天然岩場「路線命名規則」討論

[kevin]

相關討論----
(轉自「龍洞後門」5.13路線！)


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
[addsig]

[kevin]

相關討論----
(轉自「天龍八步」難度提升：5.13c/d?)


作者:chao
發表: 2003-05-01 14:07

不知道一般國外的慣例是如何.
不過應該可以分為4種的\"首攀\"形式---

1.\"第一次爬上去\":可能是傳統,人工,hangdog,只要上去就算.(例如大霸的路線,或很多天然岩場的路線)

2.\"自由攀登(free)\"的形式--\"top-roping首攀\"
:無墬落一次成功\

3.\"自由攀登(free)\"的形式--\"leading首攀\"
:無墬落一次成功\(又可細分是否自己掛快扣,不過一般都是快扣已掛好)

4.傳統先鋒無墬落首攀

歡迎提出指正~




作者:chang_rex
發表: 2003-05-02 02:26

綜合網路各家說法 (以下不代表笨台立場) --

天然的路線
First Ascent = 只要 Trad/Aid 上去就算
但是總是有人會想盡辦法 free (=leading+無墬落) 別人FA的路線 例如 Lynn Hill freed the Nose.

有 bolt的運動攀登的路線
First Ascent = leading+無墬落 (是否自己掛快扣 不是重點) 例如 Chris Sharma did the Realization.

沒有 bolt的運動攀登的路線
(Top roping) First Ascent = .. 沒人敢拿出來嗆聲 別人會笑
而且 top rope 完成後 下一步通常是打 bolt 之後才有 First Ascent 及 命名權 的問題 例如 Yuji projects the \"Just for fun\"

但是這有特例 - 路線不能打 bolt 或是 禁止打 bolt 那麼大家只有將就一下子 加減爬 無須嗆聲
[addsig]

[A-fwu]

我覺得要leading上去才有命名權
因為台灣是小地方
路線就這些
如果toprope就可以命名那大家就去toprope 就好了,誰要花錢出力呢?
又不是白痴
你toprope猛爬其他人在後面傻傻的幫你打bolts.
然後說路線是你首攀
kevin, 以德, 俊明, 二齒
先爬先贏, 先Toprope就好了
不要一直打bolts

[kevin]

新增了一個投票區：
「天然岩場路線命名權，你覺得命名規則應為何？」

可以由首頁右邊參與投票,或是直接點選www.RockClimbing.idv.tw


[ 這篇文章修改由: kevin 在 2003-06-08 14:39 ]

[kevin]

(這裡將大濟原發表在「龍洞後門」5.13路線！的文章轉貼過來)


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?

Ta-Chi[addsig]

[A-YUNG]

頗有同感!

作者: superkai

以德说的对，其实对一条路线的命名没有必要去深究太多，它不过是个名称；倒是关于难度级别的修正是很有必要的。
一条难度定级不准的路线会对后来的攀爬者造成不好的影响，爬了一条软的路线自己说出去也心虚，爬了一条硬的路线会内心不停的抱怨定级者（我一个13的climber怎么\爬11的这么\费劲？）
所以级别的讨论应该更公开化，友善化，不要因为自己的路线被降级而不满，也应勇敢的提出自己的看法。

个人之见

赵凯

[A-YUNG]

何老師的看法也是多年後我們技術進步了 見識廣了 會有不同的看法!

作者: cdho

我倒是建議大砲岩的難度該有個V-grade的版本。不過應該不是原來YDS難度的直接轉換，隔了這麼多年，大家或許\對難度有不同的看法 [img]images/forum/smilies/icon_confused.gif[/img]

[anmin]

名稱和難度其實一樣的.
看有沒有尊重當初的歷史與心態而已.
有些幾十年前 YDS5.10 難度被定義之前定的級數,
例如, 某些 5.9, 5.9+ 的路線,
為尊重當初定的難度, 現在還是標 5.9, 5.9+,
爬的人自己要注意標 5.9, 5.9+ 的有可能很難, 別被表到了.

[A-YUNG]

嗯 ,何老師大概是心想"不要尊重當初的歷史"

不過想歸想大概大夥都懶得去改吧!

作者: anmin

名稱和難度其實一樣的.
看有沒有尊重當初的歷史與心態而已.
有些幾十年前 YDS5.10 難度被定義之前定的級數,
例如, 某些 5.9, 5.9+ 的路線,
為尊重當初定的難度, 現在還是標 5.9, 5.9+,
爬的人自己要注意標 5.9, 5.9+ 的有可能很難, 別被表到了.

[cdho]

哈哈！沒想到潛水這麼久了還會被點名。
不太記得當初發表此意見的背景，不過應該是無關尊重與否。

Amin講的沒錯，難度級數原則上在不同時代應該都是一致的。而且也不需要將數十年前的級數downgrade，反正級數可以從5.14，5.15一直往上加。

而我當初的看法是隨著台灣攀岩圈的開放與國際交流日增，十多年前訂定的級數或許需要加以修正，已與國際接軌，而非直接根據對照表將YDS轉成V-grade。

至於首攀者是否有訂定級數的絕對權力，可以參考以下文章：
http://www.suite101.com/content/simple-guidelines-for-how-to-grade-a-climbing-route-correctly-a329373
摘錄幾句話：
The first ascensionist of a sport climbing route can definitely express his opinion as to the grade of that route, but his word should not be set in stone. The more climbers who climb the route and give their honest opinion as to the route’s difficulty level, the better.

包括Sharma的第一條5.15路線也是在攀岩界形成共識(consensus)之後才算數。

[A-YUNG]

何老師,不好意思開了個玩笑, 卻把您請出來了, 現在台灣的攀岩界由您來主持 就要出運了!

只是看到尊重當初的歷史, 就覺得沉重, 要改革就不能故步自封吧!

可能需要用心去取得平衡點吧!