changed spelling and added a paragraph

Has the progress of climbing been unnecessarily slowed down? If a new route is freed on top-rope is it a new route gone free?

In other words is there any reason to dispute that whatever you can free on second you could have led?

Putting in a piece of protection or placing my hand in a crack is the same to me. So why can't I say that whatever ascent I make on top rope is the same as any ascent I make on lead?

One might ask, if there is no difference why don't you lead it? Leading takes more time, if there is no cracks then bolts get placed, and is leading often only about the ego than rather than about the climbing? I think this has often been the case with bolts in places where one can toprope.

I suppose if it has to do with A4 falls, then there are more questions involved. But if it really has to do with sparse protection perhaps it's not leading anyway. If there really is ultimately no real protection then it's soloing.

If a new route is freed on top-rope is it a new route gone free?

Yes, but as you know, such first ascents have (toprope) parenthetically noted in a guidebook with the first lead ascendant's name added if it had been subsequently led. Do you think that's a bad idea?

I added one sentence in the second paragraph.

Once you are experienced enough, you can consistently lead whatever you can top-rope. So, I think the only thing we need to know is whether or not it is a A1, A2, A3, A4, or A5 as far as the protection is concerned. If it is A5 or X than you can top rope it or … solo/lead it.

So I would have to say Yes. I think it is wonderful that we have such an interesting history and I appreciate the added drama that the old ethics has given us, but are all the bolts in New River really worth that notoriety? However and, where would climbing be today as a whole, or individually if we concentrated more on climbing and less on ethics and the ego? I think that it was not until the climbing gym that people started to concentrate more on climbing and physical aptitude. Previously working out in the winter was not always that successful.

I think it all boils down to this. Mathematically, is leading the same as top-rope seconding? And if it is, for the sake of bolts, perhaps style should be a private, rather than a public concern. The only thing we need to know is the grades 5.11 G, PG, R, or X.

But then again, "No", it is not a bad thing in this case. Only in the case where something is only top-roped where no story of climbing with protection can be given, then it should be noted as top-roped. There has to be leading involved if someone is going to grade it in that respect.

Are you suggesting that if a route may be readily toproped yet cannot be reasonably lead without bolting, it is best left as a toprope-only route? If so, I'd agree with that.

Such a route may be lead, of course, as an x-rated virtual solo.

The thing about calling something a first ascent if it has only been toproped....it just seems like you can hang a toprope literally anywhere you want. So what is stopping us from dropping a line every 4 or 5 feet along the cliff and climbing plumb lines? How many "first ascent" lines can be squeezed into a given section of rock? The same holds true, to a lesser extent, with bolted routes. At some point it all becomes rather absurd.

I forget what guidebook I was reading, where the author describes the effort put into freeing a top rope route by a climber, and says something like.."This route is a testament to the vision and boldness of ### ###". The climber in question is without question very gifted....but it take a visionary to toprope something.

So I guess what I am saying somewhere deep down is that I kind of feel that the label of fisrt ascent should be reserved for things that are led. It's too easy to drop a line from the top and squeeze a line in.

Unfortunately that eliminates a huge number of routes, some quite famous. It actually eliminates a significant number of entire cliffs.

RR,

Sounds like you've been reading up on Blade Runner in the old Gunks Select.

DL

Which routes? I don't think it eliminates anything except the bolts on those routes. Are people, and what they did with bolts really such a necessary part of climbing that we can't deal with the rock just the way it is without the bolting? I think bolting, especially in recent times, has only demonstrated nothing but confusion.

When I say this I am not talking about climbs like Apollo Reed or the Nose of El Capitan. I am talking about climbs like The Gun Club and countless others. Vertical routes where the idea is that unless you use the bolts you are not really doing the climb.