|
Post by MarkAnderson on May 22, 2019 7:33:36 GMT -7
Hangdog Days is out, time to get this thing going. My copy is in the mail. It will probably be at least a week (maybe two) until I'm ready to start reading it, so there's still time to get in on the ground floor!
|
|
|
Post by jetjackson on May 26, 2019 0:18:18 GMT -7
I'm already finished, but I'm happy to read it again It was awesome!
|
|
richb
Junior Member
Posts: 55
|
Post by richb on May 29, 2019 7:11:29 GMT -7
|
|
richb
Junior Member
Posts: 55
|
Post by richb on Jun 10, 2019 8:41:20 GMT -7
Finished it over the weekend. Let me know when you guys are ready! I have some hot takes
|
|
|
Post by jetjackson on Jun 11, 2019 1:00:28 GMT -7
I'm ready, should we go part by part - starting with Part 1 - Chapters 1-6 The Hangdog Days?
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Jun 11, 2019 12:42:20 GMT -7
I haven't started yet. I have about 50 pages left in my Bruce Dickenson autobiography (bonus points if you know who that is without googling). I should be able to start Hangdog Days by the weekend.
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Jun 17, 2019 10:51:09 GMT -7
Let's kick this off...
I've read through chapter 13. I have two main thoughts so far:
1) This book should be taken with a grain of salt, if used as a historical reference. There is one specific statement that I believe is factually incorrect, but there is also a bunch of other fuzzy stuff that makes me question the accuracy of various reports. To his credit, Smoot says as much in the preface (page 14). Chapter 2 is the brief run-down of the history of American free climbing. My opinion of this chapter is that it does a good job of summarizing the popularized, conventional wisdom of "who did what when." As someone who obsesses over climbing history, I think that particular conventional wisdom is faulty. It leaves out a lot of important details, so if you're learning this history for the first time, please don't take it as gospel.
Now to my specific factual gripe...this is a major pet peeve of mine, and I've ranted about it elsewhere if you want more of my crazy. I care so much about it because it concerns what was likely the first ascent of a 5.13a in the world, which I feel is a monumental achievement (by whomever did it). As a community we should have the facts of that event nailed down, and we should know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, who deserves credit for what.
Chapter 4 describes Ray Jardine's climbing, especially his ascent of The Phoenix (p.39). Conventional wisdoms is "Ray Jardine did the first 5.13 in the world with his ascent of the Phoenix in 1977." End of story? Smoot then goes on to discuss Jardine's style and why the locals didn't like him. On page 41 Smoot states:
"Although Jardine was branded as a hangdogger, his style was more akin to what is now known as "redpointing." He would claim a successful ascent only after climbing the route from bottom to top and placing all the gear on lead, without falling or weighting the rope."
I'm certain this is false. First off, from a semantic perspective, if only one time ever Jardine 'claimed a successful ascent' after seconding a single pitch of a multi-pitch route, then the statement is false. More specifically, I'm concerned about the Phoenix. The best book ever written on US climbing history is "A History of Free Climbing in America: Wizards of Rock" by Pat Ament. On page 220, Ament writes:
"May 20, 1977. Ray Jardine, with John Lakey, climbed Phoenix, 5.13, in Yosemite, using his prototype "Friends." Many attempts were made on Phoenix, including a successful top-rope of it on May 14, 1977. The effort involved "working" the route, in a style that was a precursor to future "sport climbing." The lead then was done with three rests on gear. Jardine was mostly interested in pushing hard climbs, and was not always very rigorous about style. A climb with three hangs was not the purist's idea of a free ascent, and the route is an endurance feat that is much more difficult when climbed continuously. At the same time, there were others who didn't mind calling Jardine's ascent a first free ascent...[discussion of the 'pinning'* Jardine did, and his efforts on Grape Race]...Jardine originally rated Phoenix 5.12, but it was later upgraded to 5.13. His style was to climb as high as he could, hang on the rope, shake out, rest, then continue higher. He would free every move, not pulling on protection, calling such methods "working the route." The phrase began to stick in the community. He then would return and attempt to reduce the number of rest points. He wasn't afraid to work a month or more on a string of moves. Finally the entire climb might be done in one go."
Surely Ament's book is not perfect either, but even a cursory review shows the attention to detail and painstaking research that went into it. Its more reliable than anything else we have in my opinion. I'm inclined to believe it in this case.
Anyway, I think these details slipped through the cracks because at the time of the ascent, the route was just another 5.12, among many. Were it known to be 5.13 at the time (which would've made it the world's first), everyone would have cared a lot more about the style of ascent. I've been on the Phoenix (did not send), and I believe a clean Toperope is an impressive feat that Jardine should be proud of. But it's not close to a redpoint lead (which Smoot implies). The first "lead" was by Mark Hudon in May 1978, who incidentally climbed it in Yo-Yo style. There's a great thread on Supertopo by Hudon with all the details.
There are a few other inconsistencies I noticed, like on P. 43 Smoot contradicts himself, saying Yaniro fixed pins on Grand Illusion, and then later on the same page writes "As on Grand Illusion, Yaniro claimed a free ascent of Equinox only after he succeeded in climbing it from the ground to the top in one go, placing all gear on lead." These things are important (to me), because if we're going to compare people and ascents, we need to know exactly how each ascent was done.
[*Another aside; Smoot (on p. 42) and Ament (above) both discuss Jardine's "pinning out" cracks as though it were a new thing. Jim Bridwell was well know to use this tactic, and John Long even writes about it in his many books, particularly in the case of the route Freestone on Geek Tower. According to Long, Bridwell would send his minions up to aid (what became) Freestone until the pin scars were wide enough to accept fingers.]
Phew.
2) He doesn't seem to like Todd Skinner very much. Clearly Todd was a bit of a manipulator. Most successful Type A sorts are. I am. Todd needed to recruit lots of people to belay him on obscure routes, in obscure places. There's a term for this, its "subman." A subman is the guy (or guys) that follow the big climbing star around, belaying, shooting video, doing all the necessary grunt work that allows Sharma or whoever to maintain their social media status. Clearly, Smoot was Skinner's subman. He seems to resent that now, but he seemed quite willing to participate in Todd's adventures at the time, even going waaay out of his way to hook up with Todd.
Smoot writes about Skinner like a scorned lover, taking little digs at him here and there, mocking his desire to be great, and criticizing his methods. Perhaps he's just trying to be funny and failing. It comes off feeling kinda petty to me. Maybe it wouldn't feel so harsh to me were Todd still alive. Maybe I'm more sensitive because I looked up to Todd for a long time (a signed poster of the pic on p.268 still hangs in front of my hangboard). Or maybe I'm more offended because I also need to recruit large pools of belayers with minimal or flexible agendas to help me complete my objectives
3) I know I said only two things, but quickly, this is starting to seem much less like "Conflict, Change, and The Race for 5.14," and a lot more like, "What Jeff Smoot Did on His Summer Vacations." Which is fine, but maybe a bit of deceptive advertising? Hopefully that changes soon. Regardless, I have enjoyed reading it so far.
|
|
|
Post by jetjackson on Jun 18, 2019 19:52:07 GMT -7
This is why I love fight club... I mean book club.
I'm going to re-read the chapters with that in mind. I don't know the history to the particular detail that you present.
In regards to his relationship with Todd, you are probably on to something there, but I think it's a complicated relationship that develops through the book. Notably the book was written in parts over a few decades and then pulled together - I think that it tries to use stories and anecdotes and then pull them together in a coherent theme - personally I thought it did a fairly good job of that. However, the stories are retrospective, and I find our relationships with people in the past, and how we remember them, are often affected by our present situation and how we feel about that.
I did reach out to Jeff, I've been thinking about trying to get him on the podcast to tell more anecdotes about his experience with Aussie climbers - as I know the Lay Back listeners would love to hear more of those. He seemed up for it.
With regards to the factual accuracy of climbers who were in their peak during the 70s to 80s - I had a funny conversation with a chap here that runs an Aussie climbing magazine, who, in Australian terms, noted to me that many of the Australian climbers of the 70s and 80s era have unreliable memories - his implication was that they were purposely unreliable. The podcast has seen me get heavily more involved with this, and I often find that there is a romanticism of the past that happens by a lot of climbers.
As a side note I need to get my hands on Wizards of Rock.
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Jun 19, 2019 10:30:08 GMT -7
RE: Todd relationship, I'm through ~Ch. 24 now, and I would say he kinda goes back and forth. At times he seems to remember him fondly and cast him in a sympathetic light, and at others not so much. He definitely seemed kinda miffed about the late finishes at Suicide Rock and Red Rocks. I realize its not fair to draw a conclusion part-way through the book, but that makes it more fun for me, so it's my fault if I make myself look stupid.
I'm curious what your take is on his accounts of Carrigan and Wiegand. Do Australians still hate Americans? It seems like Reagan's policies in the 80's were nothing compared to the way things are now.
As for as mis-remembering goes, I don't think that's a valid excuse in this case. The information is out there, and actually pretty easy to come by. If an author is going to take on the task of recording a version of history, they should do a few minutes of research to get the facts straight.
This came up again on the East Face "reporting" where he writes (sorry, I don't have the book with me so can't quote or cite page numbers ATM) that Alan 'bolted the East face sparsely.' Alan did NOT bolt the East Face at all. The original aid ascent placed 5 bolts, all at the very top of the 130' pitch. Alan replaced those bolts, that's it. Also lost in Jeff's re-telling is that Alan was attempting a proper redpoint ascent, placing all gear on lead, for the vast majority of his effort on the East Face. He nearly sent it that way. One day Heinz Zak was there taking pictures, and he told Alan he was wasting his time trying to redpoint it, he should just Yo-Yo it since that's what everyone else was doing around the world, so Alan did it that way. Alan's leads were super-baller, accomplished mostly on tiny RPs, in super soft rock (I am intimately familiar with the East Face). All subsequent ascents were done with pre-placed gear until Sonny Trotter came along.
|
|
richb
Junior Member
Posts: 55
|
Post by richb on Jun 20, 2019 8:20:56 GMT -7
Mark, you beat me to the punch with your point about the Phoenix. It's funny that such a historic event in American free climbing has been so misunderstood, despite the record having been set straight by Ament almost two decades ago. Somehow the the Phoenix gets almost relegated to an afterthought to the invention of Friends and the early use of hangdogging tactics in Yosemite. Ironic, then, that Hudon did the true first ascent (according to the stylistic rules of the day that yo-yo ascents counted) with stoppers and hexes only.
[Side note: I revisited that Supertopo thread after you linked it, Mark - the fact that the ST archive no longer supports photos is a bigger bummer than I realized at first!]
|
|
richb
Junior Member
Posts: 55
|
Post by richb on Jun 20, 2019 9:53:37 GMT -7
Re: Skinner - it does seem to me that Smoot has strong, complicated feelings based on his history with Todd. The book does portray Todd as a great figure in American climbing, and grows his legend by sharing glowing stories and a letter from Todd that I found quite inspiring - Skinner was a surprisingly good writer! At the same time Smoot wants to lampoon the traveling circus that Todd cultivated in order to ensure enough "subbies" for a belay and photos anywhere, any time. He verges on disparagement of other characters in Todd's retinue and takes pains to distinguish himself as not one of the crew (though it's plain enough that he was).
I wonder if this bipolar portrayal results from Smoot's changes in perspective over the many decades over which this book incubated, with his impulse to lionize gaining strength only after Todd's death.
|
|
|
Post by jetjackson on Jun 20, 2019 20:21:55 GMT -7
Well, I have a US flag on the wall in my house, and if I ever need to seek asylum, I'll be looking to y'all for character references In regards to the Australian's and the anti-American sentiment... Australian's are generally fairly anti-establishment in general. In my second podcast where I interview Simon Carter, you would note that when asked to describe Australian climbing culture, a key word that he uses is 'irreverent'. You could use that to describe Aussie culture more generally. We also were heavily influenced by British culture in the 70s and 80s, moreso than we are now. Think Thatcher era politics and the punk movement - that influence with Wiegand and Carrigan was clear - their haircuts and fashion sense in particular. In the early 80's, the Vitenam war would also have been fresher in their minds. Also keep in mind though, that Woegand and Carrigan were on the fringe of Australian society and their viewpoints would be more extreme versions of what was the norm. I think that Australia's position in regard to America is like that of a younger sibling to an older sibling. I've seen Australia described as a 'client state' of the US - actually this thread on reddit probably explains it well - www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/comments/azllj9/liberal_voters_please_explain_the_appeal/eiaa0o0?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x We rely on the US very heavily, and US culture features predominantly in our media. Things have changed over time though - for example, in the 90s my brother and I tried to go trick or treating on Halloween in Australia, as we had seen it in enough movies and we wanted to do it. At the time, this was very abnormal for Australian's. We knocked on a few doors and people mostly ignored us and one person flat out said to a 7 and 12 year old "f-ck off, this isn't America". Fast forward that to today and in most family oriented suburbs you will see many houses decorated and kids out trick or treating on Halloween. It's not what it is in the states, but it's certainly more accepted. Essentially, people my age who grew up with US culture on TV feel more a part of the US than what our parents would have. Having said that, my generation still experienced the Iraq war, is disillusioned with Trump and with US gun laws (given our experience with the Port Arthur massacre and the gun buy-back, which was very widely supported in Australia). I mean, you could say that most Australian's are just like US Democrat voters. Obama was extremely popular here. Getting back to Wiegand and Carrigan - yes, they would not hold punches on their opinions. Since then the top end of Australian climbing has evolved a bit, which I wonder if you caould say that about climbing in general - If you listen to interviews with the likes of our top climbers Tom O'Hallorohan (Training Beta Podcast), and Lee Cossey (Baffle Days Podcast) - you will find that they are a lot more modest when describing their achievements (almost to a fault), and have less extreme points of view politically (at least publicly).
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Jun 21, 2019 7:39:48 GMT -7
Re: Skinner - it does seem to me that Smoot has strong, complicated feelings based on his history with Todd. The book does portray Todd as a great figure in American climbing, and grows his legend by sharing glowing stories and a letter from Todd that I found quite inspiring - Skinner was a surprisingly good writer! At the same time Smoot wants to lampoon the traveling circus that Todd cultivated in order to ensure enough "subbies" for a belay and photos anywhere, any time. He verges on disparagement of other characters in Todd's retinue and takes pains to distinguish himself as not one of the crew (though it's plain enough that he was). I wonder if this bipolar portrayal results from Smoot's changes in perspective over the many decades over which this book incubated, with his impulse to lionize gaining strength only after Todd's death. Completely agree about Todd’s writing and I recommend his book Beyond the Summit (maybe a Book Club?) I’m through the Hugh Herr ascent of City Park now, and I’d say that Smoot is far more complimentary of Watts and Herr than he is of Skinner. He seems to write these guys as “aw shucks I guess I’ll try it if you think I should” whereas Todd is always scheming and calculating to optimize his glory. That might be somewhat accurate but I think it’s overblown. You don’t fly out to Washington or drive up from Smith if you arent ambitious and looking to one up others (Alan had plenty to do in Oregon, I assure you). Anyway, I love Alan, he was my first climbing hero. The very first climbing book I bought was his guide to Smith, in 1991 (a first edition, first printing, later confirmed and signed by Alan in 2013!). So I’m happy to see him portrayed so well—it seems like Smoot truly respected him and his style—but I’m not sure the portrayal of Todd is totally fair. At worst he was cunning, which is hardly cheating in my view— smarter not harder right?
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Jun 21, 2019 8:05:54 GMT -7
Re: Australia, thanks for the thorough response. I agree completely that those two characters seemed particularly outspoken, and that top climbers in general would never do that sorta thing today, either regarding another country’s politics or their climbing. Everyone is super PC now in order to avoid offending fans and sponsors.
Frankly I think it’s sad, not because I’m some xenophobe, but because I always viewed climbing as a counter-culture, rebellious, stick it to the man type activity, and that’s a big part of what drew me into it (keep in mind my formative years were ~1990-1993, when the climbing mags were all spandex and crazy hair). Nowadays you cant really do that in climbing, I mean there were climbers at the freakin Oscars! Next is the Olympics (and I assume Visa commercials).
Aside: when I posted my Shadowboxing blog post somebody wrote in to complain that I said “You’re my bitch Rifle!” when I clipped the chains (because they felt it was offensive to women). It really bothered me— not that I had offended someone, but that climbers had become so sensitive. Could you imagine that level of sensitivity in the 80s? With Valley locals screaming “fa....” at hangdoggers? Not that I’m longing to be called that (although actually, I was called that while road biking just last year), but I think a bit more irreverence would be better for everyone. Let’s not take ourselves so seriously all the time. I intend to keep being provocative (in route names, etc) and I expect to be criticized for it more and more, but I’d like to think I’m fighting the good fight to keep climbing somewhat antisocial/anti establishment. On the other hand, maybe I’m just becoming a crazy asshole?
Anyway #2, I was gonna say that I was in Oz for 4 months in Fall 2004, which I’d guess was pretty near the height of global anti US sentiment (perhaps until the past three years,lol), and I didn’t experience any animosity. Generally I’d say people were private and not overtly friendly, but neither am I. I loved Australia and I learned a lot about the climbing history and the incredible characters that kept it moving forward. Incidentally, re gun violence, Jim Jeffries is one of my favorite comics—I saw him live in Denver last March.
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Jun 21, 2019 8:43:00 GMT -7
Ok, I think I'm caught up with everyone else's comments now (if I missed anything let me know). This post is for all the new stuff I've read...
So now I'm through chapter 29. I'll try to go kinda chapter by chapter, but in general I'd say the book really picks up around Todd's ascent of the Stigma (~ch20) and I'm enjoying it much more. I still feel the cover is a bit misleading; the book is really a collection of random events Jeff happened to witness, some of which are relevant to the history of sport climbing (some incredibly relevant, especially Alan's send of the East Face--I sure wished I'd been there for that), but its most certainly not a history of sport climbing or even a history of the race for 5.14....
Ch 16&17 (Suicide Rock and Levitation 29) I think I mentioned this before, but Smoot seems resentful about being the sensible one who didn't like to get benighted. It's like the "bad" kids did something "bad" and got away with it, so now the "good" kids are upset. Todd seemed to have a "go for it" spirit, and Jeff did not. Jeff seemed to resent that it worked out for Todd (most of the time) when he "went for it," whereas Jeff always carried the 10 Essentials, did things according to Freedom of the Hills, but was not rewarded for being cautious. My feeling is if you want to set yourself apart from the herd, you have to buck trends, break the rules or at least think differently. (I mean, is not 'training during the Sharma era' a perfect example of that?) I admire Todd's gluttonous appetite for rock. I was like that in my 20's.
Ch 18-21: -Love the Violent Femmes reference. I had a VF sticker on my college car (an 87 Mercury Topaz which I paid $250 for--choice!). -Pretty awesome that Smoot got to interview Moffatt (then Carrigan, then Croft...) He really was in the right place at the right time on many occasions. Too bad he was always going back home to work right before key events took place, lol. -Love that Todd wanted to ask Moffatt about his training, and hear the answer before anyone else. To me this is a perfect example of Todd's cunning, whereas Jeff seems to view it as conniving? -The big point in this chapter seemed to be Yosemite apathy. The funny thing to me, is that when I was there in 2004 to do Freerider--20 years later, it was exactly the same. A bunch of lazy haters standing around criticizing all the outsiders who came in and plucked the Valley plums. Its not surprising to me at all that Carrigan and Moffatt came in and plucked all these 'last great problems' in the Valley, because that's exactly how it was with the Big Wall Free Climbing movement in the 90s and early 2000's. Ironically though, that attitude spread to many other crags, especially Smith. My early experiences in Smith were very similar, with a tightknit group of hating locals who would spend years toproping the same "project," and criticize anyone who tried to push their limits.
Ch20: -I really liked Carrigan's comments on Todd and his efforts on The Stigma. He really boiled it all down in just a few short sentences.
Ch21: -I love hearing all the shenanigans that went into various ascents, especially back in the day. I think we tend to build up our heroes as invincible, so its fun to hear that they were human too. It makes me feel better when I have to haul up a stick clip to get to the chains on a route or something. I don't feel like these facts really take anything away from what they accomplished, although its easy to see how haters would use any little thing against him. Going back to how the negativity spread to Smith, I remember one specific instance of the supreme leader of Smith locals trying to discount somebody's send of To Bolt because he had the 3rd bolt pre-clipped (he had started from the ground, fell above the 3rd bolt, dirted, didn't pull the rope, then fired it).
Ch.22-24.. A number of times Todd says things to the effect of "Cracks are dead, Face climbing is the future." It's interesting that 1) he saw this coming, and 2) he still persisted to climb a heckuva lot of cracks despite this.
...I'm gonna take a break so I can do justice to the Watts chapters!
|
|