Trad is on-sight, ground up (free, aid or mixed).....

So, can you not redpoint a trad route? Is redpointing purely in the realm of the sport climber? Hey, I tried to onsight last year, wasn't strong enough. Got it clean this year. Was I not trad climbing? I'm so confused.

Josh

So, can you not redpoint a trad route? Josh

S'what I done been telling you people for a long time.

For your viewing pleasure and historical perspective (if by historical I mean people who in their 50s and early 60s can free solo circles around us roped up gums)

http://www.supertopo.com/...c_id=454289&tn=0

Trad. Its not just a rack of widgets.

DMT

[
language evolves...deal with it.

Of course it does - and to be conversant you should be knowledgable of current lingo. But to throw out other cliches - those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. In an Orwellian sense revisionist language leads to revisionist history.

Of course it does - and to be conversant you should be knowledgable of current lingo. But to throw out other cliches - those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. In an Orwellian sense revisionist language leads to revisionist history.

I think arguing about labels and terms is a little silly.

I like when I get called a kid. I have all kinds of respect for the roots of climbing and agree that onsighting is the best possible way to send a climb. BUt... I am very happy when I can send something that previously shut me down. Is that a redpoint? I don't really care, but putting it in my book as one is easier than writing "a climb that I previously tried to onsight, but couldn't, but now I have sent."

As far as sending a climbing being attributed to being stronger or having newly gained knowledge of the climb, it could be either or a little of both.

I think arguing about labels and terms is a little silly. I know a little about climbing history, and I realize that some of the terms I use and are commonly used today are not necessarily the way they were intended or were used back in the day. OK, I get it. But, I don't think that "redpointing" a climb "taints" it. It is just a step down in style. How big that step is, is up for debate.

Josh

Good point, but dingus seems to create a thread or post on this exact same topic more than is pertinent.

DMT comments on just about ever topic with insightful (although prehaps not quite as profound as he would like to think) words of wisdome.

[quote "microbarnGood point, but dingus seems to create a thread or post on this exact same topic more than is pertinent.

Agreed, but that doesn't mean this topic is any less tired. Obviously the other times he ranted didn't bring the resolution he hopes. What will change this time?

Sometimes a troll is just a troll too. It doesn't matter if either of us can distinguish the two.

But chill dude. What I thought was actually pertinent in my OP were the words of bachar and the link to that thread. Do with it what you will!

Cheers and peace
DMT

Oh I agree I think redpoint is a wonderful way to describe getting up something cleanly that you failed to in the past. It should transcend to many things in real life - "I finally redpointed the bar exam". "Beta" certainly has.

For me - not onsighting/flashing a route DOES taint it for me - the longer and more alpine like the route the more I am dissapointed in myself for not getting it cleanly the first time.

But I "get" the idea of the gym and sport climbing and do enjoy working and eventually redpointing a route. But at this stage I seriously doubt it's because I got any "better". I just learned what it takes to do this particular thing and all the variables lined up right thi sone time.

There was a sweet route i saw one time, super fun looking. I want to sport it until i have it so i climb it safe than try for the trad red point.

http://www.rockclimbing.com/photos/Sport/Leah_Sandvoss_on_Wonderstuff_89811.html





10d finger and hand cracks are among the funnest size, magnified more so by the lack of gear needed! Time to make Five and Dime and Serenity the climbs they were meant to be!




If you don't know what Trad is, odds are, explaining it won't help. Kind of like Ice climbing. Pretty retardedly dangeroius, not by any means "fun", in the middle of Alaska in areas more known for oil spills and armageddon-esque earthquakes than good climbing, using weapons devised to kill trotsky to hack up a wall which in the glacial sense is about as permanent as a basket of mini muffins at a PTA meeting...

When is New Jack going to start cooling off...

What is traditional free climbing?

bachar wrote:Trad is on-sight, ground up (free, aid or mixed).....

S'what I done been telling you people for a long time.

For your viewing pleasure and historical perspective (if by historical I mean people who in their 50s and early 60s can free solo circles around us roped up gums)

http://www.supertopo.com/...c_id=454289&tn=0

Trad. Its not just a rack of widgets.

DMT

tradding a route

best style? (to me) on sight free solo of a climb you have never seen before, and haven't read the guidebook description, and dont know how hard it is. (i've never actually done this.)

Well, I think we sort of agree. Bachar-Yerian was NOT "trad" when it was put up.

see, klk, i disagree here. bolts have been placed on lead at least since the 1950s. (see warren harding's epic bolt ladder on the nose). if they are put in on lead, (whether free or aid) then its traditional style.

Actually Josh by the strictist rules - no you can't. You get one chance to do a route. After that it is tainted. One of the strongest climbvers of the 70's Jim Erickson from CO - always played by those rules and did some incredible stuff - although he relaxed his standards when he was working to free the NW face of Half Dome. Most of us weren't quite that strict. If you sent a route that you had previously failed on you prided yourself as to "have gotten better" - it's human nature. But had you really gotten any better or just acquired some crucial knowledge? If you take climbing back to it's routes the goal was to get to the top of something and if the somethng was big then time was usually of the essence and there was not time for repeated attemtps. Now days of course climbing has split into many styles and most participants spout the new age mumble jumble about the journey being the core and the destination as not the goal - blah blah blah. Still the idea of on-sight still gets some recognition.

It's pretty well documented where the term "red point" came from - it certainly was not from what you kids all like to call "trad" climbing now.

Bachar did this. Called it one of the hardest things he ever did. There are plenty on this board that would be ok with retrobolting that route so they too could 'climb it.'

This is an important topic... our collective past, our traditions, our stories. I don't want the Convenience Oriented 7-11 crowd to bolt over our history.

DMT

I think it was drkodos who coined the term "sport tradding," to mean set-'em-up, knock-'em-down single-pitch climbing on routes that are commonly considered traditional. Seems that term probably works for the hybrid we're discussing here, too.

I'm curious as to how retrobolting a route that was once free-soloed changes the history of the route.

Jay

Basically 'sport climbing is a subset of rock climbing that has was termed decades ago:
"aid climbing". There is not much difference between a 'top down' sport climb that gets freed or a bottom to top, aid route bolt ladder that got freed. they both began as aid climbs and got freed later.

bolts have been placed on lead at least since the 1950s.

But what's harder to do is to say what a traditional climb is for those who come after the FA.

As long as subsequent parties don't retrobolt it, its quite irrelevant WHAT they call it I guess.

A tadding we will go. Hi ho.

DMT

Trad. Its not just a rack of widgets.

DMT

Its funny how people confuse gear climbing with trad climbing.

While I wouldn't be as strict with my definitions as some here. Working the piss out a route and then leading it with gear is certainly not "trad climbing". Its climbing on gear, or "gear climbing".

Well it's not like it's some mysterious type of climbing with no name or category. How long has the term "Headpointing" been around?

GO

I'm curious as to how retrobolting a route that was once free-soloed changes the history of the route.

Jay

I dunno what tadding is.

And Dingus, you know perfectly well that there are sport climbs that were bolted from the bottom up. So you're simply choosing to bury your head in the sand and ignore half the meaning of the word.

Your choice, of course.

GO

My understainding is that "back in the day", there was no "trad climbing", just "climbing". Therefore, the term "trad" is a modern word used to describe a certain style used at a point in time and region in the past.

So there can't be a single definition, we can only describe how things were done in certain places at certain times. Several people have pointed out how Bachar's own exploits don't fit the term "trad" based on different possible variations of the definition.

I'm also amused that you quoted John Bachar. Clearly he is an amazing, pioneering climber, but he was and is a radical. His views don't represent a consensus.

What exactly would be the difference between a "mixed" ascent and hangdogging? Isn't that the same thing? Actually, I don't care about the answer to that question, I just want to point out that not all great climbers are great at formulating ideology, and it seems like that single shortcoming causes a lot of conflict in our sport. A case in point is the Delicate Arch fiasco.

Give up on the notion of "Trad" climbing.

PT

I'm perfectly at peace with sport climbing.

But the essence of trad is ground up. You can cite any exception you care to... doesn't change that reality.

DMT

The essence of trad is ground up. That is the simple truth of the matter. Now the exceptions will continue to be cited by those insisting on specific definitions. Whatever.

DMT

Headpointing.....what does that mean?

I think I need to hang out with trendy sport climbers more..... for the lingo

I don't think there's much headpointing going on in the sport climbing world. At least, I hope not.

Not so much headpointing, but plenty of meatbombing.

I thought spurt clmbrz clip lotza bults to avoid teh meatbomb?

What made you think I'm tired of it mb?

Now the exceptions will continue to be cited by those insisting on specific definitions. Whatever.

To me these things are analog. If folks get the feel for the essence of the matter it will be reflected in their language. Yall keep going digital on me, trying to nail down this precise rule book thing.

"When I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean, no more and no less."-- Humpty Dumpty

The essence of trad is ground up....

DMT

Dingus, you're cherry picking now. The definition you quoted from Bachar was "...groundup, onsight (free, aid or mixed)"

I don't disagree with your "essence", but I disagree with your tactics. If you want to debate the essence of "trad climbing", lets debate, but don't name drop a guy like Bachar, then cherry-pick out his definition.

I'm trying to arrive at a more nuanced interpretation

Ground up was out of necessity, not necessarily a choice of style for many of these ascents.

It was a good summary. But it is a question of tactics, not ethics.

Good for you. Nuance away. Instead of picking my posts apart, how about writing those nuances down and stating your own... in one go. Lay it out there.

Your examples were based on what was technically possible and feasible for the day. The tactics changed without too much stink because of the improved gear and techniques (were the piton drivers in 1931 referred to as "sport climbers" by the Traditional gentleman climbers?).

I don't agree. From Robbins and Kamps to Higgins and Clevenger, take to the extreme by Erickson, the ground up ethic was stout and purposeful. You're doing those dudes' styles a disservice to suggest they would have top-downed their great climbs had they only known how.

Cheers though
DMT

I don't agree. From Robbins and Kamps to Higgins and Clevenger, take to the extreme by Erickson, the ground up ethic was stout and purposeful. You're doing those dudes' styles a disservice to suggest they would have top-downed their great climbs had they only known how.

Cheers though
DMT

The only reason anyone should care is that, as some here and on the related ST threads worry, is that the reduction of "trad" to "gear" climbing makes retro-bolting more likely. A related and realistic concern is that gymbies who learn "trad" climbing by bringing gym technique (esp. dogging and multiple falls) to the roadside crag are much more likely to risk a catastrophic injury. Or worse, after a season working local 5.10s into submission, will head up into the high country without a clue of how to find a route, deal with weather, or manage a 3rd-class walk-off.

I did. If you're interested, feel free to read it, if not, cheers, that's fine.

GO

thanks for your input, paintrain and klk...this gets convoluted sometimes, and while there may be "consensus" on these issues, i doubt that EVERYONE will ever agree.

i suppose my main point is, remember the (5) in 5.1, 5.6, or 5.12.

it means 5th class. top rope is not 5th class. sieging is not 5th class. pre-placed protection or inspection is not 5th class.

a route should not be 5.ANYTHING until it has been climbed 5th class. call it a 9+, or a 10c, but the 5. has meaning.

originally, aid climbing was called 6th class, until it was realized that an easy aid climb was considerably easier than a hard free climb. then the A0-A5 scale came about.

Class 5 is considered true rock climbing, predominantly on vertical or near vertical rock, and requires skill and a rope to proceed safely. Un-roped falls would result in severe injury or death.

I think your "ethic" is my "tactic".

Your definition of that 5 is different from....everyone else I ever talked to.

i really used the term "5th class" without defining it. i thought everybody here would know what 5th class means.

roped climbing using intermediate protection points between leader and belayer is 5th class.

climbing roped with NO intermediate protection points is 4th class.

no rope is 3rd class. (or lower if you dont need your hands)

top roping is not 5th class. it is top roping. its fun, pretty safe, and good practice, and can be an end in itself for many climbers.

incidentally, what is the definition you've heard from "everybody else", and how is mine different?

it means 5th class. top rope is not 5th class. sieging is not 5th class. pre-placed protection or inspection is not 5th class.

Class 1 is walking with a low chance of injury and a fall unlikely to be fatal.
Classes 2 and 3 are steeper scrambling with increased exposure and a greater chance of severe injury, but falls are not always fatal.
Class 4 can involve short steep sections where the use of a rope is recommended, and un-roped falls could be fatal.
Class 5 is considered true rock climbing, predominantly on vertical or near vertical rock, and requires skill and a rope to proceed safely. Un-roped falls would result in severe injury or death.

I think it was drkodos who coined the term "sport tradding," to mean set-'em-up, knock-'em-down single-pitch climbing on routes that are commonly considered traditional. Seems that term probably works for the hybrid we're discussing here, too.

I've always thought of Indian creek as a place for crack climbers to go sport climbing.....

josh

No, you defined it here:

In reply to:it means 5th class. top rope is not 5th class. sieging is not 5th class. pre-placed protection or inspection is not 5th class.

and again, everything you just said above disagrees with everyone else I have heard giving definitions. If someone free solos a 5.14a, then the climb is not demoted to 3rd class. The climb is still 5th class

Sure lots O places like that. "Cragging." Its fun!

DMT

Things that permanently effect others in an objective way (fixing gear, chipping). There is an ethic of leave no trace or as little a trace as possible.

If you never pick up a guidebook, look up a clean line and climb it, then go back to find out it was rate something different from what you thought where is the "ethical" breach.

Misleading someone as to the difficulty of a climb is not honest, but the person climbing it has to take responsiblity for their actions as well.

How you report a your success on a climb as free or not doesn't affect me one bit.

Intentionally misleading someone with malicious intent as to the difficulty of a climb is not honest. Honesty is the ethic being breached and that goes beyond the climbing arena. Giving an opinion of what you "thought" it was rated is just what it is, an opinion.

How you report a success on a climb as free or not doesn't affect me one bit. If someone puts a ladder on midnight lightning and ascends it, they have climbed midnight lightning - via a ladder - but nonetheless it was ascended. I won't lose a finger or have to call SAR because of it. It is just that person's perception. Now if they rate it V7 after that, then I would call BS.

There is inherent differences in perception and often a lack of consistency in people's memory. I don't completely trust guidebooks (bolt counts, rope lengths, etc). I weigh verbal beta with a grain of salt as the person giving it might have too much horsepower to understand what 5.6 anymnore, is tall or is good at fiddling widgets on that terrain. It is up to me to take the lion's share of responsibility for the climb I am doing.

anyway, i hope you aren't getting angry or feeling argumentative. this all seems really straightforward to me. there is a reason these terms have clear definitions.

I agree cragging is fun!
Indian creek, however, takes it to a different level entirely.
Take all the thinking about gear out of the equation.
You look up(or in a guide book) realise that all you need is 8-10 #2 cams. Clip them on like quickdraws, and you're off! Need gear? Plug and go, no need to think!
I'm far from badmouthing the place. I think it's an excellent example of the lines between "sport" and "traditional" climbing being blurred.

josh