Does this count as "ground up" route development?

Say you can get to the top of a cliff to set up a TR.  You try out a few face climbing lines on TR and find one that's of sufficient quality to establish.  While on TR, you figure out the moves and plan where the bolts should go.

Then, you dismantle your TR setup and lead it, placing all the bolts on lead. Sometimes you drill from a stance, sometimes you use hooks.  Next, you cleanly redpoint it for the FA and name the route.

Even though you rehearsed it on TR, I still feel like this should count as "ground up" development.  I guess you can further subdivide "ground up" development into more specific subclasses with modifiers like onsight, bolted from stances vs hooks, power drill vs hand drill, etc.

Thoughts?

Sam Skovgaardwrote:

Say you can get to the top of a cliff to set up a TR.  You try out a few face climbing lines on TR and find one that's of sufficient quality to establish.  While on TR, you figure out the moves and plan where the bolts should go.

Then, you dismantle your TR setup and lead it, placing all the bolts on lead. Sometimes you drill from a stance, sometimes you use hooks.  Next, you cleanly redpoint it for the FA and name the route.

Even though you rehearsed it on TR, I still feel like this should count as "ground up" development.  I guess you can further subdivide "ground up" development into more specific subclasses with modifiers like onsight, bolted from stances vs hooks, power drill vs hand drill, etc.

Thoughts?

My understanding is that “ground up” route development entails no pre-inspection. It’s the “onsight” of development.

So by that definition, no, your description wouldn’t count.

That said, I’m not trying to tell you that you’re wrong - all this shit is subjective so feel however you want about it. Just don’t misrepresent what you do...

What part of "ground up" don't you people understand? 

Genuinely curious.

Preview is a taint for sure but it dang sure ain't top down bolting. But instead of getting hung up on nomenclature perhaps just say - 

TR rehearse. Bolts went in on lead. There's no ambiguity there.

I’d for sure call it “ground up development” ... and, as that,  probably indistinguishable from “ground up FA”as far as subsequent ascents go.  

Bill Lawrywrote:

I’d for sure call it “ground up development”

Only it’s not. You take a lot of unknowns by coming down from the top, such as stances for drilling, hook placements, cruxes, etc...i would not invalidate such type of development in any way, but let’s call it what it really is

Tradibanwrote:

What part of "ground up" don't you people understand? 

Genuinely curious.

"Ground up" stands in opposition to "Rap bolted."  Just based on the semantics of those terms, there are a lot of situations which are neither bolted on rap, nor 100% ground-up in every phase of route development.  My original post is one such example.

Or, as SNL's Linda Richman would say:

"I'm a little verklempt.  Talk amongst yourselves, I'll give you a topic.  This route was neither ground-up nor rap-bolted.  Discuss."

Sam Skovgaardwrote:

"Ground up" stands in opposition to "Rap bolted."  Just based on the semantics of those terms, there are a lot of situations which are neither bolted on rap, nor 100% ground-up in every phase of route development.  My original post is one such example.

Or, as SNL's Linda Richman would say:

"I'm a little verklempt.  Talk amongst yourselves, I'll give you a topic.  This route was neither ground-up nor rap-bolted.  Discuss."

Another term often used is “top down” which perhaps fits your style of development more accurately.

Rob P wrote:

Just to leapfrog off your curiosity, ...

Does this count as “ground up FA”? I technically didn’t touch any of the stone until I started leading it ground up (95% aid climbing), but I did have a “TR” the whole time. Although if I ever had to use that TR as a backup, I would have taken a 30-50’ swing into outer space.

If you placed the bolts while on a TR, I don't think we can call this "ground up" development.

Maybe we can call it "mock ground up development," like when new leaders do mock leads, haha.

Lone Pinewrote:

Only it’s not. You take a lot of unknowns by coming down from the top, such as stances for drilling, hook placements, cruxes, etc...i would not invalidate such type of development in any way, but let’s call it what it really is

For me, on an Nth ascent of such a route, I care not the size characteristics of the developer’s gonads experience.  

Tradibanwrote:

What part of "ground up" don't you people understand?

Genuinely curious.

I think "Ground Up" is the opposite of "Sky Down".

This is different from the "Upside Down" (Boulderers live here. It's an alternate reality where they think they are climbers. Their eyes are well, "Eyes Wide Shut").
----
Note, "Inside Out" is a good movie.

You have to ask yourself what you want your language to create in the mind of the person receiving your words. Are you using language to describe your experience on the route? Then it doesn't matter what people will think about the words you use. Are you trying to describe someone else's experience on the route, then it does matter. But for an FA, you'll never be describing someone else's experience with putting up the route for the first time so the entire point is moot. Call it what you want, obfuscate what you want, just make sure the rack is correct. 

And sometimes more importantly, those of us that really care  about these distinctions and nuance of these terms, we should sometimes ask ourselves, what are we trying to police here? If ground up versus pre-inspection is about style and not ethics then why are we so convinced that it's so important to define everyone's style as somewhere on the spectrum between pure or tainted?

Cherokee has it right.  The bolting was ground up, but with previous inspection via top rope.  I have a little experience with this style, considerably more with "ground up, no previous inspection".  The experience varies considerably.  I don't worry much about "pure" or "tainted", but I think accurate descriptions are desirable.  How the FA is categorized probably matters a lot more to you than to anyone else, anyway.

If you are having to ask, then you already know the answer.  

It really depends. Are you more of a bottom or a top?

I can not think of a memorable-for-me climb where I recall the style of the FA, and for most I don’t even recall the names of the authors - assuming bolts were installed.  Indeed, if no nolts, those dudettes just happened to be the ones who discovered.

All we are is dust in the wind. 

Bill Lawrywrote:

I can not think of a memorable-for-me climb where I recall the style of the FA, and for most I don’t even recall the names of the authors - assuming bolts were installed.  Indeed, if no nolts, those dudettes just happened to be the ones who discovered.

All we are is dust in the wind. 

Generally I agree with you, though there are exceptions. 

For instance, this past summer I climbed The Hitchhiker on SEWS at WA Pass and knowing that Bryan Burdo and Scott Johnston established the route ground-up onsight materially added to the experience we had climbing it and and our continued awe of the route to this day. In that case, it was specifically with regards to the route-finding / connecting all the pitches in a way that made it go in such classic fashion. route. 

And maybe the distinctions we're discussing have varying degrees of relevance depending on the types of climbs in question (rock types, cragging vs. multipitch, etc.)

Matt Simonwrote:

And maybe the distinctions we're discussing have varying degrees of relevance depending on the types of climbs in question (rock types, cragging vs. multipitch, etc.)

If its just another sport route it should be inspected first, nothing worse than a sport route with bolts in stupid places.

What is the point of drilling it in ground up style after you've already set up a toprope and rehearsed the route, other than drilling it in worst possible method?

The only positive feature of a ground up route is the adventure of exploring. Every other aspect of one is shitty. The bolt placements are shitty. The bolt installation is shitty. 

Terminology can be and is continually refined, but every ascent is eventually ground up, so the potential for the term becoming meaningless is considerable.  But the original "ground up" in climbing was never intended in its most restricted literal sense, it was an abbreviation for approaching a climb from the bottom without any knowledge (that couldn't be deduced from the ground) about the difficulties or the protection.  It is was this embrace of the unknown that made bolt-protected ground-up ascents fit fully into the trad realm.  Pre-inspection and even working of the moves on a top rope is so far from the original conception that calling such an ascent "ground up" would constitute a total change in meaning of the term, with all the attendant confusion that would cause in conflict with the original meaning.  So pick a different term.  But really, what is the point? Given that everything else has been worked out on a rope from the top, why not the bolts as well?

Fail Fallingwrote:

You have to ask yourself what you want your language to create in the mind of the person receiving your words. Are you using language to describe your experience on the route? Then it doesn't matter what people will think about the words you use. Are you trying to describe someone else's experience on the route, then it does matter. But for an FA, you'll never be describing someone else's experience with putting up the route for the first time so the entire point is moot. Call it what you want, obfuscate what you want, just make sure the rack is correct. 

And sometimes more importantly, those of us that really care  about these distinctions and nuance of these terms, we should sometimes ask ourselves, what are we trying to police here? If ground up versus pre-inspection is about style and not ethics then why are we so convinced that it's so important to define everyone's style as somewhere on the spectrum between pure or tainted?

It's just creating an "other" so we can sleep easy as the fantasy badass of our dreams as compared to those "gumbies".

Mountains out of mole hills, conquistadors of the useless the Don Quixiote of our imagined self sending the "gnar" like our heroes before us.

/on belay