Is trad climbing only crack climbing?

Mike Robinson wrote:

Sure is! sometimes

Yep. When there's no safe alternative.

A word about crack climbing for our OP. When an experienced crack climber sets a handjam, or finger lock, their hand will be relaxed as they set the jam. This allows the climber to feel out the best spot, and decide on things like thumbs up or down. Once the jam feels right, on comes the power. Some jams and locks suck no matter what, but the worse they get, the more important it is to relax and feel it out before committing. Added benefit? You'll save lots of skin.

Ted Pinson wrote:

So a lot of people have danced around the issue but the important thing to remember is that most trad climbs (at least: safe ones) follow a crack; depending on the rock, you may get some face features (as mentioned certain areas like the Gunks and Red Rock are more likely), but the crack is ALWAYS there, which is why learning to use it is beneficial.  You don’t always have to fully commit to the crack like with IC or Granite splitters, but you’ll often make the climbs much harder (turn a 5.8 handcrack into a 5.12 layback).

The crack is not always there. 

This one is as trad as it gets:

Tales From the Crypt

Edit for the OP. Observe how he has the patience and takes the extra time to make certain that each placement is as good as it can be. Protecting yourself with gear? Never settle for second best.

And obviously he's not anywhere near his limit on this climb. A lesson there too.

jt newgard wrote:

 Nice. I hope this tangent I accidentally brought up has been insightful to the OP. I certainly learned something new myself.

At the risk of belaboring things, I’d submit for consideration the 5.9R climb where the hardest move is 5.9 and the runout, unprotected section is 5.6. Maybe that doesn’t make any difference, should not be reflected in this concept I had for a more holistic rating, and we all move on in peace...ha ....

Some guides might grade that 5.9 (5.6R).  Some might call it 5.9 PG, some might just consider it 5.9 -- with the assumption that if you can climb 5.9, you shouldn't fall on 5.6.

I find the 5.9 (5.6R) way of grading such a climb to be the most informative.

(I've even seen things like 5.9 (5.7R, 5.4X). The hardest sequences are 5.9 -- but they are well-protected; there is some run-out 5.7 climbing, and some unprotectable, but with bad fall consequences 5.4 climbing on this pitch/climb.)

Thanks Ted and David. I like that 5.9 (5.6R) style too. Although...I’ve never seen it before!! How about the dike hiking on traveler buttress at lovers leap — 5.0X I’d say.......My brain is slightly less broken owing to your insights. 

At the end of the day, if I have serious concerns about a route, I either like to 

1) ask a close friend who’s climbed it, or 

2) even better, evaluate the situation myself as I’m climbin the dang thing. Nothing wrong with backing off, even if it’s “just an easy route”

PS. I just reread the OP, boy did I get off track. Yes....crack climbing is the best!! Connect your bones to the rock, it feels so good !!!

The Gunks and Red Rocks have already been mentioned. I can add some places in North Carolina like Moore's Wall and certain parts of Linville Gorge such as Shortoff Mountain to the list of places with trad climbs that are predominantly face climbing. 

Come to think of it... some climbs at City of Rocks/Castle Rocks could qualify as well...

Khoi wrote:

The Gunks and Red Rocks have already been mentioned. I can add some places in North Carolina like Moore's Wall and certain parts of Linville Gorge such as Shortoff Mountain to the list of places with trad climbs that are predominantly face climbing. 

Come to think of it... some climbs at City of Rocks/Castle Rocks could qualify as well...

Lol! I immediately thought of Swiss Cheese!

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/105741047/swiss-cheese

But yes. Also, my local stuff, columnar basalt, you'd think trad would be cracks, and it is, but not the usual splitter stuff. Hit and miss cracks for the gear, and some jams, but lots of face climbing, and that "boulder problem in the sky" thing too. Originally, they were all topped out, the spiciest bit. Most routes now have anchors, more for avoiding that walkoff every time, for just a short route.

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/114565984/lightning-crack

Bolted anchors changed the routes here, for sure. The rock changes up top, and anchors are usually in a big solid bit, often a bulge. Trad, I'm guessing, you'd go around those, to one side or the other. 

What it means for me, is I get to hang to clean anchors a lot. Those dudes who added the anchors were a lot taller!

Best, Helen

jt newgard wrote:

Thanks Ted and David. I like that 5.9 (5.6R) style too. Although...I’ve never seen it before!! How about the dike hiking on traveler buttress at lovers leap — 5.0X I’d say.......My brain is slightly less broken owing to your insights. 

I think I first saw it in _Rock Climbing in the White Mountains of New Hampshire, 3rd edition (East Volume)_ -- things like Standard Route on White Horse Ledge grade 5.5 (5.2R) or The Slabs Direct 5.7R (5.4X). I find it to be a compact, but expressive, way to describe the risk factor on a route, and I wish it were used more widely.

Just because there's a crack there doesn't mean that all of your moves have to be jamming and crack moves. Quite often there's really good foothold outside of the crack or really good handholds and you can switch back and forth

Kristian Solem wrote:

This one is as trad as it gets:

Tales From the Crypt

Edit for the OP. Observe how he has the patience and takes the extra time to make certain that each placement is as good as it can be. Protecting yourself with gear? Never settle for second best.

And obviously he's not anywhere near his limit on this climb. A lesson there too.

In its purest form, to me, trad implies a strictly ground-up, no pre-inspection approach. The ascent in that video is clearly a thoroughly rehearsed red point on gear. Definitely not “as trad as it gets” in that sense. Don’t get me wrong, I completely agree with your other comments. The video is a masterclass in climbing in complete control, including taking the time to ensure the gear is as good as it can be. I love and respect that kind of climbing on hard gear routes. I just don’t think of it as pure trad. Either way, a great video. 

jt newgard wrote:

I also like that you mention the importance of PG/R/X etc. to the aspiring trad leader. A database of climber opinions could help scale these danger/severity ratings as a function of how hard a certain individual climbs. A climb could easily be PG for a 5.11 experienced climber but very much R for a 5.8 new climber. The moves are the same, the pro is the same, and the rating assigned (as things stand currently) is the same, yet the experience of the climber could not be more different!

Silliness like this is exactly why safety ratings are pointless.

No database of climber opinions I know of scales in this way. MP certainly doesn't.

So, we established the rigorous definition of the safety ratings == that they reflect a sparsity of gear/protection. And that a safety rating is independent of any climber's comfort level or likelihood of falling.

Then, few people chimed in where the definition is not applied correctly, especially on climbs where the sparsity of gear occurs on a section of climbing easier than the hardest moves on the route. (I'd agree that these routes are often left without any safety rating listed.) A slight modification on the grades was introduced (why I do still think has merit), that is something like 5.5 (5.2R) to capture how hard the climbing is, when there's less gear available.

Then David K came in like a wrecking ball and pointed out the hypocrisy of it all. Namely that climbers cannot be trusted to evaluate the danger of a climb effectively. It was shown that runouts with big, yet safe clean falls often acquire a safety rating yet present little danger to the experienced climber capable of evaluating the situation (EDIT: Note there is a discrepancy here revolving around the mixed expectation of how the safety rating is used, i.e. the discrepancy between those who think the safety rating reflects only a sparsity of gear, and those who think it reflects some level of overall danger of getting hurt.)

You also used a word that caught my attention, an inability to "empathize" with beginners who might find themselves in danger on a "beginner climb" that is dangerous to beginner's only! The irony is palpable!

Since the thread started with someone asking about starting in trad, and how to get through the beginner stage, maybe that's a good place to return to. We already do this, because I think climbers do have a lot of empathy for those getting started, but distributing a list of climbs at your local crag that are actually legit. safe (another EDIT, lol: or at the least, more likely to be safe because no climb is inherently "100% safe" on its own) would be a good start. I'm also gonna go ahead and agree with you David K, that over time, your best bet is to evaluate danger for yourself. It's difficult to distill something so complex as even a pitch of rock climbing to a few jumbled up characters !!

Khoi wrote:

The Gunks and Red Rocks have already been mentioned. I can add some places in North Carolina like Moore's Wall and certain parts of Linville Gorge such as Shortoff Mountain to the list of places with trad climbs that are predominantly face climbing. 

Come to think of it... some climbs at City of Rocks/Castle Rocks could qualify as well...

I can second that. When I started climbing trad in NC, I had no idea how to jam but could still comfortably lead 5.8 trad. Now I'm starting to learn jamming and can translate that technique to climbs that I haven't jammed in the past, but it now makes those same routes feel a lot easier. A lot of climbing around Western NC is slab and face climbing with horizontals or irregular cracks for gear. 

Check out Ship Rock and Shortoff Mountain. Both areas are basically all trad but I describe them as gear lines that climb like a sport route. They take gear but all the holds are massive buckets and ledges. 

I've not read a single post to this thread, but will just say that your level of ground up onsight face trad climbing is the best indicator of how good an all around rock climber you are.

Michael Vaill wrote:

Like L Kap explained it’s been my impression that “trad” and “sport” just tells you about the style in which the route was established, and is not a designation intended to tell you about the protection, or the moves on the climb. The “traditional” way to establish a climb is to walk up to the base and climb it, placing removable protection or drilling bolts as needed on the way up. “Sport” climbing is a method to manufacture routes on otherwise unclimbable features, by rappelling down, cleaning the route and installing protection, and then attempting to send it. 

This was the distinction in the 70s and 80s, but honestly just the same way that words like "moron," "gay," and "republican" gradually change meaning over time, sport and trad have different definitions today than they did 40 years ago. 

Most everyone today says "trad" to refer to climbs that protect mostly with removable gear, and "sport" as climbs that use bolts to be as safe as practically possible, and very few "trad" climbs today that are 5.12+ or harder are established by the strict ground-up ethics that constituted trad by earlier definitions.

Pnelson wrote:

your level of ground up onsight face trad climbing is the best indicator of how good an all around rock climber you are.

Maybe a few decades ago. Modern climbing w/ coordinated, dynamic movements are rarely stressed in onsight face trad climbing.

reboot wrote:

Maybe a few decades ago. Modern climbing w/ coordinated, dynamic movements are rarely stressed in onsight face trad climbing.

I agree, not to mention the Bachar Yerian's utter lack of macro-volume-parkour moves.

Pnelson wrote:

I agree, not to mention the Bachar Yerian's utter lack of macro-volume-parkour moves.

BY also utterly lacks the diverse movements/body positions found in modern outdoor bouldering/sport climbing. And that's a good thing, otherwise climbing will become just another dead-end endeavor.

So...to derail back to the OP.

A question/comment on ratings?

If a crack climb is an easy grade, 5.7 say, wouldn't that generally mean it is an easy type of crack to climb? And/or has stuff for hands and feet outside the crack?

Unless I'm incorrect, that would be an answer to the first post. Stay on easy crack, which might turn out to be truly lovely stuff once you learn to tape your hands, or get crack gloves, or whatever. Easier, to me, means it shouldn't be desperate tips, or any difficult "off" size, right? IF you fit an average demographic. YMMV, and, some stuff may be even easier for you than for others, if the crack is a nice fit for your body parts!

As to easy ratings and gear, well, then we are back to the debate club, lol! 

Figure out what your problem is, with crack climbing. Get instruction, different shoes, tape, gloves, whatever. If it still doesn't float your boat, ever, well, climb what you enjoy. 

Best, Helen

Old lady H wrote:

So...to derail back to the OP.

A question/comment on ratings?

If a crack climb is an easy grade, 5.7 say, wouldn't that generally mean it is an easy type of crack to climb? And/or has stuff for hands and feet outside the crack?

Not necessarily.

Klahanie Crack 5.7 is an almost completely parallel splitter crack with no holds for hands or feet outside the crack at all, smearing on the slab is the best your feet will get outside of the crack. The easiest way to climb it would be via its ample solid hand jams and foot jams. When I lead it I gave myself a challenge and I didn't do a single foot jam, just smearing outside the crack.