「龍洞後門」5.13路線！

[chao]

地點：龍洞「後門」

路線一：(A)＋(B)
路線名稱：「笑傲江湖」
難度：5.12c


路線二：(A)＋(D)
路線名稱：「一山還比一山高」
難度：5.13a
Leading首攀：劉以德（red-point）
時間：2003年6月1日（日）
打bolt日期：2003年6月1日(本條路線bolt由劉以德贊助)

原top-rope首攀：Yum Yum（1998/10/3）
原名稱：「一山還比一山高」
top-rope redpoint：劉以德、Yuji（2003/4/2）、周俊明（2003/6/1）


路線三：(C)＋(D)
路線名稱：『誰與爭峰』
難度：5.13b
Leading首攀：劉以德（red-point）
時間：2003年6月19日（四）

top-rope首攀：Yum Yum（2003/5/31）



-------

When I have a little time, I climb;
and if any is left, I eat and sleep.

「攀岩星球」上只住著兩種人，一種是在攀岩的人；
另一種是爬累了正在休息的人。


<font size=1>[ 這篇文章修改由: chao 在 2003-06-21 20:40 ]</font>

[imported_Anonymous]

目前台灣現有Project統計: (2003.06.03)

[已有bolts可leading]

1.關子嶺-毒刺林: \"Yuji\'s Project\",約5.14a,長約12米.
(ps:二齒誓言於三個月內完攀!)

2.壽山-羽球場: \"Y2K\"(5.11c/d)+\"出差第二天\",兩條相連級數可能接近5.12d,長約10米

3.龍洞-後門:\"笑傲江湖\"左側之project,長約18米,級數約5.13b


[僅能top-rope]

4.關子嶺-終極岩: \"天龍八步\"與\"青蛙王子\"間,級數約5.13a,長約18米 [img]images/forum/smilies/icon_eek.gif[/img] [img]images/forum/smilies/icon_eek.gif[/img] [img]images/forum/smilies/icon_eek.gif[/img]

[imported_Anonymous]

一條路線應該不會出現兩個不一樣的名字，『一山還比一山高』是Yum Yum以Top Rope方式完成後所取的名字，雖然之後打上Bolt並以Leading方式爬上去，這條路線也應該還是叫做『一山還比一山高』。
就像『The Nose』，首攀者花了40幾天Aid climbing上去後，之後的人不論用什麼方式（如Lynn Hill第一次Free climbing 『The Nose』），這條路線也不會變成其他名字。
（不過那種打好Bolt之前，Top Rope也沒人爬上去的路線例外）
在這些情形下，Guide Book裡面的附註說明會不太一樣，如Top Rope：Yum Yum（200?.??.??）；Leading：以德（2003.06.01）；Solo?：子凱（????.??.??）

對了，另一條Yum YumTop Rope爬完的5.13路線（與笑傲江湖完全分開的路線），難度大約5.13b/c，Yum Yum已經取名為『誰與爭峰』。這幾個星期Yum Yum在後門嘗試了許\多條新的5.12∼5.13路線，相關資訊請找Yum Yum詢問。

王宏祥

[chang_rex]

這命名權的問題值得另開專欄討論
畢竟遊戲規則早些建立對大家都好

板主幫幫忙吧

[yideliu]

關於路線”首攀”與”命名權”

就我所知，歐美人眼中所謂運動攀登的首攀應該僅指leading完攀，因此在未打好整條路線bolt及以leading方式完攀前，是不會有所謂的”首攀”與”命名權”問題的存在，除非是像大砲岩等高度不夠高到能leading等等…。

對於後門那條路線，我原則上同意放棄”命名權”(除非幫忙打bolts的子凱仍有意見)，讓該路線保有原有的名稱”一山還比一山高”，因為我想爬完它的動力在於挑戰自己的極限，而非追尋路線命名的權利。所以這個議題也沒有繼續爭論的意義了!

就以”名不虛傳”來說，在我眼中它是龍洞最漂亮的一條路線，想完攀它的動力並不會因為它已被俊明首攀了而有絲毫的減少。但因為每個國家都有屬於他自己的”攀岩倫理”，我只想突破自我，並不想挑戰這樣的倫理與成規。

雖然對於路線的名稱我沒有意見，但對於路線的級數我卻認為有修正的必要。原本Guidebook上標明該路線的難度(top-rope)為5.13b，但經過我與俊明試攀後的看法，該路線應該為5.13a。至於”誰與爭鋒”，應該才有5.13b左右的難度。

[以上觀點僅為個人意見，尚盼前輩不吝指正!]

by以德
[img]images/forum/smilies/[/img] [img]images/forum/smilies/[/img] [img]images/forum/smilies/[/img]

[chao]

恭喜以德首攀(red-point)後門『誰與爭峰』(5.13b) 路線.

路線三：(C)＋(D)
路線名稱：『誰與爭峰』
難度：5.13b
Leading首攀：劉以德（red-point）
時間：2003年6月19日（四）

top-rope首攀：Yum Yum（2003/5/31） [addsig]

[Ta-Chi]

I don\'t know about Europe. In the US, three situations happen:

1) A potential problem names as \"Project\" when it is still not climbed either by TR or by any other ways. Soon as TRed, that is, soon as the problem proved to be climbable, this route is named (if memory serves me right, both \"To Bolt Or Not To Be\" and \"Just Do It\" belong to this type of naming history, among many others)

2) A \"Project\" remains as a \"Project\" until it is bolted, leading-climbed, and so named (this seems to be what is being argued here -- leading-climbers, not otherwise, have the \"rights to name\".)

3) An existing route changes by either variation (a section, or sections, of it goes to other ways but begins and ends at the same points) or by adding length to it, so the difficulty is changed. In this situation, either a \"Variation\" would be added to the old name of this route or a new name would be given to indicate the new difficulty with those variation(s).

In any event, it is rare to re-name a route if the name of that route (no matter this was done by leading-climbers or TRers) has already existed. Doing so would be thought as being self-grandizing and often local people would simply ignore it.

In short, in terms of naming, it is common for the one who has \"discovered,\" \"attempted,\" and \"cultivated\" the potential of a route to do so, not necessarily the one who \"finishes\" it. If one argues for the latter, then, the question would be extended to this next question: by what standards -- on-sight, flash, red-point, pink-point, or some other even fussier differentiations? If the \"rights to name\" is the point argued here, then I would say that one who has on-sighted a named route should have the \"rights\" to rename it because its name was done by one who simply red-pointed it, and so forth. The \"strength\" is the foundation of the \"rights,\" so it goes, and if I am stronger than you are, screw your rights, and screw your name.

Is this what Taiwan wants? I hope not. If you can do 5.13b, regardless whatever its name and regardless whoever has the \"naming rights,\" you can do 5.13b, and that is all about for proving and inspiration. When Lin Hill came to Lander, Wyoming, and on-sighted a 5.13b route at Killer Cave (Two-teeth and Min-Che were there 3 years ago), which route\'s name was given by a guy who did it only by repeatedly hangdogging, Lin did not change the name of that route. Why should she?

A name, and relatedly, the \"rights of naming\", is for the purpose of identification, to indicate a problem or challenge that lies there to be overcome and having fun. Naming is just a way for communication, to simply put. To argue for \"naming rights\" is misleading, and kinda of funny -- years later, people would only remember who did that 5.13b or 5.14a and the same people would hardly remeber who named those routes. Who care? [img]images/forum/smilies/[/img]