RRC Archives

well isee you have two micro nuts











and aid(s)

pkananen wrote: ...I recognize that I didn't exactly send it in a 'traditional' style.

So how far back in history do you go to determine 'traditional' style? Hobnails and hemp or spandex and nylon?

Please define exactly what you mean by traditional 'style'... thanks.

hemp, definitely hemp. for sure.

shit, i guess i'm a "traditional" climber when i boulder then as well.

anticlmber wrote:hemp, definitely hemp. for sure.

shit, i guess i'm a "traditional" climber when i boulder then as well.

Yep.

"Trad" doesn't exist.

Its all just climbing. Knowing the gear placements is hardly headpointing. I can rack the gear in order for nearly every 1 pitch crack I've ever done from standing on the ground. This shit is easy. You guys make it complicated.

That's a somewhat provincial view.

Sport climbing was certainly going strong in Europe by the '70s and had spread to the U.S. by the '80s. Sport climbing was characterized by a new style of route development (top-down employing closely spaced, rap placed bolts) deployed in order to establish routes (often of extreme difficulty) on rock that was unsuitable for what had been the traditional style of route development. That is (ground-up, with protection placed on lead, whether the pro was pins, nuts, bolts or cams).

The term Trad did not really exist in the U.S. climbing lexicon prior to the first sport climbs. So the answer to "How far back should we go to define trad?" would be approximately the mid '80s. I can tell you that prior to the advent of sport climbing, routes were done in a great variety of styles. They were lead on sight, they were done in a "hang dog" style, they were worked. They were protected with pins, bolts, nuts and cams. But they were put in ground-up. And they were rarely or never pre-protected, though those climbers freeing old aid routes certainly took advantage of in situ pins and bolts.

So I'd like to remind everyone that the term "mixed" as used in the Red is a protection note. It does not mean the route is not a trad route. Also a trad route can be 100% bolt protected, as long as the route was put in ground-up and not rap bolted. And, unlikely as it may seem, a route that is protected on rappell before being lead, resembles a sport climb much more than a trad route, even if all the pro is cams or nuts. Got it?

And yes, I agree, looking up from the ground to garner all the info you can about the challenge above does not constitue a headpoint.

Maybe we need a new definition of Trad instead of "traditional". I don't think anyone actually thinks of it the way you are talking about it.

L K Day wrote:That's a somewhat provincial view.

Sport climbing was certainly going strong in Europe by the '70s and had spread to the U.S. by the '80s. Sport climbing was characterized by a new style of route development (top-down employing closely spaced, rap placed bolts) deployed in order to establish routes (often of extreme difficulty) on rock that was unsuitable for what had been the traditional style of route development. That is (ground-up, with protection placed on lead, whether the pro was pins, nuts, bolts or cams).

The term Trad did not really exist in the U.S. climbing lexicon prior to the first sport climbs. So the answer to "How far back should we go to define trad?" would be approximately the mid '80s. I can tell you that prior to the advent of sport climbing, routes were done in a great variety of styles. They were lead on sight, they were done in a "hang dog" style, they were worked. They were protected with pins, bolts, nuts and cams. But they were put in ground-up. And they were rarely or never pre-protected, though those climbers freeing old aid routes certainly took advantage of in situ pins and bolts.

So I'd like to remind everyone that the term "mixed" as used in the Red is a protection note. It does not mean the route is not a trad route. Also a trad route can be 100% bolt protected, as long as the route was put in ground-up and not rap bolted. And, unlikely as it may seem, a route that is protected on rappell before being lead, resembles a sport climb much more than a trad route, even if all the pro is cams or nuts. Got it?

And yes, I agree, looking up from the ground to garner all the info you can about the challenge above does not constitue a headpoint.

agreed

So 'trad' and 'sport' as route development terms make sense and provide easy distinctions about styles of first ascents.

But that means the rest of us are just apeing and should refer to our endeavors as simply climbing on gear or climbing on bolts?

Or is it 'tomato' and 'tomahto"?

What's the word out there?

So confusing for such a simple exercise.

JB wrote:Maybe we need a new definition of Trad instead of "traditional". I don't think anyone actually thinks of it the way you are talking about it.

Not really. In the Red it allmost always it comes down to Gear or Bolts. Possible to blur the distinction? Sure it is.