"Projecting" on Gear

The above being said, I think the best way to get past 5.10 in the Gunks is to climb with people who are pushing harder grades. On that note, shoot me or Rob D or a lot of folks who have replied a PM and I (and I'm sure others) would love to get out and start taking whips with you

climbing friend,

"reserved for the pros?!?" the laughing it is out loud!!!

the many peoplez do not do it or talk about it becasue they are terrified of life and have not the true boldness in their hearts

the first rule of trad projecting is don't talk about trad projecting

the gear (placed properly in solid rock) works - TAKE DA WHIPPA!!!!!!!!

Beean wrote:

You already got your answers in page 1, why can't we have this thread now? This discussion will benefit the entire climbing community. 

YES  THE INTERNET NEEDS MUCH MORE ARGUING ABOUT SEMANTICS THIS ONE HAS THE ADDED BENEFIT OF ALSO INCLDING JUDGMENTAL IDEAS OF OTHERS YESSS WE CLAIM THIS THREAD FOR THE GOOD OF THE INTERNET I FOR ONE THINK GEAR IS NOT FOR FALLING ON BUT TO PROCLAIM ONES SUPERIORITY OVER SPORT CLIMBERS AND THUS I REFUSE TO EVEN CALL PROJECTING ON GEAR CLIMBING ITS ACTUALLY POSUERING YES

Marc801 C wrote:

Yes, we do, and run-out bolted slab is NOT a sport climb. As merely one famous example, no climber in the world considers the Bachar/Yerian a sport climb. Wolfgang Gulich once broke his leg on that route after a 40' fall. A sport climb is defined by it's relative lower risk and focus on movement, not by protection. The only X rated "sport" climbs are ones with terribly botched bolt locations. 

I'd say no climber in the world considers the Bachar/Yerian a sport climb because there's gear placements on it.

If a climb is bolted, has no gear placements, and is X rated: what would you call it?

The whole point of R/X ratings is to identify the danger/runouts, it doesn't change the style of climbing.

David Kerkeslager wrote:

I don't think so... not many people are leading on gear on routes beyond their immediate abilities, AFAIK.

Maybe your not but how do you think other people progress?

kendallt wrote:

I'd say no climber in the world considers the Bachar/Yerian a sport climb because there's gear placements on it.

They don't consider it a sport climb because there are several places where a fall will likely result in injury or death.

If a climb is bolted, has no gear placements, and is X rated: what would you call it?

A bolt protected climb, or, if you must, traditionally bolted (ground up, at stances, often by hand drilling). All the routes on GPA and the vast majority in Tuolumne are not considered sport climbs, even if protected entirely with bolts. This was before there was the term trad climbing, which only became necessary when sport climbing came about.

The whole point of R/X ratings is to identify the danger/runouts, it doesn't change the style of climbing.

Right. And any sport climbs bolted so that they are R or X are incorrectly bolted and not sport climbs. There is no such thing as an X sport route.

This is getting pretty silly. You're either trad climbing or you're not. Trad climbing isn't sport climbing, isn't headpointing, isn't pre-placing pro, and sure as fuck isn't hanging and resting your way up a route. Look, it ain't rocket science - you start at the bottom, climb, place gear and either get up the line or you fall. If you fall then you didn't do it onsight. So what do we call it when you fall, come down, and give it goes #2-XXX before you get it without falling? Well, last time I checked we call that trad climbing. No other needed distinctions or designations. No colors, no points, no bullshit - you're either just climbing it or you're not. So it's kind of hard to imagine what 'projecting' would actually mean in that context other than you didn't get it onsight and you went back a bunch of times before you got it. What mysterious number of goes is required before it gets redefined from simple obsession to a more formalize 'project' would hard to pin down at best. 

Healyje wrote:

This is getting pretty silly. You're either trad climbing or you're not. Trad climbing isn't sport climbing, isn't headpointing, isn't pre-placing pro, and sure as fuck isn't hanging and resting your way up a route. Look, it ain't rocket science - you start at the bottom, climb, place gear and either get up the line or you fall. If you fall then you didn't do it onsight. So what do we call it when you fall, come down, and have goes #2-XXX before you get it without falling? Well, last time I checked we call that trad climbing. No other needed distinctions or designations. No colors, no points, no bullshit - you're either just climbing it or you're not. So it's kind of hard to imagine what 'projecting' would actually mean in that context other than you didn't get it onsight and you went back a bunch of times before you got it. What mysterious number of goes is required before it gets redefined from simple obsession to a more formalize 'project' would hard to pin down at best. 

Yes, but....plenty of hard crack climbs are "projected" just like sport climbs, but on gear. Even the most famous like Phoenix or even Crimson Cringe get "projected" all the time.

Again, whether you're giving the route a second or a hundred and ninetieth go you're still just trad climbing even if it feels like a 'project'. If by projecting it you mean you're headpointing it, pre-placing pro, or dogging up it then you may be "projecting" it I suppose, but whatever you call it you're no longer trad climbing.

kendallt wrote:

I'm pretty sure we already have definitions hashed out for this.

bolts = sport climbing 

gear = trad climbing

gear, knowing placements in advance but still placing gear = redpoint trad climb

gear, but preplaced = pinkpoint trad climb.

A run out, bolted slab climb is still a sport climb. (even if it's X rated)

I'll agree to disagree =D

Marc801 wrote:

There is no such thing as an X sport route.

This is what I learned as well up in Squamish. While there is a small gray-zone in very early sport climbs; modern sport climbing is when you climb as physically hard as you can and are well protected. If there is an element of danger or uncertainty about the protection inherient to the climb, it's traditional imho.

kendallt wrote:

I'm pretty sure we already have definitions hashed out for this. [ Clearly not... ]

bolts = sport climbing [ There are plenty of bolted trad climbs ]

gear = trad climbing [ It was never just about the gear vs bolts, it was and is about tactics, i.e. no dogging in trad (I know, unthinkable right?) ]

gear, knowing placements in advance but still placing gear = redpoint trad climb [ There are no colors or points in trad climbing; you onsighted or you didn't ]

gear, but preplaced = pinkpoint trad climb. [ There is definitely no pre-placed pro in trad climbing ]

A run out, bolted slab climb is still a sport climb. (even if it's X rated) [ Sorry, those are all old trad climbs ]

Healyje wrote:

It was never just about the gear vs bolts, it was and is about tactics, i.e. no dogging in trad (I know, unthinkable right?) ]

Dude your living in the past

::me getting down from a bolted line at my local crag::

Oh man, that felt a little run out! I think I might have been trad climbing!

But I'm just trolling now...

Pinkpointing is still trad climbing, albeit shitty style.

rockhard wrote:

Dude your living in the past

Bolts were a part of the debate, but the real contention was over the tactics.

The reality isn't that I'm living in the past, it's that you're informed by a dilute meme which no longer conveys either the history or the real distinctions between the two.

So, if I understand you correctly Healyje, then rehearsing the route and the gear placements on TR, before the ultimate lead attempt on gear, is changing the style from trad to sport too?

Stuff like Echo Wall on Ben Nevis is not trad in your book, because of the style?

rockhard wrote:

Dude your living in the past

The interesting thing about language is that words are often defined more by their usage than what a dictionary says and usage can change relatively quickly over time. Look at any climbing media, go to any crag and talk to other climbers, or flip through any guidebook and you'll see that the term "trad" is typically applied to lead climbing protected by gear as opposed to the historical definition of ground up onsight climbing. In my experience I would say that "sport" has still not reached the point of being defined only by bolts. It's still very common for someone at the crag or a guidebook description to say "don't be fooled by those bolts, it's not a sport climb." 

Healyje wrote:

Again, whether you're giving the route a second or a hundred and ninetieth go you're still just trad climbing even if it feels like a 'project'. If by projecting it you mean you're headpointing it, pre-placing pro, or dogging up it then you may be "projecting" it I suppose, but whatever you call it you're no longer trad climbing.

Just curious, what was the problem with dogging? Was it just because it was different? Or was it simply weak sauce? 

Just because it has ONLY bolts en-route doesn't make it a sport climb.

A run out, bolted slab climb is still a sport climb. (even if it's X rated)

A sport climb shouldn't make my a-hole pucker.

Tradiban wrote:

Just curious, what was the problem with dogging? Was it just because it was different? Or was it simply weak sauce? 

Both? Ethics were that you did ground up onsight or you were lame.

Eventually this got adapted to yo-yoing. You could fall, but had to lower to the ground immediately. Then you could TR up to your last piece, finish the lead, and claim the FA!

Of course these days yo-yoing is also out of style and you don't get the FA unless you do it clean on lead...

Jake Jones wrote:

Who hashed out those definitions?  

All those who came before us? Kurt Albert defined the redpoint, no idea where pinkpointing came from. Trad climbing has always just meant climbing on removable gear

I concede that we could replace "sport" with "bolted protection" but the different types of trad climbing are pretty concisely defined.