Talk:Traditional climbing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] old comments

. #REDIRECT real climbing (all the other sorts are pale, watered-down imitations).

... err ... is my bias showing? Tannin

Should we mention that there is a significant safety difference between some of these belay devices? I know that there are limits to what we can cover, but I wouldn't like to see us just say things like "an italian hitch can be used" without mentioning that it ain't particularly safe, as compared with a stitcht plate. For that matter, figure-8s are fine for abseiling but not ideal as a belay device .... Hmmm. Where does it stop? Tannin

Instructional material like that is really something for Wikibooks. Gdr 16:51, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

[edit] Cut material

I cut a big chunk of material from the article. It is good material, but it doesn't belong in this article because it applies to many styles of climbing (sport, aid, ice, toprope etc). I moved it to climbing system Gdr 22:00, 2004 Jul 3 (UTC)



need to find a way to show both uk and us perspectives on an equal footing

Thinredline 19:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


In the U.S., a bolted climb would be considered sport climbing, to the best of my knowledge. -Will Beback 19:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Joshua tree, suicide rock,Taquitz, yosemite, tuolumne meadows, Black hills of south dakota,: all have completely bolted routes that no one in their right mind would consider "sport climbs." Thinredline 02:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This text:
  • In some other parts of the world, notably North America, a route may be described as "traditional" even if there are bolts already in place on the route, as long as these bolts were placed while on lead, rather than rappel, and only where absolutely necessary for safe passage.
Gives an explanation that I've never heard of. I suppose that if a lead climber placed bolts, pitons, or other essentially fixed anchors his climb would be traditional, but the climbs of subsequent climbers would be "sport climbs". Unless someone has a source, or has heard of this usage, I think it should be deleted. -Will Beback 01:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't write that, but I could have. It is correct from a US perspective. Thinredline 02:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's cite some references for all this, rather than work from memory. My own climbing books are too old, they mostly predate the distinction between rad and trad. Stan 12:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Documented, Historical Use of "Tradtional" Much Needed

Above discussion back and forth on bolts or not bolts on "traditional" climbs shows disconnect from well documented style debate when and where the term "traditional" first arose in U.S. As Stan rightly points out, “let's cite some references for all this ..." Indeed.

Trad as now used is a constantly moving target, meaning whatever a community wants it to mean and requiring forever fiddling with this page. It would be of help to note when the term was first coined in "Tricksters and Traditionalists," Ascent, 1984, it had a very specific meaning not recognized here. Furthermore, that meaning was in sharp contrast to emerging sport styles of the day, and they too were specific styles well documented in climbing literature. The roots and history of the term and its contrast with sport is essential to understanding the evolution of both terms up to today.

As an example of how the discussion here can go every which way if there is no anchor in documented history of the trad-sport issue, look at how a perfectly accurate, supportable statement about original trad styles documented the above article was removed simply because some segment of today's climbers use "trad" in a new way. Here's the removed statement:

"Traditional climbing usually involves placing cams or nuts into cracks for protection, as well as using bolts placed into the rock by standing on holds and drilling required holes, unlike sport climbing where drilling is done while hanging on the rope for support."

And now here comes the rationale for removing it:

"...I think this may be misleading in the sense that it gives the idea that many trad climbers use bolts, but a large segment of trad climbers are wholly opposed to the notion. I also think this addition is out of place. Maybe this belongs in a separate ethics section or something, but it seems misplaced in a paragraph outlining the major distinctions between sport and trad climbing."

The point is whatever "trad" climbers of today feel about bolts does not speak to the issue of what defined "traditional climbing" when and where the term first arose. The use and connotations surrounding any terms in and outside climbing change over time, of course, but Wikipedia should acknowledge more than latest, ever changing use and opinion. It should reference the documented, original traditional-sport divide, as it arose and as it was recorded.

For another example of forever moving target discussion, first note the description of traditional climbing when and where it was first documented and discussed, again harking to the 1984 Ascent article:

"No rests on the rope are allowed in traditional climbing for previewing or rehearsing; after a fall, the climber lowers to the last stance or beginning of the pitch to begin again. Finally, the number of attempts after falls in traditional climbing is limited by custom to none or a few."

Now the reason for cutting it, because the term has apparently evolved in some or another community:

"...This is definitely inaccurate. Perhaps in certain climbing communities this is some established rule, but I've never seen any such rules like this in my ten plus years of climbing. This should be removed entirely, IMO. At the very least, relocated."

Here's my suggestion: explain and reference relevant sources to see the precise climbing style issues of the day when "traditional" first arose in written usage. What will become evident is the term had much less to do with type of protection than style of placing it; what was acceptable after a fall; and how previewing, rehearsing and sieging were treated. It will then become evident that the discussion here about the mechanics of trad climbing (going up, placing pro, getting to a belay etc.), all misses the vital, defining points of traditional climbing. For example:

- traditional as first coined very much included bolts placed on the lead. Of course natural protection (then mostly nuts and some cams) were the mainstay, but the essential issue was not bolts or not. The issue dividing trads and emerging sports was HOW protection is placed, not the protection technology itself. Traditional climbing placed bolts on the lead without any previewing of the route from above, and without hooks or overhead ropes for tension while placing. In a pivotal war of the day in the center of the first significant debate, Tuolumne Meadows, traditionalists removed bolts from a new route just because they were placed on tension from above, not because they were bolts - and the war was off and running between competing styles.

- while protection technology was not the heart of the first traditional and sport conflict, climbing STYLE was at the nub of the debate. Not only did traditionalists protest previewing from above as much as protecting from above, they also were angered by rehearsing moves while hanging on tension, and by resting on the rope after a fall. The accepted traditional approach of the day was to lower to a hands free stance after a fall and begin again; or, to lower to the beginning of the pitch or the ground to start over. The growing sport approach was (and still is in some sport styles) to hang and rest. Finally, the traditional approach of the day was generally to quit after a few falls. Repeated falling and working of the route, multiple attempts over many days (so called "sieging"), especially using fixed ropes to regain high points for working, all were anathema to traditionalists.

Here are some starting sources. First, see "Tricksters and Traditionalists," by Tom Higgins, Ascent, Sierra Club, 1984. A link to a verbatim web version (I have Sierra Club written permission for posting to the source site) is:

http://www.tomhiggins.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=19&limit=1&limitstart=8

Here is a link to a one page table which summarizes the several STYLE issues from the watershed time period when traditional and sport first arose in stark contention and when "traditional" first came into parlance:

http://www.tomhiggins.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32&Itemid=19

And finally, for those seeking perspective and specific documentation on how the traditional-sport divide has carried through to today, with 21 references to recent climbing literature on the subjects, here is a relevant link:

http://www.tomhiggins.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=19&limit=1&limitstart=0

Tom Higgins (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Tom Higgins

[edit] Dangers?

Have there been any/many deaths during traditional climbing? What are the dangers of this sport? The Jade Knight 21:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

There are dozens of serious falls every year in North America alone, carefully tracked by the American Alpine Club. We should report some of their findings. -Will Beback · † · 08:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Croft

I have dropped the link off of Peter Croft as it was linking to a differnt Peter Croft, if someone feels like writing an article about the climber Peter Croft feel free to replace it, I do not know how to make it link to a non-existant article. 24.69.65.202 03:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that problem. I bet we'd have an article on him if folks had known that there wasn't one already. As a prompt I've relinked his name, this time as Peter Croft (climber. -Will Beback · † · 08:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dump from mainpage

I'm not really sure this is appropriate for an encyclopedia but some should prolly remain.

[edit] Trad climbing in the United Kingdom

Britain has a long tradition of "clean" climbing, (no hammer or pitons) and is thus home to some very bold climbs. The trad ethic is the dominant one in the UK, although sport climbing has become popular in recent years.

In the United Kingdom, "traditional" means that all protection is placed by the leader and removed by the following climber.
In early 2006 Dave MacLeod, a renowned climber out of Glasgow, Scotland, climbed Rhapsody at Dumbarton Rock (Scotland) for the world's then hardest trad climb, the first at the grade of E11. The route's grade, E11 7a, is equivalent to French 8c/8c+ or US 5.14c/d R.

[edit] Trad Climbing in Australia

Major Trad areas:

Arapiles: Solid sandstone trad climbing with the occasional bolt on the harder lines. ~ 2000 routes in a small area.
The Grampians: Sandstone and quartzite, huge area.
Blue Mountains: sandstone
Point Perpendicular: Sandstone, top down, sea cliff climbing.
Frog Buttress: Rhyolite columns, predominately crack climbing.

[edit] Trad climbing in the United States

"Traditional" climbing in the United States generally means a climbing style developed in the late 1950s through the 1960s, especially for making first ascents, when the emphasis turned from getting to the top by any means of rope aid to doing routes without any rope reliance (then termed free climbing). The expression traditional climbing seems not to appear in climbing literature referring to climbing styles prior to that era. See[1] for its probable first appearance.

The separation of rock climbing into traditional or "trad" and sport forms, beginning in the 1980s, created some tension between adherents of the different styles. Advocates of sport climbing held traditional rules limited the ability of a new generation to do new routes on increasingly difficult faces and cliffs. Trad advocates contended not everything should be climbed by any means. It is a debate which continues to this day.

In North America, a route may be described as "traditional" even if there are bolts already in place on the route, as long as these bolts were placed while on lead, rather than rappel. Such lead placements sometimes results in routes with less protection than sport routes, making the consequence of falling possibly more risky. Traditional routes that have bolts on the route may also be called "Mixed" routes, or part traditional and part sport, not to be confused with mixed climbing.

Major trad climbing areas of the US:

Notable trad climbers

[edit] Trad in the rest of the world

Compared to the U.S., Australia, and U.K., there are few trad climbing areas in mainland Europe:

Other parts of the world:

[edit] Merger proposal

Propose merging "clean climbing" with this page. The "clean climbing" page says that it is known as traditional climbing in the UK so it makes no sense to have two pages on the same subject. Would appreciate some guidance on which way to merge. Personally I'd propose keeping "traditional climbing" but I'm British so others may disagree. Dpmuk (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)