Trad FA's
Of course there have been few if any universal agreements as to what constitutes traditional climbing style. Climbing is always changing, and what's traditional in one area may not be in another. Still, my collection of old guide books, dating from before the sport climbing era, support the argument that a "first ascent" was most often credited to all members of the first party to climb a particular route by any recognized rock climbing method. This attitude probably dates from the period when an aid climbing on small crags was recognized as a legitimate activity. After all it was good practice for "real climbing".
The widespread acceptance of chocks made it much easier for the leader to place protection "in extremis", ushering in the free climbing revolution and along with it the competition for the FFA of both existing routes and new lines. None of this would matter if it weren't for the fact that, for many, climbing is most definitely a competitive sport.
A question that some might find interesting is "how many of those listed as members of the FFA team actually climbed the route free?" I'm sure many a belay slave gets credit for the FFA whether or not they managed to free the route. A reluctance to share the "glory" of the FFA might serve as something of a limiting factor when it comes to gang banging an FFA however. I mean, if ten people did the FFA, how hard can it be?
To get back to Piggies original two "trad" scenarios. I had to laugh at myself for thinking that neither one sounded much like trad climbing to me.
The widespread acceptance of chocks made it much easier for the leader to place protection "in extremis", ushering in the free climbing revolution and along with it the competition for the FFA of both existing routes and new lines. None of this would matter if it weren't for the fact that, for many, climbing is most definitely a competitive sport.
A question that some might find interesting is "how many of those listed as members of the FFA team actually climbed the route free?" I'm sure many a belay slave gets credit for the FFA whether or not they managed to free the route. A reluctance to share the "glory" of the FFA might serve as something of a limiting factor when it comes to gang banging an FFA however. I mean, if ten people did the FFA, how hard can it be?
To get back to Piggies original two "trad" scenarios. I had to laugh at myself for thinking that neither one sounded much like trad climbing to me.
i'll let you off easy on the redefinition of volunteerism vs. climbing as hobby,pigsteak wrote:excellent post. clearly placing the gear does not matter....in reality, a climber could top rope up to the last piece of pro, lead to the anchors for 5 feet, and get the FFA without ever placing gear.
but here you have it exactly backwards, as your key references to the 'last piece of pro' and 'anchors' indicate, it makes all the difference. if the gear truly doesn't matter, there would be none...
larry, are you saying for the FFA (back in the day), one person actually ran it clean, no aid, placing all gear, and that all names after that may or may not have actually touched the route? ie...first name is the sender, everyone after that played supporting roles.
Positive vibes brah...positive vibes.
I'm saying that, in the case of an FFA, if the second took tension from above, and even if that fact was honestly reported, the details tend to get lost to history. By the time the third or fourth guide book is written, it simply reads FFA - climbers X,Y & Z. Or even FA - climbers X, Y & Z.
In the case of an aid route on a big wall in Yosemite. The book will credit all members of the first ascent party with the FA, even if climber Z just jugged the lines and hauled the bags, never leading or even cleaning a pitch. After all, he worked his ass off, made a significant contribution, and ascended the entire route, even if he did the whole thing on Jumars.
Another note on style. Remember the term flash? A flash ascent was first try, no falls, placing all gear as you went. "Man, he flashed it." Needless to say, you didn't have to flash a route in order to earn the FFA. Henry Barber was considered to be a purist for his habit of lowering back to the beginning of a pitch after a fall. He'd then untie, pull the rope and start his attempt again. Even though at least part of the pitch would by then be equipped, this was considered to be very pure style, as most climbers would just lower to a good stance where they could rest without taking tension, give it another go, and call it good when they made it.
Jim Erickson carried the notion of purity of style to the next level with his concept of what constituted a "tainted ascent". Jim's sense of style evolved to the point that he felt that if he fell on a climb, his efforts on that route were now tainted, he had failed, and he would not return to the route. If he was working a route, and he came to a move me couldn't do, the only way he could preserve the purity of his ascent was to down-climb the pitch, without falling, and return later when he was better prepared. A pretty damned tough standard when you're climbing at the highest level. A standard, by the way, which he did not always manage to maintain.
In the case of an aid route on a big wall in Yosemite. The book will credit all members of the first ascent party with the FA, even if climber Z just jugged the lines and hauled the bags, never leading or even cleaning a pitch. After all, he worked his ass off, made a significant contribution, and ascended the entire route, even if he did the whole thing on Jumars.
Another note on style. Remember the term flash? A flash ascent was first try, no falls, placing all gear as you went. "Man, he flashed it." Needless to say, you didn't have to flash a route in order to earn the FFA. Henry Barber was considered to be a purist for his habit of lowering back to the beginning of a pitch after a fall. He'd then untie, pull the rope and start his attempt again. Even though at least part of the pitch would by then be equipped, this was considered to be very pure style, as most climbers would just lower to a good stance where they could rest without taking tension, give it another go, and call it good when they made it.
Jim Erickson carried the notion of purity of style to the next level with his concept of what constituted a "tainted ascent". Jim's sense of style evolved to the point that he felt that if he fell on a climb, his efforts on that route were now tainted, he had failed, and he would not return to the route. If he was working a route, and he came to a move me couldn't do, the only way he could preserve the purity of his ascent was to down-climb the pitch, without falling, and return later when he was better prepared. A pretty damned tough standard when you're climbing at the highest level. A standard, by the way, which he did not always manage to maintain.
8) 
