Ethics: Retro Bolting a Top Rope line?

Yes, bolt that baby. You guys don't have much rock to climb so do it. Well protected trad lines are not to be bolted. You are not learning much on tr. Good for practicing and all, but it's very gratifying to lead a line you "worked on tr". It is totally different.

rockvoyager wrote:I've seen this before. In fact I've seen bolts chopped from old TR routes here in NorCal. My opinion: Adding or removing bolts from someone else's climb is wrong but slapping up a top rope and claiming FA is equally wrong. If you're not clipping bolts you're missing part of the climb. As climbers most of us strive for a red point, not a "red point on TR". What I really don't understand is why anybody would object to someone being able to lead that climb? Doesn't affect their ability to TR. Curious! If it's a local ethic then I defer to the people that climb there all the time but it sure seems goofy to me. Brad

Talking about California... Common people, just freaking stop that nonsense bolt chopping. Look at all the chopped routes, graffiti, garbage , rock pained over because of graffiti and the sparse sport of trad climbers. Ethics? Stop living in the past and stroking your egos.

Good comments. Absolutely attempt to contact the person who went out and found the line, cleaned it, and brought it to life as a TR. If you can't get ahold of them, consider who this person is/was and what kind of FA's they have to their credit. Maybe they have a long list of difficult or dangerous FA's and chose not to bolt this line for a good reason that hasn't yet occurred to you. Also, some of the community may appreciate this area being a TR only spot. In most areas the respectful thing do is pull your rope if someone wants to lead a route you are TRing. This is annoying for a new climber who just spent an hour hanging their rope. Maybe it keeps all the Topropers all in one spot and off the good lead lines. Do any guide services use the TR area with clients, effectively keeping them out of the main area? I like the previous comment about doing it in a better style. If you do decide to bolt, doing it ground up leaves less room for the old guys to gripe. Have fun! Bolts are fun! Everybody likes either putting them in, pulling them out, or having ethical discussions about them!

I think you should ask the 'first ascensionist' just out of courtesy. I don't think it's cool to just throw bolts in because there aren't any on a route that has a name but no gear but I do agree top roping does not really count as a first ascent. I also think the nature of the route should be taken into consideration if it would be possible but spicy to lead i.e there is some gear but its crap then maybe the bolts should reflect this and then people could prepare themselves to lead it as a future project for them. I kinda of disagree with bolts making everything accessible, there has to be some spicy routes just to scare the shit of you and make you holler like a banshee at the top as you remove your soiled underpants.

TRFA, lmao! you can't make this stuff up.

And Bear your a better man than me. Im fairly easy going but nowhere near ready to let a couple of nitwit highballers with no regard for their own safety dictate how the other 99% of the climbing population climbs.

rockvoyager wrote: Allen, I respectfully disagree. Top roping inherently changes a climb. The risk is gone and with it goes the focus we get on the sharp end. When you are on your edge a single hard clip might be more than you're capable of that day. In fact, I can think of several routes in our area that are more difficult to lead because of a hard clip. The red point has become the standard in our community because you are challenged by all aspects of a climb. If you aren't fully challenged how can it be a "first ascent"? My opinion: I don't consider a pink point, stick clip, top rope, etc an FA. Having said all that crap I would still look to the local ethics AND call the "top rope FA" guys before I'd consider bolting someone else's climb. Brad

I think folks are missing my point. There are many types of FA all are legit just done in different styles. While the community sees the unassisted lead ascent being the pinnacle the others are just different ways of getting there. Given what folks are sayings those who did aid lines that latter went free never did the FA. I think that is disingenuous. Especially, because a clean aid line can be way more challenging than a bolted free climb.

Totally depends on the area and the f/a party. What's dangerous and highball for some, might be kinda casual for others.

All climbs shouldn't be for everyone

Allen Sanderson wrote: I think folks are missing my point. There are many types of FA all are legit just done in different styles. While the community sees the unassisted lead ascent being the pinnacle the others are just different ways of getting there. Given what folks are sayings those who did aid lines that latter went free never did the FA. I think that is disingenuous. Especially, because a clean aid line can be way more challenging than a bolted free climb.

aid lines are considered FAs .... else mr harding and co. did not really get credit for the nose =P

what folks are saying is throwing down a rope and then TRing it is not a FA

if it really is an FA ... then im going out with my ushba and TR soloing a bunch of FAs right now ... dont even need to bolt to get the credit !!!

;)

Go right ahead, and have fun! It is only in the context of where people expect that you are referring to a lead that it is not an ascent. Semantics. If you have qualified it as a TR ascent then there is no expectation.

M Sprague wrote:Go right ahead, and have fun! It is only in the context of where people expect that you are referring to a lead that it is not an ascent. Semantics. If you have qualified it as a TR ascent then there is no expectation.

but then i get to "name" it ... and deny folks the chance to bolt it

Top Rope First Ascents here i come !!!

i dont even need to do it clean as im not claiming a top rope first free ascent ... i just need to get to the top by whatever means needed including yarding up the rope

;)

bearbreeder wrote: but then i get to "name" it ... and deny folks the chance to bolt it

This is what Ken nichols did across much of CT... seems to have worked pretty well for him... LOL. We're stuck living this misery too...

Nope, sorry. TRFA only gets mention if clean and doesn't confer much for rights in our ethical construct. The name is only good until somebody comes along and leads it and gets to rename it. That's the law.

Morgan Patterson wrote: This is what Ken nichols did across much of CT... seems to have worked pretty well for him... LOL. We're stuck living this misery too...

Except that he actually did lead most of them.

Bolting something into submission so that there is no more danger "leading" it then TR-ing it and then thumping your chest about your true FA is not particularly impressive.

Eric Engberg wrote: Except that he actually did lead most of them.

You mean the easy ones... ya he actually did TR'd a lot of the hard stuff (and never led it) or maybe he did but only sent it before after hundreds of TR laps (What's he at on dol guldar these days, 11,000) and also notably before he went and ripped out all the fixed gear. so....

Morgan Patterson wrote: This is what Ken nichols did across much of CT... seems to have worked pretty well for him... LOL. We're stuck living this misery too...

As far as KN goes, I think the extreme bad will and destruction he has caused the climbing community for decades completely negates any traditional rights due him by fellow climbers as far as "his" routes go. If the community deems that they should be retroed, run over or erased, I think his opinion against it is worth shit. He is beyond your normal asshole.

Eric Engberg wrote: Bolting something into submission so that there is no more danger "leading" it then TR-ing it and then thumping your chest about your true FA is not particularly impressive.

Really, when did I do that, and who said anything about this? And why would you bolt something into submission and then TR it? You're not making much sense at least to me...

Well either way that's what Ken did so thanks for helping make the point... TR into submission and then lead them. I can open just about any page in Ken's book and find an FA by him, noted as TR FA. So I would disagree. He didn't lead most everything, actually most his hard ascents were ALL TR. Just did a random pick outta his book, page 165, Shuttle Meadow, Transformer 5.11 T (FA: (toprope) Ken Nichols), oh and right above that, Semiconductor 5.12 T (FA: (Toprope) Ken Nichols). Another random flip of the book gets me to page 280, Purple Heart 5.11- T (FA: (Toprope) Ken Nichols). The dude wasn't this great hero and his TR lines are up for grabs for bolting in the state today. He was a great 5.9/5.10 trad leader. That's about all I can say nicely.

And what routes of mine have you been on that you feel were bolted into submission? What routes here in CT are now "bolted into submission" for that matter? Just by this comment I can tell you've never been on my routes and likely not most of the newer CT routes. Most are mixed trad/sport or have at least some significant whipper/danger potential.

bearbreeder wrote: aid lines are considered FAs .... else mr harding and co. did not really get credit for the nose =P what folks are saying is throwing down a rope and then TRing it is not a FA if it really is an FA ... then im going out with my ushba and TR soloing a bunch of FAs right now ... dont even need to bolt to get the credit !!! ;)

M Sprague wrote:Go right ahead, and have fun! It is only in the context of where people expect that you are referring to a lead that it is not an ascent. Semantics. If you have qualified it as a TR ascent then there is no expectation.

bearbreeder wrote: but then i get to "name" it ... and deny folks the chance to bolt it Top Rope First Ascents here i come !!! i dont even need to do it clean as im not claiming a top rope first free ascent ... i just need to get to the top by whatever means needed including yarding up the rope ;)

Well I would not go quite as far as that. But damn close. If you do the FA on TR without a fall I will give ya credit for the FA. Further, you can name it whatever you want. But I would not let you deny others the chance to bolt it (if needed). And if they did bolt it and of course lead sans any falls they get the FFA. However, the name does not change.

The above was the principle ethic that was followed where I have climbed. Some routes were done on TR and then latter lead. Sometimes on gear sometime via bolts. The FA is listed as a TR followed by the FFA. Gives credit where credit is due without getting too deep into a bunch of "rules".

Allen Sanderson wrote: Well I would not go quite as far as that. But damn close. If you do the FA on TR without a fall I will give ya credit for the FA. Further, you can name it whatever you want. But I would not let you deny others the chance to bolt it (if needed). And if they did bolt it and of course lead sans any falls they get the FFA. However, the name does not change. The above was the principle ethic that was followed where I have climbed. Some routes were done on TR and then latter lead. Sometimes on gear sometime via bolts. The FA is listed as a TR followed by the FFA. Gives credit where credit is due without getting too deep into a bunch of "rules".

This is the best situation IMO as well and what most us developers strive for around here these days.

Allen Sanderson wrote: Well I would not go quite as far as that. But damn close. If you do the FA on TR without a fall I will give ya credit for the FA. Further, you can name it whatever you want. But I would not let you deny others the chance to bolt it (if needed). And if they did bolt it and of course lead sans any falls they get the FFA. However, the name does not change. The above was the principle ethic that was followed where I have climbed. Some routes were done on TR and then latter lead. Sometimes on gear sometime via bolts. The FA is listed as a TR followed by the FFA. Gives credit where credit is due without getting too deep into a bunch of "rules".

i get to name something after TRing it???

and the name should stay even if someone else leads it???

TR solo FAs here i come ... ill name everything on da wall and no one can change da names !!!

somehow i dont think that would fly here

;)

This reminds me of a funny little bit of narcasism in the T-Wall guidebook where Rob Robinson credits himself as getting the top rope first ascent, before listing the actual FA.