In reply to ksjs:
> (In reply to GrahamD) agree - Mick's post flies in the face of so much climbing history i.e. leading climbers going against what was generally regarded as acceptable at the time and then suffering the consequences. you cant have one rule for the general public and another for the elite.
I am afraid history tells us something different. The leading climbers of the day, and those establishing new routes, do set the ethics (and style) which the rest of us follow.
Look at gritstone for instance. Those establishing routes on grit did not place bolts and that ethic is well established on grit.
As grit climbing got harder and more dangerous, the top climbers practiced these routes on a top rope, then lead them with what gear opportunities they could engineer in the natural features of the rock.
We call that style headpointing and it is well established for the harder routes.
Similarly with bolting in the 80's. Those establishing new routes on limestone decided to place bolts for protection on blank limestone faces. There were no meetings, no dialogue, they just went out and did it. After some controversy - more so in the US, that ethic is now well established.
But that doesn't stop anyone of course from coming along and ground-upping previously headpointed grit routes. In fact that is happening, with and without bouldering cushions - Royal Robbins would be proud of that style improvement.
It also doesn't stop people taking bolts on out and doing a route on natiral gear or no gear at all - that happens rarely. One example is The Path at Lake Louise, Banf. The route was bolted, but unclimbed. Sonnie Trotter took the bolts out and headpointed the route using the available natural gear. What a great ethical statement.
Thai Boxing without its bolts by Tom Randall and Pete Whittaker is another example:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=57006
So yes, top climbers do set the trends and ethics and style. Sometimes we don't always follow them though.