Trad vs. Mixed vs. "Sport/Trad"

Eric Sophiea wrote: 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?

Protection type: Bolts, Gear, Bolts/Gear, TR, Solo, Boulder Problem (Pads), DWS

"Safeness": G, PG, PG-13, R, X

Choose one from each list. These can clearly describe any rock climb, without the confusion created by the historical baggage of "sport" and "trad". A few additional notes in the route description text, such as to describe how much gear is needed for a bolts/gear route, will provide any further detail that is needed.

Eric D wrote: Will they more easily find it if you describe it as a "run-out sport route" or as a "trad route?"

Again, "run-out sport" is an oxymoron, that goes against the spirit that defines sport climbing...pushing your physical limits with reliable and plentiful (generally bolted) protection. If you want to describe a run-out bolted route to someone, just call it a "run-out bolted route. Way less confusing.

Interesting discussion... I suppose this is why we have 'Description' and 'Protection' fields in the route descriptions and 'Comments' below. A single word is insufficient.

JCM wrote: Protection type: Bolts, Gear, Bolts/Gear, TR, Solo, Boulder Problem (Pads), DWS "Safeness": G, PG, PG-13, R, X Choose one from each list. These can clearly describe any rock climb, without the confusion created by the historical baggage of "sport" and "trad". A few additional notes in the route description text, such as to describe how much gear is needed for a bolts/gear route, will provide any further detail that is needed.

This seems like a good set of clear categories. I'm really just trying to help people find the kind of climbs they want to do.

Hendrixson, you make a good point, but I find that a large number of climbs are submitted on MP without much, or any, information put into the "Description" and "Protection" fields (perhaps because people think that checking "Sport/Trad" covers it). I think that a majority of users are looking for a quick way to sort the posted climbs so they can find areas that have several climbs for them to do.

Replying again to keep this going. Great post from everyone. Obviously this whole thread is about how MP should label a climb. I've always taken it as the following

Sport Climbing - climbing a bolted rout with a bolted anchor

Trad Climbing - climbing a route that takes any gear at all regardless if it has bolts or a bolted anchor

Runout - doesnt matter if its a Sport climb or Trad climb...you will be climbing a section of the climb where gear is extremely hard to place or the bolts are far apart.

PG-13, R, X - Danger factor...unless you know some secret beta.

Personally I don't like sporty trad or trady sport.

John Wilder wrote: I've climbed fully bolted trad routes and would never call them sport lines.

This is strictly a question and not trying to sound like a smart ass, but how do you call a route a trad route but its completely bolted? I was under the impression calling a traditional route a "trad" route is because you used traditional ways of climbing it by placing in gear, passive or using SLCDs. If a route is completely bolted I would call it a sport route no matter the type of rock or movement I do.

RNclimber wrote: This is strictly a question and not trying to sound like a smart ass, but how do you call a route a trad route but its completely bolted? I was under the impression calling a traditional route a "trad" route is because you used traditional ways of climbing it by placing in gear, passive or using SLCDs. If a route is completely bolted I would call it a sport route no matter the type of rock or movement I do.

I regularly climb a 6 pitch route which has 4 protection bolts,I´ve never placed any gear on it and the FA was in 1902. That´s a bolt-protected trad route and I don´t expect anyone to use sport climbing tactics like working, redpoint, pre-clipping, inspection etc on it.

Jim Titt wrote: I regularly climb a 6 pitch route which has 4 protection bolts,I´ve never placed any gear on it and the FA was in 1902. That´s a bolt-protected trad route and I don´t expect anyone to use sport climbing tactics like working, redpoint, pre-clipping, inspection etc on it.

When I initially read John's comment I was thinking like a 100 foot route with 8-12 bolts or something, not a 6 pitch old school route with 4 bolts. Maybe that's just a really really old sport route that is way run out? How hard is this route anyways.

John Wilder wrote: Again, 'traditional' rock climbing never excluded bolts from being used- even if they are used as the only points of protection. 'Sport' climbing, by definition, allows for the climber to ascend the rock without worry of being injured due to a fall. There are a fair number of routes out there where, despite being fully bolted, you would not want to fall on it. Walk on the Wild Side in Jtree comes to mind as a classic example of a fully bolted route that is most definitely NOT a sport route (unless you consider fall potentials of well over 100' a sport route). I'm surprised this has become a debate. Trad and Sport are fully separate definitions that clearly define what a route is. There is no middle ground between the two. Folks are hung up on whether or not there are bolts on a route and that's simply not at issue here. If it is safely bolted with a bolted anchor and safe to fall on at basically any point, it's a sport route. If its basically anything other than that, it's a trad route. Done.

Really good explanation and I understand your arguments. I haven't done walk on the wild side in JTree(bitch of a route to find), but ended up off route next to it...something like a 10a/b R rated route 100ft route with 6 bolts vs. the route we did 100ft with only 4 was definitely NOT a sport route. BUT what would you consider all the "sport" routes out there where most of the falling is pretty safe but have a really high 1st bolt where injury can definitely happen...ie routes in Smith Rocks. I've never been there but I've climbed in New River Gorge where some of the routes we did were definitely defined as sport routes but recommended to use a stick clip...Can someone argue that the safety of going to the 1st bolt will place the route R rated, and thus argue its a trad route?

You guys are killing my idealistic hopes for a simple consensus. :P

Fantastic thoughts on this, everyone! I guess it's more complicated than I had imagined... I sort of thought everyone would agree with me. ;)

However, this seems to highlight the point that the current designation is overly simplified and that it means very different things to different users.

For future posts, consider including how you think we can all best serve the MP community with route information. Is there a change to the format that MP could make? Should the Trad and Sport designations be eliminated entirely? Should there be checkboxes for the "Protection Type" (as JCM seemed to imply with his "Protection Type" categories)? Could we get an option to sort climbs by "Protection Type" rather than the Sport/Trad designation?

Suggest your solution! :)

John Wilder wrote: Again, 'traditional' rock climbing never excluded bolts from being used- even if they are used as the only points of protection. 'Sport' climbing, by definition, allows for the climber to ascend the rock without worry of being injured due to a fall. There are a fair number of routes out there where, despite being fully bolted, you would not want to fall on it. Walk on the Wild Side in Jtree comes to mind as a classic example of a fully bolted route that is most definitely NOT a sport route (unless you consider fall potentials of well over 100' a sport route). I'm surprised this has become a debate. Trad and Sport are fully separate definitions that clearly define what a route is. There is no middle ground between the two. Folks are hung up on whether or not there are bolts on a route and that's simply not at issue here. If it is safely bolted with a bolted anchor and safe to fall on at basically any point, it's a sport route. If its basically anything other than that, it's a trad route. Done.

I'm curious as to why a runout bolted climb turns into a trad route rather than just a sport route that uses a higher safety rating (PG13, R, X). If the definition of a sport route is to ascend safely, you could make the argument that many continuous crack climbs with anchors at the top are even safer than most sport routes since you could literally place a piece of gear every 6 inches. Would they become sport routes? If not, then the fact that bolts are on the route does become the issue.

my solution for any climber out there is to take all your info you read on the interwebs with a grain of salt. I've done routes where they described to bring a "standard" rack with doubles like Crimson, but when my buddy and I did it we placed like 2 pieces cause the route had SOOO much bolts. I've also done routes where a bolt or fixed piton was suppose to be there and BAM nothing, or the fixed piton was broken and un-clippable with no other protection around. I've always relied on guidebooks, beta on the route by the original poster and the comments by other climbers. I don't only rely on ready "sport" climb vs "trad" climb vs "mixed" and all those other options people click.

I believe this is simple. Call the route whatever you like. As Jim, John, and JCM have already stated, just list the types of protection required (B,G,B/G, or none) and the safety rating (none,PG,R,or X). You could also add a section listing the types of gear required. These 2 pieces of information are all you need to know what gear you will need and whether the climbing is bold. Then you could remove all the terms like trad, sport, etc.

The only thing I would add is instead of chains I would call it fixed anchor or anchor. This is really a minor point, but there are now many fixed anchor types. For instance there are some climbs (hopefully not many) where the anchors are just regular hangers. Hence it's always a good idea to carry a couple of old biners to leave and lower from. Lastly it might make sense to list the protection required up in the top part of the route description.

JoeS wrote:I believe this is simple. Call the route whatever you like. As Jim, John, and JCM have already stated, just list the types of protection required (B,G,B/G, or none) and the safety rating (none,PG,R,or X).

Yup. Done. That is a good solution.

JoeS wrote: The only thing I would add is instead of chains I would call it fixed anchor or anchor.

You mean "fixed anchor" or "gear anchor"?

What I really think is that MP should hire the honorable Mr. Rumsfeld as a consultant, and all routes should only have 3 fields: known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns.

Christian wrote:What I really think is that MP should hire the honorable Mr. Rumsfeld as a consultant, and all routes should only have 3 fields: known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns.

Ha ha ha!!! That should cover it!

Dan G0D5H411 wrote: I'm curious as to why a runout bolted climb turns into a trad route rather than just a sport route that uses a higher safety rating (PG13, R, X). If the definition of a sport route is to ascend safely, you could make the argument that many continuous crack climbs with anchors at the top are even safer than most sport routes since you could literally place a piece of gear every 6 inches. Would they become sport routes? If not, then the fact that bolts are on the route does become the issue.

The difference historically and for many developers actually has to do with the method the bolts are placed and how the route is climbed on the FA. For it to truly be a trad route the bolts should be placed on lead and not rap bolted. This is actually why there are runouts because there aren't always good stances to drill, and why they are considered trad routes. Rap bolted routes shouldn't have those same limitations so artificial runouts shouldn't really be present in a good sport route.

redlude97 wrote: The difference historically and for many developers actually has to do with the method the bolts are placed and how the route is climbed on the FA. For it to truly be a trad route the bolts should be placed on lead and not rap bolted. This is actually why there are runouts because there aren't always good stances to drill, and why they are considered trad routes. Rap bolted routes shouldn't have those same limitations so artificial runouts shouldn't really be present in a good sport route.

I agree that a good rap-bolted route "shouldn't" have arbitrary runouts but I can certainly think of a few that do! How would they be classified?

Take this hypothetical under consideration: A fairly featured face route is established grond up, on lead, but either there are enough features or the developer is strong enough to place bolts roughly every 6 feet. Would this still be considered a trad route? Any practical use of knowing whether a route is "sport" or "trad" seems to go out the door when simply limited to the history of the FA.

And work is slow today....

Dan G0D5H411 wrote: I agree that a good rap-bolted route "shouldn't" have arbitrary runouts but I can certainly think of a few that do! How would they be classified? Take this hypothetical under consideration: A fairly featured face route is established grond up, on lead, but either there are enough features or the developer is strong enough to place bolts roughly every 6 feet. Would this still be considered a trad route? Any practical use of knowing whether a route is "sport" or "trad" seems to go out the door when simply limited to the history of the FA. And work is slow today....

The first would still be a sport route, and the second would still be a trad route, if people had continued to use the origin of the terms. But alas things nowadays are muddled, and here we are with this discussion.