When is a sport route no longer a sport route?

Alan Rubin wrote:

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.

I think you misunderstood what I meant. Of course pretty much all guidebooks will *lable* climbs as sport, trad or top rope, but they generally don't have a section at the end of the book that is "all the trad climbs" or "all the top rope climbs." The point I was trying to make is that the way people find climbs in a guidebook is extremely different to how they find climbs on mountain project, and so in the context of a guidebook, the author has a lot more flexibility in how they present the climbs. That is in opposition to MP where most people are just going to be thinking "sport = bolts. Trad = gear."

That is in opposition to MP where most people are just going to be thinking "sport = bolts. Trad = gear."

You can't fix stupid.

Allen Sanderson wrote:

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

In a conversation with a friend on this topic we thought of Tuolumne routes as the perfect example to illustrate bolted climbs that aren't sport routes. Excitedly I opened the Tuolumne Supertopo guidebook to see how they handled this problem. They didn't-- it is one of the very few (perhaps only?) guidebooks I own that makes no distinction between sport and trad routes-- they are simply all routes and the book will tell you what pro to bring without making any distinction in style of route. 

Kevin Worrall wrote:

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.

slim wrote:

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...

An interesting edge case area is Pinnacles National Park. *Every* route there is ground up and therefore trad, but quite a few meet the definition of being a sport route also. Are they therefore both traditional and sport routes?

Tradiban wrote:

Rap bolting is sport climbing. No exceptions.

Sure, but here in NorCal we have a lot of routes put up on lead that either seem to very solidly be sport routes or debate-ably be sport routes. Some places like Emmigrant Wall (one of the premier moderate climbing destinations in the Western US) are put up either top down or on lead depending on what makes sense for that route and the developers. Is one bolt-protected route a trad route and its neighbor exactly in keeping with its character a sport route simply because of how they were put up? The experiences for the climbers are identical. 

Unlike other commenters here I have a lot of sympathy towards Elaine's argument. We can argue over how words should be used, but that doesn't change how they are being used. I am interested in communicating effectively, not propagating any particular definition. I am interested in preserving climbing history and educating people on that topic, but I think that can be done without sacrificing clarity. IE, maybe using the gym kids' definitions makes sense. The vast majority of climbers I talk to are fairly accomplished outdoor leaders and yet are surprised to hear that "trad" to old timers just means "developed ground up." To anyone who has learned climbing in the last ten years at least this definition appears to be well and truly dead. If this is the primary audience one is communicating with then perhaps sticking with old definitions only adds confusion?

I started out my project thinking I would only call PG rated, rap bolted routes sport routes as that's what I think the most logical and historically consistent definition is, but I worry it isn't an effective way to communicate to others. The kids want to know whether or not to bring gear or not, basically. So perhaps saying "this is a PG-13, traditionally bolted sport route" is the most effective way to communicate this idea, even though it makes all the old timers cringe? The other alternative I see is to have three categories, trad, sport, and traditionally bolted. But then this may create confusion as most people who would consume what I create would consider a traditionally bolted route to just be a runout sport route, since hey, they're only using draws after all. 

Ricky Harline wrote:I started out my project thinking I would only call PG rated, rap bolted routes sport routes as that's what I think the most logical and historically consistent definition is, but I worry it isn't an effective way to communicate to others. The kids want to know whether or not to bring gear or not, basically. So perhaps saying "this is a PG-13, traditionally bolted sport route" is the most effective way to communicate this idea, even though it makes all the old timers cringe? The other alternative I see is to have three categories, trad, sport, and traditionally bolted. But then this may create confusion as most people who would consume what I create would consider a traditionally bolted route to just be a runout sport route, since hey, they're only using draws after all. 

I think three categories makes sense. But also agree your logic forces things back into two categories which defeats the purpose of having three categories to begin with. Unless people really care about how the route was established, two seems to be the most efficient.

Question to those who know climbing history better than I: have runout ratings (PG13, R, X, etc) all existed as long as the terms sport and trad? If not, when did they come along? If I’m understanding correctly, the original definitions of trad and sport define how the route was established and also contain a bit of info about the risk to be expected along the way. Today, there seems to be unnecessary redundancy when describing the level of risk which is likely the main contributing factor to the “sport=bolts” mindset.

Question to those who know climbing history better than I: have runout ratings (PG13, R, X, etc) all existed as long as the terms sport and trad?

R and X ratings  pre-date sport climbing in the U.S. In some guidebooks S was used to denote Serious.

Kevin Worrall wrote:

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. 

what if i bolt a route solely on lead, then come back some time later, rap back down to add a few? this is, quite literally, how the most popular "sport" climb in golden was established.

and i would argue it is absolutely a sport climb. so the question then becomes, if someone adds bolts to a climb over the years, can you change a traditional climb into a sport climb? by your definition, the answer would be yes.

Ryan C wrote:

I think three categories makes sense. But also agree your logic forces things back into two categories which defeats the purpose of having three categories to begin with. Unless people really care about how the route was established, two seems to be the most efficient.

Question to those who know climbing history better than I: have runout ratings (PG13, R, X, etc) all existed as long as the terms sport and trad? If not, when did they come along? If I’m understanding correctly, the original definitions of trad and sport define how the route was established and also contain a bit of info about the risk to be expected along the way. Today, there seems to be unnecessary redundancy when describing the level of risk which is likely the main contributing factor to the “sport=bolts” mindset.

A run out rap bolted route is just bad developing.

If aid is used to place the majority of bolts, even if on lead, I’d say the route is leaning towards being a sport climb, especially if the bolting is consistently tight. Then, of course, we have the famous Bachar Yerian, which is protected by bolts placed from hooks. That route, and routes like it are admittedly hard to pigeonhole. I see the solution as being a brief description, whether verbal or in writing, rather than a label chosen from a few possibilities. Those routes are relatively rare, as is the problem of defining them.

As to your example of side by side bolted routes which are of the same character, but bolted using different methods, if most or all of the bolts on the GU route were placed using aid, I’d call it a sport route. The guidebook and/or word of mouth can make the distinction.

If trad means “traditional”, this old timer thinks using any aid whatsoever on a free climb makes it an aid climb. That was the way climbers looked at climbing for decades, and that’s another reason why using the abbreviation for traditional to describe a route or style where a climber hangdogs on gear (but not bolts!) is doubly irritating. Then add in the bolted face route next door being called a sport route when it was hand drilled on lead - triply irritating.

Using the term trad implies there is some connection to old school style and ethics. The whole point of tradition is that it doesn’t change. Unrealistic as it may be, I see the original strict free climbing ethics as being the logical foundation of traditional climbing and traditional style. It wasn’t called “traditional climbing” until sport climbing came along. It was called “free climbing”. Now the same kids in the gym that call a route they hangdog with gear a “trad climb” think a free climb is climbing with no rope. Grrr. It ain’t that complicated, and I believe original terminology should take precedence.

For example:

Face climb or slab climb - bolt protected free climb mostly on face holds, done first ground up, little or no gear protection

Free climb - no aid, no dogging 

Sport climb (n) - anything goes to place the bolts, usually on rappel, bolted for hangdogging, red point is the goal.

Sport climb (v) - hangdogging is standard, red pointing is the goal

Gear route - mostly or all gear protected, mostly crack. You can sport climb a gear route by hangdogging, toproping first, sometimes called a headpoint, or you can free climb it in traditional style

Traditional style - no toproping, no hanging to rest, feel out moves or place gear, ground up. Failure is a possibility. Ideally an onsight flash. No aid whatsoever.

Trad route - a route first done in traditional style. You can have a gear protected trad route or a bolt protected trad route, or a mix. You can sport climb a trad route, but that don’t make it a sport climb!

FFA - First Free Ascent. Sorry ladies, this one’s already taken 

Kevin Worrall wrote:

If aid is used to place the majority of bolts, even if on lead, I’d say the route is leaning towards being a sport climb, especially if the bolting is consistently tight. Then, of course, we have the famous Bachar Yerian, which is protected by bolts placed from hooks. That route, and routes like it are admittedly hard to pigeonhole. I see the solution as being a brief description, whether verbal or in writing, rather than a label chosen from a few possibilities. Those routes are relatively rare, as is the problem of defining them.

As to your example of side by side bolted routes which are of the same character, but bolted using different methods, if most or all of the bolts on the GU route were placed using aid, I’d call it a sport route. The guidebook and/or word of mouth can make the distinction.

If trad means “traditional”, this old timer thinks using any aid whatsoever on a free climb makes it an aid climb. That was the way climbers looked at climbing for decades, and that’s another reason why using the abbreviation for traditional to describe a route or style where a climber hangdogs on gear (but not bolts!) is doubly irritating. Then add in the bolted face route next door being called a sport route when it was hand drilled on lead - triply irritating.

Using the term trad implies there is some connection to old school style and ethics. The whole point of tradition is that it doesn’t change. Unrealistic as it may be, I see the original strict free climbing ethics as being the logical foundation of traditional climbing and traditional style. It wasn’t called “traditional climbing” until sport climbing came along. It was called “free climbing”. Now the same kids in the gym that call a route they hangdog with gear a “trad climb” think a free climb is climbing with no rope. Grrr. It ain’t that complicated, and I believe original terminology should take precedence.

For example:

Face climb or slab climb - bolt protected free climb mostly on face holds, done first ground up, little or no gear protection

Free climb - no aid, no dogging 

Sport climb (n) - anything goes to place the bolts, usually on rappel, bolted for hangdogging, red point is the goal.

Sport climb (v) - hangdogging is standard, red pointing is the goal

Gear route - mostly or all gear protected, mostly crack. You can sport climb a gear route by hangdogging, toproping first, sometimes called a head point, or you can free climb it in traditional style

Traditional style - no toproping, no hanging to rest, feel out moves or place gear, ground up. Failure is a possibility. Ideally an onsight flash. No aid whatsoever.

Trad route - a route first done in traditional style. You can have a gear protected trad route or a bolt protected trad route, or a mix. 

FFA - First Free Ascent. Sorry ladies, this one’s already taken 

This is a really fascinating comment and I want to thank you for the time taken to make it. I think the reason why MP and guidebook authors aren't in favor of your system is its complexity. Anyone undertaking such a project is looking for the clearest way to communicate information as simply as possible, and having to completely change the definitions of sport and trad for the usage of your one guidebook seems like a large ask on behalf of readers. 

It is very important to me to preserve climbing history and I wish to find a way to do that, but if I do that in a way that pushes people away from what I make then I'm working against every goal I have. So I think some level of compromise needs to exist. 

What about having "gear routes" and "bolted routes" and within those establishing if they were traditionally developed or used sport tactics? 

Interestingly to me out here in the central western sierra there is a large amount of respect paid to ground up developed routes, however there seems to be little care for hang dogging or usage of aid. To illustrate this a 5.7 bolted route I put up on lead I used aid to install one bolt, and I think many would still consider that a traditionally bolted route simply because it was done ground up, but some would obviously disagree with that. The lack of consensus of what "traditional" even is makes trying to respect that tradition in a simple way digestible to readers challenging. 

Perhaps the gear route and bolted route idea can have several sub categories, such as "developed top down," "developed ground up from stances," and "developed ground up with aid (including hanging)." 

Thoughts?

Jesus christ man! 8 bolts to a 2-bolt anchor with chains a half rope length from the ground is a sport route. 4 bolts at stances in a full rope length with maybe some removable pro (maybe not), maybe a fixed anchor, maybe not, is obviously trad. There is no need for these excruciating definitions. 

Or use the lower tier at the Grotto as an example, trad routes equipped for sport tactics. The effort to find the grand unification theory and definition of a sport route is just silly. And to say because kids these days can't possibly comprehend the above distinctions is worthy of scorn.

I understand my suggestion is more complicated than the current, ineffective, binary trad/sport designations, but it’s really not that complicated, and it’s logical. I’ve always found it puzzling that climbers will spend so much time obsessing over climbing in words and deeds, but they want the terminology describing all their actions to be simplistic to the point of being a few one syllable words.

Allow me to edit:

Sport route - all bolts, established using aid

Gear route - mostly gear protected, maybe some bolts

Trad route - first done in traditional style

Trad style - no aid whatsoever used

Sport style - hang dogging employed

Face climb - bolt protected route first done trad style

Simple?

Cherokee Nunes wrote:

Jesus christ man! 8 bolts to a 2-bolt anchor with chains a half rope length from the ground is a sport route. 4 bolts at stances in a full rope length with maybe some removable pro (maybe not), maybe a fixed anchor, maybe not, is obviously trad. There is no need for these excruciating definitions. 

Or use the lower tier at the Grotto as an example, trad routes equipped for sport tactics. The effort to find the grand unification theory and definition of a sport route is just silly. And to say because kids these days can't possibly comprehend the above distinctions is worthy of scorn.

Yeah, it's great when routes fit as neatly as the ones you described. A great many routes I'm interested in describing do not. I could deal with each route as I get there, or what makes more sense is to figure it out before I write anything. One example: on the backside of Table Mountain across from The Grotto is some excellent moderate sport climbing, with one route having half as many bolts as all its siblings. Is that a sport route or isn't it? According to many here it is, and according to many here it isn't. 

I'm not saying this kids these days cannot understand these distinctions, I'm saying they don't care to. I go out of my way to understand climbing history, read lots of old forum threads and books, love asking old timers about the old days and collect old climbing gear, but most people just go climbing and use whatever resource is the least effort for them to get the information that they want. I should put some effort into user experience design and thinking from the perspective of my userbase-- doing anything else is bad design. Forcing kids to use the old timer's definitions to use my content simply because they're capable of understanding it is dumb. If done so it should be done because it communicates information effectively, and if another way communicates information more effectively then that path should be chosen instead.

There will always be edge cases and I don't need some grand unified theory, I'm happy to call the Bachar-Yerian a trad route with an asterisk for example-- I can happily live in a world of grey. But I do want to find a way to respect climbing history better than the current status quo while at the same time providing better information to climbers than the current status quo, and all in an easily digestible manner that won't feel like a large shift from what they're used to using. I think that's a challenge that requires a lot of thought and which is better for having the input of others and especially the older generations who I interact with less than "the kids." 

Kevin DeWeese wrote:

What info are you hoping to get in your new thread on the topic that hasn’t been rehashed (and never solved to consensus) in the myriad of other threads  

I think most other things I can figure out offline, but this one I really wanted a broader range of input than I have access to offline.

Perhaps "a sense of adventure" should be added to the gear list for these routes?

This is actually an excellent suggestion! 

Geez....

Call the routes whatever they've been called, and people need to do the work to figure out what to reasonably expect, and be prepared fir that. Then, also be at least minimally prepared for the unexpected.

Educate noobs that there's a LOT of variables out there, so pay attention. Caution is prudent for any new to you route, even more so for a new to you area. Even if the damn thing is exactly as presented in a guidebook or MP description, it's OUTSIDE and you just might discover today is the day it's no longer what it once was.

City of Rocks is my main, well known, climbing area. There's excellent info out there. But, nonetheless, people simply need to pay attention. It's got the full range of possibilities. You need to pay heed to protection (or not), and route lengths. 

My local bolted stuff is allegedly sport....but not exactly safe in the way "sport" is expected to be these days.

Then there's all the "adventure" climbs.....

Best, Helen 

And hey, how would some of you class Maple Canyon, if bolted ground up is traditional??? That's the only place I ever saw an honest to god z clip in the wilds!

EDIT to add, if "kids these days don't care to" understand, they will quickly learn why they are no longer in a gym, when they're outside.

Ricky something you said stuck out to me regarding style—“the experiences for the climbers are identical.” By that, you mean that the experience for subsequent climbers is identical regarding the examples you pose; for the developer/First ascensionists climbing the route, it is not. Perhaps thinking of the terms as giving you an idea of how the route was developed is worth considering, instead of obsessing over these terms as giving you any information about quality or relative expectation of safety or usefulness of bolts (or gear for that matter—there are plenty horror show “trad” routes with garbage pro out there too, just as there are poorly placed bolts on sport routes. The presence of these clippy things doesn’t mean they keep you safe.).

Also, as someone who began climbing within the last 10 years, us millennials are plenty capable of grasping nuances of language, so maybe let’s not expect so little of people regardless of where and how they learn climbing, be it indoor out outdoor. In my personal experience, there isn’t such a crisis of my peers failing to understand this kind of stuff or some lack of beta about routes they may entertain climbing, bolted or not.

Do you not use the term “mixed” out west? Around here (North Carolina), it isn’t uncommon to hear people describe routes like some of the ones you are trying to describe as “mixed” —meaning maybe a few bolts on a pitch supplemented with natural protection/gear. As far as I understand it, generally that term isn’t strictly tied to how an FA developed it (as trad and sport might) as much as it tells future parties hey this route has bolts but bring your rack. Perhaps I’m a simpleton, but usually that is enough information to make a decision before I attempt to climb something.

Old lady H wrote:

Geez....

Call the routes whatever they've been called, and people need to do the work to figure out what to reasonably expect, and be prepared fir that. Then, also be at least minimally prepared for the unexpected.

Educate noobs that there's a LOT of variables out there, so pay attention. Caution is prudent for any new to you route, even more so for a new to you area. Even if the damn thing is exactly as presented in a guidebook or MP description, it's OUTSIDE and you just might discover today is the day it's no longer what it once was.

City of Rocks is my main, well known, climbing area. There's excellent info out there. But, nonetheless, people simply need to pay attention. It's got the full range of possibilities. You need to pay heed to protection (or not), and route lengths. 

My local bolted stuff is allegedly sport....but not exactly safe in the way "sport" is expected to be these days.

Then there's all the "adventure" climbs.....

Best, Helen 

And hey, how would some of you class Maple Canyon, if bolted ground up is traditional??? That's the only place I ever saw an honest to god z clip in the wilds!

EDIT to add, if "kids these days don't care to" understand, they will quickly learn why they are no longer in a gym, when they're outside.

Maple is mostly bolted bottom up, but is not “traditional” in any sense. It is bolted from the bottom due to difficult top access and steepness if the rock, and is bolted on aid, often with the use of a willie stick. This is also why it tends to be tightly bolted at times. 

Yawn Bosco wrote:

Ricky something you said stuck out to me regarding style—“the experiences for the climbers are identical.” By that, you mean that the experience for subsequent climbers is identical regarding the examples you pose; for the developer/First ascensionists climbing the route, it is not. Perhaps thinking of the terms as giving you an idea of how the route was developed is worth considering, instead of obsessing over these terms as giving you any information about quality or relative expectation of safety or usefulness of bolts (or gear for that matter—there are plenty horror show “trad” routes with garbage pro out there too, just as there are poorly placed bolts on sport routes. The presence of these clippy things doesn’t mean they keep you safe.).

Sure, endeavoring to respect the FA and their experience is one of the goals I have, but my first goal must be effective communication, and in the service of that goal the experience the climbers will have must take precedent over the experience the FAs had.

Also, as someone who began climbing within the last 10 years, us millennials are plenty capable of grasping nuances of language, so maybe let’s not expect so little of people regardless of where and how they learn climbing, be it indoor out outdoor. In my personal experience, there isn’t such a crisis of my peers failing to understand this kind of stuff or some lack of beta about routes they may entertain climbing, bolted or not.

I wouldn't say there's a crisis of understanding, but I do think the status quo of how information is presented here on MP and in guidebooks isn't very good and can be improved upon significantly both in respecting tradition and history and in communicating information about the nature of the route. 

Do you not use the term “mixed” out west? Around here (North Carolina), it isn’t uncommon to hear people describe routes like some of the ones you are trying to describe as “mixed” —meaning maybe a few bolts on a pitch supplemented with natural protection/gear. As far as I understand it, generally that term isn’t strictly tied to how an FA developed it (as trad and sport might) as much as it tells future parties hey this route has bolts but bring your rack. Perhaps I’m a simpleton, but usually that is enough information to make a decision before I attempt to climb something.

It is common to use the term mixed here and I will use it also. 

I think what I'm probably leaning towards is defining routes by their protection, so routes would be bolt protected (bring draws), mixed (bring draws and a light rack), or gear-protected (bring lots of gear), and within those categories I would define them as being traditionally developed (either from stances for ultimate style points or with aid) or using modern sport development tactics. I'm still figuring all this out and very open to changing things, but this seems to me a good compromise that accomplishes my goals without telling my audience that they're using words wrong. 

To be clear, I do think that telling new climbers about the historic definitions of trad and sport is a great thing to do and I plan on doing that, but I just think that giving a history lesson that completely changes one's understanding of definitions when someone is just trying to figure out what climbs to get on and what gear to bring on them is probably not the best way to engage an audience. 

 One example: on the backside of Table Mountain across from The Grotto is some excellent moderate sport climbing, with one route having half as many bolts as all its siblings. Is that a sport route or isn't it?

It could be a sport route with an R qualifier. 

Kevin Worrall wrote:

It could be a sport route with an R qualifier. 

What if it was put up on lead, though? I'm not sure if it was or wasn't, but many routes out here are put up that way, and climbing it the bolts sure feel like they were installed on lead. 

How common it is out here to have bolts put up on lead and how hard it is to get good info about whether or not they were put up on lead or on rappel is part of what makes me hesitant to use the terms sport and trad at all.

Then don't and just go climb? You seem oddly hung up on this to no real benefit 

What if it was put up on lead, though?

As far as I’m concerned, a pitch that has bolts placed on the lead with aid, would be an aid ascent on the FA. The FFA could then be done by the same climber in the form of a red point immediately afterward. That’s often what happens, anyway, on shorter routes at least. This might seem nitpicky, but as far as a guidebook description goes, that information can give a climber who’s unfamiliar with the crag a better idea of how the route might climb. It’s also a simple documentation of the route’s history, for those who might care. Traditionally, that’s part of a guidebook’s purpose. 

It should be obvious if the bolts on the route were placed from stances or not, if you can’t research the history. If it’s not, FA style unknown covers it.