Mixed Routes, Why not just make it sport or Trad, no middle ground

TomCaldwell wrote: Those are area specific questions that I can't answer. You should ask other FA'ers from the same wall or respected locals that could get you those gray area answers to your questions. Retro bolting should never be done without FA permission or without some sort of consensus from the local community (that doesn't include a bunch of your buddies).

Why is it up to the FA team on how safe a route should be? ( I know this is a very touchy question, please don't be mad at me)

Sometimes people make bad decisions that result in more boldness. Sure thats awesome and that is a big part of climbing, but what credibility does the FA have to decide what is proper?

Credibility is a lot I feel like, but I am very new to this subject as well.

Don't get me wrong, the send is the credibility for stamping your name and difficulty level perhaps. But just bc he or she is bolder than the next, how come they get to decide? Why isn't it a public consensus?

bucketguy wrote:I'm with John Wilder's post above. I think you are misusing the term trad. There are plenty of trad routes that have bolts. The big difference between sport and trad is the former can be rap bolted and the latter is from the ground up. Some routes that are bolted from the ground up on lead are just plain bold, burly, and mind blowing. The Paul Crawford route Telesis @ Sugarloaf is a great example.(it has been retrobolted) Climb it and think about doing it with two or three bolts. Then think about putting those bolts in on lead. Amazing.

This is an awesome post, thank you!

Wannabe wrote: What's your gut say about these routes you wanna develop?

+1

Jesse Davidson wrote: However, if the climb is in a sport area, and there is a 90' face with a spot for a cam or 2 right in the middle, i think it would be acceptable to bolt the crack. Nothing is gained by leaving 2 hangers off of a wall that already has 194 on it. But, at the same time, if the first ascent party want to leave the section unbolted, that would be ok with me, too. If I don't want to carry gear, I'll just climb the next one over.

Good stuff, thanks for this comment!

Well what's the difference between bold and just plain stupid then?

I think it is important to remember that everybody climbs for different reasons. I love climbing up a pg-13 route, but most of my partners don't.
Different routes with different first assent parties keep the game diverse and interesting.

Here's another practicality answer. Bolts cost money, so why place them where a suitable piece of removable or natural gear can be used. Placing a bolt also permanently alters the rock so why not avoid the work of doing so when possible. But it's rock climbing so there are no agreed upon rules. This is why we see bolted cracks and runout slabs. Since people can be selfish or egotistical you'll have to decide what's best for you and what's accepted at your local crag.

jmeizis wrote:Here's another practicality answer. Bolts cost money, so why place them where a suitable piece of removable or natural gear can be used. Placing a bolt also permanently alters the rock so why not avoid the work of doing so when possible. But it's rock climbing so there are no agreed upon rules. This is why we see bolted cracks and runout slabs. Since people can be selfish or egotistical you'll have to decide what's best for you and what's accepted at your local crag.

Are you suggesting it should be one or the other, all gear, or all bolted in a specific area. If everything around it is a sport climb, then it should to be a sport climb?

Jesse Davidson wrote: However, if the climb is in a sport area, and there is a 90' face with a spot for a cam or 2 right in the middle, i think it would be acceptable to bolt the crack. Nothing is gained by leaving 2 hangers off of a wall that already has 194 on it. r.

trying hard wrote: Are you suggesting it should be one or the other, all gear, or all bolted in a specific area. If everything around it is a sport climb, then it should to be a sport climb?

Not that it SHOULD be one way or the other... it will be dependent on more than just simplified hypotheticals. Dependent on location, local climbing ethics, type of rock, your comfort and experience level, area history, laws, equipment you or other FA owns and many more factors.

And to comment on the post subject, there will always be a middle ground, it is never black or white... that's just reality

trying hard wrote: Are you suggesting it should be one or the other, all gear, or all bolted in a specific area. If everything around it is a sport climb, then it should to be a sport climb?

How long are you going to keep fishing for permission to bolt cracks in your "sport" area?

trying hard wrote:So as the FA team if I decide to put up a route that could be pure if I run it out, I should consider other people climbing it and make it safer?

No. Consider the commitment to preserving the rock.

trying hard wrote:Or send it pure style with out the bolt? If its a sport climb and a crack is consuming about 10 ft of my 100 ft sport pitch, I should bolt it through the crack to make others feel safer and allow more people to climb the route?

It is never ok to bolt a crack that takes good gear.

bucketguy wrote:The big difference between sport and trad is the former can be rap bolted and the latter is from the ground up.

i dont agree. you can bolt a safe sport route ground up. it happens all the time.

to the OP,(hopefully this is not another troll) try replacing the word "ethic" with the word "style". that is what is special about new routing (trad/sport/mixed/rap bolt/ground up/whatever) and what you said about "why the FA gets to decide". It is an expression of the intent of the folks pioneering the route, whether it will be later viewed as favorable or not. i personally think the goal is the best style you can do, with the focus being on the enjoyment of those that will follow. sometimes you miss the mark sometimes you get a bull.
:)

John Wilder wrote: just because a trad route has a fucking bolt on it doesnt make it mixed. just like because a route is ENTIRELY bolted doesnt make it a sport route.

Nice!

FWIW, remember that the use of expansion bolts for protection came long before the use of cams as trad gear OR the notion of sport climbing.

Darren Mabe wrote: i dont agree. you can bolt a safe sport route ground up. it happens all the time. to the OP,(hopefully this is not another troll) try replacing the word "ethic" with the word "style". that is what is special about new routing (trad/sport/mixed/rap bolt/ground up/whatever) and what you said about "why the FA gets to decide". It is an expression of the intent of the folks pioneering the route, whether it will be later viewed as favorable or not. i personally think the goal is the best style you can do, with the focus being on the enjoyment of those that will follow. sometimes you miss the mark sometimes you get a bull. :)

This is a great comment, Thank You. I just had a paradigm shift in my understanding on this subject. Style is a great solution for me to understand.

Also it has never been or will be my intent to bolt a crack. Just to make it clear.

Thank you for all the responses.

Nick Rhoads wrote:It is never ok to bolt a crack that takes good gear.

i dont agree. there is a time and a place. i have placed plenty of bolts next to bomber cracks. for example, is it not "ok" to have a two-bolt station on a sport route?
or a bolted belay/rap station next to a bomber crack on a TRAD route for that matter?

One thing I noticed (particularly in JTree) is that the "sport" definition has a lot to do with safety - can you walk up to something near your limit, expecting to fall repeatedly, and also expect to walk back to your car. There are a plenty of climbs in JTree that are considered "trad" and take no gear; the bolts keep it from being a free solo, but you're also not going to plan on bouncing your way down 30 or 40 feet of slab. There's still a big fat blurry line - some sport climbs get more "sporty" and some trad lines can be sewn up pretty tightly. So a mixed climb keeps you from decking while leaving some of the seriousness that is part of climbing. Everyone has to make their own decisions about how far they want to push things. Keeping things in line with the FA seems like a crudely democratic way of deciding which climbs will be more casual and which will be more serious.

B.S. Luther wrote: Everyone has to make their own decisions about how far they want to push things. Keeping things in line with the FA seems like a crudely democratic way of deciding which climbs will be more casual and which will be more serious.

Interesting point.

John Wilder wrote: no. if a pitch has bolts on it, but also gear placements, its a traditional pitch. period. there's no 'sport' involved at all. the definition of sport climbing is a pitch that is tightly bolted such that the leader can focus on the movement alone and not worry about the safety aspect of the route so long as he clips the bolts provided. any pitch that does not meet this criteria is a traditional one, regardless of whether there are no bolts, some bolts or all bolts for pro. the styles do not mix- they are one or the other. the idea of mixed climbing styles came about some years ago (i cant believe i can remember this) when guide book authors used as a way to define protection for the pitch. it does not define the style of the pitch- as the newer set of climbers seem to think it does. there is no such thing as a 'mixed' route in the sense that part of a pitch is traditional, and part is sport because of the bolt quantity. the presence of a bolt has no bearing whatsoever on whether a route is considered sport or traditional.

I just really didn't know because I am a new climber. Its not because I want to fit my own definition to this; I truly want to understand. Thank you for clarifying on what proper traditional climbing is.

I was taught that trad climbing meant you had to use gear that could be removed to do the whole climb. I was taught that sport climbing meant clipping the bolts with quick draws. I was taught bouldering meant falling onto the pad for pro. I was taught that aid climbing meant hanging on the gear.

I realize a lot of routes that are trad routes in guides have pitches that are bolted. Can someone please define what sport climbing is for me then. What makes a sport climb a sport climb then?

it doesnt always fit into tidy boxes. so why should it?

lines blur sometimes. for example, free/aid climbing aka french-free aka Fraid climbing (ie. pulling on gear).

"boulder problem" style starts to trad routes.

oh! here's one: Indian Creek style crack climbing is sport climbing with cams instead of draws.

John Wilder wrote:the presence of bolts does not define a route in and of itself

well put