This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Following the thread started by Owain Jones about routes on Assagai Wall , and in particular the line of Scary Monsters, a few thoughts on this theme....and to illustrate, I'll talk about my major contribution to the climbing world, one of my 2 new routes at South Pembroke.
Panzer Wall, is a reasonable HVS, coincidentally, on Panzer Walls. I did this with 2 mates back in the early 80s. So - now, 35 years on, has the line changed from that which I originally climbed? Has anyone added a peg or other fixed gear? I don't know, nor am I really interested. I had great fun doing a 'new route', and obviously it was cutting edge standard of the day.......(haha!).....but do I have any call on how that route is treated by future guidebook writers? Am I worried or concerned or interested if a better/easier line has been found 5 feet to the right or left? Do I have a right to be consulted if later generations deem it necessary to add or remove fixed gear? I don't think so. I don't 'own' that bit of rock, nor do I have any more right than anyone else to add/remove fixed gear. For this we follow the ethics of the time and the area (generally avoiding if at all possible in my view).
This is not a dig at anyone involved in the SM discussion at Trowbarrow, but it has occasionally concerned me that when discussion is had on here about a route changing in some way, typically the placement or removal of fixed gear, than there is a call to consult the first ascensionist. Why? Does this seem to only apply to iconic routes, or particularly difficult ones, or routes done by 'names'?
(My other contribution to the climbing world, also at Pembroke, was credited to me in the old guide, but is sadly now down as FA unknown!! lol!! )
Panzer Wall, is a reasonable HVS, coincidentally, on Panzer Walls. I did this with 2 mates back in the early 80s. So - now, 35 years on, has the line changed from that which I originally climbed? Has anyone added a peg or other fixed gear? I don't know, nor am I really interested. I had great fun doing a 'new route', and obviously it was cutting edge standard of the day.......(haha!).....but do I have any call on how that route is treated by future guidebook writers? Am I worried or concerned or interested if a better/easier line has been found 5 feet to the right or left? Do I have a right to be consulted if later generations deem it necessary to add or remove fixed gear? I don't think so. I don't 'own' that bit of rock, nor do I have any more right than anyone else to add/remove fixed gear. For this we follow the ethics of the time and the area (generally avoiding if at all possible in my view).
This is not a dig at anyone involved in the SM discussion at Trowbarrow, but it has occasionally concerned me that when discussion is had on here about a route changing in some way, typically the placement or removal of fixed gear, than there is a call to consult the first ascensionist. Why? Does this seem to only apply to iconic routes, or particularly difficult ones, or routes done by 'names'?
(My other contribution to the climbing world, also at Pembroke, was credited to me in the old guide, but is sadly now down as FA unknown!! lol!! )
43
4
In reply to Steve Wetton:
Indeed it can be hereditary. I was once involved in some heated debate about the retro bolting of Clink, an argument long lost. However when I pointed out that for obvious reasons they could not have asked the first ascensionist permission, I was told that they had asked his brother.
Indeed it can be hereditary. I was once involved in some heated debate about the retro bolting of Clink, an argument long lost. However when I pointed out that for obvious reasons they could not have asked the first ascensionist permission, I was told that they had asked his brother.
8
In reply to Steve Wetton:
Which one was that?
> (My other contribution to the climbing world, also at Pembroke, was credited to me in the old guide, but is sadly now down as FA unknown!! lol!! )
Which one was that?
1
In reply to Steve Wetton
Well it does come across as just that.
> This is not a dig at anyone involved in the SM discussion at Trowbarrow
Well it does come across as just that.
3
13
4
2
In reply to Martin Haworth:
Hardly; just a different view
> In reply to WVRox
> Well it does come across as just that.
Hardly; just a different view
14
2
In reply to Steve Wetton:
No rights just responsibilities.
If you write it up be accurate and honest.
The authors of a definitive guidebook should also be accurate and honest.
Any "rights " for the FA are usually only a tradition of courtesy, and often involve just accurate reporting of exact line and consultation on adding fixed gear. This is the UK, you know.
No rights just responsibilities.
If you write it up be accurate and honest.
The authors of a definitive guidebook should also be accurate and honest.
Any "rights " for the FA are usually only a tradition of courtesy, and often involve just accurate reporting of exact line and consultation on adding fixed gear. This is the UK, you know.
9
In reply to Steve Wetton:
I assume you're talking about Flakaway on Flimston Stack. I was involved in the production of the new Range East guide, and looking back through the documents from which the script was prepared I can see that the correct information was available. Not only was your name omitted from Flakaway, it was misspelt and the correct FA date was replaced with 'pre 1986'. Not the CC's finest hour.
I assume you're talking about Flakaway on Flimston Stack. I was involved in the production of the new Range East guide, and looking back through the documents from which the script was prepared I can see that the correct information was available. Not only was your name omitted from Flakaway, it was misspelt and the correct FA date was replaced with 'pre 1986'. Not the CC's finest hour.
1
In reply to Rick Graham:
Yes, courtesy - along with the ongoing process of maintaining an accurate historical record, plus a desire to anticipate and resolve differences of opinion, as far as is possible, before information is committed to print.
It can be useful to think of FAs as having "rights", up to a point, even if they are not seen as absolute; it discourages overly hasty re-appraising of lines, which I think is a good thing. Guidebook writers should make at least some attempt to consult FAs before making significant changes - it's part of the job, in my opinion.
> Any "rights " for the FA are usually only a tradition of courtesy
Yes, courtesy - along with the ongoing process of maintaining an accurate historical record, plus a desire to anticipate and resolve differences of opinion, as far as is possible, before information is committed to print.
It can be useful to think of FAs as having "rights", up to a point, even if they are not seen as absolute; it discourages overly hasty re-appraising of lines, which I think is a good thing. Guidebook writers should make at least some attempt to consult FAs before making significant changes - it's part of the job, in my opinion.
3
1
In reply to bpmclimb:
I completely agree. I think it's important that new generations of climbers understand that our rock is rarely a blank canvas, that we aren't free to do whatever we like without any consideration of what was done previously. As you say, not only is it courteous to earlier climbers but it avoids unseemly disputes and gear chopping vendettas.
Given that we very rarely consider what the landowner (who does actually have rights) wants, we should at least try to be responsible and self-policing - if only to preserve the unusual amount of freedom we enjoy to do what we do. I think UK climbing has an impressively record of managing to do exactly this.
> Yes, courtesy - along with the ongoing process of maintaining an accurate historical record, plus a desire to anticipate and resolve differences of opinion, as far as is possible, before information is committed to print.
> It can be useful to think of FAs as having "rights", up to a point, even if they are not seen as absolute; it discourages overly hasty re-appraising of lines, which I think is a good thing. Guidebook writers should make at least some attempt to consult FAs before making significant changes - it's part of the job, in my opinion.
I completely agree. I think it's important that new generations of climbers understand that our rock is rarely a blank canvas, that we aren't free to do whatever we like without any consideration of what was done previously. As you say, not only is it courteous to earlier climbers but it avoids unseemly disputes and gear chopping vendettas.
Given that we very rarely consider what the landowner (who does actually have rights) wants, we should at least try to be responsible and self-policing - if only to preserve the unusual amount of freedom we enjoy to do what we do. I think UK climbing has an impressively record of managing to do exactly this.
6
1
In reply to Steve Wetton:
I have been considering the points raised by Owen's thread and came to this conclusion:
If a route goes A, B, C, D and that is the line taken by the FA then that is the route, let us call it "First route" E4.
If someone comes along and climbs A, B, C, D and finds a hold or undercut missed by the FA then it is still "First Route" but they grade may drop a point. If a hold falls off then it may go up a point.
If someone comes along and climbs A, B, E, D missing out the hard C section by drifting right to the easier E section then they have not climbed "First route", they have climbed a "First route variation" or if they do A, B, E, F then possibly even a new route with the same starting point.
In the past if a bolted or aided climb was freed then it was given a new name. The same should apply to a trad climb that has been retro bolted (not that we are talking about this I am just thinking out loud here), in order to avoid confusion.
Avoiding confusion is the main point. Any deviation from the original line is a variation on the original route to a greater or lesser extent. If the FA went one way and everyone else goes another then they may be going up a better line on the rock but they are not climbing the same route
I have been considering the points raised by Owen's thread and came to this conclusion:
If a route goes A, B, C, D and that is the line taken by the FA then that is the route, let us call it "First route" E4.
If someone comes along and climbs A, B, C, D and finds a hold or undercut missed by the FA then it is still "First Route" but they grade may drop a point. If a hold falls off then it may go up a point.
If someone comes along and climbs A, B, E, D missing out the hard C section by drifting right to the easier E section then they have not climbed "First route", they have climbed a "First route variation" or if they do A, B, E, F then possibly even a new route with the same starting point.
In the past if a bolted or aided climb was freed then it was given a new name. The same should apply to a trad climb that has been retro bolted (not that we are talking about this I am just thinking out loud here), in order to avoid confusion.
Avoiding confusion is the main point. Any deviation from the original line is a variation on the original route to a greater or lesser extent. If the FA went one way and everyone else goes another then they may be going up a better line on the rock but they are not climbing the same route
6
In reply to Rick Graham:
That's what I've sort of absorbed by osmosis as being 'the UK way'.
> No rights just responsibilities.
> If you write it up be accurate and honest.
> The authors of a definitive guidebook should also be accurate and honest.
> Any "rights " for the FA are usually only a tradition of courtesy, and often involve just accurate reporting of exact line and consultation on adding fixed gear. This is the UK, you know.
> If you write it up be accurate and honest.
> The authors of a definitive guidebook should also be accurate and honest.
> Any "rights " for the FA are usually only a tradition of courtesy, and often involve just accurate reporting of exact line and consultation on adding fixed gear. This is the UK, you know.
That's what I've sort of absorbed by osmosis as being 'the UK way'.
Post edited at 19:45
1
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
Further to what you say though, if a latter way up the line is much more logical (say the FA did a lot of unnecessary traversing) to the extent that everyone goes up the new way, then the 'route' may end up being described by the later way but usually with a guidebook note of e.g. 'the original line went less direct'. The FA would still be credited.
Further to what you say though, if a latter way up the line is much more logical (say the FA did a lot of unnecessary traversing) to the extent that everyone goes up the new way, then the 'route' may end up being described by the later way but usually with a guidebook note of e.g. 'the original line went less direct'. The FA would still be credited.
2
In reply to Steve Wetton:
Am I correct in remembering Allan Austin saying something like: the true line is the easiest line and the others are variations. Albeit in regard to a long forgotten squabble over some route that has disappeared back into the hill side. Sally Free and Easy was it?
Am I correct in remembering Allan Austin saying something like: the true line is the easiest line and the others are variations. Albeit in regard to a long forgotten squabble over some route that has disappeared back into the hill side. Sally Free and Easy was it?
2
In reply to ian caton:
Ah, the Sally Free/Ragmans Trumpet spat.
IIRC, Sally was Livesey's version of the line climbed free - Ragman's was Valentine's version which used aid (the exact amount was itself unclear).
In the end it was Ragman's which found its way into the guide, and this of course had nothing to do with Valentine being a local and part of the inner sanctum of the FRCC, and Livesey being an interloper from Yorkshire
> Am I correct in remembering Allan Austin saying something like: the true line is the easiest line and the others are variations. Albeit in regard to a long forgotten squabble over some route that has disappeared back into the hill side. Sally Free and Easy was it?
Ah, the Sally Free/Ragmans Trumpet spat.
IIRC, Sally was Livesey's version of the line climbed free - Ragman's was Valentine's version which used aid (the exact amount was itself unclear).
In the end it was Ragman's which found its way into the guide, and this of course had nothing to do with Valentine being a local and part of the inner sanctum of the FRCC, and Livesey being an interloper from Yorkshire
2
In reply to Goucho:
But both found their way into subsequent guides and were then described as being some distance apart. I did Ragman's and could see the described upper corner of Sally quite a way to the right.
But both found their way into subsequent guides and were then described as being some distance apart. I did Ragman's and could see the described upper corner of Sally quite a way to the right.
1
In reply to harold walmsley:
Didn't they share some common ground in the middle sections?
We went up to do Sally once, and did what we thought was the route, but we got lost and probably did a meandering combination of the two. In fact come to think if it, we probably did a new variation, though on which route I'm not sure
In my diary it just says - Sally's Trumpet, chossy crap and a complete waste of an afternoon!
> But both found their way into subsequent guides and were then described as being some distance apart. I did Ragman's and could see the described upper corner of Sally quite a way to the right.
Didn't they share some common ground in the middle sections?
We went up to do Sally once, and did what we thought was the route, but we got lost and probably did a meandering combination of the two. In fact come to think if it, we probably did a new variation, though on which route I'm not sure
In my diary it just says - Sally's Trumpet, chossy crap and a complete waste of an afternoon!
2
In reply to Rick Graham:
Absolutely - write it up accurately, give it a name, (preferably not abusive, rude or childish) and enjoy the pleasure of doing a new route - whether it be that you climbed something harder than your peers could manage at the time, or, as in my case, if you were around as crags were being developed. The difficulty of the route, the ability of the climber and whether or not they are a 'name', or a member of a local clique is surely irrelevant. If subsequent guidebooks show different info, by all means liaise with the writers so that history can be recorded correctly
Absolutely - write it up accurately, give it a name, (preferably not abusive, rude or childish) and enjoy the pleasure of doing a new route - whether it be that you climbed something harder than your peers could manage at the time, or, as in my case, if you were around as crags were being developed. The difficulty of the route, the ability of the climber and whether or not they are a 'name', or a member of a local clique is surely irrelevant. If subsequent guidebooks show different info, by all means liaise with the writers so that history can be recorded correctly
1
In reply to Michael Gordon:
an interesting point. I would say that it would depend on how much the new line deviated from the original and if it was more logical. For instance, say the FA climbed halfway up a crack and then traversed 5 mtrs left before traversing back just to make it easier/harder then the better line would stand. Though it might come with the clarification of "First Route direct" or "Eliminate"
an interesting point. I would say that it would depend on how much the new line deviated from the original and if it was more logical. For instance, say the FA climbed halfway up a crack and then traversed 5 mtrs left before traversing back just to make it easier/harder then the better line would stand. Though it might come with the clarification of "First Route direct" or "Eliminate"
My view is this,
The climber who does the first accent of something defines line to take up the crag. So be it a crack, corner, face etc. They have climbed it first and can offer a grade for climbing the crag via that route.
This is all very well if it follows a clear crack up the wall but the issues come in to play when its not so clear what exactly is included in the 'line' and what isn't. A route which wonders up a fairly featureless face for instance if going to be open to some fair interpretation when it comes to which holds to use.
Clearly an outdoor trad route isn't like a colour coded indoor route where you follow one hold after the other, you simply follow the general direction up the crag an use whichever holds you can find (unless the route is defined as an eliminate). Now on a face climb, there may be a few main features to head towards but generally there is no clear direction to take and different climbers may do the same line and use totally different sets of holds and sequences to get up it. Over time, by a process of trial and error the best overall sequence will be determined, this will normally be a trade off between the easiest way to do the climb and the most direct line between key sections of the route (main gear placements or the top)
This 'new' line is likely to be a bit different from there FA's line as they just has one shot with limited prior knowledge of where was best to go. They may have thought they had done some really hard set of bold moves, but it later turns out a meter to the left you can climb past the crux much easier on some undiscovered holds. In cases like this I think the FA has to accept that the line he put up isn't really has hard they thought, simply that they didn't tackle it in the optimum way. Now of course there are some subtleties to it, depending how distinct the lines are things, can branch off or it may even turn into two lines (both refined).
But in short, I think it's okay to let routes evolve over time, there is no point having the guy who did the first accent demanding every one climbs his route in the exact way he did it. They should be happy that they opened a line up for others to follow and refine over the decades. If in the process the grade goes down or the exact line alters slightly then so be it, its most often the case that the original line was deemed needlessly indirect, bold or difficult, no matter how exquisite the original sequence of moves were on the FA.
The climber who does the first accent of something defines line to take up the crag. So be it a crack, corner, face etc. They have climbed it first and can offer a grade for climbing the crag via that route.
This is all very well if it follows a clear crack up the wall but the issues come in to play when its not so clear what exactly is included in the 'line' and what isn't. A route which wonders up a fairly featureless face for instance if going to be open to some fair interpretation when it comes to which holds to use.
Clearly an outdoor trad route isn't like a colour coded indoor route where you follow one hold after the other, you simply follow the general direction up the crag an use whichever holds you can find (unless the route is defined as an eliminate). Now on a face climb, there may be a few main features to head towards but generally there is no clear direction to take and different climbers may do the same line and use totally different sets of holds and sequences to get up it. Over time, by a process of trial and error the best overall sequence will be determined, this will normally be a trade off between the easiest way to do the climb and the most direct line between key sections of the route (main gear placements or the top)
This 'new' line is likely to be a bit different from there FA's line as they just has one shot with limited prior knowledge of where was best to go. They may have thought they had done some really hard set of bold moves, but it later turns out a meter to the left you can climb past the crux much easier on some undiscovered holds. In cases like this I think the FA has to accept that the line he put up isn't really has hard they thought, simply that they didn't tackle it in the optimum way. Now of course there are some subtleties to it, depending how distinct the lines are things, can branch off or it may even turn into two lines (both refined).
But in short, I think it's okay to let routes evolve over time, there is no point having the guy who did the first accent demanding every one climbs his route in the exact way he did it. They should be happy that they opened a line up for others to follow and refine over the decades. If in the process the grade goes down or the exact line alters slightly then so be it, its most often the case that the original line was deemed needlessly indirect, bold or difficult, no matter how exquisite the original sequence of moves were on the FA.
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...