UKC

What do trad climbers do after they fall off something? Have the influence of redpointing and headpointing changed the approach to doing trad routes? Do people lower off back down to the ground, hangdog but placing no more gear, hangdog placing gear, pull the ropes for each try or what?

In reply to stp:

For me it varies depending on my mood, the grade, the ease of gear retrieval, whether I hurt myself in the fall, the weather, etc. etc.

I've used most of the styles you describe.

It doesn't really matter as long as you are accurate about the style when you log the ascent.

In reply to stp:

Generally just climb on. Finish the route then take another go at it another time if I want to do it clean.

In reply to henwardian:

It actually doesn't matter if you are not accurate when you log the ascent, if you are happy with what you've done, but you may get called on it if you brag about stuff to others.

In reply to stp:

I have done all of the above depending on what the route means to me. The more bothered I am, the better my ethics.

In reply to stp:

I think after a fall or a rest on gear most people will acknowledge they've failed on the route and either dog their way to the top or lower off and ab for the gear, maybe coming back another day for another try. It only really gets complicated if you want to try again straight away; then you have to make a decision as to what degree of hassle you can justify in the name of purity of style. Nowadays it's widely agreed that lowering off and trying again with the rope still in place (yoyoing) is no longer regarded as a clean lead, so pulling the ropes is normal. Whether you go to the extra lengths of abbing and stripping the gear will depend on a lot of things, notably if doing so would be very hard (e.g. multi-pitch, traverse, etc.) but also whether placing the gear actually feels like it makes a difference to the difficulty of the route. If the only gear on the route is placed from a big ledge there's little to be gained by insisting on placing it again. There are many grey areas, which I think is a good thing and sets climbing apart from many more strictly regulated sports, but fundamentally either you're happy with your ascent or you aren't.

In reply to stp:

I think it's more a question of style than ethics. Some people worry about these things, others couldn't care less. You'll know in your own mind whether or not you are satisfied with the way you did the climb. Unless you're claiming a significant ascent it shouldn't matter to anyone else.

In reply to stp:

I think I've always gone for the yo-yo, or tried to anyway. But I always seem to fall off low down, or at least end up close to the ground, so it's the easiest option. Stay tied on, have a rest, try again.

In reply to john arran:

Depends on the route. If its easy to where you fell there is no point pulling the ropes.

I think dogging, once selected, especially on classics, is best done as quickly and efficiently as possible because although seige tactic style dogging with repeat falls seems to demonstrate determination it can damage placements; as an example folk need to look what it has done to the cam placements on Orpheus Wall at Birchen, amongst other cruxy classics there. Some Stanage VS climbs are heading the same way despite the harder rock. If you are clearly not good enough for a grit classic please try something easier and for the already damaged routes like Orpheus Wall, Top Sail and Sail Buttress please save ascents until you know it will be OK and if you can't do this once you fail and are onto your gear in damaged placements, lower off and abseil retreive dont hang arojmd and grind in more damage.

In reply to Howard J:


That's true but hopefully it matters to you. If you come to trad climbing you want to know what counts as a valid ascent and what does not, and what is considered cheating. Without clarity you can't know whether you've succeeded on a route or failed. And what if it is a significant ascent like a new route or a hard second ascent for instance?

In the pre-sport climbing days things were fairly clear cut. There were three styles: flash, yo-yo (to the ground or a hands off rest), or hang dog (practice the moves but only on your highest piece of gear placed from the ground). In sport climbing things are even more clearcut: its either an onsight, a flash or a redpoint. Nothing else counts.

I was vaguely aware that the influence of sport climbing has shaped trad climbing and there's nothing wrong with change. Just wondering what that change was. Or are those changes are still being worked out by the climbing community?

In reply to Offwidth:

I agree. Just look at the state of Parthian Shot now!

In reply to stp:

Trad "styles" used to be a real mess, especially where first ascents were concerned: what one climber thought was OK another would regard as cheating. At least with the sport concept of the redpoint that side of things is cleared up. So to a certain extent you could argue that the redpoint concept has been assimilated in to trad especially for well protected routes. Headpointing came about (as a name) to describe top-rope practice of very bold climbs prior to a lead.

As to what to do after falling off - it depends on the route and how easy it is (or how bothered you can be) to get as close to the redpoint concept of a single clean lead. On a big rising traverse line across the top of steep rock above the sea you might just say "Oh well, I gave it a good go ..." whereas on a well protected single pitch route that goes straight up and that you wanted a clean ascent you'd lower and pull the ropes.

Of course you could use this as part of a strategy in climbing the route especially if it's really hard work getting the gear in: fight/dog your way up getting the gear in then redpoint it.

If you are truthful about your ascent then there's no real problem.

In reply to stp:


Agreed, although to me the question in the OP says more about whether I really want to get a valid ascent of a route or just to get up it without faffing around for ages and boring my partner any more than I already do. For the former, I'd probably want to lower and pull the rope, but in practice if I've got any distance up the route then I'll normally rest on the rope and then keep going - if I really want a clean ascent then I'll come back some other time.

I'd kind of think of this "failed and dogged it before, got it clean this time" as "ground up", despite the rest on the initial attempt, because the first attempt at every move is done on lead with full commitment to dealing with whatever might happen next, and that's the bit that puts the wind up me when I'm climbing at my limit.


What about stuff that you've previously seconded in the pre-sport scheme of things? I find that that makes a fairly big difference to how I approach a lead...

In reply to stp:

I don't see my style of ascent as an ethical decision - its a personal choice which has no impact on others. Of course it would be an ethical decision if my choice caused more damage to the rock.

In reply to stp:

Personally it also depends on why I fell off.
If I am at my limit and get shut down because I cannot figure out or pull the moves, and unable to find/ / go back to a decent rest, then I will lower off and re think as opposed to struggling on and thrashing the placements and leaving my poor second with a series of lodged pro to wrench out.
If I am well inside my comfort zone, and do something stupid like pop off a hold that is a bit greasy or One I did not latch / stand on properly in the first place, I will get back on and finish it.
I fully agree with others comments about being honest about how you log the ascent, but as my profile will show, I am not a serial logger) , for me it a about the journey not the journal.

In reply to stp:

Depends if I'm bothered about doing the route cleanly or not. Could be anything from lowering off, abbing to strip the gear and coming back another day to hanging, placing more gear and then finishing the route from there.

In reply to stp:


It can (I hope) be taken as read that the ideal is a ground-up on-sight with no falls or rests - anything else falls short of this ideal. The question is how far short an individual climber is prepared to allow themselves, and that is an entirely individual judgement, unless you are going to claim a significant ascent.

Only only you can decide what 'counts as a valid ascent' just as only you can decide what is 'cheating'. Some people will insist that a hold 'belongs' to a particular route and shouldn't be used on a neighbouring route, or declare trees 'out of bounds', whereas I take the view that if I can reach it I can use it. Who is right? Who cares? Only the individuals.

Pulling on gear is clearly 'cheating' but depending on the route it might not prevent me from considering it a valid ascent, albeit not one done in ideal style. You know in your own mind what you feel afterwards about the way you've climbed a route, and if you're honest with yourself you'll take this into account in advance before deciding whether to pull ropes or yo-yo.

Actually, I think the question is taking a sport climbing mentality and trying to apply it to trad in a way which is inappropriate (and really only applies to single-pitch cragging). As someone else said, trad is about the journey.

In reply to stp:


Lower off, strip everything (peferably someone does it for me), leave it a few years, retry.

In reply to Howard J:


Not sure I agree with you there. That's certainly MY ideal, presumably yours too, and I'm sure it also goes for a lot of trad climbers, but I don't think it's an objective fact to be taken as read.

I'm sure there are climbers who get satisfaction from "succeeding" on trad routes that are too hard for them to do ground-up on-sight, for example by head-pointing or various degrees of "dogging". If that's what motivates then I don't think I would want to criticise them, as long as it doesn't interfere with others' enjoyment (eg by forcing others to queue for ages for the route, or damaging the gear placements).

I do think we should log climbs honestly though if we're doing it for public consumption. How we record it for our own private consumption is entirely up to us of course.

Martin

In reply to stp:


Personally, I admit failure and walk away. I might return later when I think I am good enough for a clean non-onsight.

In general it doesn't matter as long as you don't claim the E-points for a non-onsight or hog a route top-roping (and, of course, accept that top-roping deserves the ridicule you will hopefully get).

In reply to Martin Hore:


Half a quibble here - I'd go with the mainstream view that a dogged ascent is a failure in an objective sense, but at the same time, there's a lot of satisfaction to be had from failing sometimes - it stops you wondering if you're just pottering about within your comfort zone! I guess this ties in with the comments about trad being about the journey as much as the destination.

In reply to Martin Hore:



If you read what I said in conjunction my other posts, you'll see that we both agree. What I'm trying to say is that the clean on-sight is the ideal, but not achieving this isn't necessarily a 'failure' in the mind of the individual climber.

The best example I can think of from my own recent experience is my ascent of Wings of Life on Telendos a couple of years ago (not a trad route, but the same principles apply here). There was one move I found too hard, and rather than faff for ages I applied 'Alpine ethics' and stood in a sling. A 'failure' in terms of style, but it hasn't spoiled my enjoyment of the route or memories of a great day. Although I would rather have climbed it clean I don't regret making that decision.

I think trad involves a very different mindset to sport. Since sport involved stripping away the peripherals to concentrate purely on movement it makes it all the more important to get that right. In this context it makes more sense to talk about 'success' and 'failure' and to have strict definitions of style. Trad is a broader approach and rewards different things, and allows a much more individual interpretation. Some people take it very seriously, judging by the number of posts we see worrying about 'blowing the on-sight', while others are far more relaxed about it. It only matters where there's a public interest in the ascent, but this applies only to a handful of climbers.

In reply to stp:

To answer the original question, I will very seldom bother to pull the ropes. I can understand why some people will, but it doesn't matter to me very much. I'd rather get on with climbing the rest of the route. But I'm just a punter, so who cares?

In reply to stp:


Clean their trousers!!!!

But seriously, it depends on the route. If I fell on the 10th pitch of a 15 pitch mountain route. I would just climb on and not let it bother me.
If I fell off a singe pitch route I would climb on and if I could be bothered climb again another day. But so far there are too many routes and not enough time to do this

Euge

In reply to stp:

The first time I fell (The Sloth) I lowered off, didn't pull the ropes, and my partner climbed up and finished the lead, then I seconded, and lead it immediately again (placing gear). I think it happened like that because I was too shook up/knackered to just continue trying, and because I was dangling in the air after falling.

The second time (Orpheus Wall) I fell and just hung for a second and finished up the climb, someone seconded and I then lead it again without falling. I think it happened that way because I fell from failing a move rather than flapping/getting scared, and wasn't dangling in the air.

The third time (Pitoned Route @ Castle Naze) I fell from getting pumped, I hung for a minute and then finished up a HS alongside it.

So it really varies for me, no strict rules.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Sounds expensive

Once I've fallen off/rested, I bin the route too. Usually, the simplest way to continue the day is to climb the rest of the route, dogging it the whole way if it's really hard and/or I'm really knackered. Sometimes it's quicker to ab for gear. In either case, I don't go out to accidentally headpoint routes, so I very rarely get back on it that day, I've no motivation to do so.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

One trad route that I do remember my ascent being effectively a redpoint was Elvis at Middle Scout Crag in Langdale. It's now given E5 6b but at the time it got E4. A bold lower wall to a break then a very hard, slightly flared, finger crack that you could protect but making sure the gear was in OK took a lot of energy.

First attempt: up lower wall with a 5c move in deck-out territory to get to the break (good friend in break). There then followed an absolute battle up the crack resulting in two rests. My mate then lead it clean on my gear. After a rest the second attempt: up lower wall but now I can clip the Friend before making the deckable move. The upper crack was still hard but I only had to pause to clip the rope so a lot easier than the on-sight attempt.

Was it perfect? No, I'd have liked to have done it first time but I didn't. I did do it clean but I didn't do it clean whilst putting the gear in on the lead. Does it bother me? Not really, I gave it my best shot which on the day wasn't quite good enough but I'm not trying to fool myself or anyone else on how I did it.

In reply to Bob:

It used to be common on a more vegetated route, before the days of cleaning by abseil, that if a crack became intpenetable due to the gunk therein the leader would hang in a nut, scrape out the crack return to his low point and carry on.
This was looked upon in different parts of the country, in Wales and the Limestone it was fair game, in the FRCC rock areas it went down as a point of aid.

In reply to Al Evans:

Always more honest and trustworthy, us Cumbrians!

In reply to Bob:

It was only so the local Cumbrians could rush up and get the ffa of the now cleaned crack. Despicable I think.