Ethics: Retro Bolting a Top Rope line?

Naming rights seem more up in the air locally and dependent on how much respect the new FA has for the first person (and also how good the name was). I would personally stay with the original TR name most of the time. If entering the route into MP I'd probably put 'aka' if the leader changed the name until there was a consensus, especially when the leader came up with a lame one..kind of situational. How entrenched the original name was would also come into play.

If we really wanted to get anal about it, we could have 'FA aid', 'TRed', 'cleaned and equipped by', and 'FFAlead'

Dare i mention ....headpointing...???

Ya sure! Common practice here in CT as u know.

john strand wrote:Dare i mention ....headpointing...???

which is practice for the lead. I don't know of any HPFA.

haha like calling masturbation getting laid.

Head Point f/a's ? check Eldo.. or Gritstone..or JT

I have done a few in NH and think it's completely legit...a better climber can do it onsite....someday

john strand wrote:Head Point f/a's ? check Eldo.. or Gritstone..or JT I have done a few in NH and think it's completely legit...a better climber can do it onsite....someday

Sorry should have been more specific. I mean they still lead it after headpointing, unlike a TRFA which stays "headpointed" of sorts.

I did a route one time that should have been called "deadpointing"...you might not die..but then again, it sure would not be good.

Eric Engberg wrote: 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.

Right bc if we're not impressing people, whats the point?

right

I have no way of knowing but suspect the routes in question might have been headpointed back in the day. Therefore retrobolt = no bueno.

I would sure do a lot of research before I fired up the ol drill.

Morgan Patterson wrote: 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.

Sorry there was a missing comma or some sort of punctuation in my post. What I was trying to say is that once you put bolts in and create a typical sport route that the danger is pretty much eliminated and the lead at that point is no more death defying - no more impressive - then just TR-ing it. Yet lots of people are all puffed up about the route not being a route until it is led. Don't bye it.

There is a history - not just in CT - of accepting TR routes as "real". Also lots of history with head points. Ignoring or scoffing at those ideas just proves that you are not as knowledgeable as you might hope.

One behavior that usually goes unquestioned is that it is a worthy endeavor to do a route in "better" style then has previously been done. Normally doing a "sport" route on "trad" gear is considered better style. If the bolts are eliminated after it has a trad lead - then things get a little fuzzier. But it is all about the WHO does it - Sonnie Trotter does it on the Path at the Back of the Lake - yay. KN does it - boo.

Eric Engberg wrote: There is a history - not just in CT - of accepting TR routes as "real".

There's also a history of anything goes as well which is a factor. If we base "ethics" strictly on history then standing on shoulders and chipping FA's are good to go as well. Just sayin...

shoulders of giants

Here in Boulder, while there was a long standing moratorium/ban on bolting in the Flatirons a number of lines were top-roped in expectation/hope that the ban would be lifted. I don't think there was any controversy about bolting these climbs once the review board at Boulder Open Space started accepting applications. However, the situation in your area sounds different.

Scott McMahon wrote: There's also a history of anything goes as well which is a factor. If we base "ethics" strictly on history then standing on shoulders and chipping FA's are good to go as well. Just sayin...

Perfect example. Of how you do NOT get it if you equate these two actions. Shoulder stands and the like do not alter the rock. Anyone coming after can do what ever they want with the unaltered rock. Chipping - or placing a bolt - alters the rock - forever. Everyone else for the remainder of the history of the universe has to deal with the fact that the rock has been altered.

Eric Engberg wrote: or placing a bolt - alters the rock - forever.

Even if I fill in the hole afterwards and resurface so you can't see it or tell that it was there? Does knowing there was a holem, even though you can't find it, change your perception of a climb and therefore ruin your pure experience?

By that token I think you should stop climbing all together, since inevitably you will climb a route and pull off a hold, irreparably changing the rock forever!

PS you should see what the quarry operations have done to the cliffs if you really care about some holes...

Eric Engberg wrote: Perfect example. Of how you do NOT get it if you equate these two actions. Shoulder stands and the like do not alter the rock. Anyone coming after can do what ever they want with the unaltered rock. Chipping - or placing a bolt - alters the rock - forever. Everyone else for the remainder of the history of the universe has to deal with the fact that the rock has been altered.

I'm sorry...maybe I haven't had enough coffee, but I'm not sure what your argument is.

I'm aware that chipping and bolts alter the rock. We are talking what qualifies as a FA. So only things that don't alter the rock are FA's?

And lets be honest here. We are just climbers. "Everyone else for the reminder of the history of the universe" is a wee bit dramatic. 99.9999% of the universe doesn't care. Just us climbers who love to argue about this stuff.

Maybe the rock likes getting turned into dust; more chance to do a little traveling. Might even get to visit the sea.

Eric Engberg wrote: P - alters the rock - forever. .

As does your boot rubber, chalk, rope grooves, and metal placements in the rock.

The only real way to leave that rock unaltered is to not climb climb it.

Instead, digging a dying hole.

With your hands

We want to minimize the carbon footprint of your dying hole.

M Sprague wrote: Might even get to visit the sea.

That's why I live in CO...eventually going to be beach front property!

Scott McMahon wrote: That's why I live in CO...eventually going to be beach front property!

Ha! Don't hold your breath!