Route Development Recognition

Post by **jason young** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:33 pm

I agree with Steve some people might get out and bolt in areas that aren't strickly regulated and they may have no idea what they are doing. But also they did the work they should get somekind of credit.

Post by **charlie** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 5:33 pm

Look at Bronto. The way I heard it Tabor cleaned and equipped the route but was still working it. He gave Johnny a shot at it and it went down but in the guidebook Johnny listed both as FA.

*second hand info.....

I'd say list both, sender first and equipper second. Make a note if the equipper never sends.

Post by **Artsay** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 5:38 pm

I guess I don't think the bolter should be listed. I mean, I think it's rad all that route developers are doing but I'm thinking more along the lines of: "What's the purpose of a route description in a guidebook?". It's a ton of work to make trails, scrub walls, drill bolts/anchors, etc., but the description of a route to me is like it's birth from the first time it was climbed.

Post by **Zspider** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 5:41 pm

Is it possible that for liability reasons, it might be best for the bolter to remain anonymous?

ZSpider

Post by **squeezindlemmon** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 6:30 pm

My take on this one is that equippers of a route do not need to be named in a guidebook. While I agree that it takes a lot of time and money to bolt, I also personally think that bolters in general do what they do bec they want to and bec of their love for it. I don't think they do it for the recognition. I also don't think that a verbal thanks is in order. The best thanks that a bolter can get is to just randomly hear that someone had fun on a climb that they put up. There would be a tendency for climbers to give an indifferent/impartial route opinion if they know the bolter on a personal level.

I'm also the type of climber who prefers to not know the grade or routesetter of a particular climb so that it does not affect the way I climb it.

Like Artsay said, trails take a lot of work as well. I've never seen any of them recognized for each trail that was put in. Just not the norm, I guess.

Post by **ATLdude** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 6:49 pm

You're kidding, right? OF COURSE the person who bolted the line should be listed, even if not the FA.

If not for the vision, work, money and patience of the bolter, there would be no line for anyone else to even climb and enjoy
Bolting usually costs me upwards of $50 per route, but you don't think my name should be listed as the person who opened the route?

Sure, if you're bolting choss, who cares. But, people who develop high quality climbing should be respected (and maybe given beer) for their efforts...

Post by **SCIN** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 7:03 pm

Why do you sound so surprised that this question is asked ATLdude? How many guidebooks have you seen with this info listed? I've not seen any (except for a blurb at the beginning or introduction mentioning who contributed). I'm talking about an individual listing next to each route.

Post by **squeezindlemmon** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 7:11 pm

ATLdude wrote:Sure, if you're bolting choss, who cares. But, people who develop high quality climbing should be respected (and maybe given beer) for their efforts...

I agree, they should be respected and maybe given beer (that part I REALLY agree with) for their efforts. But the question is, should their name be on the guide? I still say it's not necessary. Btw ATL, don't you think it's rather biased to recognize just those who put up quality routes and forget about the hard work of people who prefer to equip choss?

I have a better solution though. Why don't we, instead of recognizing a bolter in a guidebook, put together a fund that will provide a beer for every route he/she bolted?

If that's the case, I'd be willing to give up all my FA's for all that beer!

Post by **Spragwa** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 9:48 pm

Man I like to know who bolted a route because it gives you a lot of information. Most of my favorite routes are either Terry Kindred's or Porter's. The lines are beautiful. Generally I know that if either of them bolted it, it's quality. You also know ahead of time that Terry and Tim Powers use quality gear. For me I'd rather know who the bolter was then the person who did the first ascent.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 10:08 pm

Doesn't Terry usually FA the routes he bolts? I realize that's not always the case, but another thing to consider is that there are some bolters (okay, one that I know of) who don't really know how to properly bolt for sendage. Those bolters (yeah, same one) will move bolts based on input from the FA and subsequent climbers. So should that bolter get credit? Should we have a subcategory for "re-bolting input by:"? Also, what if someone equips a route with donated hardware? Do we acknowlege the source of the hardware in another subcategory?

See where I'm going with this?

I guess I really don't care either way. I appreciate all the hard work that goes into equipping routes, no doubt. Also, it's not just about work and money, but also just being able to recognize a line that people will enjoy climbing - even if the person who equips it cannot or choses not to FA it.

RRC Archives

Route Development Recognition

Should the route developer's name be in the route description?