Definition of a TRAD climb? does anything count?

Ska Ggs wrote:

using fiction to prove a point? I get what your saying but you presentation ruined your argument*

I'm using Non-Fiction Routes to bring up a point, sometimes the FA is just a douche-bag who did it "so he can climb it and chest beat to all the chicks he's trying to bed how great a climber he is." ...  https://www.mountainproject.com/route/107191688/sunshine

There are lots of routes out there. If you can’t lead the route in the style of the FA or better, top rope it or find another route. 
Everyone has the right to climb the route, but you don’t have a right to feel safe doing so. 

Denis Bill wrote: I take it that no one wants to address the elephant in the thread that FAs don't own the rock unless they literally own the rock (private land). Every tradition evolves as it gets handed down from person to person, and a growing portion of the community doesn't necessarily think all traditions should be preserved as rgold would like. Climbing for recreation just isn't very old as a human activity, and there is no reason it should it be immune from the march of time.  Epson error code 0xf1

Very true that the FA doesn't own the route, but it is tradition for the route to remain in the style that the FA put it in.  What you should be debating is the merits of that tradition.  I think blindly disregarding the tradition because its "the old ways" is just as silly as blindly accepting it.

I don't like the fact that its so sacrilegious to modify the lines that so obviously need it.  There are some really great routes out there that are not great because they are missing a few bolts.  However, these are a minority of routes out there.  So what about the slippery slope that we get on with wide open route modification?  Who gets to decide if the modification improves the route and who decides what defines improvement?  As seen by this thread those arguments get ugly and quick.  I'd argue this "tradition" protects more good routes from getting scared than it prevents bad routes from getting improved.  So maybe its a necessary evil?  

Ken Tubbs wrote:

Or if you want to lead it hang a top rope with loops every few feet and lead away.

Seems that i remember reading,years ago, that Todd Skinner had done some routes in Hueco Tanks that he used a  rope with loops tied in it for pro.

Mike Slavens wrote:

What you should be debating is the merits of that tradition.

OK, I am interested in hearing more, what would climbers suggest in terms of a simple replacement for the "FA has say over modifying the route" ethic?

I don't like the fact that its so sacrilegious to modify the lines that so obviously need it.  There are some really great routes out there that are not great because they are missing a few bolts.  

Who makes this call?  The 5.9 climber pushing into the next grade?  The 5.12 climber who is assessing the 5.10 climb for run outs?  Risk and reward go together here don't they or why would we even be interested in climbing and defying gravity?  If we make every route a school zone cross walk when do we have the opportunity to rise to a challenge. There are many routes of many differing styles, bolted like a gym, PG, R and X.  Would you be comfortable climbing a 5.1 R or X rated route or should we bolt the entire line for safety of all climbers? It definitely is a slippery slope and if it was an easy subject to address it would have been put to bed at this point.

Appreciate everyone's willingness to share their thoughts and perspectives, it's our chosen game after all.

I wish I could count how many times I have seen/heard people say they have a mandate that turns out to a few friends and some others that have no clue.

Without some plan, which I will call the trad plan, it is a free for all. You plan to just " fix " that trad route that scares you with one bolt. Now it's safe. You think.

Next guy says needs a bolt here, so in goes another. Why not, you did it.

Next guys says should not need cams...more bolts.

People who put up trad routes did so by the rules we established. Just like goalposts, and soccer nets, and basketball hoops, but more committing. You wouldn't support moving those around would you?

Lots of people stuck their necks out to play by the rules, and that is what made the game.

NO ONE went out new routing with bolts in their pack.

All we could climb was stuff with cracks and fissures. Bolters have an unlimited canvas.

Why can't you leave trad climbs alone, and put up new stuff ?  Explain that to me.

Mason Stone wrote: Topher,
"OK, I am interested in hearing more, what would climbers suggest in terms of a simple replacement for the "FA has say over modifying the route" ethic?"

The local community, ideally those with a history in climbing through new climbers, post notice of intent, not some small print horseshit but somewhere noticeable. Have a meeting of interested parties. Hash it out, put it to a vote, rinse and repeat as necessary. That's what is done locally for crag cleanup days. Why not also for modifying lines that sorely need it? Its also what is done at some crags for putting up new lines, why not to address the relics? Its not as if the crag is a museum for pete's sake.

RETRO-DEVELOPMENT!!!!!!

Add bolts in the style of the FA. This is the compromise of the century!!

Tom Stryker wrote: NO ONE went out new routing with bolts in their pack.

Gee, I wonder where all the bolts came from in Yosemite, T Meadows, Gunks, Whitehorse and Cathedral Ledges, and a wealth of other locales.
Sorry, your statement isn't even remotely accurate.

I can't speak for Yosemite, or the Meadows, but I know lots of people who new routed around here, in North Conway. People did not go out new routing with bolting gear. If they found a new line that would not go without a bolt, they debated and considered it first. There were a lot of routes that scare people today that ended up the way they are for that very reason.

Ask Michael Hartrich, Peter Lewis, Henry Barber, Wunsch, Bragg, Webster, Dunn, Wilcox. 

People do take bolting gear today, even for easy routes.

Mike Slavens wrote:

I don't like the fact that its so sacrilegious to modify the lines that so obviously need it. 

Why not just say you’re for retrobolting routes you’re otherwise not prepared to lead.

Mason Stone wrote: Just for you Tradaghast:
https://www.mountainproject.com/route/107116440/pabst-smear
Seems not everyone respects the holy relic, you going to chop these when you visit? And, I've lead it on gear, on bolts and mixed. Its a fun climb all three ways. Have you never encountered such a line? One where the retrobolting improved it for others. 

I won't chop any bolts but I will without mercy criticise the manhood of any boy who clips them.

Ska Ggs wrote: SO, I've been wrestling over the ethics and logic of my area with bolting and the idea "it was done on gear, so never bolt it" ... I REALLY don't want a bolting ethics discussion, but it brought to mind this line of thought. Is there an expected definition of a TRAD climb. Take the following examples that have been done in my area. I think some of these go beyond the 'R" rating of a trad climb.

A lot of the lines that were once dreamed up in my area, got TR'd for a month or so and studied till moves/gear were memorized and then a ground up attempt happened. That tactic makes sense but here is where I have an issue or two.

Climb 1) its a route that is about 45 feet tall, short and stout. After 10 feet you can get something in a horizontal crack, after that the face is shear and no gear to be found. SO, the FA went 1 piece at 10 feet and then ran out the top 30 feet. Anyone that touches this climb does it on TR and the number of Trad leaders who have done it can be counted on 1 hand ... TRAD lead? or basically a Solo with the first 10-15 feet protected?

Climb 2) Gear placement could not be found for a major section of the climb. The FA'er studied the rock and measured/made Hooks he could place and then tie off the base of the climb. there was no option for gear so the solution was climb up place a hook and down-climb to tie it off at the base. back up to a new hook, down-climb to bottom, stand on ground and tie it off ...  It went, but is this now the expected way to lead this route, I go home and make hooks too? I get to come down and rest between placing gear as long as I don't weight the rope?

Again, I'm not debating sections of run-out that make it R rated, but a route that seems like you only labeled it trad after basically a solo where you placed 1 piece or some idea that you up and down climb 4x while placing hooks. Are these really TRAD climbs? No one really repeats these the way the FA did ... its either TR'd or people never climb it.

Is there a definition or expectation to the label to a TRAD climb?

https://vimeo.com/293722694?from=outro-embed

Hope this clears things up.

Are people are confusing this thread with the one about retrobolting a slightly runout trad climb?

Here's an example. Established trad climb or not: Before the first lead, the FAist drilled and placed a bolt a few feet off the ground. He then climbed up, placed a hook (the only available protection), climbed back down, tied the hook to the bolt and tensioned it down, and then repeated the process a few more times. Later the FAist decided this process was stupid and unethical and returned to chop the bolt. Everyone else agreed and nobody tried to replace the bolt so the route could be climbed "in the style of the FA."

I'm not actually advocating for bolting any CT cliff that I know of where these tactics were used, but everyone making fun of Ska Ggs like he doesn't have a real question are just making it sound like you don't know what you're talking about.

Bryce Adamson wrote: Are people are confusing this thread with the one about retrobolting a slightly runout trad climb?

Here's an example. Established trad climb or not: Before the first lead, the FAist drilled and placed a bolt a few feet off the ground. He then climbed up, placed a hook (the only available protection), climbed back down, tied the hook to the bolt and tensioned it down, and then repeated the process a few more times. Later the FAist decided this process was stupid and unethical and returned to chop the bolt. Everyone else agreed and nobody tried to replace the bolt so the route could be climbed "in the style of the FA."

I'm not actually advocating for bolting any CT cliff that I know of where these tactics were used, but everyone making fun of Ska Ggs like he doesn't have a real question are just making it sound like you don't know what you're talking about.

CT should have been in the title. The problem is nobody would care if it was.

Mobes Mobesely wrote:

CT should have been in the title. The problem is nobody would care if it was.

BOOM goes the dynamite!

Tradiban wrote:

I won't chop any bolts but I will without mercy criticise the manhood of any boy who clips them.

Just one question: why would anyone, anywhere care what you had to say about their manhood (or womanhood, for that matter)?

ed "that's 'Mr. Boy' to you...." e

ed esmond wrote:

Just one question: why would anyone, anywhere care what you had to say about their manhood (or womanhood, for that matter)?

ed "that's 'Mr. Boy' to you...." e

I know, right?!? You would be surprised!

Topher Dabrowski wrote:

 
 Currently, in my experience, the following rock climbing terms are used in these equivalent ways:

 Trad climb = gear route = removable pro and pitons are the only protection on the route; belay anchors can be mixed
 Mixed climb = removable pro, pitons and bolts used on the route; belays can be mixed
 Sport climb = clip ups = all bolts used for protection on the route including belay anchors
 

Sorry, that's just not accurate, as a number of people have pointed out to you.  Yes, it is a common mistake to think that bolts = sport.  It's a mistake born of the fact that all sport routes have lots of bolts, and most trad routes have no bolts.  But those are mere correlations.  

What defines a trad route is that the protection is placed, typically during the ascent, with the intention in mind to make that ascent as safe as the FA feels is possible/necessary for him or herself to get to the top, given what the rock has to offer.  Whether the protection is nuts, cams, pins, or bolts, is supposed to be determined by what protection the rock will take.

Cheers,

GO

Denis Bill wrote: I take it that no one wants to address the elephant in the thread that FAs don't own the rock unless they literally own the rock (private land). Every tradition evolves as it gets handed down from person to person, and a growing portion of the community doesn't necessarily think all traditions should be preserved as rgold would like. Climbing for recreation just isn't very old as a human activity, and there is no reason it should it be immune from the march of time.  Epson error code 0xf1

I don't think that's the elephant in the room.  I think trad climbing is alive and well in tons of areas in the country, where it is a very respected part of climbing.  That includes both older routes, and new routes going up all the time.  Whether you personally think it's outdated doesn't change that fact.

I do think there's an elephant, though.  The elephant I see in the room is that trad ethics differ considerably from one area to another, and in Connecticut, one person had a huge, and I think many would say unhealthy and divisive, affect on the local ethic.  That is the real problem that underlies the routes that Ska Gg sees.

GO

Mike D wrote: When did this definition get added to the lexicon of climbing terms? When I started climbing, sport climbing meant bolts and trad climbing meant removable gear or pitons (if the climb was old enough to have fixed gear).
We did not consider bolts placed on lead to be trad. Those climbs were just bolted in the accepted style. Rap bolting was frowned upon or illegal at the places I climbed 20 years ago.
A sport climb bolted ground up with a hand drill is still a sport climb. 

Yes but there are plenty of ground up, bolt protected climbs that are not sport climbs. Think  areas like Tuolumne or Stone Mtn NC.

Name one place where rap bolting was illegal but ground up bolting (not talking about hand vs power drilled) was ok.

Mike D wrote: When did this definition get added to the lexicon of climbing terms? When I started climbing, sport climbing meant bolts and trad climbing meant removable gear or pitons (if the climb was old enough to have fixed gear).
We did not consider bolts placed on lead to be trad. Those climbs were just bolted in the accepted style. Rap bolting was frowned upon or illegal at the places I climbed 20 years ago.
A sport climb bolted ground up with a hand drill is still a sport climb. 

Where did you climb, Mike?  I've been climbing 20 years as well, and I've always known this was the definition of trad climbing.  It's just not done most places, because it doesn't make sense for most rock.

GO