O.K I have a question. what is the grudge between sport and trad climbers. We all climb and usually stay out of each others way. So why do we fight among our selfs. Shouldn't we all support climbing in general.

...sport climbers seem to have a bigger ego.

Most of the sport vs. trad drama stems from decades back when "sport climbing" as a genre in itself first started. The old ethic was that all bolts, if any were placed, were placed ground-up, on lead, and that was the accepted ethic, nothing less, anything else was seen to be in poorer style, or to lack any validity at all. When sport climbing started taking off as a separate discipline, people started to rap bolt and things like that, and those of what came to be known as "trad" climbing greatly disapproved of this, and many have never let it go. Another point of the conflict is that bolts are offensive to the eye and go against leaving no trace, another valid argument as well. This is a great simplification of what people see things so differently and why sport climbers get ragged on so much.
What follows is my opinion on the subject, which maybe will also open your eyes to why there is such a clashing of heads. I'm an ass-backwards trad climber. I started climbing in a gym, then got outside to sport climbing, but when I had my first taste of trad climbing I was hooked and didn't look back. So that being said, I don't have the long standing background in the sport as many of those who hold trad ethics high. With that said, I have come to admire and hold high the "old-school" perspective. Why? Because I think its the only thing that really gives the sport its value. To get a bit philosophical, you can't continue to devalue what it is to go through the process to climb a specific route. Let's take an imaginary example: take a blank steep slab that has yet to be climbed. Say you have several people who might go for the first ascent, and they all have different ethical views. Take first the old school "trad" climber. He sets off everytime, from the ground, bolts, hammer, etc. on hand, on lead, totally commiting to the fact that he has to get to a stance where he can install a bolt or he's going to deck. He gets a bolt in, and then sets of again, without any knowledge of where he might next be able to place his next bolt, it might be 5 feet, it might be 40 feet. Should he fall, he lowers off, pulls the rope and starts from scratch, every time on lead, totally commited to finishing the route, and putting himself on the line to do it. When he gets done with the first ascent, that route has alot of meaning and value to him, it was a true mental and physical test. Next you have the "old school" (or european) sport climber. He comes in and likely rap-bolts the line, but doesn't necessarily overbolt the route, he may space the bolts out, keeping it safe, but giving it a little adventure. Thus when he sets off on lead, there is still some commital factor involved, and he may or may not lower off after every fall, but there's still a sense of value in working the sections, in running it out. Next you have the generation of sport-climbers that trad climbers hate. One of them comes in and rap-bolts the line placing a bolt every 5 feet, stick clips the first bolt or two, if they even lead it first at all, and when they fall, they sit there hang dogging, try the moves over and over again in the safety of the 5 ft.-per-bolt safety net. Now look at the difference in what an ascent of this route would mean to this climber compared to the other two. The long-term value is far less, even if you just compare between the two different sport climbers. Now bring in the "cheating" sport cimber. He comes in, either letting someone else bolt the route, retrobolting it for safety, or bolting it safely for himself, and then goes in and chips key holds to make it easier for him. He does the route with relative, and safe, ease. The worth of this climb to him is drastically decreased even more. If you continue down this line, you can get to a point where jugging up a fixed line constitues climbing a 5.13. This is how I see it, what gives you the most value in doing a route in my opinion is sticking to the old-school ethic of full commital, even if the route is already bolted, there's a big difference between the ground-up always on lead style compared to working it to death on a top-rope. I just think its more personal and retains a greater significance when you've finished it. That being said, I also think that one shouldn't trample on the grounds of the first ascentist. If they put up a route ground-up, don't retrobolt it, if they rap-bolted it, even if that is contrary to your beliefs, don't chop their bolts, that's my opinion. Where this gets sticky is lines where natural protection can be had, but bolts have been put in instead, and this has much to do with local ethic, which is another long discussion. Basically you don't bolt a crack, but sometimes you get lines where the natural protection is few and far between, but still there (high-end grit climbing for example) just risky, and people bolt it instead to make it safe, as you can see this leads to even more conflicts between sport and trad climbers.
There's alot to this issue, but since nobody has given a real answer to your question I figure I'd throw in what I could, but this has been a grand over-simplification and things aren't so black and white, yada yada, so don't take what I said as a legitimate, complete answer, its something with alooooooooot of history behind it. Hope this helped though.

If you want people to read what you write, you might want to give some thought to the concept of "paragraph."

Jay

But when I see a trad climber I do think higher apon him then a sport climber just because trad involves more mental strength and knowledge.

hey chica,

i will hopefully be hitting the Rumnizzle again this spring. How about we get in on this tardVsprot climbing. You can ropegun for me at Waimea and I will do the same at the crag of your choice.

RJ