Contradiction

eli poss wrote:

Ever climbed at Leda or Lower Leda? Some of the sport routes there have this kind of bolting style, very different from your typical modern sport crag with bolts every 5 feet. Never climbed at deep creek or the obed, but that was the only non-secretive sport crag in Chattanooga when I used to climb there. So there are, in fact, places in TN that have this type of bolting style. 

Ive never been to Leda. You are saying that at Leda the routes are bolted such that you would consider anchoring your belayer? T Wall has several sport routes, i would not anchor my belayer for any of the ones I have done there. 

More spaced than the RRG does not equal dangerous.

Alexander Blum wrote:

Ive never been to Leda. You are saying that at Leda the routes are bolted such that you would consider anchoring your belayer? T Wall has several sport routes, i would not anchor my belayer for any of the ones I have done there. 

More spaced than the RRG does not equal dangerous.

As I am almost always the lighter one, no I would not consider anchoring my belayer. However, the bolt spacing on some of the routes at Leda is a bit wider than your typical modern sport climbing. Instead of having the last bolt between your waist and feet as you clip the next bolt (which is typical of modern sport climbs), you will often find your feet a bit above the last bolt as you clip the next one.

In some ways, Leda feels more old school than T-wall. IMO the grades tend to be stiffer at Leda than T-wall, which is surprising because the first 15' don't count for the rating of the route at T-wall ;)

Alexander Blum wrote:Many? Could you name some? This is not true for the RRG, NRG, Smith Rock, anyplace in Tennessee, all the major sport climbing outside of Boulder, etc. Any route bolted as you describe is by definition not a sport route. Including your example - that route was probably bolted on lead.

Not sure how being bolted on lead makes any difference to whether it's a sport climb. That whole wall is climbed with quickdraws only, there is no place for gear. Off the top of my head for other examples, I can come up walk on the wild side at Joshua tree, there's a route at kaymoor slabs at NRG but I don't remember the name, and there's a couple routes at Jackson falls. 

Again, as I said, in a general day sport climbing, probably not something you run into. But there are routes that are marked as sport climbs in guidebooks that you need to put some extra thought into. That's basically what I got out of that article. Not that you should always anchor your belayer but that hey you can't just hop on any outdoor sport climb and not think about ledges, bolt spacing, bolt quality etc like you would in the gym. 

Alex James wrote:

Not sure how being bolted on lead makes any difference to whether it's a sport climb. 

That is precisely what makes the difference.  If you truly believe this, you have emphatically disqualified yourself from being taken seriously in this discussion.

don'tchuffonme wrote:

That is precisely what makes the difference.  If you truly believe this, you have emphatically disqualified yourself from being taken seriously in this discussion.

And so now we need to start marking "protection: 12 draws but it was bolted on lead" in guidebooks? That's ridiculous. Almost all of the climbs I referred to are marked as sport climbs on mountain project (and in guidebooks) so anyone could hop on them no knowing anything about the bolt spacing. Looks like you need to start campaigning harder if you want all bolt protected climbs with large bolt spacing to be marked trad because they're different than what you're used to. 

Mis categorization by mp and guidebooks doesn't change the fundamental definition of sport vs trad. If the route wasn't bolted on rappel, OR bolted on lead with sufficient protection for safe falls, its not a sport route. This has always been the defining characteristic of sport climbing, safe (not necessarily close) bolt spacing that allows the climber to focus on difficult, often gymnastic movement. 

Alexander Blum wrote: Mis categorization by mp and guidebooks doesn't change the fundamental definition of sport vs trad. If the route wasn't bolted on rappel, OR bolted on lead with sufficient protection for safe falls, its not a sport route. This has always been the defining characteristic of sport climbing, safe (not necessarily close) bolt spacing that allows the climber to focus on difficult, often gymnastic movement. 

Sure in an ideal world I agree sport climbs should be bolted nicely but that is not the world that we live in. There are climbs are out there, marked as sport climbs (incorrectly or not) that do require extra thought that a gym climb does not. 

Whatever your opinion of the possibly incorrect designation, we should let gym to sport transition people know that just because it is marked as sport, doesn't mean it is as brainless as the gym climb. Some ideal of what a sport climb should be is relatively inconsequential unless you're the one bolting or grading it.

Just so we don't lose track in the weeds: my original argument is that the OP quotation is cherry picked and that very occasionally I would consider anchoring my belayer but in general do not. 

A few folks on this forum get bent out of shape on a semi-regular basis with the claim that people are coming up with super obscure situations to fit their arguments. Personally I think the problem lies in the other direction with "always" and "never" being thrown around far too regularly. I think there are certainly situations out there where considering having your belayer anchored in is a good idea. A large weight disparity is one situation. A climb that comes to mind is Scream Cheese at the City of Rocks. www.mountainproject.com/route/105741593/scream-cheese
 If the leader were to slip before clipping the first bolt, or something failed both climbers could take a big fall off the ledge. Incidentally the comments describe an accident on this route in which a harder catch or taking more rope in during the fall might have prevented two broken ankles. 

Hobo Greg wrote:

Are you high? 

Nope.  Unfortunately.

When's the last time you went snowboarding? Snowboarding and skiing probably have more gumbies flying around than climbing ever will, and the amount of broken bones proves it.

Early March.  I saw literally thousands of people and didn't witness any broken bones, and I don't think any injuries either.  Not to say any didn't occur, I just didn't see any.  Of course, I don't go skiing that often, so admittedly I don't have a good frame of reference with snow sports, so maybe not the best comparison.  

But- the last half dozen times I've been sport climbing there were not thousands of people there. A couple dozen at the busiest, a handful of people otherwise.  I've seen two broken bones, one twisted ankle, and numerous "close calls" where someone had to step in and say something.  One of the broken bones was from a hard catch when the belayer was anchored to a tree and the climber clipped the edge of a roof.  Not statistically relevant, granted, but it certainly does influence my perception.

 I think youre putting our sport on a pedestal. We are not some greater force in the world, we are just like everyone else.

A negative pedestal, perhaps.  I agree that we're not some greater force in the world.  But in no other athletic venture have I seen so many people misusing gear, employing non-standard and dangerous practices, and clambering about with an air of competence, so much so that they feel emboldened to tell others that are correct that they're doing something wrong.  I've seen quite a bit of that, both online and in person.  I've seen complete noobs tell safe, experienced veteran climbers what's what.

I've never seen someone that only played little league tell Nolan Ryan or Derek Jeter that they don't know what the infield fly rule is, or that they're holding the bat wrong.  Yet, in this very thread, you see someone telling experienced, veteran climbers that whether or not a climb was bolted ground up or not, has no bearing on whether or not it's a sport climb.  It's rampant, and I don't see it anywhere else.  Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough, or maybe the fat sports fans don't have access to the veterans of that sport in an online forum or in person to make fools of themselves.

Alex James wrote:

And so now we need to start marking "protection: 12 draws but it was bolted on lead" in guidebooks? That's ridiculous. Almost all of the climbs I referred to are marked as sport climbs on mountain project (and in guidebooks) so anyone could hop on them no knowing anything about the bolt spacing. Looks like you need to start campaigning harder if you want all bolt protected climbs with large bolt spacing to be marked trad because they're different than what you're used to. 

I rest my case.

don'tchuffonme wrote:

I rest my case.

Wow didn't know I was talking to Nolan Ryan over here. 

Alex James wrote:

Wow didn't know I was talking to Nolan Ryan over here. 

Certainly not trying to equate myself to Nolan Ryan.  I do know, however, that traditional means established ground up.  Sport means it wasn't established ground up (and there are a number of reasons behind this, and I won't go into them here).  There are plenty of sport climbs with liberal bolt spacing.  There are plenty of sport climbs with arguably too many bolts.  There are plenty of traditional routes that have bolts, or offer only bolts for protection.  Trad doesn't mean "only protected with gear" and sport doesn't mean "bolt-protected".  The jury has been out on this for a long, long time.  

don'tchuffonme wrote:

Certainly not trying to equate myself to Nolan Ryan.  I do know, however, that traditional means established ground up.  Sport means it wasn't established ground up (and there are a number of reasons behind this, and I won't go into here).  There are plenty of sport climbs with liberal bolt spacing.  There are plenty of sport climbs with arguably too many bolts.  There are plenty of traditional routes that have bolts, or offer only bolts for protection.  Trad doesn't mean "only protected with gear" and sport doesn't mean "bolt-protected".  The jury has been out on this for a long, long time.  

And my main point is that sources of information (guidebook, MP, etc) don't reliably mark things the same way. I've seen enough things designated as a sport route (even if you disagree with whoever designated it that) that it is something to point out that not *all* climbs marked as a sport climb are as simple as a gym route. 

We're just arguing different things. You're saying this thing doesn't count as evidence because it was established ground up so it's not a sport climb. I'm saying I don't care how it was established, it is designated as a sport climb somewhere so someone (probably new) is going to think its a sport climb even if it per correctness isn't.

Alex James wrote:

And my main point is that sources of information (guidebook, MP, etc) don't reliably mark things the same way.

How it's designated doesn't change how it was established.  

 I've seen enough things designated as a sport route (even if you disagree with whoever designated it that) that it is something to point out that not *all* climbs marked as a sport climb are not as simple as a gym route. 

Nothing is as simple as a gym route.  I've done sport climbs that were amazingly complex as well as scary at times.  Very few of those though, were outright dangerous with a competent belay.

We're just arguing different things. You're saying this thing doesn't count as evidence because it was established ground up so it's not a sport climb.

Precisely.

 I'm saying I don't care how it was established, it is designated as a sport climb somewhere so someone (probably new) is going to think its a sport climb even if it per correctness isn't.

You keep saying this.  MP aside, can you cite examples of climbs established ground up in a guidebook that are designated as "sport climbs"?  I do see what you're saying, and I'm not trying to be difficult.  My point was simply what Alexander stated a few posts up better than I did.  Sport climbs are routes that were established not to be bold, but to be relatively safe with difficulty of movement being the main idea.  One of the reasons they're not developed ground up on lead or being bolted from stances is to ensure the nature of focus on movement stays just that.  From a rope, you can better inspect clipping stances, holds, sequences, and yes, add more fixed protection.  Sure, there are sport routes that have ten feet or twelve feet between bolts.  That doesn't make them unsafe (and yes, of course there are plenty of bolted routes that have obstacles and protrusions and ledges you wouldn't want to hit either).  They might be scary to those that are used to bolts every 5 feet, but that doesn't change their nature.  Predominantly in the US, sport climbing is most prevalent at single pitch areas.  There are a few exceptions of course, but by and large, sport climbing is just about synonymous with single pitch cragging.  

Never have I seen anyone be injured from NOT anchoring in while "sport climbing"- that is if one were willing to concede that sport climbing means single pitch cragging on routes that are chiefly bolted and not developed ground up.  I have seen plenty of people be injured from hitting hard because of the belayer being anchored in though.  There's even a story somewhere on here from a guy that almost lost his entire foot because he hit the wall so hard it broke off the end of his ankle because his belayer was anchored (ironically I think it was on a single pitch trad climb haha).  That's my only point, really.  

I didn't intend to jump off on this tangent, but here we are.

don'tchuffonme wrote: How it's designated doesn't change how it was established.  

I agree, but how it was established is a lot harder to know without much research or climbing it. 

You keep saying this.  MP aside, can you cite examples of climbs established ground up in a guidebook that are designated as "sport climbs"?  I do see what you're saying, and I'm not trying to be difficult.  

I'm on travel now so I don't have my collection of guidebooks handy (hence the reliance on MP). I believe three hour tour at Jackson falls was bolted ground up, is marked in the guidebook as a sport route, and has decking potential if you fuck up clipping almost every bolt. Also there is a sport route at T-wall in the guidebook (I don't remember the name and it doesn't seem to be on MP but it's somewhere around pursuit/prereq for excellence) that didn't have a bolt for the later half of the route (I think because it dipped from a 10 to a 7). Not sure if it was ground up. My first example of ultraman wall at Red rocks are sport routes I think in the book. Sorry I can't come up with more from memory. 

My point was simply what Alexander stated a few posts up better than I did.  Sport climbs are routes that were established not to be bold, but to be relatively safe with difficulty of movement being the main idea.  One of the reasons they're not developed ground up on lead or being bolted from stances is to ensure the nature of focus on movement stays just that.  From a rope, you can better inspect clipping stances, holds, sequences, and yes, add more fixed protection. 

I agree with this. Think we're arguing more on the designation than definition side... 

 ever have I seen anyone be injured from NOT anchoring in while "sport climbing"- that is if one were willing to concede that sport climbing means single pitch cragging on routes that are chiefly bolted and not developed ground up.  I have seen plenty of people be injured from hitting hard because of the belayer being anchored in though.  There's even a story somewhere on here from a guy that almost lost his entire foot because he hit the wall so hard it broke off the end of his ankle because his belayer was anchored (ironically I think it was on a single pitch trad climb haha).  That's my only point, really.  

In general I agree with you which is why earlier I said in general I don't anchor the belayer. Whether we include ground up or not, there are some cases of single pitch bolt protected climbing where I would anchor someone. There's a route at Obed up an arete that starts on the edge of a pedestal, someone above mentioned similar situation elsewhere. 

I think we can agree that anchoring the belayer is normally not the correct idea. I just agree it should be mentioned as an option because there are cases it is needed. Maybe I just climb the obscure weird sport climbs more often than most (probably true since I don't like waiting in line) 

I can think of one sport crag off the top of my head where almost all of the routes were bolted ground up on lead. This is because access to the top of the cliff is on private property so it simply couldn't be bolted top down. Many were later retrobolted to make them safer and more beginner friendly. However, on a lot of these, a fall can still be bad because there is plenty of stuff to hit on the way down.

This is one of the issues with the safe or low risk definition of sport routes is that this breaks down at the lower grades. On featured, low angle terrain, which is typical of easy climbs, it would have to be grid bolted to meet that definition of sport climbing.

The other issue is that, regardless of the correct or historically correct definition of sport climbing, the bolt protected/gear protected definitions of sport and trad are usually the ones that actually being used when classifying routes in databases and some guidebooks. When it comes to semantics and definitions, actual word use in the real world today tends to have more weight than how a word was used historically.  

eli poss wrote: When it comes to semantics and definitions, actual word use in the real world today tends to have more weight than how a word was used historically.  

Only with those too young to remember the original definitions and all the conflict involved.  Just saying.

Alexander Blum wrote: 
Many? Could you name some? This is not true for the RRG, NRG, Smith Rock, anyplace in Tennessee, all the major sport climbing outside of Boulder, etc. Any route bolted as you describe is by definition not a sport route. Including your example - that route was probably bolted on lead.

Though neither area are renown for their sport climbs, almost any sport climb in Eldo will barely keep you off the ground, same for the old school bolted lines in the Flatirons.

Everyone keeps saying this, but I don't think people are belaying The Web anchored to the ground. I dunno

John Byrnes wrote:

Only with those too young to remember the original definitions and all the conflict involved.  Just saying.

Do you know how dictionaries work? They choose words and their definitions based on how they are used in literature within the past x years. This is how language grows, changes, and evolves. And within the context of this thread, the definition of sport and trad as commonly used in route classification is a lot more meaningful and useful than any historic definitions or the conflict surrounding them.