If it was bolted on lead...

Define "closely spaced".

The worst that can happen is you get a "boo boo" on your knee or elbow

If aid was used Bachar called it a Mixed Route ...

Did Bachar call the BY a "mixed route"?

It is probably a sport climb if bolts were used in places where gear could have been used

It is also probably a sport climb if the bolts were placed while rappelling.

It is probably a sport climb if most or all of the protection bolts are spaced within two body lengths of each other.

is probably a sport climb if all of the above criteria are met, it is deliberately difficult, and you can do the whole route and then lower to the ground with one 200 meter rope. If all bolts were placed on lead (with a hand drill or power drill, with or without hooks), if no bolts were placed next to features where gear or slings could be used for protection, if belays require gear placement,and if it is multi-pitch, then it is probably trad.

rap bolted routes like the stuff at Owen's

Believe me getting your name in a book, right next to RAP BOLTED would make more than a few take pause.

I like going out and having fun climbing

Explain why using a hand drill instead of power makes it trad....

.I don't care how you do it but put up solid routes that others will want to climb.

"...a safe climb..."

A trad route is a route that can be climbed clean. Trad means that the route could have been led with traditional means, i.e. pitons, and now cams and nuts. If the route was first climbed with "safety bolts", then it NOT a trad route.

If it was bolted on lead, especially OS lead, it most likely has poorly thought out bolt placements that are too high for the vast majority of people I climb with (under 5'4").

You are right. I climb with a bunch of pussies. I will tell them that they should just do the crux 20 feet out before clipping the bolt. That makes way more sense than putting the bolt 6" lower.

To what then do we owe the ego whilst searching for the community?

If GU ascents don't involve the FA's ego, why ask THEM whether or not bolts can/should be added/replaced... rather than asking the COMMUNITY?

Personally I agree that the FA team does not own the stone, so they really should go with what the climbing community decides...

And as far as I'm concerned, if the FA didn't come back and add bolts within some reasonable time frame - say five or ten years - then their consenting to retro'ing an old line is just social pandering as well.

When John Gill, Todd Gordon, Kris Solem and Kevin Worral spoke on page one, and not with one voice, I thought it would be hard to sustain any further discussion.

The question for me is at what grade should the route be safe for the common person

To claim that ground up ascents aren't ego driven is amusing to me after what I've witnessed in over forty years of climbing (at the risk of sounding egotistical), some of it with some of America's best.

It's highly unlikey that someone will call you out for not climbing a new route GU in 2011, or even care, so why not rap in

A mentor of mine taught me that one of the most important choices in climbing is the choice of which climb to do. Not every route is for everyone, and the concept that below a certain grade they should all be safe is not achieveable as evidenced by the number of serious accidents on "safe" sport routes.

Oh no, no ego there.

There is no route that is safe. None. Stop climbing immediately.

It's highly unlikey that someone will call you out for not climbing a new route GU in 2011,

Um perhaps in some areas but in many others this is NOT the case...

I certainly didn't say that. I said my 'climbing ego' is entirely self-powered and not at all driven by what others think of me or my climbs (also why rope-soloing is 50+% of all my climbing). What I did say was that I've seen a lot of [sport] 'developers' who are clearly putting up routes as a 'community service' in large part to be perceived as 'the man' in the context of what today is a very, very social and conjoined group gym/sport scene (at least out this way). Seen a lot of trad egos over the year as well, just not quite as specious as the 'community service' drillers.

Especially if you're putting up beginner routes with pointless runouts.

Whats a 'beginner" route, anything from 10 down?

I don't know, if you're talking trad, then from what I see around here you better bump that down to anything below 5.7...

Should we not strive to preserve either the original character of the crag/area (as is the case with the Pinnacles) or at least the older routes?

leave'em as they are with very rare exception.

People get old, weak, and republican

What would be an exception in your mind?

Bolts are for sissies who destroy my rocks!

Why do the same people that think the FA party have the final say object to adding a bolt with consent from the FA party?

it's not ok to retrobolt even with the FAs permission - leave that sh#t alone and either pony up or look away.

...MY ROCKS, MY CRAGS...

I'm not all for routes that are ankle busters, or worse, but since there are some who are, be it the BY or an unremarkable 5.4, those who first ascended an R or X route, engaged in a mental challenge arguably important to get good at if climbing outside at all. What is climbing to become if it is all merely safe, and f'n completely boring."

Quote:


The majority of the easy routes at Pinnacles are poorly protected, yet the majority of the difficult routes are well protected -- aren't we doing a disservice to the community by having a different standard for those that are new to the sport?

What I hear mainly from FAists, rap bolting isn’t generally a respected form of putting up a route unless it is way too difficult for most people to ever consider putting up ground up. Undoubtedly there are awesome lines put up that way. What’s not so cool, “development”, especially by rap bolters who would usurp routes at such a rate as Healyj says, I’ve heard so many purists intimate it’s like stealing the adventure and the history that could be made. And so is adding bolts to climbs without the FAists consent, maybe even with consent years later.

If it was rebared on lead....was it still construction climbing?

This thread is of virtually no relevance to this group of users. The few that still bolt routes don't really give a sh#t what some other crusty old bastard has to say about it. What's to discuss????

It's sort of shocking to see that anyone would think they were wiser in their youth than they are now.

How sustainable can our ethics be if we give the FA party final say over any line they put up and then ignore their wishes later in life?

All sorts of difficult climbing ethics problems continue to come up, we need some way to have an open and honest debate about how to handle them. There are certainly several people posting in this thread saying "When I was a boy, we had to walk to school in the snow, up hill both ways, and feet hadn't yet been invented! We post holed our way there on our ankles! Kids these days have it easy!". While I have no doubt that some of you predate the invention of feet, that fact does little to advance the debate about bolting ethics.

I think it's great that climbing has evolved to include more and more different types of climbs and more and more different types of climbers.

I don't hang dog then claim I climbed it. I also have a smaller ego than yourself.

The best way to blow minds today and come off as complete lunatic old is to suggest a kid not hang on the rope while climbing on gear. They look at you like you're a frigging Martian.

Admittedly, FA's are getting hard to come by,

And I couldn't care less if you or others dog up routes, what I do care about is kids thinking trad climbing is just sport climbing on gear.

Imagine! Them... THINKING! The nerve of those children!

So are aid climbers sprad or do you have a better name for the kids who aid climb these days? No way they could be anywhere near your level of aid so hopefully you have another condescending name for them.

but has aid climbing changed substantially in the past thirty years? Or did I miss something?

So then is the Dike Route on Pywaik a sport climb by your definition?

...you don't hand jam 110' on a sport climb

If I worked on it ground up for a long time, falling and lowering to the start every time, and I finally got the climb, then I might say I did a "trad" ascent. But that's just a product of my "trad" background and upbringing.

Admittedly, FA's are getting hard to come by,

No they aren't. Not even is VERY well established areas. What's hard to come by (in established areas) are moderate splitter plumb lines 5 minutes from parking.

I have no problem with sport climbing as such, but merely with people thinking just because they're using gear that they're trad climbing, which simply isn't the case - it's about the tactics, not the protection.

Hanging on a cam is 'sport climbing'!

The thread has drifted from ethics to personal style. Who gives a fuk about how other people climb routes??

Geez, I'd hate to weight every piece I place. Wonder how many would actually work? Yikes!

Your definition is not consistant with the rest of the worlds.

Your only ally can't respond to this thread, how convenient.

Climbs are done either onsight or redpointed, regardless of whether they are led on gear or bolts.

Climbs are done either onsight or redpointed, regardless of whether they are led on gear or bolts.

If you managed the odd, rare onsight in trad, great; if not, then it just means you got it clean at some point past that.

Well, from my perspective the initial dust up and primary disagreement between what are now trad climbers and what were then becoming sport climbers wasn't the bolts, it was the use of dogging as a tactic - with bolting issues entirely secondary to the argument. And for me that's still what defines the difference between the two - not the bolts, but rather the use of dogging as a tactic. I have no problem with sport climbing as such, but merely with people thinking just because they're using gear that they're trad climbing, which simply isn't the case - it's about the tactics, not the protection.

Or, to quote Bachar, who is sorely missing from this conversation, from a 2008 thread:

If I worked on it ground up for a long time, falling and lowering to the start every time, and I finally got the climb, then I might say I did a "trad" ascent. But that's just a product of my "trad" background and upbringing.

Ah...pro-jected instead of project-ed. Got it. It's all clear to me now...

I'm just messin' 'round. I do find there's a bit of confusion with the use of the term "trad climbing" in reference to some of these "trad" ascents as reported in the climbing media. To me at least.

When someone top ropes a climb 50 times and leads it on "traditional" gear I think that's great and it is what it is - a rehearsed lead. If I did a route that way, I could never say I did a "trad" ascent however.

If I worked on it ground up for a long time, falling and lowering to the start every time, and I finally got the climb, then I might say I did a "trad" ascent. But that's just a product of my "trad" background and upbringing.

Nevertheless, I don't want to take anything away from Beth or others who choose this style. The routes they are doing are damn hard and point to new directions and possibilities for those climbs in the future - someday people will walk up to the base of those climbs and onsight flash them. Now that's trad.

Congrats, Beth. I can't wait to go check that crack out - standing on the ground of course!

When someone top ropes a climb 50 times and leads it on "traditional" gear I think that's great and it is what it is - a rehearsed lead. If I did a route that way, I could never say I did a "trad" ascent however.

If I worked on it ground up for a long time, falling and lowering to the start every time, and I finally got the climb, then I might say I did a "trad" ascent. But that's just a product of my "trad" background and upbringing.

First, my disdain for the term "trad" is almost equal to the respect I have for climbers that hold themselves to the pure standard of freeclimbing "as it first existed",...

Hj. Listen to Tool "the Grudge" from Lateralus. Let go.

YOU'VE GOT ONE CHANCE AT THE ONSIGHT.

I would rather see history erased, then to see every cliff a museum

First, when i did Lurch it was at the near top of my leading experitse. I had climbed with seasoned guys and soaked the info from them to equip me with the needed "sackage". That is the exact reason its a stand out achievement in my climbing memories. The people that go to the loaf already KNOW what is there. And every boulder in the region now has hangers dangling, so theres no shortage of routes. MAYBE those folks you saw have that route on their "to do" list becuase of its very nature. A lot of the routes there were steep in grade from hardings chimney to scheister to farley to bolle gold. As I said before, youd be doing the gym tuaght noobs a better service if you just bolted the first pitch of Farley! LOL I havent heard of ONE accident on Lurch....which is MEANT for the aspiring 5.9 leader to jump on. Every route below 5.10 isnt just for the very new. Its part of "getting there". And might i add, ive NEVER heard of anyone wanting to put a bolt in Lurch, but i have heard many " man thats a great lead" comments!


edit: look at it this way, LURCH has seen probably a thousand or more ascents since it was done 40 years ago, as is. Now becuase of one opinion, its going to get fitted with PERMANENT gear. DOes the one opinion negate the thousand plus before it??

edit: cook, not sure about the six year old refrence?

Devaluing the quality of someone's climbing experience because they may have hung on a rope, top roped, rehearsed or clipped draws in place smacks of intolerance and bigotry often rooted in insecurity.

Therein lies the rub: How can a route become a "trad route later"?

DMT, Trad climbing is TRADITIONAL climbing. That means climbing with the style and ethics of Chouinard, Frost, and their peers.