Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

Naming rights on FAs (aka The Law of Ming)

dalai

11-Jul-2006
11:16:06 AM

On 11/07/2006 Boardlord wrote:
>The arete however was done last year with
>no spotter (apart from a small lizard) above a rucksack - but after a quick
>abseil inspection and brush - so what are you classifying that as?

Old School, hardcore with shady ethics?

Nottobetaken

11-Jul-2006
11:57:03 AM

On 11/07/2006 dalai wrote:
>Old School, hardcore with shady ethics?
- Sounds very English to me

Different place and time, but another example of onsight highball bouldering at its finest - Volume 1000 (V3) 6/7m - The Snakepit, Grampians

Dave J

11-Jul-2006
12:03:33 PM

I like that some routes have names which predate the first ascent. I always found that pretty
inspirational that there was a route, with a name and a history, that hadnt actually been climbed
yet...Like Seventh Pillar...Going out and freeing that seemed much more worthwhile than had it just
been another unclimbed line on taipan. I wouldnt have dreamt of renaming 7th pillar...or even daedelus
for that matter which I suspect Julian established as an aid route because he was just about to head
OS for six months...or any of the other aid routes I freed. Cadenza DIrect whihc I freed is probably one
of the more worthless routes I have ever established and I probably wouldnt have bothered if it hadnt
of been one of 2 or 3 remaining aid route at arapiles. Having a name and history gave it enough merit
to justify spending an afternoon on it.

Sheffield Steel is a bit of a joke...reducing the amount of aid on a route doesnt change the nature of
the route in any way.

There is another type of route naming protocol which hasnt been discussed as yet....the naming if
individual pitches on multipitch routes...Like the (as yet unclimbed) second pitch of mirage...Mirage
heads up the wall to a legde and there is a distinct line from there to the top of the crag...In my mind it
should be one route.

I think "Project (With Name)" is a perfectly valid thing...no real need to include ascentionist data until
its actually been climbed though. It gives a route a chance to develop a bit of history before it gets
free climbed (since aid routes dont really get put up any more). Something like 17M1 is a bit
meaningless really...tells you nothing. unless there is an entirely free pitch thats 17 and a seperate aid
pitch. "Nameless project" is a bit bland. (apologies neil if this goes against what we've been
discussing RE taipan topo). I think if people have cared enough about the line to give it a name then
the name should stay.


nmonteith

11-Jul-2006
12:06:30 PM

cool dave. im changing the topo (again!) as you write. i've decided to add in as many of the projects as i
can - but keep the names of the pseudo first ascents off them.

Dave J

11-Jul-2006
12:13:18 PM

On 11/07/2006 nmonteith wrote:
>cool dave. im changing the topo (again!) as you write. i've decided to
>add in as many of the projects as i
>can - but keep the names of the pseudo first ascents off them.

The names of the projects...or just the people who were too crap to get up them?

dalai

11-Jul-2006
12:17:30 PM

On 11/07/2006 Boardlord wrote:
>On 11/07/2006 dalai wrote:
>>Old School, hardcore with shady ethics?
>- Sounds very English to me

Exactly ;-)

Nice pic of the snakepit BTW...


nmonteith

11-Jul-2006
12:23:03 PM

Keep the projects name but remove reference to the people who have tried (and failed) on them.

Nottobetaken

11-Jul-2006
12:42:17 PM

Examples of the route naming scenario are rife the world over. Take for instance the much acclaimed Biographie (the original of which ends at an arbitrary loweroff point). When the entire line (to the top) was freed by Sharma, it was renamed (but strangely not graded). Did he have the right to rename it? In this case I would say for sure - but don't tell the French that!

Mecca - the original aid line on Ravenstor - freed by Martin Atkinson and renamed 'The Mid Life Crisis'. Nowadays referred to as simply Mecca - but this probably has more to do with the fact that it was a crap name to start with! This as opposed to the same cliffs now accepted name change 'Hubble' - which freed most of another aid line (The Whore of Babylon) over to the left of it.

Back on Lower Taipan for a moment - it amazes me how much flack Mr Pollit gets for some of his ascents. Surely freeing most of Pegasus was a great effort? Renaming that version of the route should be one of his rewards. The same goes for anyone who eventually frees all of its neighbouring line currently dubbed Gilgamesh. My point here is that they should have the right - but sure, they might choose not to take it based on historical significance. In fact it's pretty much guaranteed that this line won't get re-named.

There's obviously a couple of seperate subjects within this thread - but obviously regarding the subject of guidebook recorded toprope ascents - then there can be no question. It's open season.


sticky

11-Jul-2006
12:42:42 PM

On 11/07/2006 Dave J wrote:
>There is another type of route naming protocol which hasnt been discussed
>as yet....the naming if
>individual pitches on multipitch routes...Like the (as yet unclimbed)
>second pitch of mirage...Mirage
>heads up the wall to a legde and there is a distinct line from there to
>the top of the crag...In my mind it
>should be one route.
>

Gotta say - I like where a pitch in a multipitch climb is so special that it warrants a name in and of itself - eg The Grand Wall on The Chief in Squamish. Two of its classic pitches - The Split PIllar and the Sword of Damocles, are both highlight climbs in their own right and well named for the features they traverse.

It's mainly a product of former aid climbs isn't it? Is that why it's no so common here -not so many big walls in Oz?


Phil Box

11-Jul-2006
1:19:19 PM

That multi pitch reference caught my eye.

On Mt. Tibrogargan in SE Queensland, Cam Fairbairn and I were doing some new routing and sorting through all the old routes along with Lee Cujes. We thought that we had found a whole new route only to discover that we had launched up an old classic called Clemency. Anyway the long and the short of it is that whilst attempting this new (old ) route we did manange to put up an independant first pitch called Divergence. Then a while later Lee put up a spectacular line way up in the air called Caritas, which turns out for me at least to be one of THE best corners in Queensland. Then along came Gareth and Ross and they linked the two climbs with another brilliant pitch and they called that pitch Tested Twisticales. Now this could conceivably be a new multipitch route that Gareth and Ross could rename but I reckon it would be a shame to lose the other independant pitch names.


Chuck Norris

11-Jul-2006
8:01:36 PM

didn't realise it was beefy doing the FA...in which case I retract, rope or no rope his arms are permanently
welded in skyhook position and that's aid in my book.

Ronny

12-Jul-2006
9:36:34 AM

Easy aid too... those meathooks are industrial - certainly not 'bodyweight only'.


IdratherbeclimbingM9

15-Jul-2006
10:22:59 PM

Dave J wrote;
>Something like 17M1 is a bit meaningless really...tells you nothing. unless there is an entirely free pitch thats 17 and a seperate aid pitch.
I tend to disagree.
It means a pitch that is majority free at grade 17 with a short section of aid at grade M1. Collective climbing experience would tend to assume the M1 bit is the crux that the 1st ascentionist could not for some reason do free.
It could also mean more than one section of aid within the climb but still not exceeding M1 in difficulty.

Conversely M1/17 would mean majority aid @ M1 with a short bit/s of Free @ Gd17.

Boardlord wrote;
>Surely freeing most of Pegasus was a great effort? Renaming that version of the route should be one of his rewards.
Why?
Guidebooks list history amongst other purposes. Let the 1st ascentionists have their historical moment of glory if they choose to write up the climb. The FFA then get their moment of glory appended to the climb in a subsequent edition of the guide.
I have noted that this extends to separate pitches as they are freed in the latest Mt Buffalo Guide.

1st ascents of multi pitch climbs often refer to individual pitches by an identifying feature that (then) tends to become a pitch name due to common usage/reference point. There is nothing wrong with that in my opinion.

People usurping history and renaming things seems like a negative form of elitism to me.

On the topic of 1st TR ascent. It is indeed a curious thing and I empathise with Zebedees point from an ethical perspective. Generally I agree, … but why write it up if it was ‘only TR’d’; however I once found myself the recipient of a strange set of circumstance when a guidebook was produced and a faceclimb-line I had TR’d as training / teaching an aid-novice, ended up in print with my name associated with it!
I can only assume the guidebook author included it for completeness sake since he was verifying lines and their locations, and perhaps had an eye on the future assuming it would one day go free.
If anyone wants to free it then they are faced with a dilemma because the location has now become contentious with no bolting allowed, or they run risk of serious injury (or worse), if they try to solo it as a virtually protectionless lead. Either way I am happy for them to rename it if it is done as a lead climb, ‘cos thems the rules that existed when I joined the game. Meanwhile the anomaly stands!

Incidentally the further projects I have in mind at that location, I will now be doing as lead climbs but with having a (second) preplaced top anchored rope adjacent for clipping on lead as required ( to avoid placing bolts).
How does this form of lead climbing fit with Ming?

Regarding changing route names because they did not strike subsequent ascentionists as being appropriate, worthy or “clever” enough in their new generation eyes perception;
… whatever happened to respect?
I am confident that the new vogue would be rather miffed if ‘their’ creations were treated equally shabbily.

BTW Who was Ming & what did he put up?
:)

One Day Hero

20-Jul-2006
7:05:19 PM

Wow, that piece written by Lyle Closs is really cool. Thanks for posting that, BA.

The rest of you are boring hacks with nothing to say!

kieranl

20-Jul-2006
8:52:29 PM

On 20/07/2006 One Day Hero wrote:
>Wow, that piece written by Lyle Closs is really cool. Thanks for posting
>that, BA.
>
>The rest of you are boring hacks with nothing to say!

Thanks for that One Day. Some of us had read that piece a couple of decades ago and it had informed our responses.

One Day Hero

24-Jul-2006
1:39:37 PM

On 20/07/2006 kieranl wrote:

>Thanks for that One Day. Some of us had read that piece a couple of decades
>ago and it had informed our responses.

Yeah, you're right Kieran, it's my fault for being born too late.

C'mon, lighten up. Imagine how boring life would be if we all took it seriously all of the time.

kieranl

24-Jul-2006
8:57:45 PM

Sorry, I was in bemused mode. Wasn't intending to come over grumpy. Normal transmission will resume shortly.


Robb

24-Jul-2006
9:45:06 PM

from supertopo. I want to buy a copy for the HOT TOP Roping article!


Paulie

24-Jul-2006
10:01:31 PM

IMO, to rename the route is bad taste and bad karma. In the Mt Pilot guide, I had soloed what I thought was a 1st ascent, consultation with BA led me to believe that this route is in fact called 'Flake Off', so I changed the name back to what it was originally, even though everyone in the area knew the route (for the past 6 years) as "Slide Away". History is extremely important, and needs to be retained, without it we'll forget where we came from - crap route name or not, it reflects the 1st ascentionists nature and may have a cool story behind it.

Claiming a TR ascent is a great way of recording a route in a guidebook. Consequently, if someone comes along at a later date and places bolts in it with the developer's permission, or frees it (bloody bold move at Mt Pilot but nonetheless it happens...) then that's all good. At least the world will know the route has actually been climbed before. It will just need to be recorded as follows: FTRA I.P Daly 1983; FFA; Crazy Dan 2006.

A couple of other things: Sometimes routes should be left as TRs, especially where the route will be an eliminate, a poor route or where it's important to reduce impact with regard to visual amenity in sensitive areas or to comply with PV/NPWS/QPWS etc regulations.

IMO, if you're a competent leader then falls don't really matter on bolts anyway, so essentially, it can be the same as doing a route on TR, with far less money, time and sweat involved for the 1st ascentionist given the above points.

If you want to lead it so badly, then drop a static down the line with fig 8 knots in it and lead it from there...

Paul

Ronny

25-Jul-2006
11:31:31 AM

On 24/07/2006 Paulie wrote:
>from - crap route name or not, it reflects the 1st ascentionists nature
>and may have a cool story behind it.

If TRing a route does not count as the first ascent (the point that BL is trying to make) then this misses the point.

>Claiming a TR ascent is a great way of recording a route in a guidebook.
>Consequently, if someone comes along at a later date and places bolts in
>it with the developer's permission...

I think this BS about the first ascentionist having to give 'permission' like they own the rock is crap to begin with (its not a free for all, but the 1st ascentionist should not have a power of veto), but even if it is the case THERE IS NO WAY that you get a power of veto over a route by toproping it.

It is just a question of whether the route should be bolted at all - TRing it has nothing to do with it.

There are 72 messages in this topic.