Bertrand Martenet has sent us an interview with Alex Huber, in regards to chipping. Huber is one of the true climbing icons that put up some of the hardest routes in the world in the mid 90'ies. He was also an active spokesman questioning the first 9b and 9b+, for which we now know he was totally right. In 1994, he put up Weisse Rose as an 8c+ which now he considers being the first 9a+ in the world.
You have climbed and bolted some of the hardest routes of the 90's, including Om (2nd 9a), Open Air (1st 9a+) or Weiße Rose (9a/9a+). When you have opened new routes, have you ever chipped holds or used Sika to improve the route or change the difficulty?
All my first ascents are completely natural and in this I followed my conviction that this is essential for our sport. If a piece of rock is changed in any way, where would be the challenge? Manipulations of natural rock eliminate any sportive challenge!
On the other side, I see the point that in certain cases reinforcement of holds in existing routes could make sense. In my route “Resistance” two crucial holds got re-inforced as they were endangered to brake off.
Many hard routes are often manufactured, with some chipped holds and/or glued. Sometimes holds are even created from scratch using Sika. Here are some famous manufactured routes: Dura Dura, First Round First Minute, La Capella, Move, La rage d’Adam and many others. What do you think of this trend?
I do not know all these modern high-end-areas, but I am convinced that it depends a lot on the nature of these areas. As I see areas like Margalef, Santa Linya and Oliana have generally superb rock, but not on the very overhanging zones where you find the super hard routes. The surface seems to have many loose flakes which would make these un-climbable without Sika. For me, these routes have no sportive value compared to all-natural routes.
Today it seems taboo to talk about chipped holds. If you ask an athlete if a route is natural or not, they often won’t answer. Why the silence?
I guess that nobody wants to confront the judgement of the climbing society. Silence is always a good way to bypass a crisis and with the next upcoming news, the crisis is surmounted…
Some route setters will reinforce existing holds with Sika. Do you agree with this practice?
To some certain extent, I agree with the reinforcement of holds in existent routes. An example is the above mentioned route “Resistance”.
It seems that some of the world's top climbers create their own projects at the crags, like one would at an indoor climbing wall. For example, routes like Dura Dura or Hugh are almost entirely chipped, in almost blank walls, which would otherwise probably not have been climbable. What’s your take on this?
For me, these routes have no value as the first ascenionists didn´t take the challenge which offers the natural rock.
Today the hardest grade is 9c. Do you think this is in part due to manufacturing routes at a high level?
As I know “Silence” is full natural and therefor the development of high-end-routes does not depend on manipulation. It´s just very poor that some individuals do not practice the fair-play and leave the potential to coming generations.
Traditional climbing seems to be governed by fairly clear rules. For example, we don't put bolts in cracks and chipping seems totally forbidden. Why are the ethics in sport climbing not more precise?
The rules in sport climbing are simple and clear, but as there is no official control, some individuals make their own rules. But for me it is very clear: the personal freedom ends where it interferes the interest of others.
Do you think sponsors have any responsibility in this debate? Are sponsors pushing athletes for results (new routes or difficult routes) and indirectly at the expense of ethics?
It is wrong to search others who might be guilty of the creation of manipulated routes – it is always the invidiual climbers who decide not to follow the fair-play.