[pct-l] reliance on gear

[CMountainDave@xxxxxxx (CMountainDave@xxxxxxx)]

Who is the better climber? One who can climb a 5-10, but is so tied to his
safety gear that he is unable to climb a simple class 4 without it. Or the
old time climbers who never climbed above a 5.4 (the limit that evolved over
decades of climbing experience) but never used protection at all.
 I read a book (Where Clouds Can Go - an autobiography of the famous Canadian
guide Conrad Kain of the early 1900s who had over 300 first ascents in the
Canadian Rockies.) and was amazed at the furor that protection (first pitons
and then chocks) caused in the climbing world in the 1930s. Protection was
considered cheating by some, because it enabled climbers to go beyond their
abilities and not pay the ultimate price if they guessed wrong. In other
words, one no longer had to be absolutely sure of their limitations because
safety gear would come to the rescue when friction turned out to be a
variable instead of an absolute.
 The old rule was the leader never falls -- he knows his limitations and
accepts them. This attitude is what makes him safe.
 The new rule was that it is okay for the leader to fall sometimes because of
the safety system set in place, and therefore there are no limits. The safety
system makes it safe.
  But the gear does fail from time to time when the leader falls. So in a
sense, gear gives false confidence to extend ones limitations based on gear
expectations as much as personal skill -- after all friction is indeed a
variable. But the margin for error is reduced to zero. And a 5-10 could not
be done without specialized gear -- such as rock climbing shoes. So the
rating is a function of gear, made possible by gear.
 The gear head becomes so tied to his technology that his performance would
falter without it. One a climb of, say 5.2, he would still need to use
protection where a climber of the old school would know the climb is well
within his experienced abilities without it. The new age climber would insist
that because he has and uses protection on that 5.2, he is safer than the old
school climber, even though he ventures into territory that any old schooler
would say is obviously not safe. A conundrum, eh?
  So which is it. Does, as Clint Eastwood says, a man need to know his
limitations, or is it okay for the leader to rely on gear and boldly fall
without expecting consequences