When aid routes go free...

Hi Greg
OK< what if you went around an ugly section of climbing for another section of climbing just cus you didn't like the style... I believe this is what the Hubers did when they freed the Salathe, only now their route is known as Free Rider cus its so different.
Or, what if you bipassed one of the most famous parts of a route cus you couldn't free it. THis is the case with the King Swing.
Or, what if the crux of the aid route is hook movesand you bipass it cus "its just too blank". Thats ignoring a significant part of the original route.

In the 80's we started sport climbing and talked as much about how it was a sport in itself as it was a training format for bigger objectives. In the 90's we began to tackle the bigger objectives, but really, we could ony do so cus the training ground of hard sport climbing existed (and gyms). On a sport climb, if you leave the line for easier ground, you have not climbed the sport climb.
I say if you leave the main aid line, and by that I mean switching systems, you are not freeing the aid line. You can use holds the aid climber did not... you can even move slightly off the feature and use other features... but if you do entire pitches belayed from different spots becasue you can't do it otherwise, you didn't free the route. You mght have freed the area, but not the route.

If we accept that the original line on The Nose has been done free, then there is no reason for someone to ever try and free the King Swing... in the longterm, we stagnate.

Free Rider is a completely different climb than the Salathe because it bypasses the entire headwall crux of the climb. Both of the Hubers have free climbed the Salathe headwall BTW. If you wanted to say that you cannot consider an aid route freed because 100 percent of the aid climb was not followed, then I guess we have to start naming free routes separate from the aid climb they follow. How do you free climb a penji anyways? So instead of having free routes that share 90+% of an aid climb named something different why not just accept that the free line is not always the path forced by the first ascentionist on aid?

When it comes to the Nose, while it is unfortunate that the Jardine traverse has a few (4?) chiseled holds, the free climbing is much more enjoyable than going to the top of boot and lowering 75 feet.

With big wall free climbing it is usually the old guard aid climbers who are scoffing at calling a free variation to an existing aid climb the same as freeing the aid climb. In the big scope of things, I think it is more respectful of those who came before to maintain the original name, and also respect the effort of the free climber. So even though the free Zodiac does not follow the original Zodiac it still shares most of it's notable features. If you can go to the base of the route and not respect the effort to free anything on this side of El Cap then maybe it's time you found another sport.

Kevin, who the fuck said I didn't respect those freeing these routes on El Cap. I didn't say that at all. I didn't say it wasn't a big deal, and I didn't say it wasn't the general goal of modern climbing. Its what I try to do. Its what I ahve always tried to do. I simply aid climb when I can't free climb and I'm definately not old guard. I've climbed more 5.13 sport climbs than I have Wall Routes on El Cap.

But I call it like I see it, not like I want it to be. The first 4 pitches of Zodiac dont get touched by a free climber... they start over by Born Under a bad Sign or Lunar Elcipse. Thats one-quarter of the route, climbed somewhere else. The free variation of the nose misses Texas Flake, Boot Flake, and El Cap Tower. Nevertheless, I'll give you the Nose. But the Zodiac. No. It has not been freed. Your right on the Salathe, though if my recolection is correct Paul Piana had a discussion with the Hubers about their initial attempts... they were trying to avoid the Teflon Corner (Which isnt even part of the original aid line) and some OW, and still get up in the area of the Salathe. Eventually, they got it and have done even harder...

I'm not taking their accomplishments away from them. I'm calling it as its done. IF you free the route, you free the route. If you move onto another section of rock to get up the wall, you have not freed the route. The distinction is blurry, but in the name of "I Freed It" its being blurred further. But to change a routes name because you freed most of it... NO, you gotta do all of it before we even start that talk. The Nose, OK, with the intentionally chipped holds (not the pin scars) it has been done and pretty much follows the Line... But not the Zodiac.

The rest was edited 10 minutes later after I calmed down a bit.
And BTW, I recognize that arrogant bullshit at the end of your statement. THe part that implies the new guard is here so us old farts who can't climb need to step aside. I recognize it cus its the same shit I laid on Chuck Schapp at the City of Rocks in like 1988. His repsonse was appropriate then and it fits right now: "Fuck You. I'll decide when I need to take up a different sport."

"With big wall free climbing it is usually the old guard aid climbers who are scoffing at calling a free variation to an existing aid climb the same as freeing the aid climb."

Wow, thats a helluva statement--

Imagine this.. you're at your local crag....at the crag there's a famous 150 ft. crack climb called "Blank 5.12-A0", everyone has been trying to free this climb but there's a 10-15'section that no one has been able to free climb, one day a guy comes up and says,"hey man, I freed "Blank" when you ask how he did the aid section, he says, "I traversed 50'right, then 25'up and then 50' back to the climb"

--Did he free the climb?

How many times in the history of climbing has a climb been freed that decades before was considered impossible----too many to count.

Hell, even the decimal system we use to grade climbs was created by climbers who thought that nothing could be harder than 5.9.

History shows us that we typically underestimate the climbing potential of future generations. Are we simply repeating those mistakes? The impossible climbs of today can (and probably will) be done.

Have we stolen one of the greatest prizes in all of climbing from some future visionary? Who among us can say with certainty that those pitches can't be done-----well..... I guess all those who've been credited with those free ascents can say that. I wonder how they feel about that. I wonder if they've even thought about it.

The reason I don't believe The Nose and Salathe should be described as having been freed is to give the future (or current) generation of climbers a worthy and valid reason to try and actually free those sections that seem unfreeable. At this point there is no reason for anyone to even try and free those pitches--the Nose has been officially classified "freed," that prize has already been awarded.

IMO we should apply the same standards to freeing a wall as we do a single pitch.

If we are going to have one standard for a single pitch climb and another standard for big walls and the climbing community buys into it, then we are all just playing "loose" with the standards at the expense of the greatest prizes in climbing, and that seems, well..... short sighted.

humbly yours...

Thanks fella's.
As long as us geezers are hanging out in here, I'll pass on a little tale to go with what Tom says. In like 1987 I was at Smith Rock talking to another, more talented, now-geezer. His name was Dale Goddard and he was working on Scarface. Franklin had just done it and the whole country was abuzz with the routes difficultie (then 14b, but now I think 13d))
Skelator, thats Dale, told me: I"ve got it wired. I just need a day between 55 and 65 degrees with relative humidity below 20 percent to redpoint it." We believed that was what was called for to climb at such a hard grade.
Jump forward 15 years. I'm standing at the base of my hardest sport climb with 82 degree waves lapping at my feet. Some kid named Sharma is lowering to the ground. He took ten minutes to send the route, also 13d, but in 2002 he was fine getting it on his second try (he did not bother to work it) at 90 degees with 95% humidity.

Bob, I bet you were at "The Great Debate". Rember Christian saying "I see a day when 5.14 and even 5.15 are regularly climbed"? The crowd laughed at its ubserdity.

And Toms right... why bother on those routes... The big ones on each aspect of El Cap are already "free".

We don't know whats coming next.

Heres another quote of either Piana or SKinner... I can't remember which (Its ok, they are interchangeable). "You think us freeing El Cap is a big deal, wait til Peter Crofts kid solos it."
Alright, Duke/NorthCarolina

I agree its a "grey area",
I agree the standard is way hard to follow--I'm sure the folks who thought up the original standard for single pitch had never considered freeing big walls, but, when its in any way debatable (by the climbing community) whether or not its been freed we should give the benefit of the doubt to the future generations--- I've climbed the Nose 4 times, each time I was more impressed with the first ascent party--free or not!

certainly no offense meant to you--
climb safe bro!

Bob D'Antonio wrote:There nothing morally right or wrong with using a bolt or a piece of natural gear for protection...it about the style you use.

Wow now that's a bold statement. You alway seemed like a reasonable guy as other geezers go, but man, I've got to say we definitely part company here (and damn, I'm sure you're going to lose sleep over that).

So bolting is has now morphed into simply a matter of style? Following that line of logic and reasoning one is immediately and innescapably forced to agree that chipping, bolting on holds, and via ferratas are also all just a matter of 'style' of use. The notion that permanently altering rock is simply a matter of 'style' seems to me to be an unavoidably self-rationalizing leap of convenience at best and a projection many folks do not share.

Well, we'll have to 'agree to disagree' on this one as ethics are most definitely involved every time someone reaches for a bolt or pin. The ethics involved with chipping are problematic at best while the ethical issues raised by via ferratas in regards to entitlement are of positively biblical scale. I'm willing to wait until the first ADA application goes in for a via ferrata up the Flatirons and see if you thinking on the matter changes at all. And given via ferratas have only just begun to infect the U.S. I'd also have to disagree with the notion the issue is in any way overblown.

All is reasonably well though of late my business dealings in Albuquerque have somehow been sadly relocated to Milwaukee so I wasn't able to get up to see Middendorf before he decamped to Hobart or get up your way either. Even worse, my gear is in a garage in Vegas on the idea I'd be back through several times by now. Hopefully the pendulum will swing back West soon and I'll be able to get back to some decent climbing. Maybe see you at Nature's fest next month if I can manage it.

Kevin, my panties are now officially de-bunched. John Daniels and some sleep will do that.

Tom... I wish I was at "Ground Up" right now.

I agree with Mr. D'Antonio on virtually every point here. The morallity of bolting has, to me, always been a matter of style. I think about my style and not my ethics every time I break out the drill. Ethics is whether or not it was wrong for me to use all that petro to drive an hour and a half to the crag today, while style is whether some Brit with pretty blonde hair and bad ankles could do the move without the bolt I want.

I'm gonna touch on the shoulder of giants thing, and its gonna come off as tooting old guy horns (thought I dont intend it to). I am merely trying to put down some historical perspective. THe fact is, you guys who are freeing Freerider are standing on the shoulders of the previous generation. It is my opinion that the two biggest changes to come to the sport of climbing in the last 50 years have been the switch to removeable protection (post pins) and sport climbing. If you have been climbing for only 15 years, then it is hard to imagine what the sport was like 25 years ago. In 1985 in every crag outside of Smith Rocks and France, you climbed the cracks or the slabs. There was no anchor at the top of the route, but usually somewhere on the formation... You coulnd't jsut train on a route. On top of that, you were a total heel for trying to do the route, falling, and then carrying on from there and learning the moves. You were expected to lower down when you fell. To put it simply, the expected style and and the choice of routes made it very difficult to get better.

Sport climbing opened up thousands of so called blank faces. You wallk to the crag now and look up at every wall wondeirng if it can go free. You used to not even look if it was over vertical (no stance to bolt from) or it didn't have a crack in. All that limestone and sandstone was not climbed on, and when it was it was done like Jules Verne so you coulnd't train on it... you just were happy to have lived.

This movement did not come without bloodshed. The fights were huge. Rock and Ice magazine was basically created by it (letters to the editor was by far the most important part of the mag's). Everyone of the young punks pushing for bolts and "hangdogging" style was deemed a homo-weenie by their hero's who came before. It was ugly, but the new ckind of climbing was so much fun that they stuck with it.

Which leads to your generation who can do free routes on El Cap. You are dreaming if you think you could be doing that without the sport climbing movement. And the sport climbing movement is, when I read Bobs comment, what was meant by "the shoulders". And incidently, Bob is one you are standing on... he took a lot of shit from the Colorado elite to put up sport climbs.

For those wondering, the comment stems from Isaac Newton who said "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants" when he took the mathmatics chair at Cambridge (or Oxford?). He was refering to Kepler, Brahe, and the Greeks who gave him the information he needed to create his own theories. He meant that without them, he could not have done what he did.

Kevin, without the likes of Bob, you wouldn't think of trying to free "freerider"... or any of those other things that are almost all free.

And yes, The free Zodiac should have its own name, just like El Nino. Its a different route.

Good perspectives Sam, Bob, and Kevin!

Sam Lightner, Jr. wrote:Kevin, my panties are now officially de-bunched. John Daniels and some sleep will do that.

Is this a type-o or are you trying to let us in on a little secret? LOL

I personally would rather not have John Daniels de-bunch MY panties, thank you very much.

Bob, To me ethics has to do with respecting the style and tradition of a given area. I understand that ethics change over time and also understand that you have been a driving force for that change. Like I said you have put up some amazing routes in your time. Personally I do not agree with your lazefair bolting ethic, and do not choose to "stand on your shoulders". Like I said I prefer to look up to people like Royal Robbins, Layton Kor, Rodger Briggs, Jeff Achey, Mark Hudon, Noel Childs, and Pete Gallagher. This is not some "moral superiority" just a simple choice. We all have to draw our own lines in the sand, and it is curious that you have to resort to name calling and intimidating when someone stands on the other side.

Sam, for the record, until a month ago I had not climbed any sport routes in close to 5 years. We didn't hangdog or work any pitches, nor did we leave fixed ropes. We didn't even climb the route with ascenders. We also did not redpoint it. We did use the fixed lines to Heart to haul though, does this make me a sport climber?

For the record I do have some sport climbing hero's, like Scott Franklin, Christian Griffith, Dan Hare, Wolfgang Gullich, and yes even Dale Goddard. I am not ignorant to the massive contributions that climbers before me have made to the sport. Before you attempt to categorize me though maybe come climbing with me for a day. Also BTW the free Nose and the Zodiac both have almost the same amount of "free variations", check out a topo if you don't believe me.

Noel and Peter in the same sentence as Robbins and Kor! Excellent.

I'd definately climb with you some time... I'm out here and rarely out there... let me know when you are in town.
Its hard to explaini the change that happened in climbing between 1985 and 1990... Skinner and Piana had a lot to do with it... but there was a change that made it so that you can actually think about "'the impossible" (one mountaineer went so far as to say the impossible had been murdered)> Even though you have not sport climbed in a few years, you have climbed with a swagger that really didn't exist before that time. I haven't climbed with you, but I'm gonna guess that cus thats the same for everyone of the younger generation. When sport climbing came inot the scene, the top got blown off the scale. You used to be the Man if you could lead a 5.11 and a god if you could do 5.12... now your just a climber... and the change is not in gear. We changed metally in our approach.

No way we can prove it to you, but your climbing skills are a product of the sport climbing movement.

Oh, and as for John Daniels, "when you know him as well as I you can call him 'John'" and he lets you make comments like that!!!

john. well put. and i agree with you. no fire here. had i done it over, i would have left it as project. guess we got wrapped up in giving it a name and taking ownership of something that was not "ours", just to more or less refer to it. I personally was not attached to much ot the route, and what it really comes down to, is that i aided the thing, cleaned it, poked in some anchors, and worked it on TR. should have left it at that. was not regularly coming back and working it, so if i left it as "open" project, like i did on this site, then also should have left it unnamed. and was never intended to be an aid route. i mean, its C1, for shit sake. but rather intended as a hard crack climb.

i answered my own question earlier in this thread, and now kind of have my foot in my mouth. in that i misled the whole thread to begin with.

knowing is half the battle. yo joe!

John Langston wrote:"Alf needs to be institutionalized"

LOL, i almost pissed myself when i read that.

Kevin,

I'm not trying to stick up for Bob. He is more than capable of handling that on his own, but I think you are painting an unfair picture of his route development style.

If you are referring to his routes on Evans, so what if he rap-bolted them. They are not sport routes. They are mixed, and most of the people who I know think they're good trad routes.

You obviously know that rap-placed bolts have been place all over El Cap, and those pitch are becoming destinations for many top trad climbers. I just don't understand your dogma about tradition. If the bolts are good and not placed next to protectable rock, then what's the problem?

Look - I completely understand your admiration for those pioneers who stepped boldy into uncharted territory and met nature on that level. I too admire their efforts, but I don't see their personal style as a benchmark to which every route contribution should be judged. Theirs was just one of several valid approaches to FA development.

One other thing about Bob. I have climbed with him enough to know that he has more than enough testicular fortitude when it comes to running it out on new ground. With all due respect, Kevin, you are bashing Bob, who has contributed more to this sport that any hundred climbers, and by your comments, you really don't know him well enough to make such generalizations about his abilities.

On the original topic...the route at IC should not have been named until it was climbed. It's a free climbing area. You wouldn't "climb" and name an aid route at Rifle, would you? Had you climbed to the rim, you might have had an argument. I tried the line myself, but I got there about two days too late as Mike P was already close to sending so I stayed out of his way. I would have named it as well. No ill-will intended, it's just the way it goes. That particular case is pretty cut and dried to me.

As for bigger routes, which I think is a more interesting topic, because there is more grey area....

How should a wall "route" be defined. A "route", literally means a path up a wall, so I say it's defined by the God/erosion-given natural features that exist on the wall. Others say it's defined by the meanderings of the FA who was, at best, in a reduced mental state, making decisions from a poor vantage point (ground up).

Believe it or not, we were criticized for claiming a free ascent of Spaceshot because we used a variation around the bolt ladder! A bolt ladder is an acceptance of defeat on the part of the FA, and intentionally avoids natural features to cover the shortest distance between two points...to me, bolts are not a natural path, so they do not define a route. Nevertheless, somebody thought we should have called our climb a different route with a new name. On the contrary, I feel like we were the first to actually climb the "route" of Spaceshot by climbing the natural path up the wall...everyone else before us climbed a variation to that natural path. Just because it hadn't yet been climbed, doesn't mean that the path didn't exist...it was just waiting for someone to come along.

As for the name, that's just words. I've never re-named a long route myself. If a wall has been known by a certain name for a long time, it's easier for everyone to keep it that way. We still call it Indiana....

As for all the shoulder-standing...I've tended to hold those in high regard who had the vision and courage to go against the social norms of the day by trying something new. But lately, I've wondered, would those people deserve any credit at all if it hadn't been for the generation before them who decided that such an arcane and pointless pursuit as rockclimbing should be governed by rules, who then proceded to vehemently and sometimes violently enforce said rules?

Virtually everyone has since discarded most of these rules, yet we still worship that generation. No doubt their contribution was magnificent and instrumental to modern "progress", but they weren't perfect, and neither are any of us.

Well said, Mike.