Posted on 21. Feb, 2013 by in News

DPM has posted a fascinating video from NY, where a person is shown hammering away at rock. It’s safe to assume his intention is to climb it. It’s hard to know all of the details but it is sad to see such destructive behavior of a finite resource on public land. I have and continue to stand firmly against chipping, both in sport climbing and bouldering. What is and isn’t acceptable is something I have tried to define previously, or at least give structure to the discussion. Of course this raises a number of questions.
Is there any possible circumstance that the man in the video is doing something that is deemed acceptable by climbers? How do we define what is or isn’t ethical? Is there anything that should be done, to the climb or to him? Should his sponsors be notified, or should they even care? Would it be acceptable if this were on private land?

Interestingly enough, a somewhat similar situation occurred recently in New Mexico, also with a veteran climber, where other climbers posted evidence that this type of behavior had been happening at their local crags.

What drives climbers to do this? Does it have to do with a “gym” mentality, where it is easy to translate the idea of turning the climb into whatever the climber wants to see? Or is beyond that, an extension of a giant ego? Or something more? It’s hard to understand people’s motivations or intentions sometimes.

I think it also brings up the interesting points of how we police ourselves. I’ve often been criticized for being critical of others; perhaps those criticisms are founded, perhaps not. But I do feel it is important that we are keeping each other in check in some respects. Is it unfortunate that we may have cameras turned on our every action when we are in the woods, as this climber did here? Or is this an appropriate and responsible way to try to get someone to stop their actions? I’m curious if the filmmakers did anything to talk to the person in the video with the hammer, or if they did anything to stop him from continuing?

If nothing more I hope this video prevents further incidents from happening in the area, and that it really opens a discussion about the importance of our impacts on the environment and the lands we use. Thoughts?

34 Responses to “Chipping”

  1. Sleezy

    21. Feb, 2013

    I’ll take this one Jaime.

    Told you so.

  2. Jon

    21. Feb, 2013

    While I agree with the points made here- especially the value of a widespread condemnation of such behavoir- there is one point that I see issue with: the presentation of the “gym hypothesis”. The gym hypothesis is a popular scapegoat these days, wherein any uncouth behavoir among climbers is quickly ascribed to the “gym mentality”. While this hypothesis proves true in some circumstances–there are plenty of examples of misbehavoir by gym-bred climbers unfamiliar with the conventions of the crag setting– in many cases it is false. Oftentimes, the misbehavoirs blamed on the modern gym mentality are in fact things that have been going on for decades. This is especially true of chipping; the heyday of the the chipping era was in the late 80s and early 90s, long before the gym became a significant force in the climbing world.

    I think thaat there may even be an inverse causality between the gym and chipping. Note that the period when gyms rose in prevlance, in the 90s, was the same period during which the wave of chipping began to ebb, and the climbing community, in general, shifted toward condemnation of chipping. I don’t think that this is a coincidence.

    To undersand this, lets go back to a look at the basic reasons why chipping rose in prevelence in the 80s. The beginning of the sport climbing era signaled a shift in the focus of many members of the cutting edge away from the pursuit of big traditional routes, and toward the pursuit of movement, athleticism, and difficulty for its own sake. This same shift is what set the stage for the rise of bouldering 10 or so years later. Once movement was pursued for its own sake, climbers began to search for settings on rock in which this movement could be pursued. When what they were looking for could not be found– i.e. the newest, coolest, next-step-in-difficulty movement– some decided to create those moves by chipping. Remember that some Frenchman dreamed up a wild cross-under move, got a drill, and The Rose and The Vampire–along with the idea of the rose move- was created. We are ignoring a big part of climbing history if we ignore the role that chipped routes played in the development of climbing movements. CHipped routes were the ulitmate movement laboratory; climbers did not have to search far and wide for a route on which new forms of movement could be tested; they could create that routes temselves, exactly as they envisioned.

    There was also chipping for the creation of local training crags. In places lacking the right kind of steep, featued rock that would allow the climber of the late 80s to train for his trip to Smith, or Cochiti, or Buoux, or whatever was rad at the time, many climbers sought to create thier own steep, pocketed routes near home for training purposes. The best example of this is the monstrosity of chipping on the backside of the Cacademon, in Squamish. Local climbers wanted a dry bit of steep rock to train on in the winter, so they found a steep and totaly blank face, chipped pockets, bolted on holds, and strung some tarp up to keep the face dry duringt he winter rains. The idea of a climbing gym did not exist at that time, but this was something pretty close to it.

    The creation of the modern climbing gym has erased both of these early motivations for chipping. Now, when climbers wish to create a certain movement, the gym is the perfect laboratory for this. Forget just creating holds, when we can now create entire walls. Any movement can be created, without restraint, in the gym. Additionally, the gym fills the training need perfectly. CLimbers in Squamish not longer have any need for those training routes on the Cacademon; they now have a co-op bouldering for their winter training needs.

    So, that is my argument: that chipping has largely fallen out of favor because the role that chipped routes once played is now better filled by the climbing gym. As such, the rise of the climbing gym may have directly contributed to the rise of chipping. This is the exact opposite of the usual “gym mentality” hypothesis. In fact, the mentality has always been there; the gym just provides a safe place to sequester it.

    As for why that guy would continue to chip boulders today, I do not understand. If he really wants to create his own problems, shoulnd’t he just build a woody in his garage?

  3. Jon

    21. Feb, 2013

    ***Quick edit: in by second to last paragraph, I meant to say that the rise of the climbing gym may have directly contributed to the decline of chipping.

  4. hayden

    21. Feb, 2013

    rock isn’t a finite resource. earth is continually recycling it. the most high quality stone is the world is eventually going to be weathered away or cooked into something different. in the spectrum of ways humans exploit the earth, someone chipping a rock in the gunks is about as low on the totem pole as i can think of. zoom out for a second and consider a wider perspective.

  5. B3

    21. Feb, 2013

    Hayden, first of all, the earth doesn’t even come remotely close to recycling it in my life time, so that seems pretty irrelevent. Secondly, I care about rock climbing. It is my passion in life. Maybe it’s not yours, maybe you disagree, maybe you don’t care. But I do, and I think I have the right to care about it as much as possible. I care about other things too, like how much humans exploit the earth, but on this blog the focus is going to be about rock climbing.

  6. B3

    21. Feb, 2013

    Jon thanks for you comment, I agree that chipping has a place in the history of our sport and that it probably isn’t the gym mentality that caused this incident, but as you say it is an often used argument and I thought I would include it as part of the discussion here.

  7. DC

    21. Feb, 2013

    I think I came across this Bill Ramsey article in the comments from an older post about chipping on this site. He speaks mostly of trad and sport climbing, but I think some of his points could apply to bouldering also.

    I’d be interested in hearing your responses to some of Bill’s arguments against the anti-chipping mentality.

  8. Dan

    21. Feb, 2013

    @ DC

    The flaw I see in that article is this – his entire argument is based on the proving the premise that:

    “The set of circumstances in which rock modification is acceptable sometimes includes the manufacturing of holds.”

    He goes on to do this by refuting the only four arguments he sees against the statement, but he completely fails to mention what I view as the most important argument: one person’s way of enjoying rock climbing should never prevent another person from enjoying rock climbing.

    Chipping permanently reduces the aesthetic value of a piece of rock, whether it be a boulder or a cliff, and whether or not it was even climbable in the first place. My enjoyment of climbing has a lot to do with the aesthetics of the areas and the rock itself. Seeing chipped boulders and manufactured routes lessens my enjoyment. This negative effect on the experience of others seems enough by itself to refute his premise, provided a significant fraction of climbers share the feeling.

    His failure to address this viewpoint makes his whole argument a bit of a joke, if a very well structured one.

  9. B3

    21. Feb, 2013

    I agree with what Dan wrote, and I think it give climbers a bad image in the eye of land managers. For example, the ranger at Mt. Evans is actually a climber, and he is fine with climbing at many of the areas on or near the mountain, but I think he would be appalled if he thought people were chipping boulders there. I also don’t like see rock scarred and broken, I think boulders looks less aesthetic when they are chipped. I also think it really opens the door to brutal chipping if there is no ethic not to chip, because someone will push it really far. I’m still not 100% sure why these practices are considered abhorrent in the bouldering world, but totally acceptable at most sport crags around the world.

  10. Rajiv

    21. Feb, 2013

    Bill Ramsey’s article is – as one would expect from a professor of philosophy – deserving of a more careful reading than most climbers gave it. Ramsey provides an extremely limited defense of chipping, with the goal of showing the absurdity of the common view (among climbers) that chipping is always ethically wrong.

    As for Dan’s objection: “one person’s way of enjoying rock climbing should never prevent another person from enjoying rock climbing” – This is a relevant argument, and the aesthetic value of rock helps us articulate why Mr. Greene’s actions are so nauseating.

    However in the extreme cases considered by Ramsey, the argument doesn’t hold up. It’s not possible to “never prevent another person from enjoying rock climbing” simply because there will always be curmudgeons who think bolts are a travesty, or chalk is a travesty, or approach trails are a travesty… etc.

    The slippery slope argument that Jamie brings up is relevant, and Bill addresses it on p6 of the essay. Again, Ramsey was not supporting chipping in general – he merely showed why it’s unreasonable to hold a totalitarian view that all forms of chipping are always wrong in all cases.

  11. james

    21. Feb, 2013

    I agree with Dan, and see other flaws with the article. It is based on another shaky premise that it is better for the unclimbable rock to be changed/damaged so that it is climbable, than it is for the unclimbable rock to be left alone.
    Do those routes really NEED to be climbed at all in the first place? Is there no value to letting the Nose remain unchipped, and be revered as a pristine natural unclimbable landmark to be enjoyed in other ways? Now this is no longer a possibility. A man does not have an inherent right to indiscriminately do as he pleases with shared natural resources, despite the attitudes of the selfish.

    If all of those chipped routes did not exist, then breakthroughs in climbing would have happened on other natural lines and those natural classics would have been far more valuable for it. I am not convinced that the world (and history) is better for having these chipped lines.

  12. Danny B

    21. Feb, 2013

    In my opinion I find this a sad approach to find a line that suits your visual needs, textural needs or even your personal ability.

    Cedar Mountain Cody, Wyoming, some boulders had been found “unclimbable” when the developing began years ago. Locals took it upon themselves to drill out pockets on what would seem to be a featureless wall. Though when I made my way up to see these walls… features where found within reason of climbing only inches from each drilled pocket. Though the people responsible for drilling made a wildly hard and unique route by hand, it was (A) subjective to there body style… not natural. (B) There are now permanent scars on the walls that now leave little room to make a clean ascent of the natural features.

    The line today is drawn when someone goes beyond removing loose flakes and sharp edges from holds, but does that even seem reasonable? If it moves and gives the impression of braking off… remove it for safety reasons, right? But if its to please your own personal taste weather you are pain tolerant or not… is that where we should draw a line? Either way, we are all the police in this circumstance because we simply have to be. From my crag to yours we should all be carrying some ounce of respect to what draws us to climb the routes we have chosen to climb in the first place.

    When I stumble upon a beautiful boulder, I may or may not find all the exact features that will get me to the top. But, I am motivated to climb this line no matter how strong I must get or technical I must become to make that ascent. And the reason I chose that line is because of its existing natural features. If you can not make the progress or see the movement… move on to the next rock or train. This is my personal view.

  13. AB

    21. Feb, 2013

    I disagree with Dan’s assessment of Ramsey’s article. For one, Ramsey’s article wasn’t about why chipping is acceptable. It was about exploring how the reasons against chipping don’t follow through to a logical conclusion–more of an academic experiment than a handbook to use out in the field, in my opinion.

    Second, the idea that chipping reduces the aesthetic qualities–or somehow takes away from another person’s enjoyment–of any piece of rock is absurdly subjective. First of all, 99.9 percent of climbers wouldn’t know a chipped hold if it bit them in the ass. So maybe “bad chipping” would reduce the aesthetic qualities or enjoyment … But I’ve seen most people happily climb chipped holds without even knowing the difference.

    Second, you could make the aesthetic argument about bolting, chalk, shoe rubber, etc. And, yes, chalk is just as permanent as chipping–and more visible by magnitudes, to land managers, and so on …

  14. B3

    22. Feb, 2013

    Here are some specific issues I have with Ramseys argument:
    He makes statements like this:

    “Since the removal of loose rock is clearly an instance of modifying the rock to make it climbable, then modifying the rock to make it climbable is something that practically everyone finds acceptable.”

    He provides no data whatsoever to back up this conclusion. Everyone? I know a number of boulders that don’t find modify loose rock beyond the scope of safety. I also think removing dirt and lichen are safety issues. If I slip off unexpectedly because of lichen or dirt that is less safe.

    Ramsey goes on to argue

    “Consequently, it is widely acknowledged that acceptable modification of the climbing terrain extends beyond safety concerns.”

    No, it’s not, at least not in bouldering. Again, what data does he present to back his claim that this is “widely acknowledged?”

    His paper doesn’t address the impacts chipping has on the impressions land managers get. of climbing. For example, the ranger that I’ve dealt with at Mt. Evans Wilderness Area is a climber himself and is accepting of chalk, climbers trails, additional traffic, hand drilled route (bolts) but has explicitly stated he does not accept chipping. It doesn’t matter what his reasoning is, it’s important that we follow the rangers rules. I know the same goes for Hueco Tanks and other protected areas. Ramsey fails to address this and specific issue key issue.

    And your argument AB, that “the idea that chipping reduces the aesthetic qualities–or somehow takes away from another person’s enjoyment–of any piece of rock is absurdly subjective.” is funny because Ramsey argues against it saying “Yes, I think that, all else being equal, a purely natural climb is usually better and more appealing. In most outdoor pursuits, the more that is provided by nature, the better. ”

    I take it you disagree with him on this point?

    Finally, Ramsey (failing to address bouldering specifically, which is the point of my original post) says this “Consider this: if you are a serious climber who climbs relatively hard sport routes, there is a good chance that you have done a route with at least a few manufactured holds. Moreover, there is also a good chance that despite the manufacturing, climbing the route was gratifying and rewarding. Now what should the appropriate attitude be toward the route preparer, who spent time, money and energy so you could have that experience? Does it really make sense to view the preparer with condemnation and scorn? That seems unappreciative at best, and at worst incoherent. ”

    That’s ridiculous. Because I have fun doing something that justifies it? If I think it’s fun to spray paint “B3 Bouldering Rules” over Zulu, that’s acceptable? If I spend time money and effort to bolt a slide to slide from one route to the next and it’s fun that’s ok?

    I don’t understand why so many sport climbers find chipping acceptable and so many boulderers find it totally unacceptable.

  15. B3

    22. Feb, 2013

  16. AB

    22. Feb, 2013

    Right on Jamie. I know I don’t need to state this because we’re on the same level, but obviously this is merely interesting to discuss, not personal, and regardless of where we stand on the issue, I respect you and regard you as a friend.

    In your first statement: “I know a number of boulders that don’t find modify loose rock beyond the scope of safety” you directly contradict yourself with the “beyond the scope of safety” part. That’s what Ramsey is talking about. Because removing rock to make it safe is acceptable, then is there really a difference–logically–between removing a loose flake that could potentially come off and cause a bad bouldering fall or injure a belayer on the ground, and removing rock for reasons otherwise? That’s what Bill’s article explores … Like I said, I don’t think the article is a field guide for developers as much as it is an interesting–and in my opinion, well argued–exploration of the shades of gray when it comes to route development, rock removal and chipping.

    Second, I clearly stated that whether or not chipping takes away from one’s enjoyment is SUBJECTIVE. I’m didn’t say that I agree, or disagree, with the idea that chipped routes are less fun than natural ones. Just that it’s SUBJECTIVE–absurdly so, I think. For the record, I join most climbers, including Ramsey, in agreeing that chipped routes are less cool than natural routes. But the point that I was originally making was that MOST people don’t know what chipped holds actually look like.

    I’ve seen many climbers rave about routes that are chipped (whether they are ignorant or just don’t care), just like I’ve seen “purists” sit around complaining, not having fun, not climbing and bitching because they perceive a hold to be chipped … My point is that most climbers fall into the former category, so the idea that chipping is bad JUST because of the aesthetic/enjoyment argument falls short for me

    For the last point, I think that bouldering and sport climbing are definitely very different, mostly because most bouldering takes place on really solid rock, that only needs to be solid for five to 20 feet, while most sport climbing takes place on limestone, which tends to be looser than granite and also is rare to find in “perfect” form for over 100 feet of climbing. The two disciplines are very different, and there are very different tactics needed to establish routes–both in terms of “scope of safety” and otherwise. They are different, so we don’t need universal rules about what’s “right” and what’s not right governing ALL OF CLIMBING.

    This has gotten us into trouble before. The whole “ground-up” style of trad climbing works really great: on perfect splitters and solid granite of Yosemite, where that style really took hold. Does that mean that Yosemite climbers should make the rules of establishing routes everywhere in the world? Well, for many years, people thought that they did. But that changed when people tried going ground up on more chossy, limestone areas and hurt themselves when rock randomly broke. Top-down cleaning/developing had to be used. Does that make it somehow less valid or less cool? I don’t think so–I think it was merely a more logical solution to the unique challenges of local rock that presented those local developers.

    Likewise, I don’t think that the development tactics–which some may perceive as chipping–at limestone sport climbing areas necessarily have a place on perfect granite boulders. Or vice versa. They are different, and that’s cool.

    For the record, I think that the person in the video on DPM was out of line. I do not condone that style of development. I also think it’s sad that he had to be demonized in this manner … but it seems as though he brought it on himself, too …

    OK …

  17. AB

    22. Feb, 2013

    Also, I just want to state that most of the chipping that I’ve witnessed at sport climbing areas is NOT done to make the route easier. In fact, most often routes are chipped to make the route harder. I think that many people think that chippers are just weak climbers “stealing from the future” or whatever–taking away the harder projects that future climbers can rise up to …

    but I’d say that’s a huge myth … which adds an interesting twist to the whole discussion, no?

  18. Reel2Catch

    22. Feb, 2013

    One of John Gill’s biggest regrets in climbing was chipping a single problem at Devil’s Lake, and that was during a time when such practices weren’t taboo. Gill knew it was unnatural back then and he shared the experience to prevent others from ever making the mistake and feeling the same way.The video put an odd feeling in my stomach and I wish I never saw it. Seeing is believing, but I didn’t have to see it to believe something so obvious. Humiliation upon others in a coordinated fashion… I might as well have been watching a fallen gladiator get the thumbs down.

  19. guiliermo

    22. Feb, 2013

    In a nutshell, the Ramsey article shows what quantitative data vs qualitative. data looks like.

    Seeing ivan hack away is repulsive to most, and that is qualitative, emotional response puttin g it in the category of vandalism and projecting responses. History of negative responses from land management is quantitative.. But then, climbing the the line, the quality of the experience, the movement, and the amount of traffic it gets is qualitative.

    The initial qualitative assessment from watching the video will override most responses of positive quantiative data on this route.but what about Rifle? Prying, chipping, and gluing went on there in a much larger scale, yet it is still a top destination. Not all routes, but many are modified in more than a minor manner. Some of the most modified lines (Sparyathon) are the most popular. …quantitative data.

    So then, the unless one is avoiding known modified rotues specifically, if one enjoys the modement on a modified route, while dissing chipping in general,m this the height of hypocrisy.

    Why it is different for bouldering and sport climbing is a good question. In my non-qualitative view, my feeling is that better (quality) routes flow for the whole of the route and have less stopper, awkward moves. stopper and awkward are desirable traits in bouldering. but this seems to be changing and as routes can harder and are refereed to of a series of V grades, the trend seems to be to not modify for movement but to leave as is for boulderyness. Also, routes can have purely blank sections, so finding this out 8 bolts in can lead to tweeking the a section to have it go, but maybe on a boulder this could be assessed from the ground and avoided.

  20. sidepull

    22. Feb, 2013

    As always, thanks to Jamie for posting provocative questions and hosting productive discussions. I think DPM tried to do this, but could not really pull it off. Here are some thoughts:

    * I agree with Dan, quote: “one person’s way of enjoying rock climbing should never prevent another person from enjoying rock climbing.”

    * I think AB brings up a worthy point of discussion: a lot of chipping isn’t done to dumb down climbing but to make things harder since it is the rare wall that offers a perfect v13.

    * I actually think Jamie including gyms as a factor in chipping has merit but for different reasons. I think gyms don’t do near enough to prepare climbers for climbing outside. I’ve seen way too many douche bags think that bouldering outdoors is about replicating the gym experience outside rather than vice versa. Gyms, beyond teaching belaying, should have a mandatory 10 minute video for new climbers about outside ethics. In fact, it would be pretty easy, since most gyms have online systems, for new climbers or even members, to have to watch a simple 5 minute video and pass a 5 question quiz online. You could make people re-up their “ethics certification” every 6 months. I would love to see The Access Fund and the American Alpine Club really push this issue because I think it would have a ton of leverage. In sum, gym culture and the lack of actively endorsing proper ethics has passively allowed ethics to erode.

    * Finally, the first climbing video I ever bought was Big UP. It ended with a really cool video of Ivan Greene doing Death Penalty. At the time, the footage seemed surreal. It was definitely inspiring. In a later video, when they had the short about climbing around NY, Ivan came across as a passionate, cool dude that still climbed hard stuff. It’s just sad. I didn’t look up to him per se. He wasn’t a hero. But he definitely got me a little stoked. Now I’ll never be able to watch those segments without all this rattling around in my head. Again, sad.

  21. Mike Rathke

    22. Feb, 2013

    The video people are ranting and raving about was done by a troll.

    The hold manufacturing from choss was done on his property

    the video was shot by his friend and they said it was Ivan Green, not Ivan Greene. nothing but name dropping trolls.

  22. Jabroni

    22. Feb, 2013

    Didn’t read through every response in detail, but the responses didn’t seem to capture my number one reason for disliking chipping:

    Chipped holds don’t feel at all like rock climbing holds. They’re baby-butt smooth. So you have the contrived nature of the chipping to start with, along with an unnaturally smooth hold (particularly in the generally coarse granite where I live) that makes the whole thing feel doubly-unnatural.

    However, with that said there’s quite a bit of chipping where I live and the vast majority of it is on genuinely blank walls. So it’s hard to get really riled up about most of it.

  23. matt

    22. Feb, 2013

    @ Sidepull
    The irony is that Death Penalty’s Chipped. Since Day one everyone knew that.

  24. BigA

    23. Feb, 2013

    Matt can you tell me which holds on death penalty are chipped? Also, any others you know about?

  25. campusman

    24. Feb, 2013

    hmmm…dude wrote the guidebook, put up several hundred rigs in the area…suppose its no co-inky dink that most gunks problems are bunchy + lend themselves to sendz by individuals under 5’10??

  26. Guillermo

    25. Feb, 2013

    So now Ivan is not only demonized as chipper/ agressive cleaner, but he set the problems for midgets! Damn roof climbing bouldering midgets are taking over the sport!

  27. campusman

    25. Feb, 2013

    jamie please take my last comment down – feel like i am stoking a negative flame.

  28. William

    01. Mar, 2013

    I have only developed boulders problems so can only speak toward that aspect of climbing.
    Anyone who has developed, knows a certain amount of aggressive cleaning is sometimes involved. Areas and access to those areas dictate other factors such as cutting trees, building landings, trimming bushes ect. What is being done in this video looks to cross the line.
    We all cross the line at times, hopefully we have good friends to bring us back within boundaries. A thoughtful apology to the climbing community would be nice. I’m sure most would be willing to overlook these actions with a humble approach from Ivan.
    Bouldering ethics seem to differ greatly with Sport. It seems as if these tools are common practice in developing routes. Can someone please expand upon this for me

  29. […] corajoso e bem defendido, a discussão pode ser seguida aqui com respostas do próprio Bil ou aqui […]

  30. wad gobbler

    05. Mar, 2013

    Anyone whaling on a verified blank roof with a hammer and chisel isn’t cleaning a loose flake. Love how everyone overlooks the completely 100% manufactured holds at the end of the vid, complete with weakening chipmarks along the base…. If those are your ethics, and you think you’re just “agressively cleaning”, a boulder or route… newsflash, you’re a friggin chipper.

  31. William

    05. Mar, 2013

    Easy Wad gobbler….if your to emotional it’s difficult to have an intelligent conversation.
    I said it looks as if Ivan’s actions did cross the line. The reason I said “looks”, I was not there and don’t have all the information. Do you have all the info? Sometimes- theres more than meets the eye. I stated Ivan should apologize for his actions and most would be willing to forgive.Treat it as a lesson for the climbing community. Do you have a sense of community? What should we do…kick his ass? I’m not condoning chipping but have you done any major development? It’s a very fine line we all tread when developing, and I’m not talking about the use of bars, hammers and screwdrivers.

    By the way- appropriate name you have

  32. Cody

    07. Mar, 2013

    Do you guys think that climbing a route/problem that is chipped/drilled/glued is supporting the methods used to create it?

  33. Cody

    07. Mar, 2013

    Obviously the physical alteration has already been done, but should one avoid climbing manufactured climbs, if you are against them? Does it give the message that it is acceptable, fun, or still worthy to get climbed? Does it give the “chipper” incentive to continue their methods? Just posing some questions I’d like to hear some other peoples’ opinions on.

  34. Ranjeeto

    08. Mar, 2013

    Ivan Greene looks strung out on coke, whaling away at the rock. I can’t see any justification for it at all. Reminds me of my days on a demolition crew…
    No public response as yet from Ivan.

Leave a Reply