[Stu Littlefair]

I will stand up for Franco a bit here though - sometimes it's good to challenge the status quo. Without people prepared to look at things a different way, we might not have sub-genres like bouldering or DWS.

There's a way to go about this though. I could imagine doing everything Franco did to put up this route, but if I had then I would have been much more up-front about it in the media and interviews. "Hey guys, I've done this new route and it's a bit of an odd style, but I wanted to keep it a potential trad line and I think it works". Try and persuade people of your new approach.

To do it this way just seems super dismissive of the idea that other people might have a valid perspective or any stake in the matter, which I can imagine is why it got some people's backs up.

[Paul B]

There's a way to go about this though. I could imagine doing everything Franco did to put up this route, but if I had then I would have been much more up-front about it in the media and interviews. "Hey guys, I've done this new route and it's a bit of an odd style, but I wanted to keep it a potential trad line and I think it works". Try and persuade people of your new approach.

Weren't we here significantly earlier in this thread?

[petejh]

For sure it's good to challenge the status quo and there are good and less good ways to go about it.

Franco's peripheral justifications keep wriggling around -
'the approach is so epic', then, 'no it's actually not that big deal' (it really isn't a difficult approach, and could easily be made even simpler/safer).
'all the trad routes are being bolted' - except the route he wanted to do as trad hadn't been bolted. (until he claimed it in a style that requires fixed protection and it got bolted as a result!).
'People only have a problem because it's hard', then 'people only have a problem because I publicised it'.   Nope, people are pretty much only taking issue because it's a deterioration in style; unhelpful to other climbers wanting to climb; messy; that sets an awful precedent that can easily be applied anywhere else to the detriment of the activity; and introduces stylistic 'trad ownership' over routes in an area which isn't a trad-only area - it's always been a mixed ethic of trad/sport/mixed routes.

I really wish we could have this debate face to face - I just think your argument is non-existent.

I live 5 minutes down the hill from bus stop quarry in Fachwen. I'll happily put the kettle on and we can chat, you'd be made welcome and I hope you'd find me friendly and open minded to your views.
Or a wider debate, but face to face debates with large groups of people with counter opinions are notoriously not actually good for articulating nuanced points - I think mass meetings are good for the emotional aspect of getting together and seeing we don't have horns in our heads, but not actually for making the nuanced points that are the nub of the issue. Lots of people don't like speaking up in public or have trouble expressing clearly in speaking what they could in writing. See BMC area meetings for e.g., more about social/emotional feel-good than actually getting into the weeds of an issue.

Last thing - it's really funny and ironic that one of us has history of physically removing bolts from sport routes in twll mawr to preserve a historic trad route (Hamadryad)... the same person also has history of removing every bolt and peg from an existing 30m sport route to create what will be a genuinely brilliant 30m safe E8 with zero pieces of fixed gear. And re-positioning someone else's sport route bolts to preserve the feel of an esoteric but good E5 in Penmaen Bach Quarry.
It isn't the person you'd expect from reading this thread.. It also wasn't publicised to build a profile.

Just pointing out you're not the only person who loves trad and will bend the status quo to preserve it, many of us do.

[Bradders]

A negative implication/precedent here is that pre-claiming a trad line as a sport route can be (and arguably has been) used as a means of claiming a level of ownership of the line which precludes it being bolted. Having the sport FA cake and claiming the right to come back later and eat the trad cake too.

I don't see it that way, specifically thinking about how style is considered in trad. As in, pre-placing gear is generally thought to be not as good style as placing the gear on lead; routes will often be done in a certain style which can be improved upon in later ascents. James Pearson's recent ascent of Parthian Shot without the high side runner for instance is an improvement in style compared to earlier climbers who did it with the runner.

To me, that's what happened here. Franco did the route in a style which could then be improved on by, e.g. having pre-placed gear without the hanging rope. However by it then being unilaterally bolted, all possible future improvements in style have been ruined. I don't think ownership comes into it; anyone could have come and tried to improve on Franco's style but they didn't, they whacked some bolts in. If anything, bolting it would have given Franco far more ownership of it in my opinion. 

[abarro81]

That argument doesn't really work to my mind, since you're basically saying he can claim a trad route by climbing with a knotted rope... which is clearly not true. Sport routes don't work like that, and clipping a knotted rope hanging from above is not trad climbing. Choose your poison - as Pete's banged on about all thread, having it both ways doesn't work. Or can we all now just claim the FAs of trad routes by leading them on knotted rope? In fact, at that point we can presumably just sack off the knots and claim FAs on TR with everything else just being a minor improvement in style? It's not trad climbing.

[ali k]

specifically thinking about how style is considered in trad. As in, pre-placing gear is generally thought to be not as good style as placing the gear on lead; routes will often be done in a certain style which can be improved upon in later ascents. James Pearson's recent ascent of Parthian Shot without the high side runner for instance is an improvement in style compared to earlier climbers who did it with the runner.

To me, that's what happened here. Franco did the route in a style which could then be improved on by, e.g. having pre-placed gear without the hanging rope. However by it then being unilaterally bolted, all possible future improvements in style have been ruined. I don't think ownership comes into it; anyone could have come and tried to improve on Franco's style but they didn't, they whacked some bolts in.

This comparison is bogus because Franco chose to claim the FA as a sport route. It's not a trad route if you have a hanging rope next to you with knots to clip whenever you want.
And with a sport route the only improvements in style are RP> Flash> O/S> O/S placing the draws. Gear doesn't come into it.

If he'd made it clear to everyone in no uncertain terms this was his closed trad project and the recent ascent with knotted rope was just a stepping stone to that, then he might have got a different reception (on here as well as UKC when they decided to run the article). But that ship sailed when the story of the ascent was a 'new 9a+ FA'...

[lukeyboy]

If he'd made it clear to everyone in no uncertain terms this was his closed trad project and the recent ascent with knotted rope was just a stepping stone to that, then he might have got a different reception (on here as well as UKC when they decided to run the article). But that ship sailed when the story of the ascent was a 'new 9a+ FA'...

This sums it up for me. I kind of get what Franco is saying about not bolting it if the intention is to do it on trad, but you can't have your publicity cake and eat it.

It all comes down to the communication - either keep it quiet until you complete it as a trad route, or if you really feel the need to tell the world then make clear it is a step towards the ultimate goal of climbing it on gear (but if so, be prepared for someone else to potentially beat you to the trad ascent / bolt it in the interim). I really don't think there'd have been any issue if this had been done.

[petejh]

Exactly. There's an underlying contrivance to all of climbing - especially first ascents - that this case illustrates. I think we can all accept that climbing styles are contrivances. But contrivance it has to be to make the game work. The sport/trad/mixed(designer danger) choice that FA's face is a contrivance we've constructed and of course there are other ways to play the game. But the alternative being suggested by Franco is so much worse for most people (I'd argue for everyone except Franco), and it leads to the obvious possibility of doing what Alex and Ali suggest with trad routes.

I can't help but come away with the impression that this is more about Franco wanting to be known then it is about him wanting to 'preserve trad'. If that's correct, then it's incredibly selfish to not consider the wider implications of his actions.

[Bonjoy]

A negative implication/precedent here is that pre-claiming a trad line as a sport route can be (and arguably has been) used as a means of claiming a level of ownership of the line which precludes it being bolted. Having the sport FA cake and claiming the right to come back later and eat the trad cake too.

I don't see it that way, specifically thinking about how style is considered in trad. As in, pre-placing gear is generally thought to be not as good style as placing the gear on lead; routes will often be done in a certain style which can be improved upon in later ascents. James Pearson's recent ascent of Parthian Shot without the high side runner for instance is an improvement in style compared to earlier climbers who did it with the runner.

To me, that's what happened here. Franco did the route in a style which could then be improved on by, e.g. having pre-placed gear without the hanging rope. However by it then being unilaterally bolted, all possible future improvements in style have been ruined. I don't think ownership comes into it; anyone could have come and tried to improve on Franco's style but they didn't, they whacked some bolts in. If anything, bolting it would have given Franco far more ownership of it in my opinion.

Claiming trad routes in poorer style as a valid first step in a chain of improved style ascents is totally standard and worthwhile in most people's eyes.
This ascent is not an example of that. It's claiming something as a pseudo sport route then seeking to treat it as a trad route, but as it is in no meaningful way any more trad than a standard sport route why should it be treated as a trad ascent or a trad route in any way whatsoever?
I agree ownership shouldn't come into it, that includes not dictating how many bolts others think your sport route should have.

[Bradders]

Or can we all now just claim the FAs of trad routes by leading them on knotted rope? In fact, at that point we can presumably just sack off the knots and claim FAs on TR with everything else just being a minor improvement in style? It's not trad climbing.

Yes, that is essentially what I'm saying. 

I accept that communicating that as a sport ascent is not helpful and is absolutely an attempt to have your cake and eat it.

[abarro81]

Yes, that is essentially what I'm saying. 

I can't work out whether this is sarcasm or not, and can't work out whether that says more about your original point or my emotional intelligence 

[spidermonkey09]

Or can we all now just claim the FAs of trad routes by leading them on knotted rope? In fact, at that point we can presumably just sack off the knots and claim FAs on TR with everything else just being a minor improvement in style? It's not trad climbing.

Yes, that is essentially what I'm saying. 

You're going to have to flesh this out a bit, because it makes no sense as far as I can see. You might as well rip the rules of climbing up and start again.

Leading matters because of the development of trad from mountaineering and the need to start at the bottom and get to the top. Obviously the further we get away from onsight the more contrived this gets (headpointing etc) but trad, quite clearly, is not clipping a knotted rope that you've lowered in from the top of the route so you can be nice and safe whenever you want to be. It is antithetical to the idea of trad, in its traddiest, purest form, only offering protection where the rock allows. obviously hybrid routes exist with bolts etc but they retain the idea of protection only at certain points. It boggles my mind that you appear to be arguing otherwise.

Top rope ascents are a bit different but as was discussed upthread, leading is an additional challenge to top roping and one which deserves cachet and credit. A clean top rope ascent, whilst admirable, amounts to the removal of all danger, real or imaginary, and a sanitised route experience. In some cases it might be the best we can do due to shit rock/unjustifable danger, but that just means its probably a shit route rather than anything else.

[Bradders]

Yes, that is essentially what I'm saying. 

I can't work out whether this is sarcasm or not, and can't work out whether that says more about your original point or my emotional intelligence 

Sorry, the winking smiley isn't helping there. If I may, I'll amend to:

Or can we all now just claim the FAs of trad routes by leading them on knotted rope?

Removing the bit about top roping, as I'd missed that, sorry. But yes otherwise, my conclusion from this discussion is that leading is leading however the protection is arranged.

Jim - I get the point about the history of trad in terms of starting at the bottom but I don't think it's relevant in the context of how hard routes are routinely approached these days and, in my opinion, going ground up is simply an improvement in style if a climb has previously only been headpointed. Ultimately it's the climbing that matters, and if a route has been climbed free and on lead then that is entirely valid as an FA, irrespective of the protection used.

[Will Hunt]

But Nick, if you're clipping into a rope hanging down from the top and not gear placed in the rock then it's not trad. Sport maybe (though please let's not have this because, as many have pointed out, it's shit for everyone else) but definitely definitely not trad. And we don't allow sport on grit so these would not be legitimate ascents. Like it or not, style is a fundamental part of trad climbing.

[Will Hunt]

Ultimately it's the climbing that matters

This isn't true of trad. The nature of the protection, and the risk that can bring, is an absolutely fundamental part of trad climbing. What you're suggesting is almost like saying "it's the moves that are important in bouldering. Providing you can do all the moves you can tick it."

[Potash]

This could be seen as similar to a "pre-cams" ascent of Separate Reality in Yosemite which was protected by large hexes with long long slings dangled down from the top of the crag prior to attempting the lead.

Not sure if people considered that to have been "climbed" prior to it having a cam protected lead.

[Johnny Brown]

if you're clipping into a rope hanging down from the top and not gear placed in the rock then it's not trad. Sport maybe  but definitely definitely not trad. And we don't allow sport on grit so these would not be legitimate ascents.

This is backwards imo. We don't allow bolts on grit. That makes sport climbing, as most of us define it, impossible, but you could redpoint a route on pre-placed trad gear - whether lots or a little - and people would accept it as a valid ascent.

It's dead simple to me, if your safety depends on a rope hanging down from the top, you are top-roping. Sport climbing is defined by pre-placed permanent artificial protection, not by the act of clipping a draw however attached.

The insta footage Tim posted only reinforces that. Note the comments - no one thinks what he is doing constitutes an ascent, they think he's practicing for some more legitimate style. If it is the world's hardest slab, then a top-roped ascent would still be noteworthy.

[spidermonkey09]

. But yes otherwise, my conclusion from this discussion is that leading is leading however the protection is arranged. 

Jim - I get the point about the history of trad in terms of starting at the bottom but I don't think it's relevant in the context of how hard routes are routinely approached these days and, in my opinion, going ground up is simply an improvement in style if a climb has previously only been headpointed. Ultimately it's the climbing that matters, and if a route has been climbed free and on lead then that is entirely valid as an FA, irrespective of the protection used.

As Will said, that is technically true for sport climbing but would be shit for innumerable reasons but is not trad climbing. You cannot apply the phrase "irrespective of the protection used" to trad. It's integral to the whole pursuit. Protection, presence or lack of it, it's quality or otherwise, is why it exists as a discipline.

By your logic Franco has already done his hypothetical trad project by doing it with a knotted rope hanging down. It doesn't hold, at all. Even Franco wouldn't claim that he's done it.

[abarro81]

Oh. The idea that you can FA a trad route by clipping a knotted rope hung from above is so insane that I was sure I must have been misunderstanding Bradders post confirming that he really thought this, hence my confusion about whether it was sarcasm. That idea is totally insane Bradders! Imagine how much fun we would have had on here if Gresh had done Lexicon in that style and claimed it as a trad route (Obviously he wouldn't have done, because he understands that that's not trad climbing in any way, shape or form.)

[petejh]

We need one or two first ascent claims by young guns, of nails last great trad projects around the E11-12 level done in dangly-rope Franco style. The cry of 'bullshit' would be deafening and hopefully put the idea to bed. Alternatively it would become accepted and we can all die a little inside and focus on sport climbing  .

[Bradders]

Perhaps it just brings home the absurdity of climbing just a little too much to be comfortable.

 

[Will Hunt]

Perhaps it just brings home the absurdity of climbing just a little too much to be comfortable.

 

I'm still not sure if you're trolling. That's an odd take because trad is the least contrived of all the climbing disciplines.

[Bradders]

I'm really not trolling promise. I guess I'm just approaching it from a different perspective, as what's important to me is the climbing. How safety is then arranged, once you're on lead, as I said is a matter of style and sits on a sliding scale, with loads of unnecessary bolts being the poorest but safest style to soloing being the purest but most dangerous.

[User deactivated.]

I'm really not trolling promise. I guess I'm just approaching it from a different perspective, as what's important to me is the climbing. How safety is then arranged, once you're on lead, as I said is a matter of style and sits on a sliding scale, with loads of unnecessary bolts being the poorest but safest style to soloing being the purest but most dangerous.

I agree with this completely.

What we need now is for Remus to create a complex model incorporating 'style of ascent' into the Darth Grader so we can see how many C points (new grading system for all climbing styles) we get and compare ourselves against all climbers. Onsight trad elitists can now finally be pitted against lowball link-up merchants and speed climbers with science. Something about Lattice training plans.

[petejh]

I'm really not trolling promise. I guess I'm just approaching it from a different perspective, as what's important to me is the climbing. How safety is then arranged, once you're on lead, as I said is a matter of style and sits on a sliding scale, with a knotted rope replicating loads of unnecessary bolts being the poorest but safest style to soloing being the purest but most dangerous.