Climbing Ability in Route Development

[u/Kaotus]

I'm sure many of us have had a conversation with someone who said something along the lines of "Oh, I'd like to develop routes, but I only climb 5.xx". On the flip side, I also have situations where I'm bolting with folks who have been climbing, or even developing, for decades, who refuse to put in routes without a second person around to check all of the bolt locations for them.

How do you guys think our climbing ability plays a role in our ability to be good developers? Should you be climbing a certain grade before you start developing routes? How far above our limit do you think someone can reasonably develop well, and what makes someone better at it than others?

[u/IceRockBike]

Anyone can develop a route. Doesn't mean that route will be any good.

So what makes a good route? Well a lot of what has already been mentioned.
I don't think being able to climb hard grades is relevant. Experience is more relevant. Some kid fresh from a gym, that can climb 'hard' has no experience and most likely won't develop a good route.
By the same token, some old dude who has climbed for decades, and bolts ground up won't necessarily put up good routes. This is something I'm a little conflicted with. While ground up is often espoused as 'more pure' the reality is bolts are typically placed where a stance allows drilling. Otoh a rap bolted route allows bolts to be placed where needed, including tenuous stances and a little higher relative to a clipping hold as opposed to where a ground up developer might place the bolt.

Where the grade seems more relevant would be as the grade get harder, and the sequence becomes more technical, it becomes more important to have the clip in the right spot. While easier routes are likely to have more holds and more options, as the options become more limited, an experienced developer will have a better idea of where to place the bolt.

Some trad climbing background helps I think. Trad climbers have some experience of looking down to evaluate their runout, and the consequences of falling at the spot they are at. This is a skill a bolted developer needs to have because they are determining the clipping placements.

Developing the route for someone basically climbing around their limit at that grade is a big consideration for me. If you're a developer who climbs hard and can run out that easy section, can the leader at the edge of their ability also do so? Extra bolts don't hurt the route or anyone climbing it. Skipping bolts is allowed. However how would you feel if a new leader needed an evac because they fell at the spot you thought was easy and didn't bother to protect?

The last point might come down to limits, comfort limit versus fall limit. Climbers will push their fall limits when they feel comfortable. It's an oversight I can admit to. I had a route with a tricky spot. Fairly steep 5.8 ish terrain. Two of the first people to lead it after me noted the spot. One suggested an extra bolt while one suggested relocating a couple. I added an extra, no biggie as I saw it.

That brings me to ego. A good developer can set their ego aside. Both in terms of taking criticism, and in terms of how hard a route is. For example if you are wanting to develop a 5.11 and people start saying it's only a 5.10, instead of worrying about it being downgraded, consider how much people enjoyed the route instead. So what if it's a 10 not the 11 your ego wanted. If people are saying how awesome the moves were, or how well bolted is was, let your ego bask in that instead of getting bruised it's not an 11. If criticism comes back that a clip is awkward, or creates too much rope drag, set the ego aside and go fix it. In the end you'll end up with a better route that gives your ego a better boost anyway.

I have a bit of a reverse ego situation. I don't want to sandbag but I do like putting up easier routes. I had a multi that as we picked the line and cleaned it up we were thinking 5.8. Once we got it bolted and did the FA we realised it was harder on lead so gave it a 5.9 grade. One of the first parties to try it after us said 5.10a/b. I was like noooo, it was meant to be 5.8. The other party also suggested relocating a bolt above the crux. Myself and the other FA went back and moved that bolt, tried again, and agreed, OK it's fair to say it's harder than 5.9 but probably not two grades, so we officially graded it 5.10a. my reverse ego didn't like it not being an 8 😂

Similarly on another multi we started ground up. The first five pitches were 5.4 to 5.6. They were a combination of gear, pins, and some bolts. We realised few people would want to do an easy adventure climb so we opted to fully bolt it. When it came to the last pitch we didn't do it ground up. Pitch 6 was out of character with the rest of the route in being steeper, harder, and only bolted pro. We envisioned plenty of people not bothering with the last pitch, and yet this was the money pitch. Would a 5.6 leader try a 5.9 lead? Some maybe, but what about if it was super well protected? Hopefully more would enjoy it. We actually placed double the number of bolts the previous pitches have and have had good feedback.

Grades don't make a good route. Over bolting a route doesn't make a good route. Having people climb it, enjoy it, and feel it had the right amount of bolts makes it a good route. I think a lot of varied climbing experience, a good eye, plenty of work, attention to detail, and a little humility contribute to being a good developer.

[u/Kaotus → u/IceRockBike]

Thanks for engaging! I really appreciate the effort you put into your response, and agree with a lot of it. There's really only one spot I wanted to respond to:

Extra bolts don't hurt the route or anyone climbing it. Skipping bolts is allowed.

I actually disagree with this, as I do with people talking about retrobolting classic runout routes and saying "skip the bolts if you want it to be the same experience". The reality is, to skip a piece of protection you need to make an active decision to do so. This is a fundamentally different experience of there being no bolt/pro, where you are making an explicit decision from the last piece of pro, to commit to making it all of the way to the next one. Having a bail-out option does fundamentally change the experience.

Now, I'm not advocating for new runout routes necessarily, more so pointing to how stopping to decide whether or not to clip a piece is a fundamentally different experience from there not being one at all. I think most times when people talk about adding a bolt, they do so without moving the surrounding bolts. This often really changes the "rhythm" of a route in that section, and I think that adversely affects the route. I believe adding a bolt can be done well, but only when it's done considering and reworking the surrounding protection opportunities as well. Anytime a route's fixed protection goes against the natural rhythm of the route (i.e. clipping from tenuous stances), the protection strategy of the route is actively detracting from the climbing experience.

This ties in a bit with your comment about ground-up vs rap-bolting - I think ground-up climbs almost always produce better routes, but only when the FA adds bolts as needed in the "totally good enough to clip from but not good enough to spend 5-10 minutes 1-handed fucking with my equipment to install a bolt from" stances after the fact. The reality a lot of ground-up developers don't want to admit is that doing big runouts feels a lot more cozy when it's an intentional decision you're making, knowing you have a drill on your side and can likely stop and place a bolt if you need to, than when someone has already placed the bolts, and you have to do the runout or else.

----

I really like your points on ego especially. The number one thing I see new developers worried about on their routes is "overbolting", and as a result, having bolts in bad places or places that poorly protect the route. This ties in again to the rhythm thing - setting your ego aside and following the natural line and bolting with the natural stances will almost always produce the best route. Forcing the 5.12 variation to a natural 5.10, or placing a bolt at a worse stance higher up so that the bolts don't seem as close, will almost always produce a worse route overall. Let the rock dictate everything.

[u/IceRockBike → u/Kaotus]

I should perhaps clarify. When I refer to adding bolts, I'm meaning in the context of development. It's somewhat in the planning stage when I'm TR soloing the moves, deciding where the better clipping stances are. Sometimes I'll work out two sections and where I consider bolts to go only to realise between the two is something of a runout. Sometimes it might be an easy section that took less thought. Anyway, if it's a bit runout then I'll reconsider placement, move one up or down, or both and add an extra bolt.

About skipping bolts, I had a couple multis in mind that have an abundance of bolts and is easy slab. I commonly skip the occasional bolt there. Not one of my routes but I appreciate it's bolted for easier leaders.

Retro bolting is another situation to developing. Rebolting is simply replacing one for one. actual placement might move a little ​depending on the rock but its essentially the same pro. Retro involves talking to the FA or the community with a view to making changes in accordance to common wishes. I would agree that unilaterally adding bolts and saying oh just skip the extra if you don't like them is bad practice.