RRC Archives

Sorry to beat this one to death, but I am still confused as all get out.

What the heck is a FA anymore? I see so many routes going in the online guide where there are 2, 3, 4 or more persons listed on the FA.

Just a short while back I was told in no uncertain terms that only one person, two at the most, could get credit for the FA.

For those of you listing more than one person on the FA, how did you come to that? I also notice people like Tackett may list himself as the "equipper" and then give FA credit to someone else. I am assuming this is becasue the listed FA sent the route and Tackett did not. Is this correct?

If there is more than one person listed, does that mean every individual on the list did the route on lead, clean? And at the same time?

I am asking because I want to list routes honestly. And because the climbing community prides itself on honesty, I think we all deserve to know what is meant by an FA.

Why not a new term for the guide so we can list all our friends who helped with the line, but never actually sent first?

so why you calling me out pigsfeat. what did i do to you ? show you cliff line, give ya hardware when ya need it and this is the thanks i get. biatch !

imho. an fa of a moderate-pretty freaking hard route in the red is not that big of a deal. there are hundreds of each and more will go up. i give fa credit to people that helped on the line(bolting, scrubbing, beer after, a good back rub or a high five) and climbed it that day. look at all the older routes. some of them have 5 or so people listed. i have bolted a bunch of lines and gave the fa away to friends and had more enjoyment seeing them send.even before i started developing sport routes i said the equipper deserves the credit on the line over the first dude or dudet to clip the chains. if you will look at older climbs you will see terry, john, hugh and many others listed as the equipper and someone else as the fa, im by far not the first to do this.

i develop lines for people to climb, simple as that, myself included. i have had 2 or 3 routes i asked to save the fa on. other than that if someone just asks 9 times out of 10 i will say go for it man. you just have to sandbag the rating a little.

as far as what the fa is around here, thats simple. the fa is the first to climb on lead clean, thats simple. why such a fuss ?

RRO wrote:why such a fuss ?

Simple - if FA is defined as the first person ever to have sent a route on lead, then Piggie gets a warm tingly sensation everytime he looks up his own routes in the online guidebook, because he knows that everyone else who looks up his routes in the online guidebook will know that he was the first person ever to have sent those routes on lead.

quit worrying about it Yas. Seems to work fine both ways. I'll wlways give my second credit. I don't care what elitist jerks think.

slow day, i guess you must be trying to get motivated for the weekend piggie?

r.r.

Many FAs are a TEAM effort, therefore my belief is that the team should be included if they participated in the work to put the route up. Whoever redpoints the route first will be the one that has their name listed first.

I strongly feel that it would actually be wrong and dishonest not to include people who actively helped to create the climb. Without them there would be no climb and no route or FA party for future climbers to question or complain about.

For example, maybe one person set up the rope, another drilled the anchors, another marked the bolt placements, another climbed the route first (on TR or otherwise), another person drilled the route, and another may have cleaned the route. Or sometimes several people might climb different variations to decide where the route should go. Are you suggesting that these people who gave their time and hard work should not be included on the FA party? It is an FA "party" anyway right? Of course, whoever redpointed the route first will have their name listed first, but in my opinioin, that is not a good reason to omit the others. That seems a bit egotistical to me. However, I do try to limit the recorded FA party to the 2 or 3 people who contributed the most. Sometimes I actually feel guilty leaving people off when I know that without their effort the route would not be there, but it also feels wrong to list an FA part of more than 4 people too. Just my opinion...

What seems silly to me is when you only see one person listed. Unless they free-soloed the route then there was probably another person directly involved in the process.

What about a multi-pitch trad route where two people may switch leads on every other pitch? Do they both need to climb each pitch on lead, and at the same time? That seems like a bunch of nonsense. Can they not list themselves on the FA party if they didn't each lead every pitch? If this were the case then the history of climbing would need to be rewritten...

What's the big deal about listing 2 or 3 or 4 people on the FA party when the route wouldn't even be there without their help? Is it really that upsetting to people when more than one or two names are listed?

It seems to me that it would be extremely rude and inconsiderate not to list them. For historical purposes and accurary they are just as important as the climber who does the redpoint. That is similar to listing an "equipper". Maybe we should also list "cleaners", "belayers", etc. ad infinitum, et absurdum...

I'd like to look back on these routes someday when I am weak and old with a feeble memory. I can then read the FA "party" to remember those fellow climbers/friends/aquaintances, and others who were part of the process. When I look at the FA party I will know who was involved with which routes and we can all appreciate their efforts since most routes are not an individual effort, but a combined "team" effort. The multiple FA effort reminds me of this and I am thankful for the help and support of others. This is my way of thanking them and showing my appreciation. Each one of them deserved to be put on the FA party and furthermore they earned it...

I personally don't care what the community thinks about that. I'm going to continue to record my routes in that manner. If others disagree then that's fine (I don't expect everyone to agree with that). Other developers can record their routes with one name or with an "equipper" comment. In the meantime, I'm going to do my routes, my way... enough said.

The first name listed should be the first person to ascend the route cleanly on lead.

The problem comes from the fact that there arent enough distinct placeholders to distinguish the people/actions to the resolution you are implying.

There doesnt seem to be any universal rules that define what multiple peoples names after an FA placeholder mean.

I usually assume if any names are listed afterwards, that they have also sent the route cleanly on lead at the same time and may have helped develop the route.

If you really want to give the route equipers credit, I think it would be beneficial to create a separate placeholder for it and then the FA would only have the name of the first person to ascend the route cleanly on lead. Otherwise, you can guess all you want about what the other names mean.

ynot wrote:quit worrying about it Yas. Seems to work fine both ways. I'll wlways give my second credit. I don't care what elitist jerks think.

Hehehe, I'm not worried. It's just always fun giving Piggie shit. =)

RRO, does it have to be beer after, or can it be beer during? if it is beer during does that mean it isn't an FA? Just wondering. Please--- help illuminate--- shine your light of knowledge on this quandry for me.

I really dig J-Rock's explanation. I always assume that the first name was the first to lead the route clean. The other names are either lead or TR sends from the people involved. I think one person being listed makes sense in some cases. For example, Kenny at Purgatory, where he was the only one there on that given day who could send the route.

Ultimately, I think the way we have FAs listed in the online guide is fine. I've never lost any sleep wondering if Karla lead or seconded routes on which Jared's name is first, for example. Changing things now to avoid confusion and pinpoint every detail seems like an unnecessary effort.