What is a First ascent?

I want to get peoples general take on what an FA really is.

Add on to a route?

Making a left when the route goes right then finishing at the same anchors?

Elimination situations like boldering?

is a variation of an established climb an FA?

I ask because i notice some FA's going up in a very established area, and am not sure i agree with them... so maybe my view or take on the topic is way off...

so please... let me see what you think

(edited to add varitation question)

I'd throw in: ground up on lead without weighting the rope. Unless it's bouldering, still ground up without falling off the rock.

"an FA would be defined by the starting and ending points only".

So, if I start at the base of a nice crack, walk around the back of the formation, hike up and sit at the top of the crack, that is the same as the guy who put in the effort to climb straight up the face?

Conversely, if you took the left crack for 5 feet when the FA went right, you could claim FA of the left variation. You will probably be ridiculed if the climbing is easy but some routes have added difficulty with variations that were initially avoided. This may gain you some respect with your peers, which I think is a lot of people's motivation for climbing and recording this stuff.

My personal motivation for recording FAs is to share the route and get people on it so they can share that experience. Based on this I tend to only record my personal FAs of routes people may not otherwise know to do, or in some instances to deter them from repeating my mistake of choosing a bad line.

In our local guidebook, the author has record the FA of a route as himself, FA of the "clean version" as a chockstone broke loose after the real FA. He subsequently remnamed the route and put it in his guidebook. I see that as petty, although it may have in fact upped the difficulty of the route a touch. He did not even name the true FA as far as I can remember.

Red wrote:I'd throw in: ground up on lead without weighting the rope. unless it's bouldering then just without falling off.

What about climbs that are FA TR? There are plenty of TR routes that never get bolted and otherwise have no protection. You just have to note the style of the FA, in my opinion. I suppose though, FA, hangdog would be kind of silly so I agree with the no weighting gear part. I wonder how many people set a belay early to record a true FFA.

Will Anglin wrote:You've got to go obscure sometimes for first ascents nowadays. For me personally I have almost 327 FFAIALPMT's. For the uneducated thats: First Free Ascent In A Leopard Print Man Thong. Be jealous.

LOVE that! classic!

also... just found this... enjoy!

xtranormal.com/watch/6234547/

this is what is happening in the area i am talking about and why i started this topic

You have to report your route in as many places as possible for it to be a true first ascent. Reporting a route is even more important than actually climbing it.

xtranormal.com/watch/6234547/

A First Ascent is or used to be ..On sight, ground up ,no pre cleaning,or any type of inspection except from the ground.Otherwise anything but this is "Making" a new climb .Assuming one top ropes the line first or practices moves etc, then strict'ly speaking that is the First Ascent.

huh!? aid ascents arent FAs?

If you're the first person to do it on lead then it's a first ascent. Counting a TR send is lame and people should make fun of you. Variations, link-ups, pre-rehearsed routes, cleaned routes, and aid routes all definitely still count.

Will Butler wrote:If you're the first person to do it on lead then it's a first ascent. Counting a TR send is lame and people should make fun of you.

This is false in my opinion. I think if you find a sweet, but unprotectable(without bolts), and TR FA it without drilling the crap out of the face it should count for what it is: a TR first ascent.

We don't know the future capabilities of protection, so if a climber realizes this and holds off for either a bolder climber, or the advent of better protection, I think his effort to clean the line on toprope should be recognized.

WiledHorse wrote:huh!? aid ascents arent FAs?

If they are ground up on sight of course they are !!!

Paul Ross wrote: If they are ground up on sight of course they are !!!

cool. i agree.
further up the thread someone was mentioning not weighting the rope, etc,

Definitely aid routes count. I'm not sure what onsight means though in terms of an aid route. Nobody seems to care if you blow a few pieces on the way, in fact it tends to garner respect. The cool thing about aid is you can do nearly whatever the f you want and it's all good.

Aid FAs seem to be off the radar these days so the original comments, at least mine, weren't aimed in that direction.

not that any of this really matters in the grand scheme of things but...

doesn't matter what it is as long as it is done clean- no weighting rope etc.

contrived 'new lines' will always be recognized as such, so I think a live and let live approach is usually the best one.

I would, however, prefer more routes to fewer routes (all things being equal)

Paul Ross wrote: If they are ground up on sight of course they are !!!

So what you are saying is that the FA of the Nose on El Cap was not in 1958???

I think we should just table this conversation and go with what I had stated earlier. This way we can all move forward to address more important questions ;)

Wow. Not so difficult. Younger people like to complicate this.

If you are the first one up some untouched piece of rock... first ascent... no matter how you got up it. If you got up it with out any rope tension of any sort, then... first free ascent (hanging is aid, no really, stop making excuses. Rope tension of any kind is aid, in the gym or outside).

TR's don't count for much, IMO.

Greg D wrote: TR's don't count for much, IMO.

Hmm. You might want to tell that to John Gill and Bob Murray, since a lot of their classic FAs did not get the "topropes are lame" memo.

Greg D wrote: TR's don't count for much, IMO.

I keep waiting for Tom Hanson to come on here....

John Gill and Bob Murray were from a different era and their style should be respected as such. When you introduce historical ethics to a modern conversation it starts to get tricky. Case in point would be how Pat Ament gets credit for the FFA of Supremacy Crack, possibly the first 5.11 in Colorado, even though he hung on it. Maybe ground-up without falling wasn't what constituted "freeing" a route in 1965 but it sure does now. We have to make sure to respect the accomplishments of those who paved the way but I'm sure even they like seeing people improve upon their style. That and if you claim a first toprope ascent you are freaking lame and people should make fun of you (in a modern context of course).

LeeAB wrote: So what you are saying is that the FA of the Nose on El Cap was not in 1958???

Strange question ! What do you think they did ..Climb it from the top downwards or top rope it first?