New Route – Cornerstone P1

This application is for a new route on the Upper West Ridge.

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

Vote on this Hardware Application

You must be logged in to vote! Click here to login

If you cannot vote you are not logged in, or you already voted.

Approve The Cornerstone Route?

  • No (55%, 18 Votes)
  • Yes (45%, 15 Votes)

Total Voters: 33

Loading ... Loading ...
13 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. 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.

  5. adtschida
    adtschida says:

    Voting No for the following reasons

    1. The route is not an independent route; the climb starts by ascending the first 10 feet of Chockstone, and is protected by the gear on Chockstone.
    2. Chockstone is a very popular route and one that is often cited as a good first 5.10 lead. The placement of the first bolt could be a very tempting clip for the scared leader, potentially resulting is a bad swinging fall.
    3. The anchor is a convience anchor.

    • adtschida
      adtschida says:

      3. The anchor is a convenience anchor. There was a large argument over installing the bolts on the top of P1 of Chockstone in 2005 (see comments on under Chockstone) and it was claimed to be an anchor for Knight’s Move also. This route is between and anyone climbing it will be blocking an ascent of Chockstone. Therefore, the anchor is unnecessary.

      • lisastern513
        lisastern513 says:

        Thanks for your comment. I would like to make a couple of counterpoints.

        1. While it is true that Cornerstone would share the first 10 feet of Chockstone, the leader should back clean his/her protection in Chockstone after clipping the first bolt on Cornerstone. This would allow the rope to run smoothly, reducing drag. People would be able to continue climbing Chockstone unobstructed. Moreover, there are many other bolted routes in Eldo that share a start with a traditional line (Le Boomerang, Camouflage, Bolting for Glory, Iron Pony, Without a Net, Rise Above).

        2. With regard to Chockstone leaders being tempted to clip the first bolt on Cornerstone, this would be extremely unlikely because the bolt is 10 feet left of Chockstone and getting to that bolt requires delicate 10+ climbing. Subsequent bolts would be unclippable from both Chockstone and Knights Move.

        3. The purpose of this anchor is to facilitate a second pitch. Additionally, it will reduce clutter at the Chockstone anchor, allowing both parties to climb the routes simultaneously.

  6. Steve Sangdahl
    Steve Sangdahl says:

    I am voting no on this more because I think a bolted anchor will contribute to everyone and their mother top roping this route and every other route that they can swing around to etc. It sets a precedent for installing ever more top rope anchors. While I have spoken to the mystery person who removed the bolts shortly after it was put up and at the time felt their reasons were valid, my feelings have softened over the years to viewing Mark’s ascent was pretty bad ass at the time, despite it being somewhat squeezed and is easily top roped. If the proposal was to have no bolted anchors in keeping with Mark’s ascent I would be more inclined to vote yes. I don’t really care if it has 2 bolts or 5 .

  7. sbart
    sbart says:

    My personal opinion is that this route should be turned down.
    The application should probably be denied based on several criteria from ACE’s own guidelines.
    3.8. Applications Regarding New Routes;

    First, “Factors in Favor”
    (a) (i) “Independent Line” The proposed new route is not very independent. It climbs ten feet of Chockstone then veers left an arm’s length to bolts. At several points it is easier to traverse to and fro between Chockstone and/or Knight’s Move and the proposed line than it is to continue up the proposed new line. In the application, the second option for climbing, once the first bolt is clipped, involves moving so far left it becomes easy to stem into Knight’s Move.

    (c) Factors Against:

    sections 2 and 4 both.
    Section 2: “New route applications on the same flat wall closer than 10′ should be discouraged and is a factor against the application.” As best I recall from toproping, many years ago, this entire line lies within 10 feet of Chockstone (closer still to Knights Move, but this is around an arete and the new bolts would be visually less intrusive). If the new proposed line is entirely within ten feet of Chockstone, this should be strong grounds for denial.

    And 4: “An application which proposes new fixed gear which can be easily clipped from an existing route is a factor against the application” This new line starts from Chockstone then veers left to the first bolt, so this first bolt is inherently easy to clip from its neighboring route Chockstone.

    These new bolts would intrude visually and psychologically on the experience of climbers ascending Chockstone, thus detracting from that route’s intrinsic qualities.
    I feel that Chockstone is one of the classic short routes of its standard in Eldorado Canyon, and it is, quite rightly, very popular. I know whenever I’ve been up there there’s invariably parties on the climb and often waiting in line. The presence of these bolts will create yet more crowding in this busy area. This is particularly problematic since the new line begins on Chockstone, so necessitating placing gear in Chockstone before moving left. Thus the route Chockstone, one of the more popular lines on the West Ridge, may be denied to would-be ascentionists while climbers are ascending this new line. I think this might be better left as a toprope.

    I do think the proposed new anchor above the climb seems a great idea, to reduce crowding at this busy area. I would vote in favor of this.

    In the interests of full disclosure, I was involved in the removal of the original two bolts on pitch 1 (though not the bolts on pitch 2). Then, as now, objections were based solely on the visual impacts of the new hardware and how it detracted from the experience of climbing Chockstone. Best I recall this was the only tine I ever removed any bolts. I’m happy that times have changed and these decisions are made by consensus. If they have changed so far that this route is approved, that’s fine with me!

    • lisastern513
      lisastern513 says:

      Thanks for your comment. I just want to reiterate that the first bolt of Cornerstone is not easily clipped from Chockstone. Delicate 10+ face climbing is required to clip the Cornerstone bolt, whereas going straight up on Chockstone is about 5.9 with plenty of gear. Once a climber reaches the first bolt of Cornerstone, the path back to Chockstone would be very hard.

  8. says:

    For those with the Two Bolt approval. Looks like the application needs to be resubmitted. I don’t want to be a jerk: I am volting No. For reasons stated above.

    Knight’s Move is a moderate climb for every one. Chockstone is a good climb for those wanting to climb harder then 5.9+. A classic at that.

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply