“Are You An Old School or New School Climber?”
A Call to Move Away from the Individualistic Climbing Ethos
A s someone who entered the climbing scene just a few years ago, I was impressed (shocked? slightly put off?) witnessing the extent to which climbers were passionate about their craft. From debates with fellow climbers I had just met at the crag to forum post upon forum post on Mountain Project about local climbing etiquette, it was clear that I was only scratching the surface to a realm that was seemingly much deeper (and much more contentious) than the simple act of climbing itself. In a sport that can foster so much community — one that I’ve personally gained many a friendship and many a memorable experience from — why did it seem as though everyone had a personal bone to pick with someone else?
As I found myself getting more and more into the sport, I became increasingly aware of a certain ethos that distracted me from the warm embrace of the community that originally welcomed me into the sport. Eventually, it became clear to me that the community and the dialogue surrounding climbing was often split into two different factions: an old school mentality with a set of duties to uphold a sense of tradition and adventure, and a new school mentality that came with the influx of bolted routes and hard crag climbing.
In diving further into these two mentalities, it seemed that although they were in conflict with each other as a result of their individualistic goals, neither really comes out on top as the more “ethically superior” mindset. In an effort to pursue more productive climbing discourse, I believe that we must move away from this individualistic climbing ethos, and instead, move towards a more community–focused approach to climbing ethics and dialogue.
The Climbing Landscape
The Old School Climbing Mentality
The history of climbing as an activity is one that is rich and storied. As such, there exists an old school mentality in climbing that is incredibly tied to this history. This mentality begins with the concept of “fair means,” as coined by English mountaineer Albert F. Mummery, which started the discussion surrounding how much gear a climber could use for their ascent of a mountain to be considered “fair.”
After the repeated use of pitons caused noticeable permanent damage to iconic big wall routes like Serenity Crack in Yosemite, Yvon Chouinard and his company sparked the “clean climbing” movement in an attempt to move away from pitons by introducing a new line of gear that could be placed and removed without permanently damaging the rock. In doing so, Chouinard put greater emphasis on preserving the environment and the purity of both the rock and the sport itself.
As sport climbing grew to greater popularity throughout the 1980s and 90s, the old school mentality then evolved to include ethics against retro-bolting existing routes, especially when done against the wishes of the first ascensionist. Although one does not always entail the other, the old school mentality can also be associated with the discipline of climbing called traditional (“trad”) climbing. Trad climbing, due to its distinct lack of permanent, existing protection, is considered to be a much more risky and adrenaline-seeking discipline of climbing in comparison to sport climbing.
At its very core, the old school mentality entails a duty to preserve a sense of adventure, tradition, “purity” of the sport, and embracing risk.
The New School Climbing Mentality
With the rise of sport climbing also came the rise of the new school mentality. This mindset, in contrast to the old school mentality, was sparked by the growing use of bolts to develop entire climbing areas all across the US, starting in Smith Rocks, OR.
With the presence of bolts on each route in every sport climbing crag, the focus of the new school climbing mentality became more about pushing an individual’s physical limits and strength as climbers would have the safety, reassurance, and certainty that a bolt can provide. Given this decrease in inherent risk as well as the requirement of less expensive gear and less technical knowledge, the new school mentality is also associated with increasing access to climbing as a whole, particularly as sport climbing becomes a more popular entry point into the activity.
Hence, the new school climbing mentality formed, with its respective duties to undertake safe, short-form, and physically challenging climbing, ultimately helping bring many new climbers into the sport.
Climbing Ethos in Conflict
In understanding the history of the sport, we can see how climbing used to be much more homogeneous — that it was more simple to prescribe to this old school mentality and to adhere to a certain duty to uphold this tradition because for the first ~200 years of the sport, that was practically all that there was. As climbing evolved especially with an increase in bolting in recent decades, the sport itself has diverged from its old school origins. And while the old school mentality stood its ground, the growing popularity of sport climbing led to the development of a new school mentality that falls in opposition to those origins. In today’s era of climbing, it now becomes increasingly difficult to discern which duties should be prioritized and when.
Is There a “Winner”?
So, if we have this conflict between which duties to prioritize, is there a specific mentality that comes out on top when we consider both against important ethical considerations like safety, access, or environmental impact?
- While the new school mentality might prioritize safety through the presence of bolted protection, the old school mentality concerns itself with long-term safety through an understanding of the natural environment and its unpredictable intricacies.
- While the new school mentality prides itself on increasing access, bringing more climbers into outdoor climbing, the old school mentality preserves access to rare climbing experiences like that of Snake Dike on Half Dome.
- While the old school mentality might more clearly support decreasing environmental impact through its values surrounding clean climbing, the new school mentality supports bolting routes, creating consolidated paths up the rock and preventing climbers from using fragile cliff-side trees as anchors.
Ultimately, among these considerations and many more, we see that there really is no “winner” — that the question of moral superiority is moot. Neither ethos is more meritorious than the other, and both can be damaging in their respective ways. But, most importantly, the conflict between the two is damaging to the community as a whole because an adherence to one set of duties or the other benefits only those that hold that specific mentality.
It seems as though this conflict has become a matter of asserting individual autonomy — “What is best for what I want?” — rather than “What is best for the climbing community?” As the dialogue surrounding this conflict becomes increasingly polarized, asserting this individualistic reasoning and upholding one of these two mentalities has become an outlet for fueling individual ego. As the never-ending dialogue goes on, many climbers end up mistaking an ethical argument for what is actually a difference of individual opinion, climbing style, and values, which only further perpetuates this inflation of ego.
Is it ethics or is it ego? Various users across different threads on Mountain Project assert their opinions on the topic of retro-bolting and first ascensionist “ethics”:
“Since when is it okay to add bolts to an existing free climb let alone more than double the original count?!… It was a far more engaging little climb back when it was a bit of a spicy lead — something for a 5.9/10 leader to aspire to. Now it’s just another sport route. All routes do not have to be made uber-safe for the masses.”
“Not every route is made for every climber, and I am ok with that. It’s unfortunate to back off from a climb that I don’t think I can safely lead, but I’d rather not change the nature of a route. There are plenty of closely bolted routes out there… And yes all of this is because of ego. I am also ok with that.”
“If you can’t handle the runout. You don’t deserve to climb the route. I personally get bored on sport routes and my favorite style of climbing is runout slab. Nothing like some mental and butt puckering.”
Such a conflation of ethics and ego results in giving individual climbers the idea that they can stand on their soapbox to voice their “ethically superior” opinion, when really, a superior opinion does not exist. In fact, this roundabout, rabbit-hole discourse between old school and new school mentalities is simply unproductive for everyone.
So, Where Do We Go From Here?
What we ultimately want is for climbing discourse to feel productive — that we are moving in a direction of growth for the community. In order to progress as a community, we need to first recognize that these two different mentalities both have room for improvement. While the old school mentality could be more focused on making climbing more accessible, for example, the new school mentality could be more focused on decreasing the environmental impact of sport climbing. Second, we need to recognize that these two mentalities (and all of the individual “duties” in between) can co-exist in a context-dependent way, one that reflects the best solution for a given scenario.
Localized climbing ethics are a great example of this type of context-dependent, more community-based approach. Each discrete geographic location and centralization of climbing offers incredibly different experiences (different demographics of climbers, different geology, different historical precedents, etc.) which all deserve to be preserved. Hence, each localized community has their own sets of values and ethics to go along with it. For example, locations rich with history like Yosemite or Joshua Tree are often more protected from over-bolting in contrast to a place like Rifle Mountain in Colorado which has been a “sport climber’s playground” since its inception.
Ultimately, if we can reflect this context-dependent and community-oriented nature of localized ethics among individuals and throughout the broader climbing community, we can focus more on improving the climbing experience for everyone, no matter what values you come into the sport with. Things like preserving the environment in which we recreate within or fostering community bonding and growth are goals that are in all of our best interests to undertake.
As climbers, it benefits all of us to de-emphasize this individualistic ethos, and re-emphasize the collective community around climbing that originally introduced us to the activity that we now love so much.
This article is written in memory of Lee Hansche who tragically passed on May 21st, 2024. Lee was a pillar of the Northeast climbing community and sought to introduce as many people into the sport through climbing education, accessibility, stewardship, and his pure, infectious passion. His legacy will continue through every route he put up, every Mountain Project post he contributed, and every individual he interacted with at the crag.
Lee was someone I’ve looked up to since I started climbing three years ago, and it was obvious that I would look to him as well as his and Jay Knower’s First Ascent Podcast for inspiration and wisdom with which to begin my research on the ethics of climbing. This article is the culmination of that research and I hope that it can pay homage to the humble, patient, kind, and accepting manner in which Lee built our Northeast climbing community.
