In reply to Valkyrie1968:
> In the light of recent discussions about the idea of the 'purest form of ascent', the decision has been made to propose an alternative to the nonse regarding soloing/bouldering - one which takes into account not only physical ability and headgame, but the sense of exploration and ingenuity which is as much a part of a trad climber's rack as one's ultra-light quickdraws or colour-coded racking carabiners.
> It is a general belief among climbers, and more particularly among UKC posters, that it is the responsibility of the elite of our discipline to not only explore and develop the cutting-edge of rock climbing from a physical perspective, to push the boundaries in terms of technique, muscle, and willpower, but to also approach the testpieces of generations past in a 'modern' way; in essence, to improve on the ethics of our antecedents.
> Onsighting, headpointing, ground-up, yo-yo'ing, even SOBO; all of these terms have been bandied around ad nauseam, have been posited as the means with which we may finally push climbing forward and maybe even get sport climbing into the Olympics.
> What is proposed, then, is to simplify things somewhat; to end the weekly threads that seek answers regarding the imagined hierarchy of one discipline over another, questions of terminology, or whether onsighting or headpointing is 'gnarlier' (linking in exceedingly well to the discussion of 'rad points'; cf. Tejada-Flores, L., 1967 for a hermeneutic perspective on this most send-tastic of issues). Rather than arguing over pre-placed gear, abseil inspection, and whether watching a low-quality video on Youtube negates the possibility of an onsight, we must reach a consensus regarding the purest form of ascent. Nothing less than the survival of our discipline as we know it depends upon this.
> The framework, then, is this; all ascents must be onsight, and must only use pink tri-cams. The climber may carry as many pink tri-cams as they wish, but this must be the only piece of protection (passive, active, or permanent) that may be utilised during the ascent. In order to retain the 'onsight' aspect, which is arguably the most crucial, climbers may only attempt a route that they have never heard of; they then approach the crag blindfolded (moreover, being led to the base of the route by the belayer will, it is hoped, create a foundational level of trust between the pair that will likely be invaluable), and may only remove the blindfold once they are racked up and have their shoes on (this may, again, require the intervention of the belayer). Chalk usage is allowed, but each instance of chalking up (this encapsulates the act of inserting BOTH hands into the chalk bag ONCE, or a period of NOT TO EXCEED half a minute, should the climber be unnerved by the immensity of their undertaking) must be preceded my one stanza of 'Ode to a Pink Tricam'; subsequent usage of chalk will require the proceeding stanza of the 'Ode', meaning that an ascent may not feature more than seven instances of chalking up*.
> Brand of chalk, chalk bag, shoes, harness, rope, and means of connecting the rope to the protection are to be determined by the climber; gear for the anchor MAY consist of protection other than pink tri-cams, but those who do this must be prepared to be the subject of a derisive blog post by Stevie Haston.
> Feedback on this proposal is most welcome, although it is requested that contributors fulfil the following criteria:
> 1. They believe that Three Pebble Slab is upper-end E0 verging on E0+, The File is benchmark E2 ('well hard'), and Great Western is not actually worth grading due to its being over-hyped.
> 2. They began climbing prior to the inventions of cams.
> 3. They have used a hex on a route graded less than or equal to E4.
> This framework will be presented in full at a keynote at the La Sportiva Legends Only competition on November 29 in Stockholm, Sweden, hosted by Rich Simpson and John Redhead; following the keynote, David Lama will give a lecture on ethics in relation to alpine climbing.
> *N.B. In the interest of a purity which is both aesthetic and athletic, the vastly inferior 'sequel' (as it is termed by heathens, although it is generally felt that 'fan-fiction' may be a more appropriate term) to the 'Ode' is not included; such an inclusion would, inarguably, be as barbaric as it is laughable.
Hi, this post almost made me press the like button, but what's a another database interger in relation to a post. So to that end it's probably the most witty thing I've read on here for a long long time. Defiantly worth the re-post I hope it doesn't fall off the boards and gets the bandwidth it deserves!
