Can a top roped ascent count as FFA?

Morgan Patterson wrote:While folks don't like to admit or would like to ignore climbing history, in many areas back east a TR is a FFA. In CT, where climbing has been an established since the 20's, there are quiet a good number of TR only ascents that are considered free ascents. They aren't leads but FFA isnt about leading per se, its about climbing without aid. A now a TR could be argued to be aid if weighted but that's easily remedied with a slack rope. Example: Bill Lutkis aided Black Orchid @ Ragged Mountain's Main cliff in CT and later went back and completed the moves on TR. It has never been lead. There's an FA and a FFA yet the line has never been lead. Does this mean the aid line has never gone free (free of aid)? Of course not but it must be stated that it was TR. This isn't a one off either. Now I'll add a twist, I don't think that someone who TR's a line has the right to say it can never have fixed gear added to it to attempt a lead. I think leading takes precedence over TR any day.

I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, but Joshua Tree has a number of routes that were first put up on TR. Many of them are now bolted, but my old guide book lists them as TR's. My impression is that they are un-led free climbs.

As to the OP's question...do what you want.

Parker Wrozek wrote:On the push they both led all the pitches.

No, they didn't. Parts were done in blocks and other sections completed by swapping leads. And the pitch that involved lots of down-climbing arguably means that a section of it was done on top rope, but that is incredibly nit-picky.

Here's what Andrew Bisharat wrote about the "team free" concept they employed:
[from: adventureblog.nationalgeogr… ]

Redefining “Team Free”

Over the years, big-wall free climbers on El Cap have debated over the various “styles” of ascent. The method employed by Caldwell and Jorgeson over the past 19 days has left many in the climbing community scratching their heads about what to make of their style.

The goal for Caldwell and Jorgeson was simply for both climbers to free climb every pitch. At least one person had to lead every pitch, and once that pitch was led, then it was OK for the second person to free climb that pitch on top-rope.

It became confusing because, once the two climbers hit the block of really hard pitches, from pitch 14 through 20, they each free-climbed these pitches out of order from each other. Jorgeson battled to complete pitch 15, while Caldwell continued leading every pitch up to pitch 20. After Jorgeson led pitch 15, and pitch 16, then he top-roped pitches 17-20 while catching up to Caldwell.

This style really stretches the definition of “team free” to its limit due to the fact that both climbers ascended each pitch of the Dawn Wall in succession to their own high point, but out of order in relation to each other.

Ryan Hill wrote: I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, but Joshua Tree has a number of routes that were first put up on TR. Many of them are now bolted, but my old guide book lists them as TR's.

This is true in other areas and guidebooks as well. Even on TR they're still free climbs and the FA was the FFA - FFA really only applies to a route that used aid on the FA. TR may be a lesser style than leading, but it's still free climbing. It doesn't really matter as long as it is reported correctly.

Can a top roped ascent count as FFA? Definitely not... seriously, is this really a subject of debate?

There is nothing wrong with a TR ascent, just as long as the TR is noted. It is free climbing. I wouldn't post it up as an FA though, just a TR ascent, since FA implies to most nowadays a lead ascent. It wasn't always so, especially before crash pads etc.

I don't understand the pejorative attitude toward TRing, though it obviously doesn't require the commitment or skill set needed for leading. To be honest, a lot of times I find a TR more enjoyable than a lead. It is more pure climbing to me, not fucking around with mechanics. I hate climbing with a bunch of crap hanging off of me. I love when I have a long rope set up and I can just cruse 3 pitches at once, with the natural climbing line and rhythm not broken up by stopping to fiddle gear.

There are also plenty of good reasons to leave a route as a TR, for instance if an easier route can be lead up to the anchors and more bolts are going to squeeze another line. I might post that up (as a TR) and ask that people don't bolt it. I have occasionally posted up a project that I TRed a bunch of times but never got back to lead (as a TR again) fully expecting that someone else would come along and do the lead FA before I return and possibly give it a new name. That would be more so other people knew what was going on with the line and that it is climbable.

Interesting question that gets to the heart of the evolving definitions of FA and FFA. But it's pretty clear: the answer is no, neither by trad nor sport ethics in 2016 could your proposed style be considered an FFA. You have to lead or solo for the FFA in this era. As Morgan points out above, at certain US crags, at some point in the mid to late 20th century, it was desirable and acceptable to claim an FFA by toproping the route. Vestiges of that ethic still survive, especially at outdoor museums devoted to 1960s-70s trad ethics, the Connecticut traprock crags (I kid because I love). But I can't imagine that anyone, anywhere in the US in 2016 would accept an FFA claim based on a no-hangs toprope ascent. At most it would be slight betterment of the first toprope ascent that the drone guys pulled off. Fortunately for you, OP, Peak 9854 has only been climbed via rope trick and jumar, so the true rock climber's FA awaits, whether free or aid. Maybe you should set your sights on that prize.

Personally, I would put a free TR ascent above aiding a route, but I am not an aid climber and physically free climbing a line is what I am interested in, well, second to finding cool new lines. Overcoming fear, and gear mechanics etc is kind of old after 30 years (been there, done that) so it is usually less of an interest to me as a major part of climbing (except I do like highball bouldering)

This thing is just waiting for a bunch of drilled 18inch re-bar to make an aid ladder. Or maybe it should never have an FFA?

Thought experiment: I believe Tommy Caldwell and Kevin Jorgeson swapped leads on the Dawn Wall. That suggests neither led the whole route. Since the follower is essentially on TR, does that mean the FFA is still unclaimed?

Or, alternately, suppose TC led the whole thing. Thus KJ followed the whole thing. Do we then say only TC has the FFA, or TC & KJ together?

Patrick Shyvers wrote:Thought experiment: I believe Tommy Caldwell and Kevin Jorgeson swapped leads on the Dawn Wall. That suggests neither led the whole route. Since the follower is essentially on TR, does that mean the FFA is still unclaimed? Or, alternately, suppose TC led the whole thing. Thus KJ followed the whole thing. Do we then say only TC has the FFA, or TC & KJ together?

Reposting from my post up-thread:

Here's what Andrew Bisharat wrote about the "team free" concept they employed:
[from: adventureblog.nationalgeograph... ]

Redefining “Team Free”

Over the years, big-wall free climbers on El Cap have debated over the various “styles” of ascent. The method employed by Caldwell and Jorgeson over the past 19 days has left many in the climbing community scratching their heads about what to make of their style.

The goal for Caldwell and Jorgeson was simply for both climbers to free climb every pitch. At least one person had to lead every pitch, and once that pitch was led, then it was OK for the second person to free climb that pitch on top-rope.

It became confusing because, once the two climbers hit the block of really hard pitches, from pitch 14 through 20, they each free-climbed these pitches out of order from each other. Jorgeson battled to complete pitch 15, while Caldwell continued leading every pitch up to pitch 20. After Jorgeson led pitch 15, and pitch 16, then he top-roped pitches 17-20 while catching up to Caldwell.

This style really stretches the definition of “team free” to its limit due to the fact that both climbers ascended each pitch of the Dawn Wall in succession to their own high point, but out of order in relation to each other.

Funny how attached we are to certain rules. The only one that matters is to be up front with others about what / how you did it.

So you write down FFA by TR. As already covered, it won't be the first time. Our Sandia Mountains here had a route where the TR FFA stood for many years: A Date With Death. Sounds like your objective deserves a similar moniker :-)

Top roping could be considered aid..given that an anchor is placed prior to the ascent. A0 perhaps?

doug rouse wrote:Top roping could be considered aid..given that an anchor is placed prior to the ascent. A0 perhaps?

Aid is using ropes or gear for upward progress. A prior placed anchor is not aid.

climbing friend,

it is technically free climbing yes for serious, but not really for realsies, because you are too pansy and too scare to face mental challenge of free solo or lead.

No one would be respecting you or your assent.

all your flash are belong to me.

Marc801 wrote: Reposting from my post up-thread

Well, now I feel silly. I don't know how I missed your post.

Nick Sweeney wrote:Can a top roped ascent count as FFA? Definitely not... seriously, is this really a subject of debate?

Learn ur history son!

caughtinside wrote: Context is important though. Many of the free topropes of old were done places where bolting was forbidden or frowned upon, i.e., predate sport climbing.

this for sure...

Marc801 wrote: Words

Well they definitely made it complicated. Not very clear in most the interviews I have listened to since it happened. Thanks for the clarification.

Can't Understand Normal Thinking

Well if a climb was top roped when no one has climbed it before ... whatever you say it is the "First Ascent" . If pitches on Dawn wall were first climbed on a top rope and per-chalked it was the first ascent of that pitch ..