What defines a first ascent?

Andrew F wrote:

 First person to ascend the route should be considered the FA

Someone who has the TR FA of a route will be forgotten once someone else has done it in a bolder style, 999 out of 1000 times or more. The world’s graveyards are full of untold numbers of people who “should not be forgotten.”

Andrew F wrote:

This just seems like an ego thing. Like TRing isn't "real" climbing, and doesn't deserve any sort of recognition because it's not as dangerous or cool as lead climbing. I don't get it, climbing is climbing. First person to ascend the route should be considered the FA

Unfortunately alot of males in climbing like to measure their self worth based on what is most masculine. Also unfortunately they feel like they have more effectively "conquered" something if they "drill" it. Amongst most of their peers they believe this attracts the females more readily but studies have shown that the females are not only repulsed by the males behavior they also, in fact, use the males obsession as a way to control the males behavior within the mating ritual.

Tradiban wrote:

Unfortunately alot of males in climbing like to measure their self worth based on what is most masculine. Also unfortunately they feel like they have more effectively "conquered" something if they "drill" it. Amongst most of their peers they believe this attracts the females more readily but studies have shown that the females are not only repulsed by the males behavior they also, in fact, use the males obsession as a way to control the males behavior within the mating ritual.

Sadly, yes.  Some believe the only tool they have is a hammer. So every problem looks like a nail. Just say no to style-driven retro-development. ;)

Bill Lawry wrote:

Someone who has the TR FA of a route will be forgotten once someone else has done it in a bolder style, 999 out of 1000 times or more. The world’s graveyards are full of untold numbers of people who “should not be forgotten.”

I guess we'll forget everyone who used a rope on Freerider

Eric Engberg wrote:

I guess we'll forget everyone who used a rope on Freerider

99.9% is not everyone.

Anonymous wrote:

I was thinking the FA goes to Alex but, even he followed the FA party and used a rope for a year or two on Freerider. 

Alex headpointed Freerider.

Anonymous wrote:

I was thinking the FA goes to Alex but, even he followed the FA party and used a rope for a year or two on Freerider. 

Right, but those were just rehearsals for the true FA, according to some. I found it interesting that when he renamed "Freerider", he chose the name "Freerider". It's almost as if he had respect for the people who climbed it before he did, even if their style wasn't as bold as his.

How about everyone document what they did, with every style distinction necessary to tell how you climbed it, then everyone can make their own mind up. 

The real, hidden point is, if a route is TRed first, it's worth noting, (unless it's a sport route!) and then if someone leads it, it's also worth noting. Alternatively, if somene led a FA, then there was a first TR, it isn't worth noting. See the difference.

Ma Ja wroteThe real, hidden point is, if a route is TRed first, it's worth noting, (unless it's a sport route!) and then if someone leads it, it's also worth noting. Alternatively, if somene led a FA, then there was a first TR, it isn't worth noting. See the difference.

I agree, that's a very reasonable way of going about it. 

One who ascends first.

Seems most folks on this thread have never truly experienced bolting a hard route ground up.

When bolting on lead from hooks (and other aid) sometimes the route will be bolted, the anchor installed, but there has not been a redpoint of the route.

At this point the route might get worked on top rope, brushed, cleaned some more before the redpoint.

There have been instances when  I have let a friend who did not bolt the route TR it and they have gotten it clean.  This gets noted and they get credit for TR in the guidebook info.

What if you TR’d a highly chossy, unclimbed masterpiece but didn’t get it clean? Isn’t it true that the name “Mummy Spunk” should stand?

powderfinger wrote: Seems most folks on this thread have never truly experienced bolting a hard route ground up.

When bolting on lead from hooks (and other aid) sometimes the route will be bolted, the anchor installed, but there has not been a redpoint of the route.

At this point the route might get worked on top rope, brushed, cleaned some more before the redpoint.

There have been instances when  I have let a friend who did not bolt the route TR it and they have gotten it clean.  This gets noted and they get credit for TR in the guidebook info.

Sounds like Pinnacles 

powderfinger wrote: Seems most folks on this thread have never truly experienced bolting a hard route ground up.

When bolting on lead from hooks (and other aid) sometimes the route will be bolted, the anchor installed, but there has not been a redpoint of the route.

At this point the route might get worked on top rope, brushed, cleaned some more before the redpoint.

There have been instances when  I have let a friend who did not bolt the route TR it and they have gotten it clean.  This gets noted and they get credit for TR in the guidebook info.

It's all up to the developer. Someone else in that same scenario may not have included them. This is all based on subjectective opinions, and there's not a winning argument. So long as someone is noting the details, nothing matters. Really, the FA is a cool piece of history a lot of times, but does it matter? A lot of times, no, we're not important or doing anything important. A Nobel prize isn't being given to first ascentionist. 

My takeaway from all this is that some climbers have different rules for the game(s) they play. Some believe that a first ascent by any style (free climbing or aid) is a legitimate approach and should be recorded as a first ascent. Specifically with regards to free climbing, the argument is that a human has used a set of skills to ascend a route under their own power, without the use of aid, but with the use of a fall protection system; less free soloing of course. Whether the fall protection is intermittent, preplaced, or continuous matters not.  

A second group believes that the FA is not about being the first to ascend a route but the first to ascend a route leading with the rope trailing behind. It can involve aid from equipment or free climbing but the main aspect is that the rope should be trailing the climber.

As soon as we put rules around a particular aspect of a game there come exceptions. For example if we remove the rope what becomes of these rules? I do believe that both groups would agree that a free soloist can achieve an FA since they took great risk and soloing is viewed as a pure form of climbing. However, if a free soloist uses a parachute (e.g. Dean Potter), a ground positioned airbag, or a safety net, how would that affect the situation? This is a form of continuous fall protection - although the parachute has limited use until one has reached a certain height - similar to a top rope.

It also seems this FA designation from the second group is more about the risks assumed with the climbing and dealing with the mental component of the ascent, the fear of falling as opposed to the actual physical ability or skills of the climber. Would that be true?

It seems like it would be safe to assume that in the entire climbing realm, FAs include all manners of ascent and it would be helpful to denote the style of the FA.

Back from the dead thread but... First no falls/hangs ascent on TR is an FA if the route remains a TR. 

For sport not everything has to be bolted for lead climbing. Visual impact or other concerns may have meant the FA wanted to the leave the route as TR only. Or maybe they just didn't get around to bolting it. If the route gets bolted later the devil's in the details, but if most people are okay with it being bolted and the FA didn't do it, I'd say the guidebook should read: TR FA and Lead FA. If the FA bolts it then whoever did the lead FA gets FA credit.

For trad it could be a headpoint. I'd say similar 'rules' apply. If someone TRs it and it doesn't get led soon after they get credit for TR FA. If the TR was just part of establishing the headpoint then they don't need credit for that.

FA can be had in any style, just no taking/falling on the rope. FFA however is much more clear as to what happened.
The way I find it used in todays climbing culture is the FA is given to the person who FFA's it. I know I don't take an FA on a route I develop until I (or someone) free it despite having had "FA'd" on TR.

So many older climbs in the Sierra have an FA and an FFA as they were aid climbs by the FA party.

There are numerous routes in California that are long established topropes.  Bolts have been and will be chopped.

The history of Leave it to Beaver is pretty typical of older routes that presented new challenges at their time. There's a photo among the collection on the route page showing Dave Evans on the FA. He appears to have etriers and be using traditional aid climbing techniques. Then along comes Bachar with a TR and then a lead. Of course after that it was on Bachar's solo circuit and I doubt anyone knows how many times he did that...

I have never counted my own top ropes or anyone elses as an FA. just because you top roped it does not mean you own it and can prevent anyone else from bolting it and leading it for the FFA. If you wanted to own it you should have worked it a bit more and head pointed it or soloed it. the TR is just practice for the FA.