"Projecting" on Gear

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

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

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.

kendallt wrote:Trad climbing has always just meant climbing on removable gear...

Nothing could be further from the truth. That's a whole raging history boiled down into to a moronic and highly dilute meme on the order of: 'Climbing For Simpletons'.

Tradiban wrote:

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

Very weak sauce was the more mildly derogatory stance at the time given the heart of very essence of trad climbing was and is: no dogging - you fall, you come back down and go again with purist also pulling the rope and re-clipping.

But there were also more technical roots around a concern about cross-contaminating the ratings system. What the fuck does that mean you say?

Well, some people thought sport climbs - or trad climbs put up with the sport tactic of dogging - should have a ratings suffix such as 'AB' (for Aerial Bouldering) or something which would designate the climb was done in a series of rests. The term 'Aerial Bouldering' was to call out the fact that you are effectively 'bringing the ground up to you' each time you take and are essentially doing the climb as a series of short [aerial] boulder problems. One way or another those folks wanted a climb's rating to reflect the tactics used in an FA; i.e. was it established with or without hanging? That's because there's a big difference in walking up and attempting to onsight a 5.11 without knowing it was put up with sport tactics versus without them. A simple 'S' designation for sport was also proposed and would have sufficed for the purpose.

Sure, the same folks also thought bolts were an obnoxious, intrusive, posing and consumer-oriented desecration of rock, but that was the way lesser of the concerns - it's the tactics that had everyone up in arms, not the bolts per se.

Healyje wrote:

Very weak sauce would be the more derogatory stance at the time given the heart of trad climbing is: no dogging.

But there were also more technical roots in a concern around cross-contaminating the ratings system. What the fuck does that me you say?

Well, some people thought sport climbs - or trad climbs put up with dogging - should have a ratings suffix such as 'AB' (for Aerial Bouldering) or something which would designate the climb was done with rests. The term 'Aerial Bouldering' was to call out the fact that you are effectively 'bringing the ground up to you' each time you take and essentially doing the climb as a series of short boulder problems. Those folks wanted a climb's rating to denote the tactics used in an FA; i.e. was it established with or without hanging? That's because there's a big difference in walking up and attempting to onsight a 5.11 without knowing it was put up with sport tactics versus no dogging. A simple 'S' designation for sport was also proposed.

Sure, the same folks also thought bolts were an obnoxious, intrusive, posing and consumer-oriented desecration of rock, but that was the way lesser of the concerns - it's the tactics that had everyone up in arms, not the bolts per se.

Agreed, no fa if you hang but the whole dogging thing was just a personal judgement upon the dogger?

Tradiban wrote:

Agreed, no fa if you hang but the whole dogging thing was just a personal judgement upon the dogger?

Definitely not. Dogging was considered a styleless and antithetical tactic to the ethics of the time.

However, there was a recognition at the time (early 80's) that above a certain grade nothing was going to be climbed onsight without dogging and probably pre-cleaning and possibly even pre-placed pro as well. Folks then felt that bar was probably somewhere not far above 5.12. And folks weren't concerned about that fact, they were concerned about the spread of a tactic considered legitimate above a certain very hard grade to all grades.

And really, that's immediately what happened - dogging up 5.7s. Not only that, but with the combined advent of sport and gyms, 'climbing' itself was redefined for most folks as "hang, hang, hang, send, repeat" so their fears were not exactly unfounded or delusional.

One wonders if there realy was anything to "fear". Well, yes, in the minds of the people who wanted to keep climbing the pure adventure it once was. But the newer climbers don't seem to have the same fear, they just embrace the "new" tactics and feel that they have a great time doing so.

The history of the sport is very interesting and shouldn't be thrown out entirely, but I think that the new reality is not a disaster. Au contrair, I love it.

It's time to accept that not everyone agrees with you anymore.

Kees van der Heiden wrote:

The history of the sport is very interesting and shouldn't be thrown out entirely, but I think that the new reality is not a disaster. Au contrair, I love it.

No doubt, and 20 or 30 million bolts later so does everyone. Of course if the bolts evaporated overnight, there'd be 85-90% fewer climbers tomorrow. And again, the sad new reality is that climbing has been redefined (reduced) for the vast majority of folks to a boring gerbil loop of 'hang, hang, hang, send, rinse, repeat'. Pretty sad on the whole.

Sad in your mind. Not sad for all those other climbers.