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.
I really wish we could have this debate face to face - I just think your argument is non-existent.
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.
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 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'...
Quote from: Bonjoy on November 13, 2023, 08:37:45 amA 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.
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.
Quote from: abarro81 on November 13, 2023, 10:37:48 amOr 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.
Quote from: Bradders on November 13, 2023, 11:52:27 amYes, 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
Or can we all now just claim the FAs of trad routes by leading them on knotted rope?
Ultimately it's the climbing that matters
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.
. 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.
Perhaps it just brings home the absurdity of climbing just a little too much to be comfortable.
Quote from: abarro81 on November 06, 2023, 03:42:30 pmPerhaps it just brings home the absurdity of climbing just a little too much to be comfortable.
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'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.