Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Topic Date User

Naming rights on FAs (aka The Law of Ming) 10-Jul-2006 At 11:14:27 PM DaCrux

Message

On 10/07/2006 Boardlord wrote:
>Anyone opposing the Law of Ming should make their thoughts known by way
>of this topic - then prepare to have your house attacked by hot hail. The
>Law of Ming has spoken...

I've checked the weather forecast - only light showers this week...

You’ve raised a few interesting points. However, I can't say I agree with you. If the fist “ascent” of a route was done on top rope (for whatever reason – first ascentionist being too poor/weak to bolt it, not enough natural pro, etc) and someone’s come along and soloed it why should it give that person the right to rename it? Why is bolting a route more valid than top-roping it? Obviously if it can be soloed there is no point putting bolts in and damaging the rock. Anyway if something’s 8m high is it even a route or just a highball? Bouldering mats have improved in the past 15 years which probably makes it possible to solo some of these routes previously done on TR. And since we're talking about style - how many of these solos were done onsight?

What’s in a name? People often don’t even remember the names of climbs they’ve done and refer to them as that “grade 18 thin crack” or “grade 14 corner” or even “grade 11 pile of choss”. Sure some names are funny or quirky, but I think most climbs are named so that people actually know what route they’re on. Some climbs in the Adelaide Hills guide which were done on top-rope, probably haven’t even been repeated because they’re crap – what would be the point of leading them? I just find the whole idea of route ownership strange. The rock was there millions of years before you were born and it will be there for millions of years after you die – unless you stick useless bolts in it just so that you can say you were the first person to lead it. I do agree with you however, that naming open projects is a bit silly.