the B&Y would be a pretty popular root if more bolts were added.

I am tired of finding animal feces in the wilderness, while I am trying to leave no trace.

You start at the ground and climb to the top without resorting to any aid, and making the minimum possible alteration of the route from the state that you found it.

Not able to maintain this style, the first ascent attempt is abandoned in a manner that leaves it as unaltered as possible making it available for future attempts.

The exception to this, of course, is chipping, gluing, and manufacturing which is simply unacceptable.

The point being where technology enables anyone the ability to get up anything.

You start at the ground and climb to the top without resorting to any aid, and making the minimum possible alteration of the route from the state that you found it. Not able to maintain this style, the first ascent attempt is abandoned in a manner that leaves it as unaltered as possible making it available for future attempts.

that doesn't invalidate them, or say the shouldn't have been done, but it does define the FA

it is fascinating that climbers feel threatened by this discussion, especially those doing first ascents.

it is fascinating that climbers feel threatened by this discussion, especially those doing first ascents.

I have stated what the consensus "best style first ascent" is...
...you all know that.

What you are arguing over is why you don't always do a "best style first ascent"

I also think you feel that you would be held to a "best style" definition, but that is not my intention... it is not a matter of judging good or bad... but a comparison with what is "best"

The first point to be kept in mind is the preservation and maintenance as exactly as possible of the natural scenery; the restriction, that is to say within the narrowest limits consistent with the necessary accommodation of visitors, of all artificial constructions markedly inharmonious with the scenery or which would unnecessarily obscure, distort, or distract from the dignity of the scenery... in permitting the sacrifice of anything that would be of the slightest value to future visitors to the convenience, bad taste, playfulness, carelessness, or wanton destructiveness of present visitors, we probably yield in each case the interest of uncounted millions to the selfishness of a few individuals.

my "best style" basically leaves open the possibility that, having failed at a first ascent attempt, that other first ascent attempts are possible

if you could do the route without Red Pointing, wouldn't it be better?

I disagree,
and I think you are arguing from a position of anticipating being judged for FAs you've done...

that isn't my intention, however, defining "best style" doesn't have to include any "law" regarding adherence to that style... I'm not advocating that....

you could then ask, legitimately, what is the purpose of defining a "best style" if not to beat everyone into submission... but there is where we discuss why we use "less then best style"

Vitaliy M. gave a description of a climb that fits all of our ideals of a first ascent, it is done in "the best style"

you disagree?

if you could do the route without Red Pointing, wouldn't it be better?

Dingus, I accept that you might have many reasons for doing a route in a particular style, but I maintain that we know what the "best style" is, and even though we might not choose this style, it remains a fixed point.

There may be many legitimate reasons, tradeoffs, but the idea of the "best style" remains the best style in all our feelings.

...in permitting the sacrifice of anything that would be of the slightest value to future visitors to the convenience, bad taste, playfulness, carelessness, or wanton destructiveness of present visitors, we probably yield in each case the interest of uncounted millions to the selfishness of a few individuals.

For me, "best" and "style" just can't reasonably go together, no matter how badly we'd like them to. Whether it's climbing, fashion, or surfing.
Just too subjective.

But since we're talking climbing, I'd agree with you Ed if "best" was replaced with "lowest impact" and "style" with "method".

For me lowest impact is preferable.

Ed, I don't envy you for starting this discussion!!!

Edit
The "style" of FA is the least of my worries right now...
I've got nanometers to worry about! And where the last few bolts should go, hand drilled on rap, of course!

When did many belays get fixed in mostly tradtional area? At Devils Tower and many other "trad araes" belays are fixed on crack routes

did you object to the rap route down Royal Arches?

I was speaking to the lack of wilderness and environmental ethics that we as a group tend to have. I still stand on the idea that chalk, tape wads, rap sling nests, bolt stations on long climbs where natural anchors are available, bolting routes that could be top roped, packing another bolt line between all the others, and bolting next to lines that take natural gear is lousy outdoor ethics. We could stand to clean our house.

Style is a different thing altogether. That other stuff about my personal preference to gear just lines up with my preference for single speed bikes, long bows, open oar locks when rafting, hand tools, and generally choosing the simpler technology. I just feel more connected. Just a personal preference. That doesn't mean I'm taking hexes to Indian Creek!

I find inspiration too when I limit my tools to expand my experience. It also inspires when I see others do it. I innately respect their artful and internal pursuit of climbing. Think Jim Erickson not returning to a climb he'd fallen on, Henry Barber pulling the ropes between attempts on a pitch, or the high and, hopefully, internally driven art of free soloing. It's cool when people raise the bar and inspires me even when the bar is too high for me cause it gets me to raise my personal bar.

In hunting, the tools you use will show how skilled a hunter you are. Use a long range rifle with a high powered scope may bag you a buck, but if you're good you can do it with a muzzle loader. If you're really good, you can do it with a compound bow. if youre better, you can do it with a longbow, and if you're really a badass you can jump out of a tree with a Bowie knife and get it done.

Having less technology between us and the experience forces us to be more skilled, more trained, and more conscious. So much of what we do in climbing has become just another consumer culture sport where all that matters is who has the bigger.....numbers. It doesn't matter how hard you climb. It matters what you experience and who you become from doing it, IMHO. If you do a given climb racked to the nines with all the modern gizmos and chalked to the elbows, that's cool. If you do the same climb in a two inch swami and a rack of old hexes sans chalk, that's really cool.

Oddly, being accused of a physicist's precision is interesting, because that initial statement is really very broad, and intuitive, but it captures the essence of climbing first ascents that all of us have experienced.

think what climbing might have been had we waited for our craft to have so advanced that Lynne's FFA of the Nose would have been the FA

When determining a FA would be impossible using the "best style" and choose a less than best style, are we properly taking into account the future climbers that may actually be able to do it in the best style, and maybe we should defer to them the FA.

Just a question.

When determining a FA would be impossible using the "best style" and choose a less than best style, are we properly taking into account the future climbers that may actually be able to do it in the best style, and maybe we should defer to them the FA.

Lower angle, stances available when viewed from below, perhaps an opportunity for protection when viewed from below

As long as one does not change the rock and its environs one can do exactly as one pleases, afterwards quietly going home. No claimed FA, no problem. The whole issue evaporates.

As long as one does not change the rock and its environs one can do exactly as one pleases, afterwards quietly going home. No claimed FA, no problem. The whole issue evaporates.

I'm actually trying to help.

Watch that NGS documentary on Stress I recommended. Then use it to establish exactly what it is
you seek from climbing. Expect doing this to be difficult. Everyone is different and you are no
exception. Climbing can be pretty dangerous. If you are taking risks, you owe it to yourself to know
why you are doing it.

Then use it to establish exactly what it is
you seek from climbing

You don't already know? Then you're not really a climber.

Not very nice!

Your 'best style' is not best.

I would suggest it could also be translated as "Look at me! I am one of those Brits with the free time made available to us by our habit of robbing the people in our colonies."

all in jim

climber

Jun 21, 2014 - 10:26am PT
Take a trip to Europe. Climb at a bunch of different spots and sample a bunch of different routes. Do a sport climb in kalymnos, a trad climb in Meteora, a long route in the Verdon and a short route in Volx. Notice all the people having fun and enjoying the diversity of styles. Each area has it's own fa style. In many cases routes are "opened" by one person so that others can try for the first ascent. Both the "opener" and FAist are appreciated in equal measure. But mostly, it's the people who come after who count, and routes are established with all tastes considered: safe routes, scary routes, ground-up routes, hard routes, easy routes, clean routes, dirty routes.

Many of the new climbs in America are being established in a similar manner these days. It's only in the older areas like Yosemite and the Gunks that FA style is dogmatic, with older climbers clinging to ideals of "good" or "best" style. And that's a good thing. You'll be happier, though, at other areas or when interacting in the broader climbing community if you can open your mind a bit to differing styles.

I'm thankful that climbers come in so many styles - it guarantees that there will always be a great diversity reflected in our choice of rocks to climb up.

DMT, Bob and others have some worry that my definition of "best style" is some religious dogma to force people to climb first ascents in some particular manner.

I'm not advocating that at all.

You start at the ground and climb to the top without resorting to any aid, and making the minimum possible alteration of the route from the state that you found it.

Not able to maintain this style, the first ascent attempt is abandoned in a manner that leaves it as unaltered as possible making it available for future attempts.

What I am saying is that we can all agree that a first ascent put up in that style is a good first ascent. In some ways the description of that style of first ascent is constructed to obtain that consensus.

I would ask DMT what climb, put up in the "best style" as described in the OP, would he object to the first ascent style?

It's a simple question, really. Would you object to a climb put up in that style because the possibility existed to red(pink)-point it? Maybe I'm confused.

i'll ask you too, madbolter1,
if someone does a first ascent in the style I defined in the OP, would you have any problem with it?

aid is aid, if you can do the route without aid you do it that way...
you have options once you get to a point where aid would be necessary:


you can retreat, declaring a failed attempt

you can retreat to a lower point and find another way to continue without using aid

you can use aid and continue

Mark...you are posting opinions, not law and no way are they ethics that all should adhere too.

Yes, Bachar considered hanging from a hook so that he could use both hands to hand drill a bolt aid.