Retro-naming vs. Given Names

tcamillieri wrote:I guess I'd like to put out my point that names are like grades or route sequences. If an FA'ist suggests a grade, that's subject to change. If an FA'ist used a particular set of holds and an easier sequence is found then that's the new sequence. The community that comes after the FA'ist gets to "standardize" what the FA'ist did. In the same way the name of the problem--even if the name is known--can become known by the community by another name. If that sticks and that is what is known by the community I see no point in calling the name by the FA'ist's suggestion (or guidebook writers). I think it is better to go with the community's suggestion than what one individual says, whoever they might be. That said (and yes I have an M.A. in Philosophy) I think the issues surrounding the FA'ist, creation of routes, and the relation of the individual to the community are inherently more complicated then we make them out to be. For example, any sort of social contract theory deals with the sacrifices individuals make in dealing with the larger community of which they are apart. I think being an FA'ist has more to do with the community I represent that my personal accomplishments (i.e. style of ascent, manufacturing, landscaping, access issues, etc...). I am saying that in respect to names the individual does not have priority of the group and names are ways of indicating and any indication is more or less as good as any other. Yes I have done several FA's in Morrison, Newlin Creek, RMNP and Lumpy Ridge. I've shown the problems to many people, suggested how they might climb them, but ultimately that's up to them. Mostly what I think FA and Name information to be helpful for are those problems that are somewhat sacred in the climbing community, Midnight Lightning, The Thimble, The Mandala, and Black Lung to name a few (yes I'm mostly a boulderer).

I hear your arguments but at the same time when you showed your FA's what name did you use, did you tell them they could change the name if they see fit? Also I think most people in the climbing community would see issue with you changing names of established routes, even if they are obscure, they are the work of someone else, and that work needs to be respected. But we all have different standards and ethics we hold ourselves to, I just disagree with your ethics on the disrespect for the FA'ist of routes no matter how obscure.

If I thought a name of a route was "x" and then I found out it was "b" I would make a serious effort to use the correct name in my speech, and if I posted it on a site like this I would fix it, out of respect. I believe that is the correct way these situations should be handled.

I will do my part and dedicate all previously climbed & then retro-claimed routes will go back to Bob Horan. Further, all the evans areas should be renamed to BH's: Sugar Shack, Beer Garden, Bunnies Cotton Club, and Sea of Love Muffins

Ian F. wrote:Crazy talk, nothing but crazy talk. I think yor M.A. has just fogged up your mind to the point that you get confused too easily. This isn't that complicated. It had a name, it was addressed. Confusion is fixed, and the community you represent should be respectful of that. But, then again you have the choice to listen to whatever community you want, but I think your answer has been given by this community. Respect, the names the FA has given.

Well said!

I agree that the original name the FA gave should be noted in an online guide or published guide book. For me its cool to know the history and what the FA intended. However, we all know that route names change over time, there are many examples, and I for one would prefer to know the name that has settled in and most climbers refer any route or boulder problem by.

The Kine/Kind is a perfect example. If you put it into the RMNP online guide on MP as "Standard Overhang" when I go to try and find beta, I'll be looking for the Kind because I have never heard anyone call it by the FA's intended name. I think tcamillieri did the right thing when posting this problem. He lists it as the Kind/Kine and then puts the original name in parenthesis.

I'll keep repeating it until I'm blue in the face. If you do an FA but don't do ANYTHING to get the information out, and 20 years later somebody else claims the FA after asking around about it and then renames your route, you have NO right to claim a lack of respect for your work. Not publicizing your route name and first ascent is not modesty, its jackassery.

Relatedly, so long as your original name is listed in the guidebook as just that, the community can call your route whatever the hell they want to. To say that the community MUST use your name is to be so egotistically ignore the reality of the situation as to be laughable.

@ Ian - Right, of course, what was I thinking? We should really just not think about things and just do what is "obvious." Because its obvious what obvious means. Of course.

i agree if there is a name for it that has evolved over time then go for it but at the same time make mention of the real name and give credit where deserved. as long as those two things are done i have no objection.

Brian Scoggins wrote:If you do an FA but don't do ANYTHING to get the information out, and 20 years later somebody else claims the FA after asking around about it and then renames your route, you have NO right to claim a lack of respect for your work. Not publicizing your route name and first ascent is not modesty, its jackassery. Relatedly, so long as your original name is listed in the guidebook as just that, the community can call your route whatever the hell they want to. To say that the community MUST use your name is to be so egotistically ignore the reality of the situation as to be laughable.

This.

What is so hard to understand?

Brian Scoggins wrote:I'll keep repeating it until I'm blue in the face. If you do an FA but don't do ANYTHING to get the information out, and 20 years later somebody else claims the FA after asking around about it and then renames your route, you have NO right to claim a lack of respect for your work. Not publicizing your route name and first ascent is not modesty, its jackassery. Relatedly, so long as your original name is listed in the guidebook as just that, the community can call your route whatever the hell they want to. To say that the community MUST use your name is to be so egotistically ignore the reality of the situation as to be laughable.

Do you feel better now?

You may find that as you get older, you will be more interested in the history of the routes/problems that you climb.

Question... In your opinion, what was one supposed to do 20 years ago to get their route names out?

Cheers,
Brad

Brian, not jumping up on a podium and loudly claiming and naming an FA is jackassery? wow, that's an interesting theory. please don't tell me you have an MA in philosophy also...

here's a philosophy question... Naropa: cult or college.

discuss....

Brad Brandewie wrote: Question... In your opinion, what was one supposed to do 20 years ago to get their route names out? Cheers, Brad

Those were to be typewritten using carbon copy then papered on the street corner light post.

The form of dot matrix by way of the IIe was then considered aid, so it did not count. From what I understand, there was a 5 1/4 floppy that had all the routes listed but someone took a magnet to it.

slim wrote:Brian, not jumping up on a podium and loudly claiming and naming an FA is jackassery? wow, that's an interesting theory. please don't tell me you have an MA in philosophy also... here's a philosophy question... Naropa: cult or college. discuss....

More like I'm sick to death of the old guard at Vedauwoo in particular getting up in arms every time a "new" problem goes up, when it actually went up decades ago. Admittedly, some of the new guard are right twats about getting called out on it, but every single correction statement has been patronizing, at best.

There is legitimate interest in the history, but I have no use for people who act like their dog was run over when the information is misrepresented. I mean, its not like telling the guys over at the Laramie or Cheyenne gear shops was ever that hard.

What I'm saying is that if it is so important that you get credit for a climb, it is YOUR responsibility that as many people as necessary know that you did it. Not putting in that effort but still insisting that people magically know what you did and what you called it is jackassery. Mind you, telling more people than is necessary to get that info out could be construed as jackassery, but its on the other end of the spectrum from the problem at hand.

brian,

i hear what you're saying. just wanted to make sure you weren't resoling your shoes in an un-ventilated area this morning.

Isn't Machismo wonderful?

Brian Scoggins wrote: More like I'm sick to death of the old guard at Vedauwoo in particular getting up in arms every time a "new" problem goes up, when it actually went up decades ago. Admittedly, some of the new guard are right twats about getting called out on it, but every single correction statement has been patronizing, at best. There is legitimate interest in the history, but I have no use for people who act like their dog was run over when the information is misrepresented. I mean, its not like telling the guys over at the Laramie or Cheyenne gear shops was ever that hard. What I'm saying is that if it is so important that you get credit for a climb, it is YOUR responsibility that as many people as necessary know that you did it. Not putting in that effort but still insisting that people magically know what you did and what you called it is jackassery. Mind you, telling more people than is necessary to get that info out could be construed as jackassery, but its on the other end of the spectrum from the problem at hand.

Brian I agree get the name out there as best as possible but I have seen routes that were developed and then retaken by moss in two years, so when the get scrubbed are you saying it should be FA'ed? that's crazy lets have some respect for the pioneers of our sport, and give credit where deserved, i can see making the mistake when you scrubbed something then finding out it was already done 5 years before, as soon as someone finds that out it is their moral and ethical responsibility to start using the original name. When and old problem doesn't get climbed for 5 years it doesn't become a new FA, its still the FA from 5 years ago, so lets have some respect for the people who made the sport we all love what it is today.

As for the old people being whinny in calling out the younger generation, it seems whinny for the new generation to want a FA so bad to ignore the history of the older generation. (when reading this remember I'm 21 I'm not one of the older generation)

I've had dozens of boulder problems of mine renamed by others who think they have done the F.A.
Big deal. I've never found it worth getting upset over.
A couple points of climbing etiquette should be taken into consideration prior to publishing a name, henceforth immoralizing it for posterior.
1. With real time online databases such as MountainProject it is much easier these days to seek out history from others and obtain a general consensus, so go online and inquire first. Perform due dilligence.
2. Once a problem/route is published under a name, keep that name, even if it is not the original. Why confuse the issue by renaming something or bestowing multiple names on one line?
A rose by any other name.....

matthewWallace wrote:as soon as someone finds that out it is their moral and ethical responsibility to start using the original name

This is what I disagree with. Moral and ethical responsibility? It is a name. The rock is not changed by what we call it. Historically, yes, it is important to give credit where credit is due, but the name is entirely transient. Are the French intentionally disrespecting Chris Sharma when they talk about Biographie Extension? No. Its just what the community calls it. The community will call a route whatever it will. To misconstrue apathy for insult is to be so thin-skinned that I really don't know how to respond.

What I have a problem with is when somebody claims an FA, then the person who actually did the FA says (in essence) "You disrespectful piece of shit! I mean, we didn't really care about these rocks that much when I put this up, but if you'd bothered to ask around more than calling everybody but me, you'd know that we didn't give a damn who climbed these things, and maybe next time you won't steal our thunder! Not that we really care about our thunder!!" The objection is always prefaced with "we didn't really care back then" but it is quite apparent that they care NOW. In which case, once more, it is their responsibility to get the information out there.

Brian,
You keep saying the same things. (as you said you would :)

I would wager that the community would overwhelmingly want to see the original name that the FAist gave their route/problem used on this database. It doesn't matter if the people coming forward to say that they did X route and named it Y are complete assholes or not. (and I don't know if they are in this case) All that matters is that the original name has become available and should be used.

If you have a problem with the attitude of a particular FAist then you can start a thread about that, but just because someone is not playing nice does not mean that we should ignore what they did. They had no responsibility to you or any of us to document what they did. None-the-less, if they come forward with the history of a particular route/problem, then we should honor that history.

Tom Hanson wrote: Once a problem/route is published under a name, keep that name, even if it is not the original. Why confuse the issue by renaming something or bestowing multiple names on one line? A rose by any other name.....

I totally disagree with this.

If the name that the FAist gave a route/problem is available then it should be used on this database.

Brad Brandewie wrote:If the name that the FAist gave a route/problem is available then it should be used on this database.

Good luck forcing that. Will you start by discrediting everyone who calls Luxury Liner by the wrong name? Sedimentary Journey? The East Face of Washington Column?

In a guidebook, it is worth noting what the original name of the route was (especially in areas where its ok to rename a problem upon its first free ascent). But the community will call it whatever the hell it wants to call it, and you literally can't do anything about it.

Also, just to be clear, I'm not advocating that people lose primacy of place if the information is not disseminated well. Just that they lose the right to get indignant when the historical information is incorrect. Correct it. Don't be a dick about it, just correct it. Note also that if the community already has a name for it, you can't fight that. Maybe a couple pedants will call it by its "true" name, but the name is already there.