Bolted belay anchors

rgold wrote:

Why would that be?

that's what one of the above posters was saying. That bolted belays aren't trad. Obviously, The Vampire is a widely known, well-loved trad route.  With a bolted anchor right at the crux. So there goes that argument. 

Señor Arroz wrote:

that's what one of the above posters was saying. That bolted belays aren't trad. Obviously, The Vampire is a widely known, well-loved trad route.  With a bolted anchor right at the crux. So there goes that argument. 

They were talking about two different things then, Senor. 

That bolted belays aren't trad. Obviously, The Vampire is a widely known, well-loved trad route.  With a bolted anchor right at the crux. So there goes that argument. 

1. The original point was really that bolted belays in places where gear anchors could have been placed aren't trad, but a lot gets lost because folks aren't necessarily precise in their use of language.  
2. The question of bolted protection points is another one altogether.  
3. The failure to be trad can be a feature of the climbs or the actions of climbers.  If someone bolts a gear belay stance on a trad climb, that's anti-trad behavior, but most people would still think of the climb as a trad climb.
4. The star rating of a climb doesn't indicate whether or not it is a trad climb.

I haven't done the Vampire, but my guess is that the points above would refute any attempt to call it "not trad."

Of course, a substantial problem is that not everyone is operating with the same definition of "trad," and it is possible that some of those making arguments genuinely don't know what the term really refers to.  (Hint: if you think "trad" means "gear protected," you don't know what trad means.)

Hobo Greg wrote:

Climb rock on its terms (except for rubber). Do you really not see an incongruity there?

Huh?  Well no.  What does rubber have to do with anything?  Are you suggesting we forego footwear?  Clothes too?

In our sport there has long been a big difference between equipment used to climb (safety or assistance) and permanently installing items in the rock.

Permanently changing the rock whether be it bolts or chipping holds is clearly deliberately changing the climb for everybody who follows after you.  (And if you are wondering about chalk, personally I find it a bit of a blight on rock.  I personally rarely use it beyond the start of the climb.)

Tim Lutz wrote:

Bolted Belays aren't Trad....

and

If it was good enough for the Stone Masters from the Golden Age,

then that tradition should be enough for today's 'traditional climbers'

Rgold, I think we're talking past each other from a place of total agreement. I was responding to this sort of nonsense from Tim Lutz. The Vampire's FA was by Royal Robbins and the  FFA was BY, among others, John Long. So apparently it WAS good enough for the Stone masters. And it's trad. And it's a great climb.  And it has a lovely bolted belay. 

rgold wrote:
Of course, a substantial problem is that not everyone is operating with the same definition of "trad," and it is possible that some of those making arguments genuinely don't know what the term really refers to.  (Hint: if you think "trad" means "gear protected," you don't know what trad means.)

On this thread it's more a distraction than a problem..  I am optimistic that people's opinions on whether or not a given route should have bolted anchors aren't actually based on a language quirk.  I suspect the original remark that brought up the term "trad" on this thread was more a form of name-calling than a logical argument.

I do think it is a problem with setting climber's expectations based on books.  For lack of a better term, books (and MP) use "trad" to label all routes that take significant amounts of removable gear.  Some of those are basically gear-protected sport climbs (plentiful and obvious placements), others are decidedly not.

Señor Arroz 

I was responding to this sort of nonsense from Tim Lutz. 

But you found a bolt on Trad climb so that makes my points regarding Traditional Climbing nonsensical?  

There's a pretty clear and simple answer to this, despite all the confusing terms, eras, and opinions. To be clear, the discussion is about convenience anchors on routes the community views as “trad”.

Trad, sport, alpine, etc. can be viewed as genres. Lets swap climbing with food for a minute to make an analogy.

I love traditional style mexican food. Now lets say I decide that kimchee tastes fantastic in my tacos. Good stuff! We can even imagine a trend taking off and now almost everyone is putting kimchee in their tacos. Hell, even Maria’s Cocina down the street has started selling kimchee tacos.

Does it make sense to now say that kimchee is part of classic Mexican cuisine?

The obvious answer is no. It doesnt matter how many Mexicans start putting kimchee in thier food. Its a modern adaptation. Even if kimchee becomes the most popular food in Mexico, its still a Korean dish.

Like Mexican food, ‘trad’ is a genre. There are certain characteristics that fall squarely within the genre, and there are some variations. But certain things are decidedly not within the genre, even if they are commonly combined today.  

FA’ing routes from above, top-rope rehearsal, power drills, convenience anchors, et cetera, are all contemporary trends. Largely commonplace stuff today, even standard in many cases. Whether these techniques are good or not is a separate discussion. 

But they arent trad. They’re kimchee tacos.

Yea, but Honnold likes cake.

Tim Lutz wrote:
But you found a bolt on Trad climb so that makes my points regarding Traditional Climbing nonsensical?  

No, I found a bolted BELAY ANCHOR on a well-known and popular  trad climb put up by the one of the fathers of US trad climbing and then FFA'd by a "Stone Master" which was the exact term you used as someone who would, of course, eschew such belays. And, frankly, both Tahquitz and Yosemite are full of other examples. For example there's a two bolt "Convenience anchor" right at the top of the Open Book, another famous Tahquitz trad route. So maybe you're just communicating poorly and meant something else?

By the way, I'm not advocating for more convenience anchors, just pointing out that your terminology doesn't make a lot of sense. 

Tim Lutz wrote:

Then I stand corrected.  Looks like even in 1969 Robbins was already adding Kimchi to the tacos ...

Not when he was making them for me.

Jeffrey Constine wrote: ZZZZZ circles lol

We should give out door prizes to the essay writers for keeping it real. Lutz, you lose buddy.

Tim Lutz wrote:

Pot, meet Kettle

I'm just focusing on the greater good. 

Now going in BIGGER circles lololol.

Where are the pie lovers???

I WANNA INTERNET FIGHT NAO.

Mobes Mobesely wrote:

I'm just focusing on the greater good. 

Good man! 

That is the only good.