When aid routes go free...

What are the community's opinions on if a route was named on the FA, but then later freed by someone else and they want to rename it, should the name change?

This oughta cause some trouble:
I would argue that The Nose, Lurking Fear, and certainly The Zodiac, as they were aid climbs, have not been freed. The Nose of El Cap, if you define it as a feature, has been freed. However, the free climbers have not freed the original aid line.... WHen they can't do it, they move off to one side or another. You look at it in a photo of the whole rock and say (oh, its just barely off route". However, if you went that far off route at the crag and said "I just did Jules Verne", people would throw tomato's at you.
And the Zodiac... thats a joke. A quarter of the route is done on other routes. As I understand it the Huber Bro's wanted to give it their own name when they freed it cus they knew they hadn't actually freed the old aid line. Howeve, it wasn't marketable and the magazines wouldnt' run it as such... so its now thought of as a free climb. But go climb it, and look at where the free line is, like 100 feet off to the right ins some spots, and then say with a strait face "Thats freeing the route."
Its one thing to use holds the aid climbers didn't. Its another to completely leave the crack system for one that works better for you.

Astroman originally was called something like "The East Face" of WC, by Pratt and Harding, 1959(?).

Sam,

I have generally heard these referred to as free "versions", although I agree with you. If you are not freeing the original line, I would argue that you are doing a different route. In these situations, I would definitely want to name the free version because it would eliminate confusion.

For instance, anyone looking for The Nose would refer to topos for that particular aid route. Anyone looking for the free version - lets call it Free Blow (for demonstration purposes) - would refer to a separate topo for that specific line. This makes the most sense to me.

excellent point, Ken.

to further clarify my original topic post, what if the route is freed on exactly the same line as the aid line? should the FA have left it unnamed until it goes free? say, much like the East Face Route turning into Astroman. What if the FA aided a line with the intention of it becoming a free route? Is that where they report it as "open-proj"? But where would the Kudos be given to the experience/contribution of the FA?

i just may have answered my own question.

Darren, in my opinion and in modern times, a free ascent is more prestigious than an aid ascent. However, I think its important to note the first ascentionist no matter what style. It depends on the type of climbing, but often the free ascent would not happen without an aid ascent first... or, more to the point, someone wouldnlt want to free it as its just too dirty. An awful lot of moss and ruble comes down on and aid ascent that would have to be removed for a free ascent. Also, as it pertains to Yosemtie (but not Astroman), most of the big wall routes simply could not be free climbed if they hadn't been chipped out by aid ascents. If we ignore the aid ascent, its one step closer to just ignoring that part of the routes history... I think we should acknowledge it all.

Finally, taking the Nose as an example, Lynns ascent was monumental. It was 10 years ahead of its time and to this day I consider her to have been the best free climber in the world at the time. However, it was an even bigger deal, considering the place rock climbing was in the 1950's, for the first ascent of the Nose. Setting off up those walls in the 40's and 50's was so out there I can't even fathom the guts it took to do it.

And Ken, good points. I guess what I was saying was that the arguement to change a routes name might hold water for us based on that its been freed... this would be worth dicussion on the East Face of the Column being Astroman. However, its not even a discussion on The Nose and The Zodiac as they have not been freed. Perhaps thaey can be, but the aid lines themselves have not been freed... which I think you were agreeing with me on.

Ken Cangi wrote: lets call it Free Blow (for demonstration purposes)

ha ha. i like it.

Johnny Depp would approve!?

I don't think route names should change once they are given.

To me, there are few things that come off more egotistically then renaming someone else's route just because you did it in a different style.

Brad

Brad Brandewie wrote:I don't think route names should change once they are given. To me, there are few things that come off more egotistically then renaming someone else's route just because you did it in a different style. Brad

I second that.

Ever hear of a big mountain route getting renamed because someone climbed it alpine-style, when it was originally climbed expedition style? The thought makes me chuckle!

I like Ken'd thought.
If a route can share styles then it can share a name. this makes referencing and researching it a bit easier and not combining a big blob of beta from both styles.
It would at least clarify between the two types of climbing and the gear/beta needed to complete it.

I've got a variation on the original post.
What about bolting and leading a long-standing toprope line?
Would this be worthy of renaming?
For example, if a top rope route has had a name and rating associated with it for years, then someone comes along and adds bolts and leads it. Does this deserve a renaming?

Tom Hanson wrote:I've got a variation on the original post. What about bolting and leading a long-standing toprope line? Would this be worthy of renaming? For example, if a top rope route has had a name and rating associated with it for years, then someone comes along and adds bolts and leads it. Does this deserve a renaming?

This is similar but not quiet to a thread about a route at Castle Rock in BC. Topher bolted and led a typically top roped climb and the discussion did nothing but fuel a fire about to bolt or not to bolt on a crag like CR.
IMO taking a TR and doing it on lead is nothing like taking an aid line and climbing it free. It would not warrant a new name or a new thought to the climb except for why did the person with the FA get the FA on TR ( hehehe makes me laugh to think about ) rather then just do it ground up or rap bolt it prior to the climb.
I guess I don't see that as being a similar ball park to play but it may. If anything the said TR route should have been put up in better style unless the crag and the access offered nothing less.

Tom Hanson wrote:I've got a variation on the original post. What about bolting and leading a long-standing toprope line? Would this be worthy of renaming? For example, if a top rope route has had a name and rating associated with it for years, then someone comes along and adds bolts and leads it. Does this deserve a renaming?

there comes to mind a route up on the Millstone in BCC (IIRC) that was orignially TR'd, but to bolt it would make it a squeeze play.

Seems there may be times when independent lines are imminently accessible from adjoining routes, but to bolt the line would create a grid-bolting feel which the area developer was trying to avoid. If the FA on the bolted line and the adjacent TR is the same, don't you think he would have put bolts in during the first go-round if he wanted them there?

Not everything needs bolts to enjoy.

What about when you add a sit-start to an established climb? Could I rename the Nose by adding a sit start?

Brad Brandewie wrote:I don't think route names should change once they are given. To me, there are few things that come off more egotistically then renaming someone else's route just because you did it in a different style. Brad

I agree with you, Brad, but can you honestly say that a free version which climbs considerable chucks of different rock is actually the original route? I would argue that it's not.

what about a single pitch route in Indian Creek?

Darren Mabe wrote:what about a single pitch route in Indian Creek?

So THAT is what this is all about. Fuck him, if he wants to name some route "redneck bla, bla" in memorial, tell him to go find his own. It's not that hard to do, and it would make for a better remembrance.

I'll take it a step further, if any of you cocky in shape bastards go and free climb one of my 5.4 C1 masterpieces, and then try to change the name, be prepared for an ass kicking!

edit: actually I don't subscribe to violence, let me try again.

"be prepared for a very serious protest!"

yeah, i just was trying a backdoor-approach to the topic...

the last time i was up there, i turned over the original plaque, and i "dont know" where the RNRW one went...

SO its not about some hypothetical ego-centric change, like Kauk, Largo, and Bachar renaming the East Face of Washing ton Column... its a local ego-centric change.
The interesting thread here is that naming it Abienormal is a good reference to the guy who taught you about being a redneck.
One thing to keep in mind: Being a redneck can't really be taught... it comes with birth and lousy/good upbringing. I know. I'm from WYoming.
I love dogs, but I'm with Glime.

Ken Cangi wrote: I agree with you, Brad, but can you honestly say that a free version which climbs considerable chucks of different rock is actually the original route? I would argue that it's not.

I think it depends on what kind of features the free variation bypasses. Typically when a section of the aid route is bypassed it is because the people who established the aid route didn't do it with a future free ascent in mind. A series of rivets up a blank face might of might not be freeable. I'd say if the aid route bypasses freeable (at a hard grade) features to shortcut to other features, that is pretty different than if someone freeing the route bypasses a thin crack because it is too hard.