SummitPost.org

I have a friend who has claimed a few first "known" ascents of a few routes in a range that has little written climbing history. Yet this range has been climbed for many decades.

Even if you can't find evidence of anyone else climbing it, it seems a little bold to say "first" in an area with such rich climbing history.

Am I wrong to find his self aggrandizing hard to believe?

First RECORDED ascent.

Funny! I am working on a guidebook to a certain area, and in the process I am learning that many of the routes were climbed prior to their first ascents.

First formal ascent -- wearing a tuxedo or cocktail dress, for example.

MoapaPk wrote:First formal ascent -- wearing a tuxedo or cocktail dress, for example.

Sounds like a way for someone to make his or her name on Everest.

Bob Sihler wrote:

MoapaPk wrote:First formal ascent -- wearing a tuxedo or cocktail dress, for example.

Sounds like a way for someone to make his or her name on Everest.

If some dude climbs Everest in a cocktail dress, I don't want to know about it.

drjohnso1182 wrote:

Bob Sihler wrote:

MoapaPk wrote:First formal ascent -- wearing a tuxedo or cocktail dress, for example.

Sounds like a way for someone to make his or her name on Everest.

If some dude climbs Everest in a cocktail dress, I don't want to know about it.

This is crying out for an Icareau "dude looks like a lady" post

Complete with caps!

If you climb a rock or mountain using no guide, beta, following any trail or guidance in any way from another human--it is a first ascent or just as good. However, the historical rights to a first ascent must somehow be recorded in history. If you climbed Mt Whitney in 1805, tough shit. No credit.

If there is no recorded history of an ascent, no physical sign of human ascent (no beer cans on top, which is the usual method of spray). It's a probable first ascent.

If you do a first ascent and no one cares....

Great philosophical question.

In Europe many of the easier mountains (that can still be quite high) had been climbed by locals often hundreds of years before any 'mountaineers' came from the outside to climb them. In such cases they simply use the expression "the first tourist" climb!

A good European example is Prokletije/Bjeshket e Nemuna, a remote range in the Balkans. I've heard about 'first known ascents' (the word 'known' was used) of some non-technical peaks there that must have been visited by locals for ages. In some cases it's not so simple though. I might claim an FA of this peak which is semi-technical (II+ UIAA), at the page I wrote that it's uncertain whether the locals climbed to the summit or just were near the summit area (problems with communication). At the top there was no trace of a man.
Recently we claimed an FA of this peak which is technical from all sides so there's not much doubt.

So yes, for peaks or routes that require easy climbing (let's say low class 5) FA's may be uncertain, but the more technical it gets the more likely it is that someone, somwhere would brag about their FA if they made it!

Jakester wrote:I have a friend who has claimed a few first "known" ascents of a few routes in a range that has little written climbing history. Yet this range has been climbed for many decades.

Even if you can't find evidence of anyone else climbing it, it seems a little bold to say "first" in an area with such rich climbing history.

Am I wrong to find his self aggrandizing hard to believe?

I think it's a lot of fun to go climb something with out any previous knowledge of the route.

It kinda keeps it like a "first ascent" for me.

So Jake, your friend claiming the first "known" is having fun, but he must have doubts about being the “first”.

I would ask your friend, known to whom?

gk

People ought to have enough knowledge and experience to make some kind of call as to whether what they've just climbed has been climbed before... but sometimes they don't.

I was climbing a short 5.3ish tower in Red Rocks with cp one time... back in... maybe 2005? We hit the top, no more than a few miles from the trailhead, and there's a summit register from '04 where the guy who placed it is crowing about his first ascent.

In Red Rocks?

5.3?

That close to the trailhead?

Funnier still was the fact that another party climbed it a week after the "first ascent," leaving the sarcastic comment that "golly gee, what were the chances?!?"

Dingus Milktoast wrote:I think for areas where its fairly certain lines were climbed by competent climbers and were just never documented?

Calling it the first known ascent is a bit presumptive. I understand the situaiton and have been in it myself, heh.

I think for undocumented climbs - your buddy should take 'naming rights' but not claim any sort of 'first' at all. That would be my approach anyway. IS my approach, correction.

For example, "The Rediscovered Country" Grade II, 5.10a, FA Unknown

Whaddaya think?

I think you nailed it. Thanks for the input.