What defines a first ascent?

What do you consider to be a first ascent? My definition would be the first person to lead the route ground up with gear and completing the route from bottom to the top.

I agree but, does not have to be gear.  A sport route has a first ascent too.

who cares....?   that is, the definition is in the minds of those who care.  

I think a solo would qualify.

The first person to climb the route, in whatever style -- good or bad.    Could be aid, could include repeated falls, could be free, could be top-rope with several hangs, or with none.

A first free ascent is a bit narrower -- first to climb the route, without aid, rests on rope, etc.  Usually, though not always, implies lead (either sport or trad), but could be free solo.

I could see a first ascent given to someone who first descended a route.

Great feedback! Whatever style, ground up. Would the first person to climb a route on top rope be considered a first ascent? I understand this goes against all climbing standards but someone on MP has claimed over 100 first ascents but they're all top ropes and he top-roped them on his "first ascent". Thoughts???

Northeast Mountain Guiding wrote: Great feedback! Whatever style, ground up. Would the first person to climb a route on top rope be considered a first ascent? I understand this goes against all climbing standards but someone on MP has claimed over 100 first ascents but they're all top ropes and he top-roped them on his "first ascent". Thoughts???

If they're TR routes, and he was the first to do them, then yes. If they're leadable routes and he TRed them only, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Ma Ja wrote:

If they're TR routes, and he was the first to do them, then yes. If they're leadable routes and he TRed them first, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

What's the difference between a "TR route" and a "leadable" route? What about routes that were led but have no pro?

In short - no difference: first means first and ascent means to climb up.

Marc801 C wrote:

What's the difference between a "TR route" and a "leadable" route? What about routes that were led but have no pro?

In short - no difference: first means first and ascent means to climb up.

Leadable means ground up. Meaning, if I walked around to the top of a route that can be led from the ground up (free solo, gear, or sport), and setup a Top Rope, I personally wouldn't take the FA. I also wouldn't give it to someone who had done so. 

I TRed a sport route I put up before attempting the send. While I flashed both, I wouldn't have taken the FA until I had succefully led it. In your scenario, my buddy who helped chalk up the route would have the FA, because he was the first person to hangdog the route while chalking the possible holds. Or maybe I would get it, because I was the first person to jug up past all the moves when I rapped it. See why it makes a difference to have some definable standards?

Marc801 C wrote:In short - no difference: first means first and ascent means to climb up.

I would add, if he established a route, TRed, but didn't get the send (if leadable), his name should be included as the developer. 

I've always felt the first TEAM to lead a route bottom-up is the FA party.  In many guidebooks the author trys to find out which member led the climb, or led the crux pitch(es), and place that name first in the "FA" column; or say something like " John and Bill swapped leads on this 5 pitch climb".

If a person TR'd a route first, they can report it as a Top Roped route;  someone subsequently leading it has the right to re-name the route and place fixed protection and claim the FA.

 

Robert Hall  someone subsequently leading it has the right to re-name the route and place fixed protection and claim the FA.
 

I think this is a flawed way of thinking. I always find who originally installed the anchor (if I can) and ask them what their plans are for the route. 

The line has grown blurry in alpinism. First ascent requiring a summit? To the top of the feature? To 'the end of the difficulties'? To the arbitrary highpoint of 'my climb'...but don't let my bailing sway your thinking - I'm calling it a first ascent! (I would appreciate you not questioning  .) More important than labeling is accurate reporting. Implicit in 'attempt' is 'failure', which can be a difficult word. I've had grand and glorious failures, even quite satisfying, because had we continued up, perhaps the ultimate failure. But within the failure, always adventure! And that's a win.

Ma Ja wrote:

I would add, if he established a route, TRed, but didn't get the send (if leadable), his name should be included as the developer. 

Therein lies the problem with your position - *any* route is 'leadable', including ones with no pro,  if you have the skill and mental control. 

Look up the FA history of Perilous Journey in Eldo.

Always somebody trying to figure out how to get credit for something they don't deserve by rewriting the rules.

If every top rope first ascent is negated by the climb being led, and or bolted if pro isn't available then the ground up party renames the route the confusion/stupidity that will ensue will last for years.

If you don't like the guy's top rope FAs the only way to beat him is get out and lead it all before he top ropes it.

Most all guidebooks describe the first ascents as follows;      FA.  by blah blah blah.    FFA. by bad ass mo fo...  so as to differentiate the first free ascent from the hang dog... falls..aid....top rope....

lou wrote: Most all guidebooks describe the first ascents as follows;      FA.  by blah blah blah.    FFA. by bad ass mo fo...  so as to differentiate the first free ascent from the hang dog... falls..aid....top rope....

Yeah, but that's not what's being discussed.

Free, ground up, onsight
Free, ground up
Free
Aid
TR
Solo

All FAs. Usually, just the FA and FFA are noted in guidebooks.

Also, on the last, there are places which don't or didn't allow bolting so TR was the only option and TR on overhung routes and roofs is actually harder than hanging your way up a bolted line figuring out the moves as you go - on TR you're either climbing or flying.

Marc 801c ...wrote "I think this is a flawed way of thinking. I always find who originally installed the anchor (if I can) and ask them what their plans are for the route."

Ah...but I was thinking more traditional climbs.   If there's already an anchor installed your thinking is very sound.

Robert Hall wrote: Marc 801c ...wrote "I think this is a flawed way of thinking. I always find who originally installed the anchor (if I can) and ask them what their plans are for the route."

Ah...but I was thinking more traditional climbs.   If there's already an anchor installed your thinking is very sound.

Um, I get enough grief for what I actually post...

The quote above attributed to me was actually from Kelley Gilleran.