The Age Old/New Discussion

[SoYo Climber]

Even if done TD, can a moderate, bolts only, well-protected slab route be called sport, for instance?)

Depends on the context, whether talking FA or subsequent ascents.

Within the context of the FA it was established in the style of "sport", and was a sport FA.   Change the wording a little to "Even if done GU, can a moderate..." and the answer changes, it was done in the style of "trad", and was a trad FA.

Within the context of subsequent ascents, the route climbs to all as if it is a sport route.  High safety factor, little commitment, ...

Seems to me that there are a whole lot of trad routes that climb exactly like sport.  Can't tell the difference in how it was established, and technical ability is the only thing required.  Not that there is anything wrong with that kind of route.

This harkens back to some of the previous points regarding "done well" and the context of who the discussion is for.

Haha, around in circles and chasing own tails...

I guess this is why the age old questions never seem to get settled.  Too many subtleties, tangents, caveats, and complexities.  Still fun to talk about.

[mungeclimber]

A semantics question: what is the definition of sport?  I ask because the definition seems to have morphed over time.  At present, to many people "sport" means anything with bolts, and "trad" is reserved for gear only.  It no longer has much to do with the style of climbing.  It used to be more about style, trad typically meant GU and sport TD.  It was more about what experience was being sought, and the methods used to get to that experience, rather than simply if there were bolts.  Bolts have historically always been acceptable, long before there was even a notion of sport - regardless of it's definition.

Those people that use 'trad' for gear only are ignorant and need to be hung, drawn and quartered. Pinnacles, Yosemite slabs, Elbsandstein, Meteora are good examples of face protected bolt climbs that are traditional.

Sport means well protected fixed protection climbs.

Agree that bolts have been historically acceptable to protect otherwise unprotectable features, e.g. slabs.

[SoYo Climber]

Agree that bolts have been historically acceptable to protect otherwise unprotectable features, e.g. slabs.

"otherwise unprotectable features" qualifies the historical perspective better than I did, and is worth noting.

Something that has seemed to change relative to the historical perspective is the quantity of bolts involved when a route does meet the above criteria.  It used to be, yes, you can use bolts but since they aren't natural do what you can to minimize their use - yet another reason runouts occurred.  Not so much anymore.  The "quality" (subjective) of the climbing experience now often trumps the "quantity" of bolts actually required (subjective).  No clear cut answer on that one, imo.   It's a good ideal, but if it's good climbers putting up routes under their limit it can lead to all kinds of exclusion problems for those of lesser ability.  It's possible to even exclude yourself from repeating your own route because it's a different day.

[mungeclimber]

Soyo, yeah, on sheer bolt counts there are two schools of thought that [self regulate placements as opposed to TD grid bolting walls] I've seen. The first, is reduce bolts as much as humanly possible. The second, is don't place when there is an otherwise usable feature for removable gear (and leaves lots of room for leveraging fixed gear).

The first theory is consistent with the 'leave minimal trace' ethic.

The second is consistent with the ground up ethic that preserves adventure in the process, but not necessarily the product.

I'm more of the later (Susan, that's for you . In other words, I like to go ground up when I can. I go ground up when I'm in an area that is a ground up area. But I'm not afraid of adding steel. I won't avoid steel just to maintain a moving target of what is 'minimal.'  The process and experience of how I experience it is paramount, compared to an arbitrary rule of what is a minimum distance between bolts (vertically, but also to some extent horizontally too). But if I do elect to do a 'product' route (sometimes started GU sometimes TD, and rare in any case), then I don't mind targeting the goal of being a fun, well equipped, good clips, well engineered route. It doesn't seem to make sense to have an arbitrary push to minimize bolts either GU or TD, since in any event we are talking about the colloquial "whore's ethics" (setting aside any gender bias the phrase has unto itself).

The self regulatory aspect derives from the approach, not in the bolt count itself. The counter argument is that it's the bolt counts are what drives the crowds and thus more impact.

Without question, reduce moto drill usage and new bolt counts per anum will plummet. New route development would grind to a slow trickle. And those of us with elbow problems would not be able to continue doing FAs, or FAs GU at or near our free climbing limit. 

[SoYo Climber]

Good post mungeclimber.

FA's are where its at, and I see runouts as a desirable aspect of the game.  But I don't have a preconceived set of rules that are adhered to.  So what happens, happens.  And if I do run it, it doesn't really bother me because I subscribe to the not every route has to be for everybody theory as well.  I'm almost exclusively GU, but within that framework there's enough wiggle room to find a balance.

[susan]

Munge, "Whore's ethics?" Don't know what you mean here and would like to.

[DaveyTree]

No, I meant same route. TD can be runout where the climbing is easier than the grade. I guess that's my style tho if I happen to to TD.instead of GU. And a GU could be grid bolted if using a Edrill and tough grade for the FA party. To me it only matters that day to the FA party. If you told.me about a new route, I would want to know about the cool hole for tricams or the undercling on the 2ND pitch. I would not care or ask, honestly if it was TD or GU.

[susan]

We were trying to bolt at a minimum when we first came to Shuteye, to a point that seemed part of the game. John was especially concerned if we might not have been on an FA. [Heard several times that decades of previous climbers in the area hoped to keep the place adventurous and natural as possible, and we admired that spirit.] One time in particular I remember facing another long walk back around at the end of the day, all to avoid being too quick to install rap anchors anywhere but the best spots [which could take some time to get clear on], and keep from inadvertently altering lines that others may have climbed naturally. After all, there really is beauty to an all natural or mostly natural line that climbs like a first ascent. Now, a few years rolled by and forum chatter seems to focus so much more on the value of well-protected routes than ever. Even so, I can't help wondering, won't the pendulum swing?

There is something great about climbing routes you know you can handle, but something greater when climbing routes that seemed improbable. As several here keep pointing out, the trajectory is more and more that TD routes outnumber GU. Even if a majority seems to express that run-out routes are a waste of climbable space, if we don't respect the ethic of not messing with routes others established, then GU routes are endangered. If so, some of the best experiences we value in climbing will suffer. If we have to move to answering to everyone's fussbudgety differences [not referring to this discussion at all, just garden variety conversations on varying opinions about bolt placement, risk factors, etc., which are impasses], it will impinge on our freedom and potential for originality. Routes could begin to look too much alike. Instead of fueling excitement, we'll get bored. Since we all see that there are different strokes for different folks, and no controlling what is valued most for all time, seems to me the possibilities are endless for what climbs established in the ‘right way’ could be. And the one nice thing about thinking that the possibilities are endless is maybe we could be surprised. 

[mungeclimber]

Munge, "Whore's ethics?" Don't know what you mean here and would like to.

At first I was thinking only of one definition. But there are two if we take off the possessive apostrophe and or change it to prostitution ethics. One, is that if we're doing the dirty deed and taking the benefit from it, we really don't have justification to prevent others from doing the same or wanting to make it more normal and ok.

Two, is that as climbers, once we accept bolts, we're not haggling over whether we are taking advantage of the rock, we're haggling over how many bolts. Is 20 worse than 2?

In the broader context of that post, the idea was to show the futility of the refined argument since we're all paying customers or giving it up in the metaphorical sense.

[susan]

Ho-k. Thanks for explaining, Munge.

Here are a few more straggling things I wanted to say but have been trying to work and gotta get back to it, so just throwing them out here.

-Great treatment on the definitions of sport and trad in these recent posts.

-Yes, Higgins is eloquent. In that quote where he writes:
"If both styles have to play on the same cliff, go with caution when crossing old trad routes with new sport routes to avoid effectively retro bolting the old lines (the new Southern Sierra guidebook will make just this point). I think this is the way (and maybe only way) to insure maximum climbing satisfaction and minimum harm to camaraderie of the game." Does the new Southern Sierra guidebook make that point as indicated?

-Even if routes are going up that I won't see fit to ever leading because they are beyond my wrapping my head around, to see folks pushing their own limits beyond comprehension is inspiring. Maybe only awe inspiring, but I'll take it. Again, no problem with saying to them, 'ahh, geesh, I wouldn't do that but would love to if there were more bolts.' Maybe they'll even add some just because they themselves might not want to climb the route again without them.

-I do relate to the art analogy some. For instance, we would have been bummed to have dotted someone else's "i" or put an x on their blank canvas if we have ever... and would have offered removal. I wouldn't necessarily see the worth of people getting blasted for that, though, esp. when they honestly didn't freaking know in a land where routes were barely or not at all reported.

-Getting back round to Dan's proposal for an ethics grading system, seems the main problem is a lot of people wouldn't care to report on it. Maybe we owe ourselves and future climbers the opportunity for keeping these records for the sake of the limited resource. If the chief aim of it is preservation of limited resources, then just as he proposed it with hand drilling at the top sounds about like it.

 

[mungeclimber]

Does the new Southern Sierra guidebook make that point as indicated?

There is a new So Sierra guidebook?

I do relate to the art analogy some. For instance, we would have been bummed to have dotted someone else's "i" or put an x on their blank canvas if we have ever... and would have offered removal. I wouldn't necessarily see the worth of people getting blasted for that, though, esp. when they honestly didn't freaking know in a land where routes were barely or not at all reported.

Without question.  And if removal is not offered, it seems removal is warranted if the FA'ist is inclined.  Should the FA'ist pass, and a sufficient period of time past, then community input is warranted.


With regard to an ethical rating system. The Pinnacles guides have often called out the style of ascent. Clipping a pin for a 'clean ascent' of an FFA being called out since it used a hammer for the old pin to be placed originally.

It's not unheard of, just hardly anyone cares. But I think it's worth capturing the history on everything. In particular, that's why I actually like detailed topos that are substantiated by research on where the line actually goes. Without getting it right early, years later no one remembers.

[susan]

I think this is referring to Grahm's guide even though he writes Southern Sierra.   

[NateD]

I think this is referring to Grahm's guide even though he writes Southern Sierra.

Yes, this came about in regards to Sahib on Chiquito. Read the Sahib desc. in the Shuteye guide - an unfortunate case of a clearly documented bold route getting bolted over.

[susan]

Good that he put that in there.

[mike a]

grahmy did it on aug nights as well, good thing he did do the colored hanger thing he was think he was thinking of doing on chiquito dome so climbers knew what climb was what, that was a super bad idea :-(!