Claiming a TR?

Jim Corbett wrote:

The long time etiquette is that the TR should defer to someone leading the route--

According to who? The long-time etiquette is the first person who gets to the route stakes claim. This has been true everywhere from Squamish to El Potraro, J tree to the NRG and everywhere else in between. The type of ascent you're doing is irrelevant, otherwise I could make the claim that if I intend to lead your sport climb on gear I get priority and if my partner wants to free solo it he gets priority over everyone. That's crap and I'd tell someone to get lost if they tried to bump me off a route I was already on because they thought they were going to climb it in a more committing way.

Jim Corbett wrote:

The long time etiquette is that the TR should defer to someone leading the route--leading is the more committing climb and takes precedence. May be less of an issue at sport cliffs. If I got to a rock climb I wanted to lead and found a TR party that didn't get it, I probably would not get aggressive about it but I would comment about effing a holes as I moved on.

On ice the lead takes precedence--period--and I would get in a TR party's face. Why should someone who wants to lead have to wait around while a bunch of gumbies (it's almost always gumbies--TRing ice is about as pointless as it gets) chop the crap out of the line?

If I have a TR up on a climb and you want to lead it, you can hop in line with the rest of us waiting for a burn... Show up and demand to cut in front of everyone who's been patiently waiting for a try, who got there well before you, and you come across as a complete asshole. I wouldn't give a shit about your entitled feelings and I'd also probably fuck with your gear, belayer, and rope while you were trying to have 'fun' climbing if you tried to cut. 

Say two parties show up at the same time to a route and you're looking to lead and we're gonna camp out and TR it, I'd be polite and let you go since you're starting point is the base and I'd still have to run up top to set anchor. logistically this makes sense. I run up and set anchor while you lead. Your attitude is completely wrong imo. As a matter of logistics it makes sense. Otherwise its get the hell in line and wait like everyone else... you're no special and your entitled ego sucks. Period.

***This is my personal view and is not the view of Mountainproject.com or any of it's affiliates. 

climbing friend,

if you are ever finding of yourself as part of "TR party," you must be re-evaluating on yourown life!

Leading has priority over top-roping because leading is actually climbing as it involves some confrontation with risk (even if that risk is minimal on some routes).  A person who is heading for a route to lead it may have been working up to that attempt for a while and the conditions may be right for them at that moment, in terms of the temperatures, the partner they are with, their warm up sequence and so forth...  Maybe they won't be back in the area for a long time and would like to try to actually send the route.   So if you want to top-rope something at the same time as someone wants to lead it, you must defer to the party that is willing to lead it.  That being said, if you are already top-roping something, you don't have to pull your rope just because someone shows up who wants to lead it.  You do have to forgo multiple top rope laps.  I do my share of top roping just like everyone else, but it is analogous to what happens when my wife is out of town for a long work trip.  I know I won't go to hell for doing either, but there is certainly more glory (genuine life force) and intimacy with my partner and life in the alternatives and you should do everything you can to assist your fellow climbers with realizing their better selves.  Top roping is a pallid imitation of life – not evil, but certainly a part of one of those many lesser realities from which we sometimes succeed in raising ourselves through something like actual climbing.

md3 wrote:

Leading has priority over top-roping because leading is actually climbing as it involves some confrontation with risk (even if that risk is minimal on some routes).  A person who is heading for a route to lead it may have been working up to that attempt for a while and the conditions may be right for them at that moment, in terms of the temperatures, the partner they are with, their warm up sequence and so forth...  Maybe they won't be back in the area for a long time and would like to try to actually send the route.   So if you want to top-rope something at the same time as someone wants to lead it, you must defer to the party that is willing to lead it.  That being said, if you are already top-roping something, you don't have to pull your rope just because someone shows up who wants to lead it.  You do have to forgo multiple top rope laps.  I do my share of top roping just like everyone else, but it is analogous to what happens when my wife is out of town for a long work trip.  I know I won't go to hell for doing either, but there is certainly more glory (genuine life force) and intimacy with my partner and life in the alternatives and you should do everything you can to assist your fellow climbers with realizing their better selves.  Top roping is a pallid imitation of life – not evil, but certainly a part of one of those many lesser realities from which we sometimes succeed in raising ourselves through something like actual climbing.

I wish people thought about climbing like that.

I have several friends at the gym who climb gym 5.12 routes, but only top rope, because leading is too scary/risky. I would be _very_ surprised if I ever saw a TR party defer to a couple leaders who show up to get on a route.

I do a fair amount of TR soloing, and if I get to a route first, I planned it that way. sorry, but you'll have to wait. 

that being said, I avoid groups at all costs when I am out solo, and typically climb in obscure locations. 

when with partners who wanna top rope (rare) I usually give leaders and fast parties first dibs. 

md3 wrote:

Leading has priority over top-roping because leading is actually climbing as it involves some confrontation with risk (even if that risk is minimal on some routes).  A person who is heading for a route to lead it may have been working up to that attempt for a while and the conditions may be right for them at that moment, in terms of the temperatures, the partner they are with, their warm up sequence and so forth...  Maybe they won't be back in the area for a long time and would like to try to actually send the route.   So if you want to top-rope something at the same time as someone wants to lead it, you must defer to the party that is willing to lead it.  That being said, if you are already top-roping something, you don't have to pull your rope just because someone shows up who wants to lead it.  You do have to forgo multiple top rope laps.  I do my share of top roping just like everyone else, but it is analogous to what happens when my wife is out of town for a long work trip.  I know I won't go to hell for doing either, but there is certainly more glory (genuine life force) and intimacy with my partner and life in the alternatives and you should do everything you can to assist your fellow climbers with realizing their better selves.  Top roping is a pallid imitation of life – not evil, but certainly a part of one of those many lesser realities from which we sometimes succeed in raising ourselves through something like actual climbing.

Just a tad bit too much ego for me... All I end up hearing is, "I'm better than you because I risk my life more." 

First come first serve and then form a line... If conditions are important to you, you should have gotten there sooner. If you've planned on this route and worked it so long you should know better.

"Lack of proper planning on your behalf doesn't constitute an emergency on my behalf" come to mind... 

Jim Corbett wrote:

The long time etiquette is that the TR should defer to someone leading the route--leading is the more committing climb and takes precedence. May be less of an issue at sport cliffs. If I got to a rock climb I wanted to lead and found a TR party that didn't get it, I probably would not get aggressive about it but I would comment about effing a holes as I moved on.

On ice the lead takes precedence--period--and I would get in a TR party's face. Why should someone who wants to lead have to wait around while a bunch of gumbies (it's almost always gumbies--TRing ice is about as pointless as it gets) chop the crap out of the line?

I don't know where you climb, but I've never been anywhere where that is the norm...  Want to go first, learn to get up earlier...

md3 wrote:

Leading has priority over top-roping because leading is actually climbing as it involves some confrontation with risk (even if that risk is minimal on some routes).  A person who is heading for a route to lead it may have been working up to that attempt for a while and the conditions may be right for them at that moment, in terms of the temperatures, the partner they are with, their warm up sequence and so forth...  Maybe they won't be back in the area for a long time and would like to try to actually send the route.   So if you want to top-rope something at the same time as someone wants to lead it, you must defer to the party that is willing to lead it.  That being said, if you are already top-roping something, you don't have to pull your rope just because someone shows up who wants to lead it.  You do have to forgo multiple top rope laps.  I do my share of top roping just like everyone else, but it is analogous to what happens when my wife is out of town for a long work trip.  I know I won't go to hell for doing either, but there is certainly more glory (genuine life force) and intimacy with my partner and life in the alternatives and you should do everything you can to assist your fellow climbers with realizing their better selves.  Top roping is a pallid imitation of life – not evil, but certainly a part of one of those many lesser realities from which we sometimes succeed in raising ourselves through something like actual climbing.

Yeah. No.

I've climbed at areas where if you pulled that attitude you'd get the shit knocked out of you.

Best way to claim a TR is to drop a deuce at the base and leave your TP arranged to spell 'route taken'

TBlom wrote:

Best way to claim a TR is to drop a deuce at the base and leave your TP arranged to spell 'route taken'

Shouldn't it spell "shit taken"?  The double entendre would cause enough confusion to allow you to finish your setup and descend.

I've had a scenario where my buddy was racked up, tied in, about to start a lead, just as we were about to step on the wall dude peeks his head over, says are you guys climbing this route, and drops his rope. He was setting up the anchor for a TR but no none was at the base of the climb, he was setting up the anchor and rope and a group of like 5 people mosey on down as he drops the rope while qe are standing at the base basically waiting to see what's up and step on the first holds, mind you were are ready to lead the route right now. 

I felt like if this group was not at the base, had not dropped the rope, then we should get priority, just the risk you take if you want to set up TR from above first IMO. We ended up leaving really disgruntled it was frustrating to say the least.

timinthehouse wrote:

I've had a scenario where my buddy was racked up, tied in, about to start a lead, just as we were about to step on the wall dude peeks his head over, says are you guys climbing this route, and drops his rope. He was setting up the anchor for a TR but no none was at the base of the climb, he was setting up the anchor and rope and a group of like 5 people mosey on down as he drops the rope while qe are standing at the base basically waiting to see what's up and step on the first holds, mind you were are ready to lead the route right now. 

I felt like if this group was not at the base, had not dropped the rope, then we should get priority, just the risk you take if you want to set up TR from above first IMO. We ended up leaving really disgruntled it was frustrating to say the least.

Did you actually talk to them and not just passive-aggressively walk away or just go "WTF Guys?"? If they are TRing with a big group and it's a trad route you are leading, all racked up ready to go at the base, any reasonable human being would let you go (even a mostly un-reasonable asshole would probably let you go). You were likely the more experienced party, so it's up to you to say "Hey Guys, we were starting to lead this when you dropped your rope. We are going to pull your rope, but leave your anchor setup. My second will trail your rope and set it back up top for you. We'll be out of your way in 15 minutes."

Most people forget when they are leading trad routes in places where TRing is popular - there is a better than 95% chance you are the more experienced party and it is up to you to set an example. If you act like a jerk or talk down to other parties, they are going to tell you to go fuck yourself, no matter how right you are.

timinthehouse wrote:

I've had a scenario where my buddy was racked up, tied in, about to start a lead, just as we were about to step on the wall dude peeks his head over, says are you guys climbing this route, and drops his rope. He was setting up the anchor for a TR but no none was at the base of the climb, he was setting up the anchor and rope and a group of like 5 people mosey on down as he drops the rope while qe are standing at the base basically waiting to see what's up and step on the first holds, mind you were are ready to lead the route right now. 

I felt like if this group was not at the base, had not dropped the rope, then we should get priority, just the risk you take if you want to set up TR from above first IMO. We ended up leaving really disgruntled it was frustrating to say the least.

I'd have let you lead; in fact, I've done so in the past. In my case, I was setting a TR on Coatimundi Crack at Devil's Lake, and the rest of my party was at the base. This particular route moves slightly diagonally up the wall, so where I dropped the rope wasn't where the route actually starts; hence, my wife didn't realize that the party racking up was getting on the same route as we were. I dropped the rope, and rapped down to find a climber racked and ready to start the climb. 

He knew I was up there setting a TR, but he also was unfamiliar with the route, and didn't realize he was eyeing the same route we were preparing to climb. He apologized, and offered to find a different route. I told him to go ahead and climb through, and welcomed him to clip into my anchor. He did, and he and his partner had climbed and cleaned the route in short order. (In fact, by clipping into the shelf of my anchor, they were finished even faster than they would have been otherwise.)

No harsh words were exchanged, no punches were thrown, and the only injuries were bruises to his tailbone (and perhaps his ego) when he lowered off the end of his rope from 3 feet up. That climb is a rope stretcher for a 60m, and he hadn't tied a stopper knot. Luckily, he landed on flat ground, and sustained no permanent damage.

Andrew Krajnik wrote:

I'd have let you lead; in fact, I've done so in the past. In my case, I was setting a TR on Coatimundi Crack at Devil's Lake, and the rest of my party was at the base. This particular route moves slightly diagonally up the wall, so where I dropped the rope wasn't where the route actually starts; hence, my wife didn't realize that the party racking up was getting on the same route as we were. I dropped the rope, and rapped down to find a climber racked and ready to start the climb. 

He knew I was up there setting a TR, but he also was unfamiliar with the route, and didn't realize he was eyeing the same route we were preparing to climb. He apologized, and offered to find a different route. I told him to go ahead and climb through, and welcomed him to clip into my anchor. He did, and he and his partner had climbed and cleaned the route in short order. (In fact, by clipping into the shelf of my anchor, they were finished even faster than they would have been otherwise.)

No harsh words were exchanged, no punches were thrown, and the only injuries were bruises to his tailbone (and perhaps his ego) when he lowered off the end of his rope from 3 feet up. That climb is a rope stretcher for a 60m, and he hadn't tied a stopper knot. Luckily, he landed on flat ground, and sustained no permanent damage.

Devil's Lake is a special case though, so it doesn't count. The entire East Bluff is covered in dozens of TRs every summer weekend, everybody shares ropes without even asking and it's standard for leaders to just pull ropes not actively in use and then set them back up (or just coil them). Plus it's Wisconsin and everyone is overly nice, probably a few beers in, and definitely stuffed full of fried cheese curds and ice cream from the concessions.

Marc801 C wrote:

Yeah. No.

I've climbed at areas where if you pulled that attitude you'd get the shit knocked out of you.

And I've climbed at an area where if you want to hog a route with an all day TR party you'll get the shit knocked out of you. It's a weird world you guys are climbing in where it's acceptable to camp out top roping a route and not let parties get in their lead of it.

Morgan Patterson wrote:

Just a tad bit too much ego for me... All I end up hearing is, "I'm better than you because I risk my life more." 

First come first serve and then form a line... If conditions are important to you, you should have gotten there sooner. If you've planned on this route and worked it so long you should know better.

"Lack of proper planning on your behalf doesn't constitute an emergency on my behalf" come to mind... 

Not all crags sending conditions are in the morning. 

Nick Drake wrote:

And I've climbed at an area where if you want to hog a route with an all day TR party you'll get the shit knocked out of you. It's a weird world you guys are climbing in where it's acceptable to camp out top roping a route and not let parties get in their lead of it.

But we're not talking about hogging a route all day or camping out top roping a route and not letting parties lead. We're talking about a TR party that got to the route before a lead party. In a lot of areas that means the TR party gets to climb it first.

Marc801 C wrote:

But we're not talking about hogging a route all day or camping out top roping a route and not letting parties lead. We're talking about a TR party that got to the route before a lead party. In a lot of areas that means the TR party gets to climb it first.

I think you may have missed that part of md3's post than:

"That being said, if you are already top-roping something, you don't have to pull your rope just because someone shows up who wants to lead it.  You do have to forgo multiple top rope laps."

So in the disagreeing with him it does sound like you're approving hogging a route and camping out on top rope. I don't have an issue with reasonable party size finishing up a lap on TR, first is first. 

Nick Drake wrote:

I think you may have missed that part of md3's post than:

"That being said, if you are already top-roping something, you don't have to pull your rope just because someone shows up who wants to lead it.  You do have to forgo multiple top rope laps."

So in the disagreeing with him it does sound like you're approving hogging a route and camping out on top rope. I don't have an issue with reasonable party size finishing up a lap on TR, first is first. 

To be honest, I missed those sentences buried amongst the ego. In particular, I was reacting to the absolutism of his statement:

"So if you want to top-rope something at the same time as someone wants to lead it, you must defer to the party that is willing to lead it."

If it were me and indeed both parties arrived at the same time, we'd work something out. But I've seen that attitude of "you must do such and such" nearly devolve into a fist fight.