Its funny how we compare the leading lights of climbing in the past to the average climber of today, or vis-a-versa.

And then, BAM!- New Year's Day, 1980- it all went to hell. Unbeknownst to Joe and his gang, someone, somewhere yelled "TAKE!!!!!!" for the first time. It was the beginning of the end.

Is toproping trad? Is it a free ascent? What the hell were those guys in Socal doing, going up, drilling a bolt, lowering off, and sending the next man up?

Again, trad climbing's not rocket science at its most basic definition : ascending a line without weighting the rope.

Tag-team drilling on lead? Sounds very socal for sure...

The clean climbing movement of the 70's was definitely about selling gear and not moving climbing forward.

On a deferent note, when you look at old trad areas, in the traditional days, many of the routes that were "HARD" had more fixed gear then those that were easy.

I remember having a conversation with a gunk's climber from the 60's, he said the hard routes were like modern day sport climbs, the pitons were put in, the second didn't bother taking them out, so the next party was able to just clip and go.

I played on the cliffs outside of Dresden, a place that has plenty of Pyramid placed bolts. First Ascents took Months as entire climbing club went to the cliff together to establish a new route.

The clean climbing movement of the 70's was definitely about selling gear and not moving climbing forward.

On a deferent note, when you look at old trad areas, in the traditional days, many of the routes that were "HARD" had more fixed gear then those that were easy.

I don't have the time or inclination to delineate all the ways this comment is completely full of shit.

On a deferent note, when you look at old trad areas, in the traditional days, many of the routes that were "HARD" had more fixed gear then those that were easy.

Again, a complete crock; most of the "HARD" [free] lines were new.

I remember having a conversation with a gunk's climber from the 60's, he said the hard routes were like modern day sport climbs, the pitons were put in, the second didn't bother taking them out, so the next party was able to just clip and go.

By definition the 60's weren't in any way part of the [70's] clean climbing era which was at it's root simply a realization cleaner methods of climbing protection could be devised. But as far as the climbing went, whether 60's or 70's, not weighting the rope when free climbing was a fundamental tenet they shared.

I played on the cliffs outside of Dresden, a place that has plenty of Pyramid placed bolts. First Ascents took Months as entire climbing club went to the cliff together to establish a new route.

There was some pyramid placements of first bolts, and installation by any means of some of the larger ring bolts, but you again attempt to paint edge cases as the norm - pretty sad given Dresden had and has some of the boldest climbing and clean ethics around.

Is toproping trad? Is it a free ascent? What the hell were those guys in Socal doing, going up, drilling a bolt, lowering off, and sending the next man up?

Actually, many of the hard free lines were aid routes that went free. Aid routes were an obvious target for hard free climbs in the 60s and 70, much like the 80 and since.

Aid routes also had the advantage of having been cleaned by countless previous ascents. This means the crack were free of dirt and could actually be jammed.

Those aid routes being freed were hardly what I call on-sights either. Most of the climbers doing those hard free ascent had previously aided the route and while on the line decided the route could be done free.

Weighing the rope, not weighing the rope, a separate conversation in my book. I could care less if someone works a red-point or not, it's a personal climbing decision.

I personally don't have the patience of some climbers who work routes over and over, but I have been on routes that got my attention and I worked. I admire climbers who have the discipline to work a route as much as I admire a climber who on-sight routes. Two different styles. Neither is right nor wrong, both climbers just see climbing differently and choose to practice the sport one way or the other.

Bold ethics, I think they have a bold style. Ethics and style go hand and hand in my book, they interweave and define one another, but they are separate issues.

Style is how you climb, Ethics is the individual's view on what is acceptable or not. Two climbers climbing the same style could have very different ethics and styles.

Today, I sport climb, trad climb, and aid climb. Three very different styles. In those style, I isolate my ethics.

Actually, many of the hard free lines were aid routes that went free. Aid routes were an obvious target for hard free climbs in the 60s and 70, much like the 80 and since.

Aid routes also had the advantage of having been cleaned by countless previous ascents. This means the crack were free of dirt and could actually be jammed.

Those aid routes being freed were hardly what I call on-sights either. Most of the climbers doing those hard free ascent had previously aided the route and while on the line decided the route could be done free.

Weighing the rope, not weighing the rope, a separate conversation in my book. I could care less if someone works a red-point or not, it's a personal climbing decision.

I personally don't have the patience of some climbers who work routes over and over, but I have been on routes that got my attention and I worked. I admire climbers who have the discipline to work a route as much as I admire a climber who on-sight routes. Two different styles. Neither is right nor wrong, both climbers just see climbing differently and choose to practice the sport one way or the other.

Bold ethics, I think they have a bold style. Ethics and style go hand and hand in my book, they interweave and define one another, but they are separate issues.

Style is how you climb, Ethics is the individual's view on what is acceptable or not. Two climbers climbing the same style could have very different ethics and styles.

The biggest Ethic issue I have isn't about bolts versus no bolts, I am against pitons. Fixed or not fixes. Aid or not aid. I think piton do much more damage then bolts. I think Aid climbers who use pitons are much worse for the cliff then sport climber who bolt routes.

Actually, many of the hard free lines were aid routes that went free. Aid routes were an obvious target for hard free climbs in the 60s and 70, much like the 80 and since.

Aid routes also had the advantage of having been cleaned by countless previous ascents. This means the crack were free of dirt and could actually be jammed.

Those aid routes being freed were hardly what I call on-sights either. Most of the climbers doing those hard free ascent had previously aided the route and while on the line decided the route could be done free.

Weighing the rope, not weighing the rope, a separate conversation in my book. I could care less if someone works a red-point or not, it's a personal climbing decision.

I personally don't have the patience of some climbers who work routes over and over, but I have been on routes that got my attention and I worked. I admire climbers who have the discipline to work a route as much as I admire a climber who on-sight routes. Two different styles. Neither is right nor wrong, both climbers just see climbing differently and choose to practice the sport one way or the other.

Bold ethics, I think they have a bold style. Ethics and style go hand and hand in my book, they interweave and define one another, but they are separate issues.

Style is how you climb, Ethics is the individual's view on what is acceptable or not. Two climbers climbing the same style could have very different ethics and styles.

Most climbers have no idea how the bolts were placed anyways.

Actually, many of the hard free lines were aid routes that went free. Aid routes were an obvious target for hard free climbs in the 60s and 70, much like the 80 and since.
Aid routes also had the advantage of having been cleaned by countless previous ascents. This means the crack were free of dirt and could actually be jammed.

Uh no, most of the hard free lines that went up in 70's were in fact new lines.

Those aid routes being freed were hardly what I call on-sights either. Most of the climbers doing those hard free ascent had previously aided the route and while on the line decided the route could be done free.

Again, not really.

Weighing the rope, not weighing the rope, is a separate conversation in my book. I could care less if someone works a red-point or not, it's a personal climbing decision.

Except for the fact that if you're dogging your way up lines on gear you aren't trad climbing - you're sport climbing on gear. Also, there are no red, pink, blue, or purple or any other color point ascents in trad climbing - you either onsighted it or you did it in some number of attempts.

I personally don't have the patience of some climbers who work routes over and over, but I have been on routes that got my attention and I worked. I admire climbers who have the discipline to work a route as much as I admire a climber who on-sight routes. Two different styles. Neither is right nor wrong, both climbers just see climbing differently and choose to practice the sport one way or the other.

Not quite sure what you think onsighting vs. 'working' has to do with trad vs. sport - onsighting could happen in either. But if by 'working' you mean dogging up a route working and figuring out the moves while resting on the rope then, yeah, not really a matter of right vs. wrong, but rather the difference between trad climbing and not. Also, the notion of an 'onsight' in either trad or sport is a pretty dubious notion if the route is established and well-chalked.

I think you’d better look-up the history of routes.

Don't agree with you here, you either on-sight or red-point a route, trad or sport. Trad does indeed use the red point system.

Working a route on gear is sport climbing on gear is your most consistent argument. One that I don’t agree with.

I don’t on-sigth every trad route I climb. Actually, I think trad climbers who don’t get on routes where they fall on the gear they placed are scared of falling on their placement. It’s an excuse for not pushing themselves. Strange, because no one should need an excuse on how or why they climb.

Here is where I don’t agree with you. If you choose to get on a hard route and you fall, then go back and get he route clean, you still climbed trad. On-sigth isn’t what determines whether a routes is trad or sport.

...

While I don’t agree with this view, I find it more realistic then you view of on-sigth is the only way a route is trad.

There is no single fixed piton placement I’ve ever seen that would not have been better off as a bolt. If you’re going to leave a permanently fixed piece of gear, a piton isn’t the best option, might be the fastest and easiest, but never the safest.

Don't need to, for the most part it isn't 'history' to me that I need to 'look up'.


You can disagree all you like, but there is no such thing as a 'redpoint' in trad - that's because there's no culmination of dogging to work a route in trad, which is what a redpoint is all about.


Again, it doesn't matter if you disagree. You're another cross-over who mistakes sprad climbing for trad just because you're dogging on gear instead of bolts. You're sport climbing on gear is all.


You still seem to be confusing / conflating onsighting, working/dogging a line, and sprad / trad. Also not sure what you think the relationship is between onsighting or not and falling or not in trad is. I certainly fall way more than onsight and personally wouldn't want it any other way or I wouldn't really be climbing anywhere near my limit.


Yet again, it doesn't matter if you agree - trad climbing is what it is regardless of how badly sprad climbers want to redefine it to be what they do. If you fall and rest on the rope and sort things out you aren't trad climbing. And you really are not getting it that onsight or not basically doesn't have anything to do with trad climbing other than being the odd fortuitous occasion.


I've seen and replaced hundreds of 80's & 90's 5pc bolts on the same cliff where I also checked and reset or replaced hundreds of pins from the 60's & 70's. Ninety percent of the bolts were rotted spinners whereas only about 15% of the much older pins need to be replaced (mostly knifeblades, which were replaced with Bugaboos which hardly corrode at all by comparison). Overall, the much older pins were always safer than the 5pc bolts. With higher quality SS bolts I'd say the balance tips heavily in their favor even around here, but not many folks are putting in SS bolts from what I can tell and here on the west side of the Cascades the non-SS bolts rot nearly as fast as wood.

Stainless is the norm today, titanium sees a fair share of use too. Knowing what we know today about bolts in climbing, I think anyone who isn't using at least Stainless steel bolts shouldn't be bolting routes.

Glad you you like the word spad, I just don't buy into it like you do. Sport climbing and trad climbing is compartmentalized enough for me.

Whether I climb a crack with no bolts on my first go, my second, or my 100th is irrelevant is irrelevant when it comes to the term trad or sport. I am trad climbing. It only matter in the term red-point or onsigth.

As for ascents of hard free routes, you really should read the history a bit more. Might not be true at your one particular climbing area, but in the big picture aid were were free to make hard free climbs.

Personally, I like that sport climbing tactics are being used across the board, it will push the trad climbing world even further in term of hard climbing.

Actually, I normally just go climbing. I rarely say I am going sport climbing, or I am going trad climbing.

I'm sure I also do what you would consider Spad climbing, but I'm not sure when a route is getting dogged. (Gear or not gear)

How many falls on a single pitch before a route is dogged?

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,. The next day I come back and get on the same route and finish the pitch with no problem, did I just dog the route because I hung instead of pulling the rope on every attempt?

If I get on the same route, fall off 25 times in a single day but lower to the ground on every fall, clean the gear and start over from scratch every-time, is this still dogging or not.

To be honest, it doesn't matter much to me either way. In my opinion, both created a red-point scenario. One where I lowered and cleaned every time, one where I rested, learned the moves and then repeated the route with prior knowledge.

Neither is more acceptable or less acceptable in my book...If the ascent took place with me placing the gear, I would consider it a trad ascent.

Joe, I've got a question for you, not meaning to be antagonistic. If trad is by definition onsight, what would you call it when you climb a route that you've been on before, without necessarily working it? What if you'd seconded it, led it previously, etc? You're not dogging and working it, but it's not onsight either. Is that traditional climbing?

I think that it is where the mistake is made. Ounce we respect the idea that trad climbing is different than sport climbing, we can"t compare old trad to new sport.

The problem is that sport climber think that the goal is to climb hard. trad climber want to climb a little bit harder than yesterday.

A sport climber will be a strong climber when he will have climb is first 5.12 in a year.
A trad climber will be a strong climber when he will be able to be safe in any route that he never done, without any importance to the grade.

A sport climber who climb 5.12 in a year can have many tendon injury.
A trad climber who still learn to be safe can have many other day to climb hard.

How can you compare two different ethic of climbing. Do a boulder climber can do a figure eight. Some climb V10 without even make a tying knot. the difference is more difficult to understand between sport and trad because you need some knowledge in trad that sport climber don't have.

I looked a sport climber in tuner flake. As he was one third of his way up, I asked him how much sling he had on his harness...six! he place half of his sling in the first third of the route (I count them). Second third: six pro and the rest of the pitches...he didn't have enought sling. He never plan his route to maximize his chance. He was not a third of a new trad climber.

Joe, I've got a question for you, not meaning to be antagonistic. If trad is by definition onsight, what would you call it when you climb a route that you've been on before, without necessarily working it? What if you'd seconded it, led it previously, etc? You're not dogging and working it, but it's not onsight either. Is that traditional climbing?

sometimes I have to find free stances to clean from

I don't really know why this is so hard for folks to get, but Joe has *never* said that if you don't onsight it's not trad climbing. You can fall on it 100 times, it's still trad climbing as long as each time you fall on lead you lower to the ground and start over.

Hangdogging is the distinction between sport and trad style he's making. In sport climbing style, when you fall, you can keep working the move until you understand it. In trad (again, according to Joe's definition) you must lower to the ground. You can try to get the move again when you encounter it again starting from the ground (or the beginning of the pitch).

GO

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.

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