In reply to M. Edwards:
> (In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC)>
> I'm sure many other climbs must have this scenario. As long as history records the original line, then that's okay for me.
>
> Mark
Very interesting points you both make, and ones that will become increasingly relevant as the blank spaces between existing routes get smaller. If, as you say Mark, it's possible to step off a line either for rest or to place a side runner then it's likely that most will choose that option which rather compromises the definition of 'independent'. My own view is that the grade would be given for the way that the route is most often climbed. An example might be Eroica, before the peg on the crux went AWOL at E2 5b with one point of aid with the addition (in brackets) of E3 6a for the free version, which is how I described it in the 1988 guide.
I agree entirely that the historical record of how routes were first and subsequently climbed should be accurate, but it is also quite common for variations to become the accepted way of climbing a route.
Unfortunately I was kept too busy refuelling the various teams to witness their achievements but I do know that Toru Nakajima's ascent of 29 Palms impressed a very distinguished audience, and that many of the new routes put up were climbed onsight, ground up by people who'd never been on a granite seacliff before.