|
|
|
|
scrapedape
May 4, 2011, 4:47 PM
Post #76 of 287
(8607 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 2392
|
cracklover wrote: Hey Joe, I have a question for you, and we can take this to PM if you prefer. You said... healyje wrote: sometimes I have to find free stances to clean from I'm curious about this, because I've done some FAs in New England where the pretty line I intended to follow was so full of muck, moss, mud, and perhaps some rotten rock that I had to diverge onto a line that was cleaner but less interesting, simply because I was going ground-up and it would have been impossible to clean the crack while climbing up. What do you do in these situations? In my case I considered coming back, doing the climb again, finding a way atop the original route, rapping down and cleaning out the crack to see if my original line would go... but I never got around to it. Anyway, I just don't see how you could "trad" (using your definition) climb a FA with a substantial section of crack that's full of muck. I know what others would say (including some other trad climbers from back in the 70s who I respect). But those folks cut their teeth in CO, CA, etc where the cracks might have been chossy, but muck just wasn't something they grew up with. If anyone would have a really good answer, it's you. Thanks, GO
Check out the Squamish thread on supertopo. From what I recall from that thread, it has been pretty much accepted for some time that you would have to clean on rappel, given that you're basically climbing in a rainforest.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
May 4, 2011, 5:29 PM
Post #77 of 287
(8601 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
johnwesely wrote: cracklover wrote: 1 - Conceptually, the way Joe does it means that falling is the end of the ascent. You don't get to the anchors clean? Your ascent is over. GO I understand that falling negates the ascent, but does it negate his definition of traditional climbing?
No, of course not. It just means that you failed to climb the route, you need to start over from the beginning.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
May 4, 2011, 5:38 PM
Post #78 of 287
(8597 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
cracklover wrote: johnwesely wrote: cracklover wrote: 1 - Conceptually, the way Joe does it means that falling is the end of the ascent. You don't get to the anchors clean? Your ascent is over. GO I understand that falling negates the ascent, but does it negate his definition of traditional climbing? No, of course not. It just means that you failed to climb the route, you need to start over from the beginning. GO
Would failing the route in the manner I described mean I was sport climbing?
|
|
|
|
|
rangerrob
May 4, 2011, 5:50 PM
Post #79 of 287
(8586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2003
Posts: 641
|
How does falling equate to failing to climb the route. if you stand on top of the route, you've climbed it. It's really that simple. What you want to label that ascent becomes the discussion, but the fact that you are on top is irrefutable.
Some examples are as follows:
"Dude! I on sighted Erect Direction!" - this means the person climbed the route with no beta, placing gear on the way up, not pulling or stepping on gear, and not weighting the rope.
"Dude, I sent Erection Directon yesterday!" - This implies the ascent was not an on sight, but still sort of implies that they climbed it without weighting gear or the rope.
"Dude, I put the rope up on Erect Direction the other day. Man, that thing kicked my ass!" - This implies an ascent that probably had one or more hangs, falls, screaming for tension, slack, take, crying, shaking, pooping, etc.
In all cases the person actually climbed the route. The only difference is the style of the ascent.
RR
P.S. my ascent falls into the last category, just so we're clear :)
(This post was edited by rangerrob on May 4, 2011, 5:57 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 4, 2011, 5:52 PM
Post #80 of 287
(8584 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
johnwesely wrote: cracklover wrote: johnwesely wrote: cracklover wrote: 1 - Conceptually, the way Joe does it means that falling is the end of the ascent. You don't get to the anchors clean? Your ascent is over. GO I understand that falling negates the ascent, but does it negate his definition of traditional climbing? No, of course not. It just means that you failed to climb the route, you need to start over from the beginning. GO Would failing the route in the manner I described mean I was sport climbing?
The plot thickens.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 4, 2011, 5:52 PM
Post #81 of 287
(8583 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
rangerrob wrote: How does falling equate to failing to climb the route. if you stand on top of the route, you've climbed it. It's really that simple. What you want to label that ascent becomes the discussion, but the fact that you are on top is irrefutable.
You could have walked up the back.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
redlude97
May 4, 2011, 5:56 PM
Post #82 of 287
(8581 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990
|
cracklover wrote: johnwesely wrote: cracklover wrote: 1 - Conceptually, the way Joe does it means that falling is the end of the ascent. You don't get to the anchors clean? Your ascent is over. GO I understand that falling negates the ascent, but does it negate his definition of traditional climbing? No, of course not. It just means that you failed to climb the route [clean], you need to start over from the beginning. GO
(This post was edited by redlude97 on May 4, 2011, 5:56 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
May 4, 2011, 6:00 PM
Post #83 of 287
(8575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
rangerrob wrote: How does falling equate to failing to climb the route. if you stand on top of the route, you've climbed it. It's really that simple. What you want to label that ascent becomes the discussion, but the fact that you are on top is irrefutable. RR
I'll have to respond to a few of these a bit later or tonight, but suffice to say an ascent by any means may be an ascent, but it isn't trad climbing. Or, to quote Messner - "by fair means, or not at all". Weighting the rope during an ascent is by definition 'unfair means' and not restarting that pitch negates the ascent in trad. I fall often on routes, but pull the rope and give the pitch another shot, I don't hang in space bouldering the move off the rope until I get it. If for some reason I can't lower and have to top out the pitch, I consider the climb over at that point.
A lot of this 'ideal' around the fundamentals of trad climbing hail from the stark realities you encounter doing onsight, ground-up FAs over hard and/or dangerous ground where dogging is most definitely not an option. If you become emotionally addicted to 'working' lines from the safety and cushion of the end of a rope then you're likely to have a more difficult time coping when run out on difficult terrain over marginal pro.
More later...
(This post was edited by healyje on May 4, 2011, 6:06 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
May 4, 2011, 6:27 PM
Post #84 of 287
(8561 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
healyje wrote: rangerrob wrote: How does falling equate to failing to climb the route. if you stand on top of the route, you've climbed it. It's really that simple. What you want to label that ascent becomes the discussion, but the fact that you are on top is irrefutable. RR I'll have to respond to a few of these a bit later or tonight, but suffice to say an ascent by any means may be an ascent, but it isn't trad climbing. Or, to quote Messner - "by fair means, or not at all". Weighting the rope during an ascent is by definition 'unfair means' and not restarting that pitch negates the ascent in trad. I fall often on routes, but pull the rope and give the pitch another shot, I don't hang in space bouldering the move off the rope until I get it. If for some reason I can't lower and have to top out the pitch, I consider the climb over at that point. A lot of this 'ideal' around the fundamentals of trad climbing hail from the stark realities you encounter doing onsight, ground-up FAs over hard and/or dangerous ground where dogging is most definitely not an option. If you become emotionally addicted to 'working' lines from the safety and cushion of the end of a rope then you're likely to have a more difficult time coping when run out on difficult terrain over marginal pro. More later...
When you pull the rope, do you leave the gear in place?
Not to be argumentative but, I have to assume your definition of trad climbing precludes any knowledge of the route. So anything in a guide book, or a route that someone told you about (because then you'd know it goes which eliminates the mental uncertainty about the outcome), wouldn't be trad?
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
May 4, 2011, 7:07 PM
Post #85 of 287
(8551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
shockabuku wrote: healyje wrote: rangerrob wrote: How does falling equate to failing to climb the route. if you stand on top of the route, you've climbed it. It's really that simple. What you want to label that ascent becomes the discussion, but the fact that you are on top is irrefutable. RR I'll have to respond to a few of these a bit later or tonight, but suffice to say an ascent by any means may be an ascent, but it isn't trad climbing. Or, to quote Messner - "by fair means, or not at all". Weighting the rope during an ascent is by definition 'unfair means' and not restarting that pitch negates the ascent in trad. I fall often on routes, but pull the rope and give the pitch another shot, I don't hang in space bouldering the move off the rope until I get it. If for some reason I can't lower and have to top out the pitch, I consider the climb over at that point. A lot of this 'ideal' around the fundamentals of trad climbing hail from the stark realities you encounter doing onsight, ground-up FAs over hard and/or dangerous ground where dogging is most definitely not an option. If you become emotionally addicted to 'working' lines from the safety and cushion of the end of a rope then you're likely to have a more difficult time coping when run out on difficult terrain over marginal pro. More later... When you pull the rope, do you leave the gear in place? Not to be argumentative but, I have to assume your definition of trad climbing precludes any knowledge of the route. So anything in a guide book, or a route that someone told you about (because then you'd know it goes which eliminates the mental uncertainty about the outcome), wouldn't be trad?
??? Joe is not saying Trad = Onsight
Why is this so impossible to comprehend?
GO
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
May 4, 2011, 7:11 PM
Post #86 of 287
(8549 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
shockabuku wrote: healyje wrote: rangerrob wrote: How does falling equate to failing to climb the route. if you stand on top of the route, you've climbed it. It's really that simple. What you want to label that ascent becomes the discussion, but the fact that you are on top is irrefutable. RR I'll have to respond to a few of these a bit later or tonight, but suffice to say an ascent by any means may be an ascent, but it isn't trad climbing. Or, to quote Messner - "by fair means, or not at all". Weighting the rope during an ascent is by definition 'unfair means' and not restarting that pitch negates the ascent in trad. I fall often on routes, but pull the rope and give the pitch another shot, I don't hang in space bouldering the move off the rope until I get it. If for some reason I can't lower and have to top out the pitch, I consider the climb over at that point. A lot of this 'ideal' around the fundamentals of trad climbing hail from the stark realities you encounter doing onsight, ground-up FAs over hard and/or dangerous ground where dogging is most definitely not an option. If you become emotionally addicted to 'working' lines from the safety and cushion of the end of a rope then you're likely to have a more difficult time coping when run out on difficult terrain over marginal pro. More later... When you pull the rope, do you leave the gear in place? Not to be argumentative but, I have to assume your definition of trad climbing precludes any knowledge of the route. So anything in a guide book, or a route that someone told you about (because then you'd know it goes which eliminates the mental uncertainty about the outcome), wouldn't be trad?
I don't get the sense that's what Joe is saying. I get the sense that a "flash" or "redpoint" doesn't necessarily negate the "traditional" style of the ascent when the ascent is achieved. Once you fall, you already have a fair amount of knowledge. Shoot, you even know something about the move you fell on now because, well, what you did before clearly wasn't right, yet pulling the rope and giving it another go, according to what I'm hearing from Joe, still means it is "trad."
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
May 4, 2011, 7:13 PM
Post #87 of 287
(8547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
johnwesely wrote: cracklover wrote: johnwesely wrote: cracklover wrote: 1 - Conceptually, the way Joe does it means that falling is the end of the ascent. You don't get to the anchors clean? Your ascent is over. GO I understand that falling negates the ascent, but does it negate his definition of traditional climbing? No, of course not. It just means that you failed to climb the route, you need to start over from the beginning. GO Would failing the route in the manner I described mean I was sport climbing?
In what manner?
You didn't say what the climber does after falling, and why. That's the key question for Joe.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
May 4, 2011, 7:20 PM
Post #88 of 287
(8542 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
cracklover wrote: johnwesely wrote: cracklover wrote: johnwesely wrote: cracklover wrote: 1 - Conceptually, the way Joe does it means that falling is the end of the ascent. You don't get to the anchors clean? Your ascent is over. GO I understand that falling negates the ascent, but does it negate his definition of traditional climbing? No, of course not. It just means that you failed to climb the route, you need to start over from the beginning. GO Would failing the route in the manner I described mean I was sport climbing? In what manner? You didn't say what the climber does after falling, and why. That's the key question for Joe. GO
The climber falls then gets back on the route and finishes it. without lowering to the ground.
|
|
|
|
|
rangerrob
May 4, 2011, 7:37 PM
Post #89 of 287
(8539 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2003
Posts: 641
|
People are mixing up the definition of traditional climbing along with the terms of sport climbing. So if I stand on a piece of gear halfway up a 1500m mixed rock and ice route in Pakistan does that mean I didn't trad climb it? Somehow that strict definition falls apart somewhere on the climbing scale. Personally I don't care which term get's thrown in there to describe what I did. I know what my ethics are, and I am honest about them. Climbing a two pitch 5.10, or a 1,000' ice gully in New hampshire is just training for the big things I aspire to. I try to do them in the best style I can, while staying safe. Hanging is safer than falling. Stepping or pulling on gear is better than falling. In remote areas, and on big alpine walls, falls are not acceptable to me. I will resort to A0 tactics long before I fall. I'm pretty sure even the big boys use those tactics on good technical ascents. One usually doesn't claim an "onsight" of the Franco Argentine route on Fitzroy. They say they either climbed it or they didn't.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
May 4, 2011, 8:23 PM
Post #90 of 287
(8515 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
johnwesely wrote: cracklover wrote: johnwesely wrote: cracklover wrote: johnwesely wrote: cracklover wrote: 1 - Conceptually, the way Joe does it means that falling is the end of the ascent. You don't get to the anchors clean? Your ascent is over. GO I understand that falling negates the ascent, but does it negate his definition of traditional climbing? No, of course not. It just means that you failed to climb the route, you need to start over from the beginning. GO Would failing the route in the manner I described mean I was sport climbing? In what manner? You didn't say what the climber does after falling, and why. That's the key question for Joe. GO The climber falls then gets back on the route and finishes it. without lowering to the ground.
The climber hang-dogged the route. Now if the climber did this just to get to the top of the route, that's one thing. But (according to Joe) if the objective was to work out the moves for a later red-point, then those are sport climbing tactics.
It's certainly not *my* definition of what modern trad climbing means, but it's a simple concept.
And it's a fine style.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
May 4, 2011, 10:03 PM
Post #91 of 287
(8499 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
cracklover wrote: johnwesely wrote: cracklover wrote: johnwesely wrote: cracklover wrote: johnwesely wrote: cracklover wrote: 1 - Conceptually, the way Joe does it means that falling is the end of the ascent. You don't get to the anchors clean? Your ascent is over. GO I understand that falling negates the ascent, but does it negate his definition of traditional climbing? No, of course not. It just means that you failed to climb the route, you need to start over from the beginning. GO Would failing the route in the manner I described mean I was sport climbing? In what manner? You didn't say what the climber does after falling, and why. That's the key question for Joe. GO The climber falls then gets back on the route and finishes it. without lowering to the ground. The climber hang-dogged the route. Now if the climber did this just to get to the top of the route, that's one thing. But (according to Joe) if the objective was to work out the moves for a later red-point, then those are sport climbing tactics. It's certainly not *my* definition of what modern trad climbing means, but it's a simple concept. And it's a fine style. GO
I am just trying to figure out how narrow Joe's definition is. To me, it seems like it groups a pretty wide range of climbing under the label sport.
|
|
|
|
|
redlude97
May 4, 2011, 10:06 PM
Post #92 of 287
(8497 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990
|
johnwesely wrote: cracklover wrote: johnwesely wrote: cracklover wrote: johnwesely wrote: cracklover wrote: johnwesely wrote: cracklover wrote: 1 - Conceptually, the way Joe does it means that falling is the end of the ascent. You don't get to the anchors clean? Your ascent is over. GO I understand that falling negates the ascent, but does it negate his definition of traditional climbing? No, of course not. It just means that you failed to climb the route, you need to start over from the beginning. GO Would failing the route in the manner I described mean I was sport climbing? In what manner? You didn't say what the climber does after falling, and why. That's the key question for Joe. GO The climber falls then gets back on the route and finishes it. without lowering to the ground. The climber hang-dogged the route. Now if the climber did this just to get to the top of the route, that's one thing. But (according to Joe) if the objective was to work out the moves for a later red-point, then those are sport climbing tactics. It's certainly not *my* definition of what modern trad climbing means, but it's a simple concept. And it's a fine style. GO I am just trying to figure out how narrow Joe's definition is. To me, it seems like it groups a pretty wide range of climbing under the label sport.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 5, 2011, 12:30 AM
Post #93 of 287
(8484 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
redlude97 wrote: johnwesely wrote: cracklover wrote: johnwesely wrote: cracklover wrote: johnwesely wrote: cracklover wrote: johnwesely wrote: cracklover wrote: 1 - Conceptually, the way Joe does it means that falling is the end of the ascent. You don't get to the anchors clean? Your ascent is over. GO I understand that falling negates the ascent, but does it negate his definition of traditional climbing? No, of course not. It just means that you failed to climb the route, you need to start over from the beginning. GO Would failing the route in the manner I described mean I was sport climbing? In what manner? You didn't say what the climber does after falling, and why. That's the key question for Joe. GO The climber falls then gets back on the route and finishes it. without lowering to the ground. The climber hang-dogged the route. Now if the climber did this just to get to the top of the route, that's one thing. But (according to Joe) if the objective was to work out the moves for a later red-point, then those are sport climbing tactics. It's certainly not *my* definition of what modern trad climbing means, but it's a simple concept. And it's a fine style. GO I am just trying to figure out how narrow Joe's definition is. To me, it seems like it groups a pretty wide range of climbing under the label sport. Why does it matter really? Any time I hang on a route I certainly am not proud of it. I certainly don't claim an ascent, so whether it is trad or sport is irrelevant, because it is a HANGDOG.
If you got up the route, it's an ascent. If you hung on the rope or pulled on gear, it's not a free ascent.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
May 5, 2011, 1:10 AM
Post #94 of 287
(8478 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
Jay, I agree with you. An ascent in my book means you did the route without hanging. When I climb, I don't claim to have climbed a route just because I reached the anchor.
healyje
One question asked above that I'm still waiting to here the answer on is is the ground up ascent of cracks that are filled with dirt, grass, and scuds making the crack untouchable. How do you honestly clean does on lead?
For the last decade, I've spent about 70% of my climbing time on FA too. In many cases from the ground up on routes that I still consider sport climbing.
In many cases, the routes were in the middle of nowhere and only reached after a few days of old bus and yak travel. I too like the feeling of adventure and the unknown on routes.
In some cases I rap bolted lines, in other cases, I spent days hanging on a rope removing the rain forest growth from the cliff so I could access the face or cracks underneath.
My bolted lines, rap bolted or from the ground up fall into the sport climbing category 99% of the time.
In my book, the cracks I've put are trad lines, regardless of how much cleaning I did on a rope prior to climbing it. (By your definition, if I understand correctly, those routes are not trad)
Last month I put up a 8 pitch crack route. Walk up to the face, climbed the crack ground to summit and only hung when I was at belay station. (I think we both agree this is trad.)
Last year, I establish a 22 pitch route, some face and some crack. Only two bolts, both placed on lead. On-sighted every pitch, but about half the pitch were A2 or A3. Again, I think we would both agree it's trad.
Now, on one of my bolted routes, I walk up to a limestone tower in Southern China and choose a line. Looked like the line was going to take gear, so I headed up, about 20 feet up, I realized the route wasn't going to take gear as need, so I down climbed, slung my drill and grabbed some bolts.
Along the way, I place bolts while hanging on hooks. In your book, this is still a trad route, in my book, this route is a definite sport route. Bolts are between 10 and 15 feet apart, the pitch is 90ft. (According to your definition, this pitch is trad, according to mine, it's sport.
The pitches above, all seven of them, all all gear except the belays. Belays could of been gear, but they were needed to rap off the route because no walk off was available.
|
|
|
|
|
redlude97
May 5, 2011, 1:52 AM
Post #95 of 287
(8475 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990
|
jt512 wrote: redlude97 wrote: johnwesely wrote: cracklover wrote: johnwesely wrote: cracklover wrote: johnwesely wrote: cracklover wrote: johnwesely wrote: cracklover wrote: 1 - Conceptually, the way Joe does it means that falling is the end of the ascent. You don't get to the anchors clean? Your ascent is over. GO I understand that falling negates the ascent, but does it negate his definition of traditional climbing? No, of course not. It just means that you failed to climb the route, you need to start over from the beginning. GO Would failing the route in the manner I described mean I was sport climbing? In what manner? You didn't say what the climber does after falling, and why. That's the key question for Joe. GO The climber falls then gets back on the route and finishes it. without lowering to the ground. The climber hang-dogged the route. Now if the climber did this just to get to the top of the route, that's one thing. But (according to Joe) if the objective was to work out the moves for a later red-point, then those are sport climbing tactics. It's certainly not *my* definition of what modern trad climbing means, but it's a simple concept. And it's a fine style. GO I am just trying to figure out how narrow Joe's definition is. To me, it seems like it groups a pretty wide range of climbing under the label sport. Why does it matter really? Any time I hang on a route I certainly am not proud of it. I certainly don't claim an ascent, so whether it is trad or sport is irrelevant, because it is a HANGDOG. If you got up the route, it's an ascent. If you hung on the rope or pulled on gear, it's not a free ascent. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 5, 2011, 3:00 AM
Post #96 of 287
(8462 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
redlude97 wrote: jt512 wrote: redlude97 wrote: johnwesely wrote: cracklover wrote: johnwesely wrote: cracklover wrote: johnwesely wrote: cracklover wrote: johnwesely wrote: cracklover wrote: 1 - Conceptually, the way Joe does it means that falling is the end of the ascent. You don't get to the anchors clean? Your ascent is over. GO I understand that falling negates the ascent, but does it negate his definition of traditional climbing? No, of course not. It just means that you failed to climb the route, you need to start over from the beginning. GO Would failing the route in the manner I described mean I was sport climbing? In what manner? You didn't say what the climber does after falling, and why. That's the key question for Joe. GO The climber falls then gets back on the route and finishes it. without lowering to the ground. The climber hang-dogged the route. Now if the climber did this just to get to the top of the route, that's one thing. But (according to Joe) if the objective was to work out the moves for a later red-point, then those are sport climbing tactics. It's certainly not *my* definition of what modern trad climbing means, but it's a simple concept. And it's a fine style. GO I am just trying to figure out how narrow Joe's definition is. To me, it seems like it groups a pretty wide range of climbing under the label sport. Why does it matter really? Any time I hang on a route I certainly am not proud of it. I certainly don't claim an ascent, so whether it is trad or sport is irrelevant, because it is a HANGDOG. If you got up the route, it's an ascent. If you hung on the rope or pulled on gear, it's not a free ascent. Jay I think you missed my point, I said I would never claim an ascent(ie climbed it). At that point, it doesn't matter whether its trad or sport since I don't aid climb
Whether you "claim" an ascent or not, the ascent occurred; it just wasn't a free ascent.
This thread contains a remarkable amount of entropy, considering that most of the participants are above the 90th percentile in articulateness around here. There seem to be at least five conversations taking place simultaneously:
1. What is an ascent vs. what is not.
2. What is a free ascent vs. what is not.
3. What is a trad ascent vs. what is not.
4. What is sport climbing vs. what is not.
5. What is a redpoint ascent.
I intended to stay out of this discussion, but I find myself compelled to jump in, since I have been under the impression that these issues were settled decades ago.
An ascent is starting at the bottom of a route and getting to the top of it. If you do so without weighting the protection, then it is a free ascent; otherwise, it is not.
In this post, Cracklover has done about the best job imaginable defining what a trad lead is. I have little to add, except that, especially on a multi-pitch route, trad climbing usually also involves someone seconding the route.
A hangdog ascent means that at some point on the route, you continued to the top of the route after having weighted the rope. It doesn't matter whether you weighted the rope only once, after having fallen, or did so repeatedly to work out various moves.
A redpoint ascent means that you free climbed a route following a previous non-free ascent. It doesn't matter whether you previously hangdogged the route, lowered off after a fall, or outright aid climbed it. Although the term is more often used in a sport climbing context than a trad climbing context, it applies to both types of climbing. It doesn't matter that the term did not exist before the inception of sport climbing; the term is now defined as stated in this paragraph's first sentence, which makes no reference to "sport" or "trad."
It is debatable whether a hangdog ascent or subsequent redpoint qualify as trad climbing. Almost surely, at some previous time they did not; climbers were expected to lower to the ground after a fall. However, today, almost no climbers do this. The practice has all but died out, I suspect, because it is a patently inefficient method of attaining a free ascent, learning new moves, or improving at climbing. Besides, you want to get your gear back, a goal that is not facilitated by lowering off your gear and coming back when you have somehow become a better a climber.
Sport climbing is climbing routes protected with bolts, placed in a manner to permit the leader to concentrate on performing difficult moves with minimal physical risk. Routes protected mainly with removable gear are not sport routes, and cannot be sport climbed. This implies that if you define "trad climbing" narrowly enough (such as to exclude redpoints following a hangdog ascent), some free ascents will be neither sport nor trad ascents. Some people call such ascents "sprad."
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on May 5, 2011, 4:55 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jacques
May 5, 2011, 4:12 AM
Post #97 of 287
(8447 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 14, 2008
Posts: 318
|
guangzhou wrote: If I climb a 150ft pitch and fall at the 140ft mark, I decide to hang a couple of minute, then continue the climb instead of lower to the ground and pulling the rope,.[..] If I get on the same route, fall off 25 times in a single day
The fact is that, when you are pump, your style is less efficient and it is harder to resolve a problem. When, for a problem, there is two solutions, you have to choose one and try it. If you fall, you mist your free ascent, but you still have a second chance to try the other option if you don't rest on the rope and stay pump.
If you don't know how to resolve the problem, and try, try, try and try...maybe it is sport. That mentality, you can apply it on a bolt or on a cam. It is an ethic to try many time to fall on a solution even if you don't have the knowledge.
So, the name trad is not only a difference on the gear you use, but also on your intellectual capacity to resolve a problem in a stressfull pump situation. Trad mean not only a kind of gear (stopper, hex,tricam, cam, bolt) but all the knowledge acquire from those who climb in the early day and think at the protection of the climber.
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
May 5, 2011, 4:29 AM
Post #98 of 287
(8444 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
jacques wrote: guangzhou wrote: If I climb a 150ft pitch and fall at the 140ft mark, I decide to hang a couple of minute, then continue the climb instead of lower to the ground and pulling the rope,.[..] If I get on the same route, fall off 25 times in a single day The fact is that, when you are pump, your style is less efficient and it is harder to resolve a problem. When, for a problem, there is two solutions, you have to choose one and try it. If you fall, you mist your free ascent, but you still have a second chance to try the other option if you don't rest on the rope and stay pump. If you don't know how to resolve the problem, and try, try, try and try...maybe it is sport. That mentality, you can apply it on a bolt or on a cam. It is an ethic to try many time to fall on a solution even if you don't have the knowledge. So, the name trad is not only a difference on the gear you use, but also on your intellectual capacity to resolve a problem in a stressfull pump situation. Trad mean not only a kind of gear (stopper, hex,tricam, cam, bolt) but all the knowledge acquire from those who climb in the early day and think at the protection of the climber.
I don't agree.
Trad is about the style of protection.
Sport is bolted, I never consider a route with no bolts a sport route. Never will.
With the narrow definition used here, a route is only considered a trad route the first time you climb it.
Example: I go to LEavenworth and climb Outer Space.
I on-sight the route, so I definitely didn't dog it or red-point it. This is a trad ascent. I started from the ground up, with no prior knowledge of the route and didn't reverse or work any of the moves. My lack of prior knowledge and my thirst for ground up adventure makes this trad.
A couple of weeks later, I decide to climb the same route again. (Same or different partner) Because I have climbed the route before, have prior knowledge, and know what's up there, I am now not Trad climbing.
Again, in my book, any route that requires you to place gear, nuts, cams, hexes, what ever, is a trad climb.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
May 5, 2011, 10:25 AM
Post #99 of 287
(8426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Great discussion and questions. Before I take a stab at answering some of them let me clarify a couple of points:
guangzhou wrote: Trad is about the style of protection.
People have heard about bolt wars and clean vs. bolts for so long that's what lots of people assume it's about - the style of protection. But it's not, bolting was an entirely secondary debate/conflict that simply overtook the conversation in bolt wars such that a lot of folks today mistakenly think that's what it's about - gear v. bolts. The real heart of the trad v. sport debate and the difference that got tempers going was over dogging and the free ethic / style.
In that regard, jt512 provides another great and simple explanation of what, at its root, trad climbing is all about:
jt512 wrote: If you got up the route, it's an ascent. If you hung on the rope or pulled on gear, it's not a free ascent.
Again, trad is about not using the rope for anything but fall protection - you don't rest on it at any point during a free [trad] ascent. You may get lucking and get it first time in an onsight, it might take you thirty goes, it might be the hundredth time you've climbed it - but you don't dog and hang your way up a route.
johnwesley wrote: I don't really understand that distinction. If I fall on a route and decide to finish it without lowering, I don't see how that makes a difference except for how pumped I might be. I still haven't seen the route above where I fell. That is still new territory being climbed on sight.
How pumped you might be, and how capable you are of figuring out the move where you fell while pumped is the distinction. As is the difference between resting and then getting back after it versus having to reclimb the b/pitch back up to the point you fell and then try to figure it out again - while climbing, not resting.
In trad climbing, it's when you scope out from the core tenet of not resting on the rope that you encounter the various secondary ideals and practices involved in trad climbing. Those include a reverence for onsight, ground-up, no pre-cleaning, no previewing or beta, and of course as climbing as cleanly (gear) as is humanly possible resorting to fixed pro only as a last resort.
shockabuku wrote: When you pull the rope, do you leave the gear in place?
Good question, that sparked a lot of debate in trad climbing and in the end I think came to symbolize where the group ethic / style started to become an individual matter of adherence or 'purity' to the ideal. I run on the purer side of the house and pull the rope and re-clip.
shockabuku wrote: Not to be argumentative but, I have to assume your definition of trad climbing precludes any knowledge of the route. So anything in a guide book, or a route that someone told you about ( because then you'd know it goes which eliminates the mental uncertainty about the outcome), wouldn't be trad?
It would still be trad, it would just be less than 'ideal' and there are not many routes where I would want to know anything in advance.
The level of preview/beta certainly ended up falling under a similar personal rubric with the widespread adoption of guidebooks. My personal ideal and practice has always been to just walk up to a new crag, eyeball it to see what lines jump out at me and draw me in, and then jump on one of them. Doing that takes developing an eye for mapping your abilities to lines (and you'll still epic big sometimes regardless) That eyeballing / mapping ability will likely take much, much longer to develop in the face of an [over-] reliance on guidebooks. Personally I don't really get guidebooks; they have all the information I can figure out for myself (line, difficulty, gear) and none of the stuff I can't - the story of the FA. Who were those guys (or gals)? Why that name? What were the circumstances and the exprience like? We're going to lose a lot of those FA stories soon and I think it's a bummer they aren't what we've been writing down in the guidebooks.
The root tenets of not resting on the rope and fixed gear as a last resort are about the only absolutes in trad climbing; most all the other aspects of it are more subject to personal commitment, 'purity', and adoption.
Jaques wrote: And the goal of ALL climbing is to climb a little bit harder then yesterday. Its to step outside of yourself and always redefine what is possible for you.
I couldn't disagree more. I have never in thirty seven year of climbing tried to climb harder for the sake of climbing harder. I did go through a long progression of increasingly difficult FA's when I was younger, but the difficulty never once inspired me to put up a route. Something else about the line did; the potential for interesting or unique movement, just being able to finally see there was a line there (a challenge in some places), or sometimes I would just get obsessed over a line and I couldn't tell you why. But it was never difficulty - I find chasing difficulty inane and boring at best, mindless at worst.
Jaques wrote: Actually I am comparing old trad to new trad. At the higher end it has evolved to take on new concepts. When people free climb the Nose and Salathe, when they work the route, most often they import concepts from sports climbing.
There is no "new trad", it's simply sport climbing on gear and/or headpointing. And let's get real - at a certain level of difficulty it should be obvious you ain't gonna do pure trad climbing if you want to get up stuff - you're going to be sprad climbing. Simple enough, but personally I'd like to think that break lies somewhere significantly north of 5.7.
rangerrob wrote: I know what my ethics are, and I am honest about them.
Always a good thing.
rangerrob wrote: Climbing a two pitch 5.10, or a 1,000' ice gully in New hampshire is just training for the big things I aspire to. I try to do them in the best style I can, while staying safe. Hanging is safer than falling. Stepping or pulling on gear is better than falling. In remote areas, and on big alpine walls, falls are not acceptable to me. I will resort to A0 tactics long before I fall. I'm pretty sure even the big boys use those tactics on good technical ascents. One usually doesn't claim an "onsight" of the Franco Argentine route on Fitzroy. They say they either climbed it or they didn't.
Hmmm, I consider rock rock and alpine alpine - apples and oranges to me. In rock climbing the risks are largely subjective with a very small element of objective risk. Alpine is a whole other deal and the level of objective risk is way, way above what you encounter in rock climbing. I've always considered alpine to have a very high gambling element involved in it and generally an activity where falling is suboptimal. In rockclimbing I don't consider pulling on gear better than falling and don't consider hanging safer than falling.
Why the latter? Because hanging on gear is most cases is just a bad idea that will bite you in the ass sooner or later unless you're smart enough to constantly check and recheck/reset it everytime you come out of a rest on a piece. Precisely that sort of accident has been on the rise along with sprad climbing - gear ain't bolts and it's unwise in many if not most instances to treat it as such.
Cracklover wrote: Anyway, I just don't see how you could "trad" ( using your definition) climb a FA with a substantial section of crack that's full of muck. I know what others would say ( including some other trad climbers from back in the 70s who I respect). But those folks cut their teeth in CO, CA, etc where the cracks might have been chossy, but muck just wasn't something they grew up with. If anyone would have a really good answer, it's you.
Well, I live in the Pacific NW and we know all about moss, choss, bramble, and muck. Putting up routes runs the gamut here. Sometimes it's folks doing wholesale new crag development digging out tons of dirt, trundling more tons of loose rock, and building trails without climbing a given section of lines until the excavation work is basically done. Other times it's about putting up individual lines and that can still happen in either a group frenzy or a more individual approach - usually with less terraforming. In long established areas people are in general way, way more circumspect about how new lines go up.
For me personally, it also depends on the quality of a potential line and my intent in putting it up. I've have trundled and cleaned parts of some short routes at an area I consider a new alternate 'practice area' while our main crag is closed for Pergrine nesting. One was a matter of removing an existing anchor on an existing aid line and digging out the slot above it to extend the route an additional 30 feet or so (I onsighted to the anchor and then rapped into the slot to clean). The other had a couple of large precariously balanced (3') rocks on the last move of the climb which I removed coming in from the top. While both may be relatively short (80'), they turned out to be superb, demanding, and somewhat spicy trad lines (actually the second one has highly technical moves and protection and easily could maim or kill you if you screwed it up). I have no qualms about having done what was necessary to free either from its native circumstances, though that latter one I named 'Hollow Victory' due to the trade-offs involved.
But there are other lines which stand entirely apart in terms of the technicality, challenge, uniqueness, elegance, danger, and/or the audacity involved. I've been using our short fall windows to attempt to put up a six pitch line for a couple of years now - yeah, a couple of years - but around here that still means a handful of goes at it. It's comprised of a series of seven or eight roofs and an unclimbed three-pitch headwall for six pitches of climbing that I've walked under for two decades and only wondered at. It's a caliber of climb that takes me back to my core beliefs - onsight, groundup, any cleaning or trundling on lead from free stance, pulling the rope after falls. Previous attempts had been made on the line, but were turned back by moderately-sized, very detached panel of sharp rock that would rain down on you and your belayer if it cut. After a few stymied attempts with a partner I ended up spotting a path through it and came back, roped-soloed to a free stance above it and trundled it. It cut my lead line which left me glad I didn't have belayer and that I did have a tag line for just that eventuality.
That opened the line. With a lot of marginal pro and falls pushed it up through the first two small roofs on up to a high anchor underneath the third thirty foot roof. We then did the seventy feet of r/x climbing to the base of the roof (and finally some good pro) and took our best shot at it; but out at the lip we encountered a microwave-size block in our chest/face that moved an inch. It was immediately clear it would likely kill you outright - up to that point all cleaning had be done free on lead, but with this we either had to abandon the line or stop and remove the block. In the end We did the latter - I sent my more 'modern'-minded partner up and he sunk a piece and removed the block so I wouldn't have the luxury of hanging there checking it all out. We've taken four more shots at it since, with one 40-50 footer from the lip, and that's where it stands today. I'm gearing up for another (probably last shot at it this coming season).
I hoped the FA would follow the yellow line, but the crack in the top of that roof ended up being a stain rather than a crack so now it's going up the red line:
[ Looking up from above the first roof on the first FA attempt after clearing the loose panel of rocks. ]
(This post was edited by healyje on May 5, 2011, 9:51 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
Jnclk
May 5, 2011, 10:33 AM
Post #100 of 287
(8421 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2007
Posts: 89
|
In reply to: I don't agree.
Trad is about the style of protection. Sport is bolted, I never consider a route with no bolts a sport route. Never will. With the narrow definition used here, a route is only considered a trad route the first time you climb it. Example: I go to LEavenworth and climb Outer Space. I on-sight the route, so I definitely didn't dog it or red-point it. This is a trad ascent. I started from the ground up, with no prior knowledge of the route and didn't reverse or work any of the moves. My lack of prior knowledge and my thirst for ground up adventure makes this trad. A couple of weeks later, I decide to climb the same route again. (Same or different partner) Because I have climbed the route before, have prior knowledge, and know what's up there, I am now not Trad climbing. Again, in my book, any route that requires you to place gear, nuts, cams, hexes, what ever, is a trad climb.
Bolts have little to do with it. Traditional climbing is primarily about style of ascent. A few examples to consider;
The Edge at Tahquitz
You Asked For It in Tuolumne
B-Y in Tuolumne
All of these climbs are bolted. There sure as hell aren't sport routes.
You also continue to confuse Joe's definition of traditional climbing with an onsight. Not sure why. He's been pretty clear about it. Joe's quote from earlier in the thread;
"Direction and protection issues aside, it's pretty f#cking simple - you climb rocks without resting on the rope while doing it. Period, end of story - in the ideal and in practice, that's it in a nutshell.
Add onsight, groundup, clean protection whenever humanly possible, lowering and pulling the rope after falls and you get climbing as we knew it in the 70's at every major crag we ever climbed at."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
