Why Toproping?

maybe not everyone is itnerested in trad climbing, that risk prone, or can afford a trad rack?

do you have to trad climb to love the sport? I dont think so

"Sport climbing is neither"

because its fun. not everyone needs to adhere to YOUR definition of climbing.

I climbed for a decade hardly ever leading once - including several big walls in Zion an Yosemite and many multi-pitch routes across the country. Could not have been happier! all the climbing...none of the stress. felt so good to be "inferior"

I don't really give a shit, since I climb every style I can. I'd prefer to lead, but I've never turned down a climb because it wasn't my preferred style of protection.

thefish wrote:it also has to do with time. Most people have a limited amount of time to get in the maximum amount of climbing. Do you want to lead 2 or three climbs in an afternoon or do you want to climb the same routes 5 or 6 times on toprope? Not all of us quit work in the 70's to climb the same route 10,000 times.

Unless you're pushing grades and constantly hesitating (for fear of falling), leading a sport route takes only a few moments longer the same climb on TR. If anything, setting up a TR usually takes longer since you need to make that second trip to the top to set up the anchor anyways. I could cruise a dozen easy sport routes in a fraction the time that TRing the same climbs would take.

Ed Wright wrote:I think if you actually went to Devil's Lake and spent a few days climbing there you would "see" the answer to your question, and accept the fact that top roping is a perfectly valid form of climbing.

What Ed says.

Also, sometimes (though obviously not always) TR causes less environmental damage. Especially at Devils Lake, where many of the crags have trail access at the top. Actually, there are a bunch of crags that have top-level access, but not bottom-level access, so it's actually more environmentally sound to set a TR and rap in. And why would you want to permanently scar the rock with metal and holes if you don't have to?

And to reiterate, go climb at DL. Haven't found another place like it yet.

Ian Stewart wrote:I don't really give a shit, since I climb every style I can. I'd prefer to lead, but I've never turned down a climb because it wasn't my preferred style of protection. Unless you're pushing grades and constantly hesitating (for fear of falling), leading a sport route takes only a few moments longer the same climb on TR. If anything, setting up a TR usually takes longer since you need to make that second trip to the top to set up the anchor anyways. I could cruise a dozen easy sport routes in a fraction the time that TRing the same climbs would take.

but you couldn't cruise a dozen 5.11 trad routes in the same time which was my point in the post that you quoted. It was in response to a previous post which basically stated that we in CT should always go out and lead.

however I do agree with your post concerning TR vs sport routes

heck I want to bolt a bunch of routes in CT that can't be led on gear

Bringing it back to the OP...

Austin Baird wrote:Let me preface this by saying that I've done all my climbing out west and I've never really had to deal with access issues\landowner permissions\etc. so I don't have the perspective that others who DO deal with these issues have. That being said, I've followed the CT bolting controversy with a mixture of bemusement and confusion and I always enjoy watching people argue about Devil's Lake. My question isn't about lines that go on gear but instead about the "TR instead of sport" ethic in certain places. If land owners don't allow bolts or if the lines go on gear, I understand why nobody would bolt. But why would climbers rather toprope routes (that can't go on gear and that COULD be bolted and led) than lead them? Is it sheerly out of respect for the local ethics\history?

Some of it is about respect for the ethics/history but most of it is for the respect of nature and leaving as little trace as possible.

Austin Baird wrote:In these areas, is it even true that this is still the prevailing ethic or are new climbers just bullied into accepting the status quo? I just want someone to help me understand why climbers will willingly toprope when there could be leads to be had. (And please don't turn this into a flamefest about how everyone wants to "gridbolt" all your local secret crags. It's an honest question. I feel that toproping is an inferior style to leading (either trad or sport) and I would never choose to TR something if I felt like it could be led instead.)

It appears your desire to lead something is purely egotistical and number chasing. People choose to TR because it's a safe way to climb something (just like sport climbing is a safe way to climb) and if the top is easily accessible to set a TR then why inflict permanent man made damage upon the rock for the only purpose of making a climber feel like they have climbed something in a way that makes them feel more badass?

Really, there are few climbing areas out there that fit the TR ethic. In most places the top isn't accessible to set a TR and doing so would cause more environmental harm then putting in some bolts. The crags in CT and DL are exceptions to this rule.

In sum I would rather TR a route in those places then bolt and lead it because it's safe way to climb and because I don't need to try and make my dick longer by adding in a few clips along the way to the top of a piece of rock.

As for my "sack up" comment, "leadable" is in the eye of the beholder. If you look hard enough and use a few techniques alot of things can go from unleadable and supposedly justifiably boltable to leadable on gear. The climbers at Devils Lake and I imagine in CT are perfectly happy to TR everything because it's just a safeway to climb there and they don't need to prove anything to anyone with the way they climb something. Some choose the personal challenge of leading those same TR climbs on gear but it's not about style, it's about the personal challenge.

Tom Mulholland wrote: What Ed says. Also, sometimes (though obviously not always) TR causes less environmental damage. Especially at Devils Lake, where many of the crags have trail access at the top. Actually, there are a bunch of crags that have top-level access, but not bottom-level access, so it's actually more environmentally sound to set a TR and rap in. And why would you want to permanently scar the rock with metal and holes if you don't have to? And to reiterate, go climb at DL. Haven't found another place like it yet.

I think CT and WI have many things in common besides MAYBE CT has more areas all over the state. Devils Lake-Ragged Mtn...

So not many people have climbed Devils Lake without actually living near there. Ragged is the same. Toproping is the norm at Devils Lake, same at Ragged. Sure there are good leads at both places but 90-99% of the cliff ascents are probably TR if you consider even the good cracks get led once for every 10 TRs. Most, if not all of CTs cliff trails are on top and bottom because you always approach from the bottom and walk past the cliff and up the nearest available drainage to get to the golden tree that is going to get wrapped by some rope yet again. I can see and always have seen similarities with the two states.

I have to admit I TR stuff when I'm scared of embarrassing myself/making my belayer sit through living hell with an ultra long hangdog session. I TR when the rope is set up on something I cant lead because the pro makes it an R/X rated route. I TR when I follow my partner. As much as I can in CT I see a route I can lead with a TR on it already I'm psyched cause I can pull the rope, lead it and have a SWEET anchor already built that I can lower on. I have not wrapped a tree for TRing for 2 years or more.

Many people have left CT for a better rock climbing scene, many people have left WI for the same reason. Maybe I generalize too much but wouldnt these states be better off keeping many of these climbers around by challenging their skills on the rock instead of boring them to death with the same old TRs?

now flame away!

Red Tagger wrote: It appears your desire to lead something is purely egotistical and number chasing.

What you just said is that there's no greater satisfaction out of lead climbing than top roping. Your argument is that ANYONE who chooses to lead ONLY does it out of ego or number chasing (which are the same thing) and that there are no valid reasons for sport climbing. I don't have a response to this; it doesn't deserve one. I just wanted to clarify and make sure I understood your point. (PS - did I say ANYWHERE in my post what grade I climbed or that I was interested in leading in order to push my numbers? If you can point out a single statement that could plausibly be construed as "number chasing", I'll send you a six pack of your favorite soda (I'm Mormon). It was an honest question - there's no need to be a dick about it.)

Red Tagger wrote: People choose to TR because it's a safe way to climb something (just like sport climbing is a safe way to climb)

That's why people sport climb? Because it's "safe"? Is it possible that people sport climb because some outstanding routes are impossible to climb on gear? Are people who climb both trad and sport in need of your advice to "sack up"? Is it possible that people sport climb because they enjoy focusing on the movement trying to climb harder and not because they're a bunch of nancy-boys who shake in the face of danger? You take an awfully myopic view of climbing. You also injected some pretty harsh words into an otherwise sincere discussion.

A bit of a summary of my two earlier posts:

There are good reasons to bolt a TR route, and good reasons to leave it unbolted. This is not specific to a given route or area, but just in general:

Good Reasons to Bolt a TR Route (note that these reasons assume that the route cannot be reasonably lead on gear):

1. Setting up TR's impacts the top of the cliff. Bolting routes for leading and lowering-off discourages (or eliminates) clifftop traffic, preventing clifftop erosion, tree damage, etc.

2. Many routes are not very practical to TR. Camhead noted a few examples, including crags where the clifftop is hard to access (Smith, etc) or routes that are way too steep to reasonabbly TR. Really, these two attributes are true of most good sport climbing areas, when it comes down to it. This is basically why sport climbing exists; it lets you climb overhung faces that cannot be Tr'd and cannot be led on gear.

3. Leading is more fun, interesting and exciting than TRing. Unlike what Redtagger said, this is not about ego; it is about enjoyment. Even on a closely bolted rotue with permadraws, the lead evokes a different sensation than the TR. People like sport climbing, and generally would prefer a bolted lead over a TR.

4. Learning and beginner leaders. For easy TR crags, the presence of some bolted routes provides beginners with a chance to learn to lead.

Good reasons not to bolt an existing TR route:

1. Rules against bolting. This is the most obvious one. If the land manager says no bolts, then we don't get to bolt. Simple and obvious. That said, if the community thinks that some bolts would be appropiate, and presents a united front to get bolting permits approved, then rules can be changed. Recent provisions allowing for bolting permits int he Flatirons, following a 20-year bolting ban, are an obvoius example.

2. Sketchy access. Even if bolting is not officially against the rules, sometimes it is wise to avoid excess bolting to keep climbing under the radar. An alternative solution here is minimal bolting and well camoflauged bolts.

3. Deference to history. Gritstone comes to mind. The place has a very strong no-bolt ethic, and that is what gives the crags their character. Might as well keep it that way.

4. Finding lots of adventure on little rocks. Following up on the gritstone example, how do you keep you shitty 45-foot tall crag interesting? Make the routes exceptonally bold to lead. The Buttermilks are a simular situation; if the Peabody Boulders had been bolted, they would be short, mediocre sport routes. Unbolted, they are famous highballs. In these cases, leaving route sunbolted makes them better.

5. Routes that could be reasonably lead on gear. Duh; don't bolt trad routes-- the most basic ethic in American climbing. By "reasonably", I am not refering to the absurd Ken Nichols-style leads, involving multiple ropes and skyhooks for pro. "Reasonable" and "safe" are fuzzy definitions, and are decided based on local standards.

So to return to the OP, the reason that TR-crags exist is that, on the balance, the "Don't Bolt" reasons outweigh the "Do Bolt" reasons at those local areas.

Austin Baird wrote: What you just said is that there's no greater satisfaction out of lead climbing than top roping. Your argument is that ANYONE who chooses to lead ONLY does it out of ego or number chasing (which are the same thing) and that there are no valid reasons for sport climbing. I don't have a response to this; it doesn't deserve one. I just wanted to clarify and make sure I understood your point. (PS - did I say ANYWHERE in my post what grade I climbed or that I was interested in leading in order to push my numbers? If you can point out a single statement that could plausibly be construed as "number chasing", I'll send you a six pack of your favorite soda (I'm Mormon). It was an honest question - there's no need to be a dick about it.)

Whoa there fella, calm down. Let me clarify, YES there's greater satisfaction for some people in a lead but at what costs? There are plenty of good reasons for sport climbing, namely lack of access for a TR setup and and ZERO gear. If that's the case bolt it but at DL,CT and a select few other places that's not the case. To bolt at these places where a accessible TR exists or the climb has been led before is then just egotistical. If you read further you would see that people who choose to lead at DL do it for a personal challenge.

Austin Baird wrote:That's why people sport climb? Because it's "safe"? Is it possible that people sport climb because some outstanding routes are impossible to climb on gear? Are people who climb both trad and sport in need of your advice to "sack up"? Is it possible that people sport climb because they enjoy focusing on the movement trying to climb harder and not because they're a bunch of nancy-boys who shake in the face of danger? You take an awfully myopic view of climbing. You also injected some pretty harsh words into an otherwise sincere discussion.

Read what I said again please. YES people sport climb because it's safer and bolting is for climbs that can not go on gear. If you want to lead in CT and at DL then yep, you need to sack up because others before have led these climbs cleanly on gear without drilling holes in a natural resource.

In addition there are routes out there that have probably been deemed "unleadable" only to be led on natural gear later because of advancement of gear options on the market and the gumption of a new generation of climbers. What I'm saying is please don't be so quick to declare something impossible to lead on gear and therefore justifiable to bolt until the climb has been looked at extremely closely.

Jon Moen wrote:A bit of a summary of my two earlier posts: There are good reasons to bolt a TR route, and good reasons to leave it unbolted. This is not specific to a given route or area, but just in general: Good Reasons to Bolt a TR Route (note that these reasons assume that the route cannot be reasonably lead on gear): 1. Setting up TR's impacts the top of the cliff. Bolting routes for leading and lowering-off discourages (or eliminates) clifftop traffic, preventing clifftop erosion, tree damage, etc. 2. Many routes are not very practical to TR. Camhead noted a few examples, including crags where the clifftop is hard to access (Smith, etc) or routes that are way too steep to reasonabbly TR. Really, these two attributes are true of most good sport climbing areas, when it comes down to it. This is basically why sport climbing exists; it lets you climb overhung faces that cannot be Tr'd and cannot be led on gear. 3. Leading is more fun, interesting and exciting than TRing. Unlike what Redtagger said, this is not about ego; it is about enjoyment. Even on a closely bolted rotue with permadraws, the lead evokes a different sensation than the TR. People like sport climbing, and generally would prefer a bolted lead over a TR. 4. Learning and beginner leaders. For easy TR crags, the presence of some bolted routes provides beginners with a chance to learn to lead. Good reasons not to bolt an existing TR route: 1. Rules against bolting. This is the most obvious one. If the land manager says no bolts, then we don't get to bolt. Simple and obvious. That said, if the community thinks that some bolts would be appropiate, and presents a united front to get bolting permits approved, then rules can be changed. Recent provisions allowing for bolting permits int he Flatirons, following a 20-year bolting ban, are an obvoius example. 2. Sketchy access. Even if bolting is not officially against the rules, sometimes it is wise to avoid excess bolting to keep climbing under the radar. An alternative solution here is minimal bolting and well camoflauged bolts. 3. Deference to history. Gritstone comes to mind. The place has a very strong no-bolt ethic, and that is what gives the crags their character. Might as well keep it that way. 4. Finding lots of adventure on little rocks. Following up on the gritstone example, how do you keep you shitty 45-foot tall crag interesting? Make the routes exceptonally bold to lead. The Buttermilks are a simular situation; if the Peabody Boulders had been bolted, they would be short, mediocre sport routes. Unbolted, they are famous highballs. In these cases, leaving route sunbolted makes them better. 5. Routes that could be reasonably lead on gear. Duh; don't bolt trad routes-- the most basic ethic in American climbing. By "reasonably", I am not refering to the absurd Ken Nichols-style leads, involving multiple ropes and skyhooks for pro. "Reasonable" and "safe" are fuzzy definitions, and are decided based on local standards. So to return to the OP, the reason that TR-crags exist is that, on the balance, the "Don't Bolt" reasons outweigh the "Do Bolt" reasons at those local areas.

I pretty much agree with all of this with the exception that I said people only want to bolt and lead for egotistical reasons. To clarify, to bolt something that can be TR'd or has any possibility of being led clean on gear or has been led on gear in the past, THAT would egotistical.

I doubt anyone would bolt something in CT that has been led on gear.

1. There aren't that many people in CT that actually bother to bolt climbs.

2. Volcanic Eruption was bolted on rappel with a power drill by a group of locals many years ago (80's?) only to be chopped by you know who. So in that case there was a consensus by a group of locals who all could actually do the route to bolt it. There was actually a physical altercation (one of many)and rides to the police station over it.

3. The problems in CT are mainly due to ONE person. There isn't this group of grisled hard men running around CT enforcing these imaginary strict ethical standards.

4. Many of the poorly protected routes that were led had bolts placed on them free on the lead, even those have been removed taking them from scary to certain death.

5. there are still people in CT that have repeated many if not all of the trad test pieces that also like sport climbing for the simple reason that it is fun. We live here and we will do as we please knowing full well the possible consequences.

In Austin defense I know exactly where he is coming from. I learned to climb in SLC so I understand the desire to lead. In SLC if you dont want to lead you have a few options in the state. Go to the gym, go to Parleys Cyn(I-80 baby!), go to Ferguson Cyn(small TR selection), go to Petes rock(suckville) or maybe head down to Provo. After that you are forced to sack up and lead.

I'll say one thing, TR is good for getting strong but leading is the only way to become a better leader, TR makes very few people better leaders, especially onsight leaders. Maybe all onsight leaders are egotistical maniacs, if thats true I am one.

TRmasta wrote:TR is good for getting strong but leading is the only way to become a better leader, TR makes very few people better leaders, especially onsight leaders. Maybe all onsight leaders are egotistical maniacs, if thats true I am one.

TR develops bad habits ... youll do things on TR youll never do on lead ... assisted dynos, flying traverses ;)

that aside ... if you cant lead youll be forever dependent on others to set up the rope for you should there be no access to the top, which many if not most crags do not ... if you take a road trip to yos, are you just going to hang around camp4 waiting for people to set up a TR for ya or be a rope gun???

i often lead many of the pitches on multi, but having a partner who can lead some of them is definitely safer and better IMO ...

personally i dont enjoy climbing with people who arent willing to lead ... i dont care if its and easy climb or a hard one ... but someone who sits around and isnt willing to push themselves is a psyche killer ... someone who leads at their limit whatever that may be i find inspiring ...

Red Tagger wrote: To clarify, to bolt something that can be TR'd or has any possibility of being led clean on gear or has been led on gear in the past, THAT would egotistical.

I still think that you are misusing, or at least overusing this word. It seems that whenever someone does something that they think might benefit the community, such as add bolts, their opponents jump to call them an egotist. I don't think that this makes sense, and it kind of bothers me. Lets consult the dictionary:

e·go·tist (g-tst, g-)
n.
1. A conceited, boastful person.
2. A selfish, self-centered person

Adj. 1. egotistical - characteristic of those having an inflated idea of their own importance
egotistic, narcissistic, self-loving
selfish - concerned chiefly or only with yourself and your advantage to the exclusion of others

By these definitions, one would be an egotist if one were to bolt a popular unbolted route simply because that person--the bolter--wants to enjoy it bolted, for themself, without concern for others. If the needs/wants of others are ignored, and the bolter acts only based onwhat he wants, then that person is an egotist.

In many circumstances, when people put in bolts, it is not simply for their own enjoyment, but is instead meant as a service to the community. A suprisingly common occurance is hearing about 5.14 climbers bolting 5.9 routes, because they think that other people visiting the area will enjoy them. Similarly, someone might spend their own money to install clifftop anchors to preserve trees, so that future climbers can see nice live clifftop trees, and not dead stumps. There is a good word to describe such a person:

al·tru·ism (ltr-zm)
n.
1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness

On the flip side, I would say that it is an example of egotism when one person (cough cough, Ken Nichols) holds entire crags and even states hostage, placing their dogmatic opposition to any bolts over the wants of other climbers and over the needs of preservation of the clifftop environment. Similarly, when one person leads/solos a route once (as the FA), and insists that all other climbers who wish to do the route, forevermore, must do it in the same style, this also reeks of egotism.

So, don't be so quick to make the ego accusation when people place bolts.

Sweet discussion. Fun from the sidelines...

thefish wrote:4. Many of the poorly protected routes that were led had bolts placed on them free on the lead, even those have been removed taking them from scary to certain death.

This is the part of the story most folks don't know... that and a lot of "leads" were done on tied down hooks.

Austin Baird wrote: My question isn't about lines that go on gear but instead about the "TR instead of sport" ethic in certain places. If land owners don't allow bolts or if the lines go on gear, I understand why nobody would bolt. But why would climbers rather toprope routes (that can't go on gear and that COULD be bolted and led) than lead them?

I know this area...cliff is about 30 feet high and the rock will not take any gear. There are less than 10 climbs on the face. There are about 4 bolted anchors, and two of the harder climbs have sport bolts. Maybe 3 bolts before the anchor. My opinion, it was pointless. The anchor bolts make sense because the tree-anchoring options suck and you need like 70 feet of static for a 30 foot rock climb. But a 3 bolt climb? To me, it's not even worth it. And it must be the local consenus since all the hangers have been removed (except for the anchor bolts).

Top-roping ain't the end of the world.

TRmasta wrote: Maybe I generalize too much but wouldnt these states be better off keeping many of these climbers around by challenging their skills on the rock instead of boring them to death with the same old TRs? now flame away!

I agree with most things you said - I suppose I'll have to check out CT. But I will say this last comment isn't quite true. At Devils Lake at least, there are precious few routes above 10d that can be 'safely' led. Routes 11a and up are almost all at least PG13, and often R or R/X rated there, and there simply aren't many people willing to lead 11a R trad with fiddly gear. Those that are willing, do it, and if they leave for 'greener pastures,' it is probably because they finally decided they don't want to die. But they get all the respect they're owed, at least in the local community.

CaptainMo wrote: This is the part of the story most folks don't know... that and a lot of "leads" were done on tied down hooks.

I've heard stories of RedTagger doing at least one lead with a duct-taped hook (an .11c X). And he fully supports the TR/lead ethic at the Lake.