When is a sport route no longer a sport route?

Would like to poll MP a little bit and get input from a wide range of people for the purposes of a personal project I'm working on. 

Everyone agrees that a well bolted route to a two bolt anchor and all with good rock is a sport route, but how about:

Hypothetical route A: a poorly bolted route, let's say 5 bolts in 90 feet, to a good two bolt anchor.

Hypothetical route B: a well bolted route to a truly shitty anchor, like a rusty piton and a 2" shrub with ancient tat and a quicklink to rap off

Hypothetical route C: A bolted route with significant runouts rated PG-13 but with severe injury unlikely

Hypothetical route D: A bolted route with significant runouts rated R or X that is a true DFU route

Hypothetical route E: A not very closely bolted PG-13 multipitch with no to minimal gear placements with occasional or frequent bad rock, sections of DFU a grade or two below the crux grade of the route, and alpine style bullshit belays sitting behind rocks while backed up to shrubs.

Follow up questions:

1: Are all bolted routes sport routes and their danger should be conveyed through other means, such as danger ratings?

2: Is there a point where a bolted route is no longer a sport climb? If so, what are the contributing factors?

3: Regardless of what we agree these routes actually are, does it make sense when communicating with newer climbers to call bolted climbs sport climbs and gear climbs trad climbs since that's what the gym kids seem to already think? Seriousness of route could be provided with other information such as danger ratings and informing when a route is traditionally bolted (IE, ground up) since this often means less bolts and poorer protection at cruxes.

Thanks, y'all!

When is a door not a door?

Matt Simon wrote:

When is a door not a door?

When it's a window...

Seriously though: 

-all sport routes are bolt-protected.

-not all bolt-protected routes are sport routes.

Matt Simon wrote:

When is a door not a door?

semantics is lame and boring and a lot people think pointless, I get it, but semantic conversations are sometimes quite necessary for us to understand how to communicate as effectively as possible. This conversation and others like it will inform how I go about presenting information, so this isn't high shower thought Ricky time (although that's fun too), this is actually a very practical semantic conversation that will change the outcome of a project. 

Matt Simon wrote:

Seriously though: 

-all sport routes are bolt-protected.

-not all bolt-protected routes are sport routes.

Thank you for the sincere response. When is a bolt-protected route not a sport route?

Ricky Harline wrote:

 When is a bolt-protected route not a sport route?

When it is a trad route. See Bachar-Yerian or similar Tuolumne Meadows dome route or similar slab route.

As for the original question, here is an example of when a sport route no longer a sport route: The Vulgarian 

I think if it is bolted on lead you are very likely no longer in sport route territory. Especially if bolts are only placed from stances, not hanging from hooks. There are plenty of bolted routes in JTree that I would not classify as sport routes.

Personally, I think the context in which the route is being described matters.

In a guidebook people will generally be looking at routes by area or by difficulty because not very many guide books (none that I am aware of at least) list routes by type of climb (at least beyond boulder vs roped climb). So, in this context no information will be lost by writing something like "trad, 5 bolts to 2 bolt anchor, 90 feet" and in fact some information can potentially be gained.

On the other hand, on mountain project people will often times be using filters to search routes in a wide area and will usually be thinking more about if they can climb the climbs they are looking at with what they have. so in this context I think it would make more sense to list everything except maybe the alpine route with shitty belays as sport (the only reason I am excluding this is because most newer climbers who only climb sport don't know about body belays, but then again you could just specify that body belays are necessary in the route description and get on with it) and just communicate the nature of the climb with a combination of the danger rating and route description. In other words, for most of the newer climbers I know, when they go on MP and search for sport routes, they are looking specifically for routes that don't need trad gear to climb and not necessary for routes that are super safe.

This is a decades old question and the answer is always the same. 

Does it have bolts, bolted anchors, and can it be climbed with only sport draws, a rope, harness, and belay device (and maybe rock shoes plus chalk if the grade requires)? If yes, then sport route. If not exclusively bolts then it could be considered “sport-like” but not purely sport. Runout and bad bolts add spice just like runout and bad placements do for trad.

This isn’t to say that self-rescue kit or other tools to handle unforeseen circumstances or for convenience shouldn’t be brought. Rather, defining a climb as a sport climb tells you a specific set of resources (bolts) exist on the route so you can appropriately prepare. It also conveys that the points of protection are widely accepted to have a higher margin of safety than most other types of protection. Key words are “widely accepted” and “most” as nothing is 100% safe in climbing once you leave the ground.

Matt Simon wrote:

Seriously though: 

-all sport routes are bolt-protected.

-not all bolt-protected routes are sport routes.

All squares are parallelograms

not all parallelograms are squares 

3: Regardless of what we agree these routes actually are, does it make sense when communicating with newer climbers to call bolted climbs sport climbs and gear climbs trad climbs since that's what the gym kids seem to already think?

No. Who gives a f what “gym kids seem to think”? Most of them think free climbing is climbing without a rope.

You’re talking about real rock climbing, Let them make up their own language for the gym.

The problem is simple - the word “trad” has no distinct meaning, and is inadequate by itself to describe a climb. To their credit, climbers in general like to simplify things, but separating routes into trad and sport is just dumb.

Sport is pretty clearly defined by the tactics used to install the bolts - anything goes, and the falls are relatively short and safe. A bolted route that’s not a sport climb is also defined by the tactics used - ground up being the most common, but there are lots of variations, from pure stance drilled to bolts placed on aid, runout and x rated, so a single descriptor, like trad, is ineffective to communicate the character of the climb.

If you know the FA date, the personnel involved and the basic tactics used, and gear required, that tells you a lot. If you know climbing history. Traditionally, that was part of being an experienced and skilled climber. 

Ryan C wrote:

Does it have bolts, bolted anchors, and can it be climbed with only sport draws, a rope, harness, and belay device (and maybe rock shoes plus chalk if the grade requires)? If yes, then sport route. 

yeah, no. that's just a bolted route.

Elaine Gilstrom wrote:

In a guidebook people will generally be looking at routes by area or by difficulty because not very many guide books (none that I am aware of at least) list routes by type of climb (at least beyond boulder vs roped climb).

This is not at all accurate. Many guidebooks currently specifically identify routes as ‘sport’ or ‘trad’, with some also noting ‘mixed’ routes ( as in some bolts but also some gear ) and top-rope routes. The introductory sections of these books will describe the ‘meanings’ of such distinctions within the context of the specific book or climbing area, though most such meanings will be pretty similar for most areas. In general, routes described as ‘sport climbs’ are fully bolted, with the bolting being fairly closely spaced ( G or, at most, PG).  Some books will specifically note when certain routes identified as ‘sport’ are somewhat more distantly bolted ( sometimes calling them things like ‘sporty’ or ‘alpine bolted’). But as said above, even in such books, not all routes with all-bolt protection will be described as sport climbs.

PWZ wrote:

yeah, no. that's just a bolted route.

Okay, so what criteria do you think I missed that would turn my description from all bolted routes to purely sport routes? Do you disagree about my statement regarding runout? Is it how the bolts were placed as others have suggested?

Ryan C wrote:

Okay, so what criteria do you think I missed that would turn my description from all bolted routes to purely sport routes? Do you disagree about my statement regarding runout? Is it how the bolts were placed as others have suggested?

sport: climbing focused on the movement with protection placed to allow relative safety, specifically with crux sections. Obviously this varies with age and developer preference, but most people I would think could understand the implications of what a "sport route" is. Any "runouts" (again, in the sport sense) are typically grades below.

a 50 meter historic slab climb with 2-4 bolts to a two bolt anchor because there's no natural protection is a fully bolted route, but calling it "sport" because of that is likely to be pretty eye opening if it was bolted ground up and the protection bolts are at stances usually beyond the crux.

Ricky Harline wrote:

Thank you for the sincere response. When is a bolt-protected route not a sport route?

I can't do better than how Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart phrased it with regards to pornography:

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it..."

If a bolted route was led ground up on the first ascent, and all the bolts were placed on the lead, it’s not a sport route. They were originally called face climbs or slab climbs, and it went without saying that the bolts were placed from stances. Of course there were some less than pure antics involved occasionally, but it was that simple.

Ironically, these types of generally bold, bolt protected face routes were the first routes to be defined as traditional routes, as opposed to face climbs that were bolted on rappel. See “Tricksters and Traditionalists”, an essay by Tom Higgins.

Now the meaning of traditional is all fucked up 

Ricky Harline wrote:

...Thank you for the sincere response. When is a bolt-protected route not a sport route?

when it is bolted ground up, on lead.  A sport route isn't so much defined by having bolts, it's how they were placed.  placed on rappel - sport route.  placed on lead - trad route.  a poorly protected bolted route that was put up on rappel is just a crappy sport route.  an overbolted route that was put up on lead is an overbolted trad route.  not overly helpful definitions when trying to figure out what the climbing might be like, but...

Ricky Harline wrote:

Would like to poll MP a little bit and get input from a wide range of people for the purposes of a personal project I'm working on. 

Everyone agrees that a well bolted route to a two bolt anchor and all with good rock is a sport route, but how about:

Hypothetical route A: a poorly bolted route, let's say 5 bolts in 90 feet, to a good two bolt anchor.

Hypothetical route B: a well bolted route to a truly shitty anchor, like a rusty piton and a 2" shrub with ancient tat and a quicklink to rap off

Hypothetical route C: A bolted route with significant runouts rated PG-13 but with severe injury unlikely

Hypothetical route D: A bolted route with significant runouts rated R or X that is a true DFU route

Hypothetical route E: A not very closely bolted PG-13 multipitch with no to minimal gear placements with occasional or frequent bad rock, sections of DFU a grade or two below the crux grade of the route, and alpine style bullshit belays sitting behind rocks while backed up to shrubs.

Follow up questions:

1: Are all bolted routes sport routes and their danger should be conveyed through other means, such as danger ratings?

2: Is there a point where a bolted route is no longer a sport climb? If so, what are the contributing factors?

3: Regardless of what we agree these routes actually are, does it make sense when communicating with newer climbers to call bolted climbs sport climbs and gear climbs trad climbs since that's what the gym kids seem to already think? Seriousness of route could be provided with other information such as danger ratings and informing when a route is traditionally bolted (IE, ground up) since this often means less bolts and poorer protection at cruxes.

Thanks, y'all!

Rap bolting is sport climbing. No exceptions.

I agree with Kevin.  I try to see how many bolts per how long a pitch.  4 bolts in 150' is surely an old trad (bolt protected) route.  

When I list an entirely bolt protected route on MP, I click the "Sport" option and leave the grade/bolt-count/length/risk calculation up to the individual.