>When I first read this I thought to myself; what a load of sanctimonious
>claptrap...
>Then I thought; the next generations need educating; ... and further,
>I was surprised and a little disappointed that this line of thought was
>coming from a climber that I respect!
I think I was channeling my inner ODH in the previous reply. I stand by most of what I said though, even if I was a little blunt.
>Tell me Dave J, how would you feel if someone retroed a route you put
>up?
>In my opinion, retro-bolting and retro-naming are not dis-similar!
It happens. people have retro bolted old boulder problems I've done. Lame but no big deal, they werent signifcant things anyway (plus I bet they didnt even do the proper sit starts). I don't think this is a useful comparison....a lesser ascent doesnt overwirte history
A better comparison, I think, would be if a new 'better/cleaner" style became the new bottom line. Say ropes became unfashoinable. Old hat. And soloing or onsight solo became the new bottom line for claiming an ascent. Whoever did this first got naming rights... and how would I feel seeing the roped climbing history of Arapiles/gramps gradually overwritten? I would be pretty excited to see people pushing the limits but I would probably (like you) want to see the history and names of the original lines preseved (if only as a footnote).
>Retro naming a route is theft (and inconsiderate), pure and simple.
>Don't do it.
I never have. Be it an old aid line or (post 80s) a 'project' with a name. If I've managed to get up it I've stuck with the original name. I like the history of climbing and that lines have a past that you can choose to engage with. aid lines , like seventh pillar, cadena direct (If Id ever got up inquisition thats what I would have called it) or free routes like Carrigans "Leaps" in the bluffs (there were some sound arguments for calling it "Better than Leif").
I think you can steal from the future though too.Claiming an ascent of a thing youre not good enough to climb. Chipping and maybe aiding ? (Aiding being the less destructive of the two)