[Will Hunt]

  but...

I don't really think I agree with people retro claiming new FAs. If the emerging claimant wanted their route name and their name in the FA box then they should have documented it earlier. Of course I could be wrong, it might have been documented previously but just not known of by the new FA.

Regardless, it looks hard and very smoothly done in fantastic style. Chapeau, Nik.

[nik at work]

On the subject of retro claims, I have no problem with people claiming a route in the face of a new claimant. So in this case, this is AFAIK the first time this line has been publicly claimed so I'd have no problem with someone retro-claiming at this point. And as such provding a name and first ascent details. I guess if a route has been established for a while, and is "known" under a certain name then renaming is perhaps a bit silly, if for example it was in a guidebook. However I think the aim should always be to get F.A. information as accurate as possible. To that end it should always be possible for a new earlier first ascentionist to be credited to a line. I think setting some sort of statute of limitation on (retro)claiming routes, or having some fixed claim protocol that people have to stick to to validly claim an F.A. is not helpful. I'd far rather we have a bit of a wooly vague system that can accommodate the huge variability of peoples approaches to climbing than a rigid but ultimately innaccurate system.

However it is looking likely that the retro claim is actually for what I have called "Jim's Route" and there seems to be a pretty good chance that Responsible Parenting will stand as an F.A. hopefully this will soon be sorted.
Obviously  I'd be made up with this as it means I get to keep my route, but also it means instead of some vague "Jim's Route" details for the other line we'll get a name, F.A. and date etc, which is nice.

[SA Chris]

I think setting some sort of statute of limitation on (retro)claiming routes, or having some fixed claim protocol that people have to stick to to validly claim an F.A. is not helpful.

Me neither. It's the FA after all, not the FABiaWAMF (First Ascent Broadcast in a Widely Accessible Media Format).

[Johnny Brown]

I don't really think I agree with people retro claiming new FAs. If the emerging claimant wanted their route name and their name in the FA box then they should have documented it earlier.

This is nonsense. The idea of recording first ascents is to keep an accurate historical record. If we decide historical accuracy is not the aim all that results is a bizarre dick-waving exercise.

Even if someone goes out of their way to avoid publicising an ascent, it is still the first ascent.

[Wood FT]

I don't really think I agree with people retro claiming new FAs. If the emerging claimant wanted their route name and their name in the FA box then they should have documented it earlier.

 ..all that results is a bizarre dick-waving exercise.

which would get your name in a really special book!

[Bonjoy]

The first ascent record is a record of first ascents. It's a factual record not an opinion piece, you can’t pretend a reported ascent didn’t happen, even if the reporter is a dick for not claiming it in the first place.
Whether a FAist who hasn’t claimed an ascent SHOULD do so later is a different question and one for them to answer. Would you like piss with those chips sir? Generally when folk claim things that I’ve done prior to them but not recorded I don’t bother to say anything. I appreciate that I’m deliberately allowing factual inaccuracy to taint the record (of problems I didn’t think worth recording) and I sincerely hope my actions don’t create a space/time paradox which rips a hole in the fabric of the universe swallowing us all, but its seems like the civil thing to do.

[SA Chris]

I hope so too. Only time (and space) will tell.

[Will Hunt]

Agree with your post there, Bonjoy. Yes, the FA record is factual (though I think FABiaWAMF is destined to catch on) and should be as such. I would amend my former view to be that it seems harsh to retro-claim and then insist on your own choice of route name being recorded.
 

[nik at work]

Bonjoy I agree with what you have written. And doing the right thing and letting someone have their moment in the sun rather than pissing on their chips is the lovely thing to do, space/time paradox be damned... But that is a very different thing to laying down some sort of time limiting principle that should be applied in a blanket fashion.

I still feel bad for retro-ing R-man on a boulder problem in Rivelin Quarries, sorry R-man

[a dense loner]

I don't understand what you mean there there nik. What do you want?

[Johnny Brown]

I've done a few things I've not claimed, this is for two, usually intertwined reasons; a) I don't think its worth recording, and b) I suspect its probably been done before. Personally if folk insist on recording these I think they are best suited to a note-style write-up in a guide (e.g. the wall to the left can be climbed at ~6b). If folk want to name them and grade them then fine, but appending your own name for the FA when you know it isn't is grandstanding of the highest order as far as I'm concerned.

NB I wouldn't consider Nik's routes on this thread to fall into that category.

[Will Hunt]

Approach taken with new Yorks guide is to note a First Recorded Ascent or simply "Traditional".

[Nigel]

I've done a few things I've not claimed, this is for two, usually intertwined reasons; a) I don't think its worth recording, and b) I suspect its probably been done before.

I thought it was because you couldn't remember which of you or Pat did it first.

[nik at work]

I don't understand what you mean there there nik. What do you want?

Sorry if my post was confusing, that was a quick post written in a spare minute at work.
And now for a quick post before I head off to bed...
1) I don't want anything
2) I think there should be an attempt to maintain as accurate a historical record of ascent details as possible
3) I don't think there should be any time limit on retro claims of lines
4) I think that if a person chooses not to retro claim an ascent when it is subsequently claimed by another party that is their personal choice

Is that clearer?

[a dense loner]

Yes that's much clearer. Why would there be a time limit? If someone did it first they did it first. Whether they actually did do it is another story, lot of Walter Mittys out there

Pretty much what johnny said about probs way below people's limit or taste and then claiming them. I did a hell of a lot of new probs at wimberry that were scraping the barrel, I mentioned this to rupert who was doing the guide, like any decent person he said I'm here to record the good probs. I won't retro claim them since I thought/think others have done them before me, and the rest were too embarrassing to put my name to. Yes they must be bad. What in essence I'm trying to say is that when someone puts up a new 6b at curbar it's highly likely that its not new at all.

Tho yes, if it's a decent new route then things are different. ESP if it's a big number, these don't really go into obscurity very easily.

Route looks good nik

[r-man]

I still feel bad for retro-ing R-man on a boulder problem in Rivelin Quarries, sorry R-man

Hah! It's probably buried under moss again these days. I just checked: 5 years since climbed by Andy B, Dave M and I, 14 years since you first did it. Not heard of any other ascents. No hard feelings, can't really see how there can be. You climbed a rock. Then I climbed a rock. We share an experience. It's all good.

 

(The problem is Greenbeard, in case anyone else is wondering, or feeling intrepid enough to rediscover it...)

Edit: just googled and came up with this blog entry, written in 2013

I had wanted to try a dyno problem called Green Beard (7B) but we soon discovered why it gets the name. Thick green moss covered the whole wall, water streaming down into the cracks and crevasses. It looked like it hadn't been climbed for a while and I wasn't in the mood for a spring clean so went off to find another of those on the list for the day.

[nik at work]

Yes that's much clearer. Why would there be a time limit?

I was just making it clear that I didn't think there should be any kind of time limit on (retro) claiming an F.A. in response to will's comment:

I don't really think I agree with people retro claiming new FAs. If the emerging claimant wanted their route name and their name in the FA box then they should have documented it earlier.

I agree with everything you've just written.
Especially this bit:

Route looks good nik

Cheers

r-man it really is a very green part of a green quarry, maybe someone else can claim it in a couple of years...

[Bonjoy]

I've done a few things I've not claimed, this is for two, usually intertwined reasons; a) I don't think its worth recording, and b) I suspect its probably been done before.

That bit I agree with and this is how I treat lines I climbed in the past before recording of boulder problems was very easy, common place and low key.

Personally if folk insist on recording these I think they are best suited to a note-style write-up in a guide (e.g. the wall to the left can be climbed at ~6b). If folk want to name them and grade them then fine, but appending your own name for the FA when you know it isn't is grandstanding of the highest order as far as I'm concerned.

NB I wouldn't consider Nik's routes on this thread to fall into that category.

This bit I think is more questionable and based on some false assumptions.
Firstly that you 'know' someone has done a problem before. Surely if this is the case it is recorded under their name or no name at all (e.g. http://peakbouldering.info/problems/3996.  I always research and ask around before putting my name on something. But I'm also sceptical of taking the default view that the old timers did everything.
Secondly, these day problems get recorded firstly on the internet. There is no space limit. Different climbers value problems of varying levels of quality. For instance a climber living half a mile from a crag and with no private transport, will have a different hitlist to the guy who's just driven up from London. As such it's reasonable and appropriate that the bar is set lower on the internet. How guide writers filter this into print is up to them, but should be based on merit rather than assumption. Internet record and subsequent logging of ascents is invaluable in this. It's a shame so many climbers' egos get in the way of them logging ascents (especially lower grade ones) and commenting on them.
Thirdly your comment seems to assume that the reasons for recording lines and attaching an FAist name are largely vainglorious willy waving. All I can say is speak for yourself. If I record a good (IMO) new 7b-7c or even a particularly good lower grade thing I do feel pride in attaching my name to it and you can call this an ego-wank if you want *. However the rest of the time if i attach my name it is largely for information purposes. It's not a statement that I'm saying it 'belongs' to me or I deffo did it first, it is a first record of ascent. It's so if someone has a question about the problem they know who to ask. When I look through for instances yorkshiregrit.com I prefer to see a name attached to a prob, it's useful to know who graded something for one thing. Likewise adding a name when recording something on say pb.info is part of the retrospective process of making the record legible. Loads of this has gone on in the record of old problems in the last two decades. Is it really preferable to have to refer to things as "prob 17 on page 26, you know the one next to the fallen tree"? Is it preferable if previously unrecorded probs go on these sites with no indication who is involved in the (re)development? Who benefits from this (except for maybe the ascentionist feeling smug about being supposedly self-effacing)?



*It's only these probs where I'd feel my chips pissed on if retro-claimed. My annoyance is at the lack of recording of the ascent of a good problem. Waiting until someone else claims a good problem before mentioning your ascent strikes me as grandstanding with a side order of smug superiority. I don't give a fig if folk retro-claim random things.

[Jaspersharpe]

Waiting until someone else claims a good problem before mentioning your ascent strikes me as grandstanding with a side order of smug superiority.

The sort of attitude that I have found to be rife on this forum.

[SA Chris]

I would amend my former view to be that it seems harsh to retro-claim and then insist on your own choice of route name being recorded.

Not even sure about this. Surely it's the FA's perogative to call a problem what they want? Unless they haven't recorded the ascent anywhere at all, in which case the problem clearly doesn't actually have a name (except in their own minds).

I can only think this would be excepted if the new name of the problem was already widely adopted (after appearing in a guidebook or widely used website) in which case it's clearly tough titty (by which I mean unlucky, not the name that must be given to the problem).

[Jaspersharpe]

This thread has reminded me of the time Sloper started about five threads about the same retroclaim and then this happened:

http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,8197.0.html

[Fiend]

Good stuff Jas. I like the RAD and SYKEDness of that thread

For a bonus point, which fairly regular blog is this from:

Time to get involved init, nahhhh mean ya'll. CHEERS x

 

[Johnny Brown]

This bit I think is more questionable and based on some false assumptions. Firstly that you 'know' someone has done a problem before.

No, that was the assumption it was based on. That's why I wrote 'know'.

I did get trumped on a couple of the first lines I ever recorded as a youth and was thus much more circumspect about 'claiming' them, not that I've ever liked the term. If you don't know that's obviously different, however as Dense said anyone claiming 6bs at Curbar is likely kidding themselves.

In terms of whether a line is worth recording, I know other people have different ideas than I do. Whether or not the internet has spare capacity does not concern me, but I do think there should be space left between the lines for folk to discover. I don't want to be spoon-fed everything and I'm not convinced everyone else does either. You could argue I shouldn't use guides therefore, but I think this is a bit like suggesting trad climbers don't have to clip the bolts.

In practical reality, whether guides are paper or electronic does not remove the question of design and how the information is presented. I believe there is a sweet-spot, which most guides are currently at or around, that doesn't attempt to describe every gap-filler or variation. Current online guides seem unable to accommodate some discrimination between king-lines and cresta-logs; each is awarded a page. I don't see them offering serious competition to print guides until they address this. If folk want to fill them with twaddle then crack on, it'll only make them less usable.

[Pantontino]

I've got an interesting dilemma/situation on my plate at the moment. I'm working through chapters for the new NWB guide and have come across a problem with a FA anomaly.

I won't say what this problem is, but suffice to say it is fairly significant. It was recorded on NWB.com as one person's FA with their suggested name etc, but I subsequently found out that another individual did the actual FA shortly before. At the time that person chose not to claim it - presumably because they felt bad about nipping in and stealing the prize when the other person had clearly put in a lot of effort.

I was told of said deed by someone else.

Maybe this is a bit specific to North Wales where we tend to give people space to do their bouldering projects. (Obviously after a certain amount of time the project becomes fair game.)

Do I just let it go, or is the FA record sacrosanct?

[a dense loner]

If you've been told by someone else couldn't you ask the person who did it? The whole thing will get ridiculous if now we're going to get humble people not claiming stuff