Definition of a TRAD climb? does anything count?

SO, I've been wrestling over the ethics and logic of my area with bolting and the idea "it was done on gear, so never bolt it" ... I REALLY don't want a bolting ethics discussion, but it brought to mind this line of thought. Is there an expected definition of a TRAD climb. Take the following examples that have been done in my area. I think some of these go beyond the 'R" rating of a trad climb.

A lot of the lines that were once dreamed up in my area, got TR'd for a month or so and studied till moves/gear were memorized and then a ground up attempt happened. That tactic makes sense but here is where I have an issue or two.

Climb 1) its a route that is about 45 feet tall, short and stout. After 10 feet you can get something in a horizontal crack, after that the face is shear and no gear to be found. SO, the FA went 1 piece at 10 feet and then ran out the top 30 feet. Anyone that touches this climb does it on TR and the number of Trad leaders who have done it can be counted on 1 hand ... TRAD lead? or basically a Solo with the first 10-15 feet protected?

Climb 2) Gear placement could not be found for a major section of the climb. The FA'er studied the rock and measured/made Hooks he could place and then tie off the base of the climb. there was no option for gear so the solution was climb up place a hook and down-climb to tie it off at the base. back up to a new hook, down-climb to bottom, stand on ground and tie it off ...  It went, but is this now the expected way to lead this route, I go home and make hooks too? I get to come down and rest between placing gear as long as I don't weight the rope?

Again, I'm not debating sections of run-out that make it R rated, but a route that seems like you only labeled it trad after basically a solo where you placed 1 piece or some idea that you up and down climb 4x while placing hooks. Are these really TRAD climbs? No one really repeats these the way the FA did ... its either TR'd or people never climb it.

Is there a definition or expectation to the label to a TRAD climb?

My understanding of the consensus is that trad climbs are ground-up ascents; in other words, whether it is removable (cams, nuts, beaks) or permanent (bolts, pins), if you placed it on lead from the ground up, it counts.  Headpointing kind of makes things murky, and you can debate about “sprad” tactics, but gear rehearsal and TR/hangdoging has been pretty essential for most recent cutting edge ascents.

I don't think Mountain Project users will have an opinion on this.

FrankPS wrote: I don't think Mountain Project users will have an opinion on this.

Making popcorn.  Who wants some?

Extra butter.

Dude just move on and don't retro bolt a route that already exists.

Ska Ggs wrote: 
Is there a definition or expectation to the label to a TRAD climbER?

Yes, there are several rules you must follow.

1. you have to be more hardcore than sport wankers and pebble wrestlers (pad people)
2. you have to be a bad ass, no not one of those sissy's you see at the crag hangdogging off a BOLT with his shirt off and tattoos
3. typically there is heavy breathing as you just ran out that beautiful splitter on 2 pieces of gear because your a hardman climber who doesn't need to place pro
4. talk shit on all other forms of climbing and have 100 reasons why trad climbing is better or more pure

I am probably missing a few finer points but will let the wonderful MP community fill in the gaps.

Ska Ggs wrote:1) its a route that is about 45 feet tall, short and stout. After 10 feet you can get something in a horizontal crack, after that the face is shear and no gear to be found. SO, the FA went 1 piece at 10 feet and then ran out the top 30 feet. Anyone that touches this climb does it on TR and the number of Trad leaders who have done it can be counted on 1 hand ... TRAD lead? or basically a Solo with the first 10-15 feet protected?

2) Gear placement could not be found for a major section of the climb. The FA'er studied the rock and measured/made Hooks he could place and then tie off the base of the climb. there was no option for gear so the solution was climb up place a hook and down-climb to tie it off at the base. back up to a new hook, down-climb to bottom, stand on ground and tie it off ...  It went, but is this now the expected way to lead this route, I go home and make hooks too? I get to come down and rest between placing gear as long as I don't weight the rope?

Lol. Don't forget about all those BS free solos a particular FAist made up on the Ragged Mtn slabs just so he could give them names to troll the RMF. That blue book must be the pettiest guidebook in existence, and I'm not surprised some of his "trad" routes at Bradley got bolted. 

The rule that the FA dictates the nature of the route has never been a hard and fast rule. It's just a helpful rule of thumb to follow that has ensured multiple visions of climbing are able to exist side by side. 

1. The FA decided to put up a route in a style that minimized bolts or other permanent anchors... whether you call it "trad" or something else (however bold or contrived it may be) is irrelevant. Kind of reminds me of the outrage over whether or not Pluto should still be considered a planet, which was ridiculous. 
2. It's a 45' route that has the option of being top-roped if you don't like the original style.
I don't see this as a problem. 

Ska Ggs wrote: SO, I've been wrestling over the ethics and logic of my area with bolting and the idea "it was done on gear, so never bolt it" ... I REALLY don't want a bolting ethics discussion, but it brought to mind this line of thought. Is there an expected definition of a TRAD climb. Take the following examples that have been done in my area. I think some of these go beyond the 'R" rating of a trad climb.

A lot of the lines that were once dreamed up in my area, got TR'd for a month or so and studied till moves/gear were memorized and then a ground up attempt happened. That tactic makes sense but here is where I have an issue or two.

1) its a route that is about 45 feet tall, short and stout. After 10 feet you can get something in a horizontal crack, after that the face is shear and no gear to be found. SO, the FA went 1 piece at 10 feet and then ran out the top 30 feet. Anyone that touches this climb does it on TR and the number of Trad leaders who have done it can be counted on 1 hand ... TRAD lead? or basically a Solo with the first 10-15 feet protected?

2) Gear placement could not be found for a major section of the climb. The FA'er studied the rock and measured/made Hooks he could place and then tie off the base of the climb. there was no option for gear so the solution was climb up place a hook and down-climb to tie it off at the base. back up to a new hook, down-climb to bottom, stand on ground and tie it off ...  It went, but is this now the expected way to lead this route, I go home and make hooks too? I get to come down and rest between placing gear as long as I don't weight the rope?

Again, I'm not debating sections of run-out that make it R rated, but a route that seems like you only labeled it trad after basically a solo where you placed 1 piece or some idea that you up and down climb 4x while placing hooks. Are these really TRAD climbs? No one really repeats these the way the FA did ... its either TR'd or people never climb it.

Is there a definition or expectation to the label to a TRAD climb?

Hi Mason!

Ska, if a "trad" climb has bolts they have been placed ground up. In a nutshell that's the definition of a trad climb.

But what you are really talking about is headpointing. Headpointing is a type of trad climbing, and it's lame but necessary.

If the FA was done in headpoint style then that (or better) is the style it shall be climbed in henceforth. It doesn't matter if no one has the gumption to do it in the style of the FA, tough shit. You can just top rope it and perhaps aspire to the ability of the FA someday.
Unless "retro-development" occurs but that's for a different thread ;)

Ian Fenimore wrote: There are fairly countless examples of R/X gear routes being retro bolted and benefitting the community with a great line. Additionally, you cam just throw s bolt or two in the run out and make it a spicy mixed climb and preserve some of that FA feeling.

Why must the climb be led if it can be top roped? Retrobolting for lead is pure ego.

Don't ask anyone just bolt it if you want. It was free soloed if only 1 piece of trad gear was placed at 10ft and it wasn't a TRAD climb because they top roped it before free soloing. If you want to lead it go put some bolts on it.

They apparently don't want direct links to Supertopo, but here is a discussion of the topic in depth.

http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum/2110264/What-Is-Trad

Mason Stone wroteETA: Bolt it.

How does this square with your plea on another thread to strive for consensus before bolting?

 FTR, if it goes and the addition of bolts improves the area for more climbers have at it.

So all I have to do is announce my private view the area will be improved for more climbers and I can drill at will?  What does it mean to improve the area?  Who gets to decide what constitutes an "improvement" of the natural scene? And what are the implications of "improvements" whose sole purpose is to make the climb accessible to more climbers?   If I chip holds on a 5.13 and make it 5.10, isn't this a great thing for "the community?" So many more climbers will be able to do the route!

 It will happen in time. When the community who cared has passed and their traditions with them, the next generation will make their own. 

You could be right, in which case trad climbing will disappear and all climbs will be sport climbs.  That's what you're advocating with the comment above too.  If you are right, that time will come.  If you are wrong, then you'll have the burden of depriving a future you misunderstood of its potential.

In this regard, there is an aspect to "tradition" you seem to be missing.  Traditions, almost by definition, are passed on. The "community that cares" is continually turning over, but new younger climbers are inspired by the same traditions and so the concept outlives any of the individuals.  There are tons of young trad climbers out there, and they aren't anxious to see all the routes they aspire to "improved for more climbers" by bolting the nature of those climbs out of existence.   And for gods sake don't say they don't have to clip the bolts!

When people talk about what's "right" for some undefined "community" of climbers, they never seem to be interested in the community that wants the challenges, wants the uncertainties, wants to pit their skills against the risks, wants some tiny little corner of human activity where they get to confront what nature offers, without all the modifications, conveniences, and safety nets society provides and often insists on in most of our lives.  The rush to "improve the area for more climbers" is a rush to reduce the natural diversity of the endeavor and make it all of one type.  Why is this a good thing?

ViperScale . wrote: Don't ask anyone just bolt it if you want. It was free soloed if only 1 piece of trad gear was placed at 10ft and it wasn't a TRAD climb because they top roped it before free soloing. If you want to lead it go put some bolts on it.

I don't understand this logic at all.  There is plenty of room for 20 pages of pontification about what constitutes a "trad" climb, but this is not the same question as whether it's OK to retrobolt it, and the issues should not be conflated.  Also, depending on where the crux is located, there may be a significant difference between free-soloing such a route and leading it.  

Ian Fenimore wrote: There are fairly countless examples of R/X gear routes being retro bolted and benefitting the community with a great line. Additionally, you cam just throw s bolt or two in the run out and make it a spicy mixed climb and preserve some of that FA feeling.

Benefitting some of the community.  Other parts of the community likely preferred the route in its original state.  And I don't think the relative sizes of those communities are proportional to the number of times it gets climbed in each state.  I'm a timid, borderline wussy climber, and I generally avoid runout routes for that reason.  Nevertheless, I like having them there as something to aspire to, and in the rare cases that I do climb one of them, it's a memorable climb that I think about far more than a less mentally challenging route.  If my home crag has nothing scary at it, then that's an aspect of climbing I'm not pushed to develop, and I have a less rich experience, even if I'm not the one typically keeping the moss off of these R/X routes. 

baldclimber wrote:

Making popcorn.  Who wants some?

rgold wrote: How does this square with your plea on another thread to strive for consensus before bolting?

So all I have to do is announce my private view the area will be improved for more climbers and I can drill at will?  What does it mean to improve the area?  Who gets to decide what constitutes an "improvement" of the natural scene? And what are the implications of "improvements" whose sole purpose is to make the climb accessible to more climbers?   If I chip holds on a 5.13 and make it 5.10, isn't this a great thing for "the community?" So many more climbers will be able to do the route!

You could be right, in which case trad climbing will disappear and all climbs will be sport climbs.  That's what you're advocating with the comment above too.  If you are right, that time will come.  If you are wrong, then you'll have the burden of depriving a future you misunderstood of its potential.

In this regard, there is an aspect to "tradition" you seem to be missing.  Traditions, almost by definition, are passed on. The "community that cares" is continually turning over, but new younger climbers are inspired by the same traditions and so the concept outlives any of the individuals.  There are tons of young trad climbers out there, and they aren't anxious to see all the routes they aspire to "improved for more climbers" by bolting the nature of those climbs out of existence.   And for gods sake don't say they don't have to clip the bolts!

When people talk about what's "right" for some undefined "community" of climbers, they never seem to be interested in the community that wants the challenges, wants the uncertainties, wants to pit their skills against the risks, wants some tiny little corner of human activity where they get to confront what nature offers, without all the modifications, conveniences, and safety nets society provides and often insists on in most of our lives.  The rush to "improve the area for more climbers" is a rush to reduce the natural diversity of the endeavor and make it all of one type.  Why is this a good thing?

Thanks again RGold!

You r so good for artikulating wut us dixie climers been saying!

Mason, your comments disappoint again.  My community says leave the drill at home and quit maring up the rocks.  

Ska Ggs wrote: 1) its a route that is about 45 feet tall, short and stout. After 10 feet you can get something in a horizontal crack, after that the face is shear and no gear to be found. SO, the FA went 1 piece at 10 feet and then ran out the top 30 feet. Anyone that touches this climb does it on TR and the number of Trad leaders who have done it can be counted on 1 hand ... TRAD lead? or basically a Solo with the first 10-15 feet protected?

2) Gear placement could not be found for a major section of the climb. The FA'er studied the rock and measured/made Hooks he could place and then tie off the base of the climb. there was no option for gear so the solution was climb up place a hook and down-climb to tie it off at the base. back up to a new hook, down-climb to bottom, stand on ground and tie it off ...  It went, but is this now the expected way to lead this route, I go home and make hooks too? I get to come down and rest between placing gear as long as I don't weight the rope?

Again, I'm not debating sections of run-out that make it R rated, but a route that seems like you only labeled it trad after basically a solo where you placed 1 piece or some idea that you up and down climb 4x while placing hooks. Are these really TRAD climbs? No one really repeats these the way the FA did ... its either TR'd or people never climb it.

1 – While you are aiming this at Ken, Chad, Mikey, Marco, and others from that era, you are also forgetting that prior to them, Fritz lead many of CTs commonly done trad climbs with only a single piton. Gear improved and now the climbs are super G. Look at Vector, only a single piton was placed on the lead during the FA. Some of Ken’s “runout” climbs were before the era of offset cams, micro nuts, etc, and guess what – now some of them are leadable with creative gear placements (and some still no way).
Another great example – High Exposure. In its FA style, that was “pretty much a solo,” since Fritz and Hans only placed 2 or 3 pitons in 250 feet of climbing. Now, with contemporary gear, it is a world classic rock climb that is G. 

2 - As ridiculous as Ken’s methods were, he at least did it ground up. I don’t agree that everyone after should also do the same, but the fortitude and overall strength to be able to do that is commendable. Plus, at that time, siege tactics and yo-yo ascents were still common. You're right, noone is going to repeat these lines ground-up with hooks.  But nowadays, people have gotten very creative for ways to lead the old hook routes (although they are quite weird). Most of those routes are headpointed now.  Hanging slings, pre-placing long runners, etc, have all been employed to lead the old hook routes. 

I don’t agree with Kens chopping of bolts done by the FAist on the lead, or anything of that nature, nor do I think that just because I sketchily lead a chopped route on gear, everyone else should. Ken and his ethics are not what others should necessarily uphold an areas ethics to, but they shouldnt be discredited.

With all that said, I do feel that many of his hooked routes should be bolted sparingly. Keep the spice in there, but make it more attainable of a lead  – especially considering the vegetation loss for TR anchors on many of these cliffs.

In alot of ways any slab (ground up bolted) climbing isn't really "sport" climbing anyway. "Sport" climbing has a totally different aesthetic and feel from trad climbing when it's bolted from a stance.