Bolting a TR, would you do it and why?

Sometimes there are safety and aesthetics concerns. Recently, a few TR and trad lines near me got bolted. Very few people lead them on gear because it's almost all sport and gym climbers here. There are anchors set back above the tops of the routes, and dumbasses had not been extending their anchors, so there were grooves at the tops of the routes. The decision to bolt was to protect the rock and help idiots avoid dying.

Personally, I wish they'd removed the TR anchors and kept them as trad routes instead. Now these routes are pretty busy since they're 5.6-5.8 and easy to access.

Jon Nelson wrote:

For places requiring a lot of cleaning, we should give credit not the the first ascent, but to the developer. 

By that logic does Terry still get any FA credit at index? :)

King Tut wrote:

C'mon man, taking every argument to an extreme gets us nowhere.

We could just end every discussion of LNT with "just stay homeless and die" couldn't we?

There are some areas I have been active over the years that are just a little too short to justify bolting for leads (3-4 clips max) that are legit TR routes for a fine day's adventure and a little exercise.

What anyone else thinks about "legitimacy" or not they shouldn't bolt them and respect that others feel they should remain TRs.

@OP 

Its complicated, because if you build it (and the climbing is good) they will come. So, no congestion really gets relieved just more visits to the same location.

Usually people do this because they simply want to lead routes and consume as much climbing in a day as they can...but it very rarely leads to any lasting route that is a real asset.

It comes down to how legit it's independence of climbing, length and line and whether it really "fits" between other routes.

But someone will usually justify it because they simply want to do it for themselves....a decade or two from now they will realize that when its just some bolts in space no one bothers with.

We don't need more and more squeeze jobs, we need people to spread out.

Personally I will TR to suss out moves/holds on a line above my onsight or clean a route for a partner, but I'd MUCH rather climb on lead. I just find that I climb more precisely and well on lead than on TR. Something about knowing I can't "really" fall makes me get sloppy and not try very hard. So I welcome anything being set up to lead. Now if it's adding bolts to what can be *safely* led with gear that's a slippery slope. I'd prefer most gear routes be left that way, but there are again exceptions. If it's a crag that's all sport routes throw bolts in so it gets enough traffic to stay clean, this is a great example: https://www.mountainproject.com/v/the-nameless-tower/107759719

As for squeeze jobs, that's such a case by case thing. I recall a route at Red Rocks that had comments of being a squeeze job, but it was the funnest line at the crag IMO: https://www.mountainproject.com/v/snagglepuss/108781019

On the other hand there is a local crag where the middle section is basically grid bolted, with routes criss crossing all over. It's annoying because a party traversing the easiest route can block out 4 others. Also the chalk all over the place makes it damn ridiculous to read. 

Tom Thomas wrote:

It funny this came up.. I will not mention any names but, I'm currently dealing with a climber who goes around claiming FA's that were done from AGE 12 I shit you not.. This climber basically says he or she top roped or free-soloed everything within 60 miles for the FA.. Every time someone mentions a new place he says oh yeah I forgot I was there 30 yrs ago and top roped it or soloed it first.. and if you make it a sport route or a trad climb on gear he or she says they soloed that climb 30yrs ago for the FA.. This climber has no proof -  no living witness.. Even if you have photographs of the area before and after showing the cracks full of dirt and trees that you personally spent weeks digging out.. How should I deal with this climber..?  I feel like totally busting this climber for all to see and hear.. However these areas have access issues plus I would like to keep them on the DL.. Advice?

My real answer to this is; Why care if he claims the FA? Let him have it, no prize is awarded for the FA.

Nick Drake wrote:

By that logic does Terry still get any FA credit at index? :)

Terry introduced the first crack-specific wire brush, a gun-barrel brush. So, he should get developer credit for every finger crack cleaned at Index since 1983 (not to mention lots of FAs). 

Jon Nelson wrote:

Terry introduced the first crack-specific wire brush, a gun-barrel brush. So, he should get developer credit for every finger crack cleaned at Index since 1983 (not to mention lots of FAs). 

He remarked to a friend recently something along the lines of trying to not clean that many lines, getting the FA when others couldn't free something they cleaned. That could have just been taken out of context on a conversation they were having though. Was that barrel brush for slow children? 

climbing friend,

yes, toproping it is terrible, for those weak puny who fail at life

Nick Drake wrote:

He remarked to a friend recently something along the lines of trying to not clean that many lines, getting the FA when others couldn't free something they cleaned. That could have just been taken out of context on a conversation they were having though. Was that barrel brush for slow children? 

Well, I'm going to try and get him to help clean off another one this fall. But yes, that does sound like something he'd say. 

Indeed, it was unveiled for Slow Children. Now we can easily get other narrow wire brushes at lower cost, but his brush was a big advance at the time. 

Isn't top roping the same as sport climbing? Just a means to the same end. 

Tradiban wrote:

Isn't top roping the same as sport climbing? Just a means to the same end. 

climbing friend,

isn't placing cams for the weak and the puny? why not solo all up on that runout above your "tiny nuts" and hexes!

Aleks Zebastian wrote:

climbing friend,

isn't placing cams for the weak and the puny? why not solo all up on that runout above your "tiny nuts" and hexes!

Maybe, expand your thoughts Aleks :)

Ken Noyce wrote:

I can see arguments both ways, but in general, I don't consider a TR to be a valid FA, therefor, bolting it would be acceptable in my book.  This is with the obvious caveats that it's not a squeeze job and won't affect surrounding traditional routes.   

There are areas where bolting isn't permitted and pro generally isn't available where; TR FAs in such places are completely legitimate. And then there are the cases where bolting a line would constitute an undesirable squeeze job, nothing worse. Also, there are even the odd TR's that would be way, way the fuck safer if they were bolted. Bitd we TR'd a low .12+ roof that was so far overhung above the roof that the TR didn't kick in until just after the crux and so you were staring at a 23 foot ground fall onto your back if you blew the horizontal roof at the base of the overhanging wall - we all took that fall exactly once each. We did another really tall and far overhung .11+ TR just down from that one that would send you out on a wild ride through the trees that grew just in front of the route if you came off too low. We were always scared of this one tree so we never did come off low, but a year or two after we left a guy did come off too low, took that dreaded ride and, while he made it out through the trees ok, broke his back on that very tree on his way back in. 

So anyway, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss TR FAs as there can be a pretty diverse set of circumstances for why things didn't or shouldn't get bolted.

Top rope is never a legit FA. if an area is designated a TR only by the locals it is fine to perhaps mention the early history of who climbed there but certainly not  to give credit to individual climbs asFA's. the area by definition is a practice area.. nothing significant to see here.  If at some future point in history then mood changes and bolting is allowed or someone is strong enough to free solo the area then  FA credit is given to the people who establish those climbs as leads or solos. If the route was a populer TR then there is a notation as such.  Formerly a populer top rope this stellar route was  bolted and climbed by  Heljaye for the long over due FA. No mention of those timid souls who first top roped it is warrented. 

Squeeze jobs suck regardles of weather or not a route has been previously top roped.  It is just as possible to put up a crappy squeeze job on a ground up FA as it is to make a horrendous blunder bolting an established top rope.  as always we can only hope and pray that those brave enough to weild a drill are experts with class, clear vision and restraint. 

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

Top rope is never a legit FA. if an area is designated a TR only by the locals it is fine to perhaps mention the early history of who climbed there but certainly not  to give credit to individual climbs asFA's. the area by definition is a practice area.. nothing significant to see here.  If at some future point in history then mood changes and bolting is allowed or someone is strong enough to free solo the area then  FA credit is given to the people who establish those climbs as leads or solos. If the route was a populer TR then there is a notation as such.  Formerly a populer top rope this stellar route was  bolted and climbed by  Heljaye for the long over due FA. No mention of those timid souls who first top roped it is warrented. 

Squeeze jobs suck regardles of weather or not a route has been previously top roped.  It is just as possible to put up a crappy squeeze job on a ground up FA as it is to make a horrendous blunder bolting an established top rope.  as always we can only hope and pray that those brave enough to weild a drill are experts with class, clear vision and restraint. 

Ok, but WHY is a TR not an FA? What is the rationale? The rock has been climbed.

Healyje wrote:

There are areas where bolting isn't permitted and pro generally isn't available where; TR FAs in such places are completely legitimate. And then there are the cases where bolting a line would constitute an undesirable squeeze job, nothing worse. Also, there are even the odd TR's that would be way, way the fuck safer if they were bolted. Bitd we TR'd a low .12+ roof that was so far overhung above the roof that the TR didn't kick in until just after the crux and so you were staring at a 23 foot ground fall onto your back if you blew the horizontal roof at the base of the overhanging wall - we all took that fall exactly once each. We did another really tall and far overhung .11+ TR just down from that one that would send you out on a wild ride through the trees that grew just in front of the route if you came off too low. We were always scared of this one tree so we never did come off low, but a year or two after we left a guy did come off too low, took that dreaded ride and, while he made it out through the trees ok, broke his back on that very tree on his way back in. 

So anyway, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss TR FAs as there can be a pretty diverse set of circumstances for why things didn't or shouldn't get bolted.

I had to walk 5 miles through 10ft of snow just to get to school every day bitd . 

Seriously, you just gave everyone a great reason to bolt TR climbs!

Robert Michael wrote:

I wish they'd removed the TR anchors and kept them as trad routes instead. Now these routes are pretty busy since they're 5.6-5.8 and easy to access.

I think that's actually a key issue at one of my favorite areas. Currently it's mostly TR and a handful of (great) trad lines (which are usually top-roped anyway). The administering organization knows that if they allowed bolting for sport lead, the area would become way more popular.

Ken

Tradiban wrote:

Ok, but WHY is a TR not an FA? What is the rationale? The rock has been climbed.

Because there are two interpretations of "First Ascent", and of why we take it seriously.
a) contribution to the community
b) selfish ego

Orginally say like more than a hundred years ago, no one even knew what the summits of lots of peaks looked like in detail, or whether they were climbable by any route (because helicopters weren't invented and good aerial photos were rare. When Mont Blanc was first climbed most people _assumed_ the two guys would be killed trying. They brought scientific instruments with them. It was almost more of scientific exploration of the unknown, than a climbing achievement. Style was no issue, using Aid was just assumed.

Then around 50 years ago, most of the interesting peaks had been climbed, and we had lots of good aerial photographs, there wasn't so much real unknown adventure about the remaining routes, and the climbing community knew at least one route to the summit. So FAs of some remaining untried route shifted more toward individual ego.

And some Americans are still stuck on that interpretation of First Ascent.

But now there's only few long untried routes with much interest to the clinbing community. So most new routes now are bolted sport routes. Once the cleaning of the approach and the rock are done, and the bolting of the line, usually there are thousands of climbers capable of climbing it on lead, so it''s not a big ego boost for someone who climbs it on-sight. And most of the ciimbing community doesn't much care who climbed it in what style. instead we want to respect the people who did the _work_.

So now some modern French guidebooks and websites no longer list First Ascent names. Instead they give the "opener" (ouvreur) of the route.
. . . (and for older routes, often the names of the team who replaced the original hardware with modern-standard diameters and materials).

Ken

King Tut wrote:

C'mon man, taking every argument to an extreme gets us nowhere.

We could just end every discussion of LNT with "just stay homeless and die" couldn't we?

There are some areas I have been active over the years that are just a little too short to justify bolting for leads (3-4 clips max) that are legit TR routes for a fine day's adventure and a little exercise.

What anyone else thinks about "legitimacy" or not they shouldn't bolt them and respect that others feel they should remain TRs.

@OP 

Its complicated, because if you build it (and the climbing is good) they will come. So, no congestion really gets relieved just more visits to the same location.

Usually people do this because they simply want to lead routes and consume as much climbing in a day as they can...but it very rarely leads to any lasting route that is a real asset.

It comes down to how legit it's independence of climbing, length and line and whether it really "fits" between other routes.

But someone will usually justify it because they simply want to do it for themselves....a decade or two from now they will realize that when its just some bolts in space no one bothers with.

We don't need more and more squeeze jobs, we need people to spread out.

These are aesthetic concerns and are not an LNT issue. I also agree with all of Nick's response to your post.

kenr wrote:

Because there are two interpretations of "First Ascent", and of why we take it seriously.
a) contribution to the community
b) selfish ego

Orginally say like more than a hundred years ago, no one even knew what the summits of lots of peaks looked like in detail, or whether they were climbable by any route (because helicopters weren't invented and good aerial photos were rare. When Mont Blanc was first climbed most people _assumed_ the two guys would be killed trying. They brought scientific instruments with them. It was almost more of scientific exploration of the unknown, than a climbing achievement. Style was no issue, using Aid was just assumed.

Then around 50 years ago, most of the interesting peaks had been climbed, and we had lots of good aerial photographs, there wasn't so much real unknown adventure about the remaining routes, and the climbing community knew at least one route to the summit. So FAs of some remaining untried route shifted more toward individual ego.

And some Americans are still stuck on that interpretation of First Ascent.

But now there's only few long untried routes with much interest to the clinbing community. So most new routes now are bolted sport routes. Once the cleaning of the approach and the rock are done, and the bolting of the line, usually there are thousands of climbers capable of climbing it on lead, so it''s not a big ego boost for someone who climbs it on-sight. And most of the ciimbing community doesn't much care who climbed it in what style. instead we want to respect the people who did the _work_.

So now some modern French guidebooks and websites no longer list First Ascent names. Instead they give the "opener" (ouvreur) of the route.
. . . (and for older routes, often the names of the team who replaced the original hardware with modern-standard diameters and materials).

Ken

Nice history lesson. The route has been climbed, so it's been contributed to the community already. Why is bolting it an additional contribution?

Tradiban wrote:

Isn't top roping the same as sport climbing? Just a means to the same end. 

Never done this on TR.