“New Route” – Cornerstone P1

Route NameCornerstone
LocationThe West Ridge, Upper
FA Mark Tarrant, 1986


This application is to put the bolts back on the first pitch of the route Cornerstone.  Please view the application HERE


Approve The Cornerstone Route?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

5 replies
  1. joshjanes
    joshjanes says:

    I’d like to see this pitch resurrected – but in it’s original state (with two bolts). Alternatively, if Mark gave permission for retrobolts, it would be so much more cool if the applicants put the retrobolts in on lead.

  2. monty
    monty says:

    Thanks for the comment Josh. As mentioned in the application, Mark did provide permission for the “retro-bolts”. The extra bolts primarily protect the last 45 ft or so that Mark ran out. The climbing is easier, but you are in ground fall territory without these bolts. The route will still have character with these bolts, and be in line protection-wise with routes like Iron Pony and the DG.

  3. tonybubb
    tonybubb says:

    Had there been any tradition/history of the route with 2 bolts prior to it being chopped, then in a way I’d have said that it ‘belonged to the world’ as it was with 2 bolts. But seeing as how Mark was likely the only person to have done it and abdicates that ‘2 bolt’ lead standard… I feel that it might as well be as according to the proposal with his clear consent, offered here.
    Had these never been placed, this wouldbe an obvious ‘yes’ and had they never been chopped, we wouldn’t need to have the discussion. So ‘Yes please.’

    Thanks for caring and for putting the effort into quality anchors in the park.

  4. bondb008@hotmail.com
    bondb008@hotmail.com says:

    Several years ago I toproped this pitch a few times with the interest of re-bolting it as (similarly) proposed, but decided to abandon
    the project for several reasons:
    –The route is squeezed (picture people climbing this, knights move, and chockstone at the same time).
    –The climbing is a bit contrived and was not all that great overall.
    –The route can be easily toproped from the Chockstone Anchor.
    I also discussed re-bolting this with the “unknown party” who removed the bolts and –after toproping– have to agree with his sentiments as to why they were removed.
    Additionally, it appears that installing an additional anchor (something I never considered as one can easily climb 5 ft to the right and lower off Chockstone anchor) will be adding a lower-off anchor to Knight’s Move. (Again picture people toproping this and Chockstone at the same time) While the intent of this route and anchor is good, I think we have to ask ourselves, if while climbing Chockstone do we really want a party climbing this closely to us and sharing the first 10ft of the route? So unfortunately I vote no.

    • monty
      monty says:

      Thanks for the comment. To each their own I guess. We found the climbing to be great and not contrived at all. There might be a possibility to step left into Knights moves, but I never considered doing so as the climbing on the face/arete was quite engaging.

      With regards to the anchor. I would have to disagree with the statement that the additional anchor would add clutter. The anchor for Chockstone is closer to 15ft away, not 5ft, and having an independent anchor would allow people to climb both routes simultaneously. The only overlap is the first few feet of Chockstone and after the climbers would be plenty far away from each other. Without this anchor, there would be 3 routes that all share the Chockstone anchor (chockstone, cornerstone & purple haze). Additionally, the anchor was proposed with the intent of resurrecting the second pitch.

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply