Why FAs don't matter...

This post violated Guideline #1 and has been removed.

Seriously?? 

Tradiban wrote: This takes out the complicated human element to improving routes.

I noticed a few times in this thread where you have made similar comments to the above.  What exactly do you mean by improve?  Who is doing the improving, and are they not complicated human beings?

Dan 60D5H411 wrote:

I noticed a few times in this thread where you have made similar comments to the above.  What exactly do you mean by improve?  Who is doing the improving, and are they not complicated human beings?

We all know there are plenty of routes out there that could use a bolt where a piton is, maybe an extra bolt or two, or a bolted anchor for various reasons. Some routes could even use a re-route where the FA zigged when they should have zagged.

The humans doing the improving are in fact complicated but they are beholden to the style of the route instead of a lone "complicated" human being. See the difference?

To answer "s.price", yes this is essentially argument for Retro-development.

Tradiban wrote: 
-As seen here on MP many FAs get their self worth wrapped up in what they climbed first. This is unhealthy for the "community" and the FA themselves.

For that matter, we should stop keeping track of all human achievement. We shouldn't be getting our self worth wrapped up in our accomplishments, capabilities, virtues, etc.....

The improving route talk is heresy. Retro-development is a slippery slope. Gateway drug if you will for things to come.  

I agree that Tradiban’s FAs probably don’t matter.

I hope I wasn’t ground upped on this comment, because it fucking matters!

The lone wolf doesn't give a  crap about so called " local communities " or even acknowledge the possibility of one that exists. Freedom baby, love it or leave it!

s.price wrote: Cool. At least the cards are on the table now. I don't really have a stance one way or the other. Local community should dictate such actions. Not the desires of one individual.

The reliance on the "community" has been addressed, it can't be defined and therefore introduces choas. We need to rely on a definite.

As for the "community" chopping the bolts, it just proves my point further, that's just mob rule and uncivilized. I think the "community" could agree that the style can be relied upon to provide a direction for improvement.

Sheesh! Troll indeed.

When people see my name on a desert route they know what to expect (as opposed to, say, Beyers).

Most of the above comments seem to come from folks who enjoy climbing and its historical context.  Tradiban on the other hand (based on his commits here and in other like threads) appears to enjoy more the controversy and number of thread pages the controversy spawns than the actual sport and its community.  So I am done here.  Learned long ago that if you feed a rat they only grow larger.

Tradiban wrote: Are you saying that if people don't get their name printed they won't develop routes? I beg to differ.

-You said, "The FA of most routes is simply a function of right place at the right time."
I am saying that if climbers want to put up an FA there is ample places and plenty of time. I don't have any idea what you mean with your response above?  I didn't say anything that was remotely close to what you are suggesting.  

If it has been climbed then a precedent of style has been established and my proposal is to work within that standard not the person who put it up. This takes out the complicated human element to improving routes.

No, your human element complicates things by "improving" routes you did not put up.

Yes, more creative names would be nice.

Not the point.  I wasn't commenting on whether or not you thought the names are catchy.

These are different things but most closely related in the moon walk. So, by climbing logic should Armstrong dictate how all future moonwalks are conducted?! Should Jackie Robinson dictate how all black men play baseball?! Should Michaelangelo dictate how the Sistine Chapel be repainted?!

This response is befuddling.  I don't know what you are talking about with the "dictating the future" and "future moonwalks conducted" stuff.  They did it first.  They created it. They should be recognized as being the ones that did it.  Who was the second black man to play baseball?  Or the second one to walk on the moon?  Not nearly as important.

Historical context will still be available under this system via the style the route is climbed in.

Two pioneers explored the west with Sacagawea on horseback.  The first man to step onto the moon went in a rocket.  The person who discovered the Americas did so in a boat.  Not quite the same without the name.

In the case of climbing the ego's control of how a route can evolve is very problematic. First of all the system can not endure as the FA must one day leave this earth. Second, if the FA is gone we try and consult the "community" but since the "community" is undefinable we have problems there as well. More importantly the FA is a person, a human, and is subject to fallibility. 

Retrobolters are human and subject to fallibility as well.  Once the route has be retroed its true style has been stolen, not as you put it 'improved".   If you don't care about traditional ethics then what does it matter if there is a name on the route or not?  Just sink those sissy bolts and own it.

It is impossible to rely on one human for logical answers.

You have demonstrated this very well in this thread.

s.price wrote: No local climbing community or organization? You will find no answers on MP.
Is an individual making these decisions with no input any different than the FA choosing to follow their desires? Trading one for the other?  Just wondering how you get the community to agree on style dictating improvement without reaching out to that community. How do you define definite without a consensus? You won't achieve that on MP.  Ultimately the lone wolf crawls away with its tail between its legs. Or takes over the pack. Good luck. Without going rouge I think you are fighting a losing battle.

Convincing the "community" to change the way it makes decisions is different from the "community" making a decision about how to improve a route. I have confidence that the "community" can see the logic behind basing decisions about route improvement on established style rather than an undefinable "community" or fallible person. 

Picture a scenario where you climb a route and think "This route could use a bolt here, it would really make the crux moves better protected". Under the current system you would have to find the FA who may or may not agree with you or consult the "community", not sure how you would even do that. With "Retro Development" you simply find out how the route was established, ground up or rap bolted and then proceed under that precedent. Doesn't that seem a whole lot more logical and rational to you?

Ron O wrote: Sheesh! Troll indeed.

When people see my name on a desert route they know what to expect (as opposed to, say, Beyers).

You can bet your ass Heisenberg wanted his name on his meth. That meant quality. 

Guy Keesee wrote:

Chris..... I was going to disagree- but knowing the you come from a “rap bolt” place - Smith- I see your point. 

What do you do if the top is 700 feet above you? On slick as snot granite- one generally tries to climb the natural line- that’s stance to stance and bolts get placed only if one thinks they need one to protect the next bunch of moves required to get to another stance. Doing FAs in this style is - IMHO- the best style to do them in IF the stone is good. And with climbs like this it’s very helpful to know who did it first. 
When the stone is crap... best to get to top and clean up everything and make the climb as perfect as you can. That’s “route development “ the person, or the crew, who does this also needs to be known because the quality of a climb, the end product, can be expected and if needed discussed and changed. 
Happy climbing ALL 

I see your point too in certain situations..in other situations though, i also know of routes on the back side of half dome where youre traversing 100’ spans before being able to drill any bolt. A route on there recently got retro bolted, while on rappel to add the proper protection. Also with that, i was told that a bolt that was replaced, was drilled on lead by hand.. apparently it was a 1/4” button put in in a pretty desperate situation.

I was mainly talking about bolting single pitch routes, but ultimately, bolting any line i think would be better from the top down.. not saying dont free it with style, but to really stoke a route out i truly feel coming from the top down really makes for good route development. But yes, bias forsure coming from Smith.. ive went ground up climbing/aiding with a drill once and it sucked. Terrifying actually. Ive developed over 20 lines on rappel and felt super safe and  had the advantage of being able to jug up and down to really mock out each section and sequence. 
To each is own though! 

Climbing doesn’t matter. A bunch of selfish cunts doing selfish stuff.

So FA’s don’t matter as long as you admit Climbing really doesn't matter. First world luxury

Kyran Keisling wrote: -You said, "The FA of most routes is simply a function of right place at the right time."
I am saying that if climbers want to put up an FA there is ample places and plenty of time. I don't have any idea what you mean with your response above?  I didn't say anything that was remotely close to what you are suggesting.  

I'm not talking about putting up FAs, I'm talking about what to do with them once they have been done. Under the current system the FA owns the route or the "community" must be consulted to change the route, but as explained above those are dead ends. The FA will one day die and the "community" is undefinable.

No, your human element complicates things by "improving" routes you did not put up.

Not sure why you think improving routes per the style they were established in is complicated.

Not the point.  I wasn't commenting on whether or not you thought the names are catchy.

So what's your point? The B-Y is the "B-Y", so what? B is no longer around to dictate how his route is improved, so now it's in the "community's" hands, but who is the "community"? If someone did go up, hook, and place another bolt on B-Y wouldn't that be flattering to Bachar or anyone else who didn't need that bolt? Wouldn't it be pure ego to look down on anyone who did need that bolt?

This response is befuddling.  I don't know what you are talking about with the "dictating the future" and "future moonwalks conducted" stuff.  They did it first.  They created it. They should be recognized as being the ones that did it.  Who was the second black man to play baseball?  Or the second one to walk on the moon?  Not nearly as important.
Two pioneers explored the west with Sacagawea on horseback.  The first man to step onto the moon went in a rocket.  The person who discovered the Americas did so in a boat.  Not quite the same without the name.

In short, making routes isn't some sort of historic achievement. Your analogies don't jive. Moving on...

Retrobolters are human and subject to fallibility as well.  Once the route has be retroed its true style has been stolen, not as you put it 'improved".   If you don't care about traditional ethics then what does it matter if there is a name on the route or not?  Just sink those sissy bolts and own it.

A route's "style" stays the same as long as the bolts are added in the same way the FA would have done it. I think you mean that a route's "original state has been altered", which I don't have a problem with, that's called progress.  

Great thread. Lots of diversity of opinion, minimum of petty insults (relatively speaking). As a guidebook publisher, I read this with interest. From our perspective, crediting FAs is much more about giving extra information that, as explained very well several times in this thread, can be as useful as knowing if the rock is granite or limestone. If you get a huge ego boost by seeing your name on an FA, well, ... yeah, OK, all of us FA-addicts have been there. It's nice the first few times, but the feeling definitely fades. It's not really a very relevant issue for the 99% of routes that are far below the state of the art. But by knowing who did first ascents, you get a sense of how people explored an area, who picked what, and what personal flair you might expect when repeating certain first-asensionists' routes. It also often give you info on hardware quality. Assuming, of course, you give an F about any of that. And if not, simply ignore the offending info - ignore the whole route description, for that matter, just find the starting point. As for "style of the FA," make sure you define that carefully. "Ground up" is meaningless - it led to a lot of boring bolt ladders back in the day, while the early rap-bolted routes were for the most part pretty damned scary. Real-life "styles" of FAs include: "no hammered pro," or "a bolt any time the fall has become dangerous," or "the absolute minimum number of bolts I could do the climb with," or "crux easily workable on skippable bolts," or "any (safe) climbing more than a number grade below the crux gets a minimum 30' air fall cuz this wall is steep, clean, and awesome." Style of the FA definitely matters, and I for one like to know whose work I'm working with.

J Achey wrote: Great thread. Lots of diversity of opinion, minimum of petty insults (relatively speaking). As a guidebook publisher, I read this with interest. From our perspective, crediting FAs is much more about giving extra information that, as explained very well several times in this thread, can be as useful as knowing if the rock is granite or limestone. If you get a huge ego boost by seeing your name on an FA, well, ... yeah, OK, all of us FA-addicts have been there. It's nice the first few times, but the feeling definitely fades. It's not really a very relevant issue for the 99% of routes that are far below the state of the art. But by knowing who did first ascents, you get a sense of how people explored an area, who picked what, and what personal flair you might expect when repeating certain first-asensionists' routes. It also often give you info on hardware quality. Assuming, of course, you give an F about any of that. And if not, simply ignore the offending info - ignore the whole route description, for that matter, just find the starting point. As for "style of the FA," make sure you define that carefully. "Ground up" is meaningless - it led to a lot of boring bolt ladders back in the day, while the early rap-bolted routes were for the most part pretty damned scary. Real-life "styles" of FAs include: "no hammered pro," or "a bolt any time the fall has become dangerous," or "the absolute minimum number of bolts I could do the climb with," or "crux easily workable on skippable bolts," or "any (safe) climbing more than a number grade below the crux gets a minimum 30' air fall cuz this wall is steep, clean, and awesome." Style of the FA definitely matters, and I for one like to know whose work I'm working with.

Nice of you to enter the fray!

I don't deny some good info can from knowing who the FA is but I don't think it's crucial or necessary and comes with a cost. Almost any info you are getting from a name you can gleen from the other tidbits. And besides humans aren't always consistent, couldn't it be dangerous to make assumptions based on a name?

Right, I'm aware there's a large variety of ground up styles but those styles are all just variations of ground up specific to the person doing them, the FA. In other words it's splitting hairs.

Colonel Mustard wrote: I agree that Tradiban’s FAs probably don’t matter.

Even if they did....  Tradiban has removed or, based on his posts, should have removed his name from all his FA's.   So as far as anyone knows, he's done no FA's.   Kinda like a tree falling in the forest, eh?

And Tradiban's comment about rap bolting being lame...  is lame.

Rap bolting is lame, it also creates fun routes so it evens out.

How about rap cleaning a trad route before the FA? Lame?