
   Climbing is inherently a risky business.  If you can't run
   with the big dogs, stay on the porch!  I agree with Bill's
   sentiments here.

4. I don't blindly trust guidebooks, and I don't favor suing
   anyone for my actions while climbing.  I agree with Bill:
   responsibility and judgment keep you safe, not your equipment.
   But ALL your equipment (not just chalk) helps you to climb
   more safely at harder grades; see #2 above.

5. Bill is offended by the visual appearance of chalk on the
   rock.  I and many other climbers are not.
   This is purely a matter of opinion, not fact.
   No one in one camp will convince anyone in the other camp
   of the correctness of their opinion.

   Question for Bill: are you offended just by the visual appearance
   of chalk, or also by the performance-enhancing aspects?
   How would you feel about an invisible method for inhibiting
   hand perspiration that didn't leave a residue on the rock?
   How would this differ from other technological advances
   in climbing equipment?  What about Spider Mitts? Taping?

6. My comments on geological time scales
   were purely for perspective: the games we play and the detailed
   rules we follow matter little in the grand scheme of things.
   Of course I'm not condoning trashing the environment or
   making our surroundings aesthetically unappealing.
   We, as custodians of Mother Earth,
   should live in harmony with nature and keep things looking
   good while we do it.  I pick up broken glass, beer cans,
   cigarette butts, and litter that I find in climbing areas and
   hiking trails, as I'm sure Bill does; but again, this is
   an aesthetic issue, not an environmental one.

7. Let's try to keep this forum one for reasoned debate,
   not foaming-at-the-mouth ranting and raving.
   Provocative, vitriolic postings do tend to draw more response,
   but they don't lend credibility to the poster.

	Ron Olsen
	Boulder, Colorado
	r.g.olsen@att.com
Newsgroups: rec.climbing