Bolted Slab routes - trad, or sport?

Yes sir I totally get your point, thanks for sharing...

JCM wrote: I've suggested this before on this site, but I think MP should get rid of the "sport" and "trad" designations on route pages altogether. Those are both ill-defined terms with a lot of historical baggage. Instead, routes should have fields for protection type (check all that apply: gear, bolts, permadraws, pads, DWS, etc), and seriousness (G, PG, PG-13, R, X). Someone looking for sport climbs would search for G or Pg rated bolt protected routes, which is much more precise than the vague "sport" term. This also prevents the issue of someone logging a runout old-school sparsely bolted slab as a sport climb.

The current system should be pretty workable if only people would read the definitions and also used the seriousness grades.

As it is:

Sport - most people lead with just quickdraws.
Trad - most people use some trad gear. There may also be bolts as well.
Other - boulder problem, TR (but not trad or sport), snow route, etc.
Toprope - you can set up a TR without leading the route.

not perfect, but should work for the majority of the time. instead of "sport/trad" , which messes up some of the site features, just use one or the other and the seriousness grade. At a certain point you have to look at the climb and use some common sense.

If there's any question, it's trad. Better a bored trad climber than a dead sport climber...

Wait, Mark, are you suggesting that single bolt horror shows should be called 'sport routes?' Devaluing these historical routes to a simple clip-up makes me a bit uneasy. And I am mostly a panty-waisted sporto these days.

M Sprague wrote:At a certain point you have to look at the climb and use some common sense.

What?
That's just crazy talk.

Damn, there are a lot of comments here. As a guidebook publisher, I have to deal with this topic all the time. Here's what Wolverine does: A sport route must be all bolts - no rack required. But to think, as some have suggested above, that all sport climbs are "safe" is misguided. They are just supposed to be "reasonable" for a well-rounded climber climbing at the grade. Sometimes, we will give an R-rating to sport climbs. This generally indicates a rap-bolted route that: A) has very "old-school" bolting. Think certain routes at Shelf Road. In very many cases, this involves dangerous/committing runouts near the ground or on marginally easier terrain. Or, B) an R-rated sport climb may have "special" runouts on easier climbing up high, where, say, you could take a "safe" 60-footer. Think VRG. Many sport climbers like that sort of thing, but in our books we try to give you a heads-up. The "R" helps, along with a bit of narrative. If you think sport climbing is supposed to have zero psychological component, then you probably didn't start sport climbing back when the style was invented (try Verdon!), and you probably would prefer toproping. Which most people find not heady enough. So the thrill is supposed to be part of it - just not too much. As for trad, there are many all-bolt trad routes. Their defining characteristic, if they have one, is that they were established ground-up, with a somewhat minimalist bolting style. "Mixed" routes are a tricky category, and the definition is area-dependent and frankly pretty arbitrary. What typically get called mixed climbs in our guidebooks are routes established top-down, sport-climbing style, with "sport-style" runout lengths, that nevertheless utilize obvious gear placements where they occur. Think many routes at City of Rocks. In some areas, though - North Carolina, for example - climbs of this style are often put up on lead, and in the context of the regional climbing would be considered normal trad climbs. Except that the first-ascensionist got a way more interesting experience! Anyway, there's 2 cents (more like $1) from a guidebook publisher on a fascinatingly mundane topic ...

J Achey wrote:Damn, there are a lot of comments here. As a guidebook publisher, I have to deal with this topic all the time. Here's what Wolverine does: A sport route must be all bolts - no rack required. But to think, as some have suggested above, that all sport climbs are "safe" is misguided. They are just supposed to be "reasonable" for a well-rounded climber climbing at the grade. Sometimes, we will give an R-rating to sport climbs. This generally indicates a rap-bolted route that: A) has very "old-school" bolting. Think certain routes at Shelf Road. In very many cases, this involves dangerous/committing runouts near the ground or on marginally easier terrain. Or, B) an R-rated sport climb may have "special" runouts on easier climbing up high, where, say, you could take a "safe" 60-footer. Think VRG. Many sport climbers like that sort of thing, but in our books we try to give you a heads-up. The "R" helps, along with a bit of narrative. If you think sport climbing is supposed to have zero psychological component, then you probably didn't start sport climbing back when the style was invented (try Verdon!), and you probably would prefer toproping. Which most people find not heady enough. So the thrill is supposed to be part of it - just not too much. As for trad, there are many all-bolt trad routes. Their defining characteristic, if they have one, is that they were established ground-up, with a somewhat minimalist bolting style. "Mixed" routes are a tricky category, and the definition is area-dependent and frankly pretty arbitrary. What typically get called mixed climbs in our guidebooks are routes established top-down, sport-climbing style, with "sport-style" runout lengths, that nevertheless utilize obvious gear placements where they occur. Think many routes at City of Rocks. In some areas, though - North Carolina, for example - climbs of this style are often put up on lead, and in the context of the regional climbing would be considered normal trad climbs. Except that the first-ascensionist got a way more interesting experience! Anyway, there's 2 cents (more like $1) from a guidebook publisher on a fascinatingly mundane topic ...

It was said right at the start and a few times since,
Climbing is Climbing.

Sport climbing is, thought to be safer climbing. ( SAFER, NOT SAFE )
There are more forms of risk mitigation that are out of the control of the climber. Systems that require less thought and actions to use. Providing a more predictable out come in the actuation of the system, less likely to fail if all aspects of the system Human & mechanical are preformed as planned, when compared to a system that was devised by the climber as they are climbing.

So, this is more of a philosophical thread than anything ... This got me thinking: which one is right? quote>

Neither one. The looseness of the terminology lends itself to personal responsibility. Standardization of terminology is great for efficiency; but seeing as climbing is all about the difficult, sometimes contrived, poorly defined journey, why worry with "the right" definition? It's bolted and they are about this spacing; the climbing is about this grade. Enough said.

the schmuck wrote:Wait, Mark, are you suggesting that single bolt horror shows should be called 'sport routes?' Devaluing these historical routes to a simple clip-up makes me a bit uneasy. And I am mostly a panty-waisted sporto these days.

Yeah, for the purpose of MP route entry shorthand. A good written description (and seriousness grade) should let you know what you are getting into, and hopefully be fun to read. For around the campfire deep philosophical discussions the old nebulous definition will do.

sam england wrote:And sometimes in the South, people will put up "trad" routes on preplaced gear. Fun to try to repeat those lines when that detail is left out. Especially when you can't actually protect cruxes unless you place gear on rappel and hang a long sling on it...

That isn't trad climbing, it's sport climbing on gear.

USBRIT wrote:Many FFA's in the 70/80's 'were done by aiding the climb first then leaving the pins in place making it a very safe FFA or by moving the pins out of the holes they had made to just above . Of course when stoppers came out about that time in the Barber /Bridwell era this solved many previously aided peg routes . When free climbing one could easily place a stopper in a peg scar but not at all easy to hammer in a protection piton.... Most desert towers were fist aided those later freed benefited from the on the sight cleaning and the ground up bolt placements. ...

Where did you get this timeline from? You'd have to slide it back twenty years for it to be anything but nonsense and desert tower climbing had essentially nothing whatsoever to do with 99% of free climbing at the time.

M Sprague wrote: The current system should be pretty workable if only people would read the definitions and also used the seriousness grades. As it is: Sport - most people lead with just quickdraws. Trad - most people use some trad gear. There may also be bolts as well. Other - boulder problem, TR (but not trad or sport), snow route, etc. Toprope - you can set up a TR without leading the route. not perfect, but should work for the majority of the time. instead of "sport/trad" , which messes up some of the site features, just use one or the other and the seriousness grade. At a certain point you have to look at the climb and use some common sense.

The conversation just took a turn - was this thread always about how the proj defines climbs? I think the proj needs to follow climbing not visa versa. Thoughts?

Healyje wrote: That isn't trad climbing, it's sport climbing on gear. Where did you get this timeline from? You'd have to slide it back twenty years for it to be anything but nonsense and desert tower climbing had essentially nothing whatsoever to do with 99% of free climbing at the time.

Seems like your quite the expert for someone that rarely seems gets above the tops of trees...Was mentioning current as well as past FFA of desert towers ...If you have ever been up one then I'm sure it was Castleton as with all !!

This thread is very interesting. In 10 years of climbing, I cannot ever recall a person making the argument that sport climbing as being safety dependent until recently, and only seen that proposition put forth here on MP.

I would also point out that languages and words evolve, so yes, for many people, sport means "bolts only" and trad means "gear protected". his is only going to increase as more gym climbers move outdoors.

I've seen communities alter the meaning and usage of words drastically change meaning in under a decade, and climbing is several decades old. This is why the comment about using common sense was the best one, lest we all become that Spaniard who drove off a bridge following GPS-based navigation directions.

From the perspective of going to a new area with a guidebook in hand - I like the idea that if the route description says "sport" I know all I need is a bunch of draws - if it says "mixed" I know I need both - and if it says "trad" I know to take a full rack. It's not quite that simple but it shouldn't have to be all that complex either.

Try some of the slab climbs in the South Platte.
Knott sport.

Tradgic Yogurt wrote:This thread is very interesting. In 10 years of climbing, I cannot ever recall a person making the argument that sport climbing as being safety dependent until recently, and only seen that proposition put forth here on MP. I would also point out that languages and words evolve, so yes, for many people, sport means "bolts only" and trad means "gear protected". his is only going to increase as more gym climbers move outdoors. I've seen communities alter the meaning and usage of words drastically change meaning in under a decade, and climbing is several decades old. This is why the comment about using common sense was the best one, lest we all become that Spaniard who drove off a bridge following GPS-based navigation directions.

Same here growing up climbing in NC safety and sport never were a match. It was always intended to climb with bolts only was sport but very rarely does that mean all the falls between any bolt was really safe. Alot of ledge / ground falls possible with bolt only routes. I have noticed at least in the new climber crags that alot of extra bolts have been added now to make what used to be extremely unsafe sport climb into a mostly safe bolted climb.

There are still some 5.10+ climbs that have first bolts 20-25ft off the deck and most climbers will protect the start with 1 piece of trad to make it safe, while there are still many climbs who just run out to the first bolt because it is very easy compared to the grade of the route.

Sport climbing came about as a result of us wanting to climb safely at the highest levels.
To do so meant that there was no way to stop and place gear.
At the time this was at the 5.12 threshold .
There was no easy sport climbing. Then some 5.11s popped up , there were bolt chopping & placing "wars". Through all of that there were no commercial gyms.
Not to throw It out with any malice but 10 years of climbing is still not all that experienced,
it means you come from the middle of the second wave of highly biased, toward safety /risk mitigation , a very good, big change. You were also very strong as a group, changing the standards by two grades.
While at the same time ushering a new social dynamic.

Anyway defining climbing in terms of sport or trad never sits well.

Michael Schneider wrote:Sport climbing came about as a result of us wanting to climb safely at the highest levels.

No, it definitely did not come about as a result of us wanting wanting to climb safely at the highest levels. It came about because bolts were the only way to protect a bunch of limestone in the EU. And once bolted they began to climb at high levels on said limestone. The only role 'safety' played in it was being able to climb those cliffs at all. And those climbs weren't bolted with bolt spacings that would make a 'modern' US sport climber particularly comfortable.

"Wanting to climb safely" and body-length bolt spacing became a priority only years later after years of people coming up through gyms and wanting comparable protection outside. And if a new generation comes up who are used to Planet Granite bolt spacing then they're likely to think today's sport climbers were nuts and start retrobolting all the existing sport climbs.

Michael Schneider wrote:At the time this was at the 5.12 threshold . There was no easy sport climbing.

Correct, though we're talking about at the time of the french introduction of sport climbing to the US.

Michael Schneider wrote:Then some 5.11s popped up , there were bolt chopping & placing "wars".

It wasn't quite as simple as that. Accepting bolted 5.12 climbs at Smith wasn't necessarily all that much of a stretch given the type of climbing and the rock there. Bolting in other places, particularly with a strong trad ethic like the Gunks or Eldo was another thing altogether. Again it wasn't even the bolts that clashed so much as the hangdog tactic / ethic which was the antithesis of climbing in those places. The rejection of both is what led to most 'bolt wars'.

Michael Schneider wrote:Through all of that there were no commercial gyms.

Correct.

Michael Schneider wrote: Not to throw It out with any malice but 10 years of climbing is still not all that experienced

Correct

Michael Schneider wrote:It means you come from the middle of the second wave

It means you came from the time when what climbing 'is' had already been redefined to be what happens in a climbing gym which, in hindsight, shouldn't have been a surprise in the wake of the rapid commercial spread of gyms.

Michael Schneider wrote:highly biased, toward safety /risk mitigation , a very good, big change.

Or a ghastly horrifying change depending on your perspective. Also, and let's be very clear here, the bias was not and is not towards safety and risk mitigation; the bias was and is solely about risk aversion. And the attending degradation of skills and the reliance on devices over thirty years has not made the sport safer - that's a delusion. Just the opposite, it's allowed entry to the sport of a wide demographic of people who would not otherwise be involved in it. That demographic is actually less safe as individuals and collectively they represent a random accident generator. That's because a very high percentage of the demographic don't understand the risks to mitigate them and similarly don't know what would constitute real 'safety'.

While I generally think this is a contrived and stupid topic, the "shut up and climb" argument has a lot of sway with me. I also think it holds some importance to the climbing community at large.

We as climbers need to maintain a level of respect for routes created before us. That is why I think the trad vs. sport distinction is important. If the intent of the FA was to create a free climb by clipping bolts on lead whether established on rappel or as stated previously on aid lead the sport distinction should be used. Not that these climbs are any less fun or lacking in any way, they were created for a specific type of climbing which can be extremely fun, exciting, and rewarding. However, if the FA put in a climb ground up on lead one could make the trad or "traditional" distinction. I also think this is important so generations of climbers can enjoy the route in much the same way the FA enjoyed it with or without limited protection. If, however, traditional climbs with bolts somehow begin to be seen as simply "sport" climbs future climbers may see a need to improve the perceived safety of these climbs by retro bolting. It is my hope that traditional climbs maintain there original feel, because I love getting shaky leg on run-out 5.6 slab. I have a healthy respect for climbers that have an incredible ability to create fun memorable routes in whatever style they choose.

Healyje wrote:Bolting in other places, particularly with a strong trad ethic like the Gunks or Eldo was another thing altogether. Again it wasn't even the bolts that clashed so much as the hangdog tactic / ethic which was the antithesis of climbing in those places.

Yet even with that local ethic, some Gunks routes were put in on rappel in the 60's. Arrow and Pas de Deux are the two prime examples.