Trad vs. Mixed vs. "Sport/Trad"

M Sprague wrote: In the context here, the terms relate to the protection, not so much the style of FA. That probably needs to be clarified when the tic box comes up.

Thanks for clarifying! Do you think it would also be possible to make it more clear that if a climb requires removable protection placed by the leader that it is NOT sport and should be labeled only with "Trad?"

Eric. Ya sorry I was commenting on something that was not the original question. But what you just said sounds right. Any climb that requires ANY removable protection should be labeled as "Trad". Obviously this is just an opinion....but when someone says they Trad climb the first thing that comes to mind is "removable protection".

Eric Sophiea wrote:Merritt, You may be correct as per a strict definition, but that is not how most people seem to use the designation on MP. Christian: Woot! Thanks for making those fixes! I see a lot of the same stupidity at Prison Camp and it bums me out. I watched someone do their "first lead" on a mixed route without placing any gear. Dude was definitely in ground-fall range. Derp.

Yep, I've stopped one person still on the ground from getting on Mr. Meanor without gear and shouted down another who was already looking sketchy down low and about to launch into the gear section thinking it was sport. Pretty sure I was belaying somebody across the way and thus had to divert attention from my own climber to some idiot looking to repeat the scenario below.

mountainproject.com/v/climb…

Christian, I've done the same thing at least twice... I wonder how much of this behavior is just people being dumb and how much of it is because they were legitimately confused by it being listed as "Sport/Trad?"

Eric Sophiea wrote:Christian, I've done the same thing at least twice... I wonder how much of this behavior is just people being dumb and how much of it is because they were legitimately confused by it being listed as "Sport/Trad?"

Not sure, you can see all the bolts including the one past the gear section pretty clearly from the ground; "inexperience" would be a nicer thing to call it lol.. It can't hurt to hopefully reduce the confusion by listing it as "trad".

Not sure if EFR will change anything about the BGC routes, I always thought that coding was fairly clear even when I'd been climbing for only a year or so, but I was lucky enough have some pretty good mentoring when I transitioned from the gym to outside a few months into it.

I think the BGC designation in the SQ2 guidebook by EFR is totally clear. This discussion was only meant to be in reference to the designations used on MP. I only referenced the BGC usage (I guess) because when I started climbing, anything in the guidebook that had "BGC" was still considered a Trad climb by the people I climbed with.

Thanks for the input! And, btw, the climbs on Mr. Meanor wall seem to have been changed from Sport/Trad to Trad sometime recently. Yay!

When I read this the first route that came to mind was Face Up To That Crack.

mountainproject.com/v/face-…

It is a sport route with an optional single #1 cam. It can be a bold sport route or a protected gear climb.

Keithb00ne wrote:It can be a bold sport route or a protected gear climb.

Yeah, there's certainly plenty of grey area... Dang-it! I was trying to keep it simple. ;)

Why has no one brought up the Bachar/Yerian yet?!

wyomingsean wrote:Why has no one brought up the Bachar/Yerian yet?!

Maybe because it is not in AZ/NM?

If you have a route that is 90% bolts but describe it as a trad route on MP, I bet that the vast majority of climbers will be confused. To me "mixed" is a much more appropriate term.

And yes, trad used to mean ground-up, etc. and not gear protected. But, that is outdated. The majority of climbers today, if you tell them about a trad line somewhere, will look for a gear-protected route. Is that consistent with how "trad" was used historically? No. But it's okay if these things change over time.

What an interesting topic. Thank you, Eric, for starting and moderating the discussion.

I personally like the "Sport/Trad" designation as there is a difference in my mind between a route that is entirely trad and one that is partially bolted. The level of commitment and risk is frequently different. The "Sport/Trad" designation is also useful for route finding. If a route is listed as "Sport/Trad" I can quickly identify it by looking for a bolt. I am also likely just used to the local convention of marking mixed rock climbs as "Sport/Trad". When browsing crags for sport routes I select trad and avoid the routes which are red.

I think it is important to make the distinction between style and danger. A runout sport route which offers no protection is definitely not a trad route; it is a PG-13, R, or X sport route.

A few considerations, some of which have already been discussed:

• Routes that are climbed both ways? Example: The Peacemaker
• Routes that take one optional piece? Does it matter how the FA did the route? Examples: Air Monsters and Power Hungry.
• Routes that have a second, rarely climbed trad pitch? Example: Bone Ami

As an administrator I'll do my best to enact what the community desires; as a user of the site I want consistency; as an individual I'll climb a route however I deem appropriate.

1Eric Rhicard wrote:Sport/trad is not possible. Trad routes have had bolts since the 70s when they were referred to as aid routes or free routes. A bolted route that takes one or more pieces is trad route. A very run out sport route is an R/X sport route. We referred to these as "sporty" leads. Trad = one or more pieces of gear. Sport = all bolts.

I did most of my climbing in NH where MOST routes have bolts/pins and require gear as well. Maybe sporty trad ?

I'm confused. (Collective gasp)

How does the style a route is put up effect whether it's a sport route or a trad route.

If I lead a climb ground up and drill all the bolts on lead, it's still a sport route.

Besides those that come along years from now won't know and won't care how it was put up. Are there bolts protecting the climb from bottom to top? Yup it's a sport route we're good to go.

They won't be thinking, as they stare up at a line of bolts that lead to the anchor, "Man I heard this got done ground up so it may be a trad route".

How about MP just goes for 3 boxes to check: Bolts, gear, chains. Simple enough and no confusion. Covers every scenario.

Obviously if there is only 2 pieces of gear in 100 feet of climbing, a short note about which pieces the leader will need would be handy.

As has been discussed in various posts above, the terms "sport" and "trad" are quite nebulous and difficult to define. However we define them, they refer to a style of climbing, not a protection type. There are areas that are clearly sport (Rifle), or that are clearly trad (a crack climb at Lumpy), but there are many vague in-betweens. The best example is the sparsely, ground-up bolted old school slab climb.

For this reason, using the terms "sport" and "trad" (and, even worse, sport/trad) to describe protection type is problematic. As the poster above mentions, if we want to describe the protection type, we should just say what the protection type is. Routes could be tagged as being protected by "bolts", "gear", or "bolts and gear". There could even be additional tags for "sparsely bolted" (for runout slabs) and "bolts and permadraws". This system would provide a more clear description than the confusing sport/trad situation.

JCM wrote:they refer to a style of climbing, not a protection type.

This is outdated thinking. When you tell climbers nowadays that a route is "trad" 99% of them will assume that it is gear protected.

Hendrixson wrote: I think it is important to make the distinction between style and danger. A runout sport route which offers no protection is definitely not a trad route; it is a PG-13, R, or X sport route.

This is a completely and utterly incorrect definition of "sport climbing". An "X-rated sport route" is an oxymoron. X-rated bolted routes are almost always "traditionally bolted", i.e. bolted ground up, and usually with a hand drill. There are not, in any way, sport routes, despite that fact that you don't have to carry any widgets.

Great points, Hendrixson, JCM and Jimbo. Perhaps the terms "Sport" and "Trad" are too nebulous to really be useful in identifying climbs on MP? Maybe just identifying the protection (as Jimbo suggests) would be more germane?

I fully appreciate that everyone uses the site differently. Like Hendrixson, if I'm looking for sport routes, I highlight "trad" and avoid those. But I'm seeing a lot of people getting into dangerous situations because they aren't using the site that way. I'd rather not see MORE designations... adding "sporty trad" and "trady sport" and "topropey sporty sport" doesn't seem helpful.

Suggestions?

Eric D wrote: This is outdated thinking. When you tell climbers nowadays that a route is "trad" 99% of them will assume that it is gear protected.

But when you say "sport", 99% of climbers will assume a route is safely bolted, with a 2-bolt lower-off at the top. We can even go with the elitist definition that has been kicked around this site a few times, that sport climbing refers to pushing the athletic side of climbing, generally via hard redpointing with bolt protection.

The takeaway here is that the terms "sport" and "trad" are inadequate and unclear, as a way to describe how a route is protected. There are many routes that don't fit neatly into either category.

JCM wrote: But when you say "sport", 99% of climbers will assume a route is safely bolted, with a 2-bolt lower-off at the top.

That's right. And when I recommend a trad route to someone at a crag they will assume it is well protected, unless I say otherwise. That is why describing a route as "run-out" takes care of that issue. It's a run-out sport route. Or a R-rated sport route.

Take your average climber at a crag. If you are describing a sparsely bolted route around the corner and you want to help them find it. Will they more easily find it if you describe it as a "run-out sport route" or as a "trad route?" What do you think JCM?