This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Just picking up on something from the Caroline Ciavildini interview. She talks about doing Requiem ground up and the confusion around what the term actually means.
"I just did “Requiem”, and I tried to go ground up, but then I am not very sure at all what ground up means. What I did was to start from the bottom. When I fell, I didn’t lower to the ground, I finished the route, and it took me a lot of time, falling, trying again… James told me I couldn’t lower from the top afterwards to improve my method on the crux, otherwise I wouldn’t be ground up anymore. In fact even James wasn’t really sure what ground up was precisely. I asked other climbers afterwards and received different definitions each time!"
I think what she's saying is she would climb up, fall off, get back on without lowering to the ground, finish the route and repeat this until she could get it clean. Not clear if she was placing gear each time. I guess that's one form of ground up but there are other options. I can think of five:
1. Climb up, fall off, lower to the ground, pull the ropes, climb up to your high point on pre-placed gear and carry on, repeat till you can do it clean. So the clean ascent would be entirely on pre-placed gear.
2. As above but strip the gear on abseil before getting back on.
3. As above but leave the rope in place, i.e. top rope to your high point. An easier style but you're still doing the route in one go from the bottom. If the crux is significantly harder than the climbing below it, it might not make too much difference anyway. You will still lead the section above your highest gear.
4. Climb up, fall off, get back on without lowering to the ground, finish the route and repeat until able to do it clean, i.e. as Caro did, stripping the gear on abseil after each attempt.
5. As above but leave the gear in place for subsequent attempts.
There are probably other variations as well. I can see that all of these could be considered ground up, with 2 being the 'purest' form. I would distinguish it from headpointing as that involves toprope or abseil practice. It's also different to doing a route with falls/rests as with ground up you do it clean eventually. Clearly it's different to an onsight or a flash.
So if someone did a route in any of these five styles, I would say that they've done it ground up. But because ground up encompasses these variations in style, simply saying 'I've done it ground up' with no further explanation doesn't mean much. What do people think?
"I just did “Requiem”, and I tried to go ground up, but then I am not very sure at all what ground up means. What I did was to start from the bottom. When I fell, I didn’t lower to the ground, I finished the route, and it took me a lot of time, falling, trying again… James told me I couldn’t lower from the top afterwards to improve my method on the crux, otherwise I wouldn’t be ground up anymore. In fact even James wasn’t really sure what ground up was precisely. I asked other climbers afterwards and received different definitions each time!"
I think what she's saying is she would climb up, fall off, get back on without lowering to the ground, finish the route and repeat this until she could get it clean. Not clear if she was placing gear each time. I guess that's one form of ground up but there are other options. I can think of five:
1. Climb up, fall off, lower to the ground, pull the ropes, climb up to your high point on pre-placed gear and carry on, repeat till you can do it clean. So the clean ascent would be entirely on pre-placed gear.
2. As above but strip the gear on abseil before getting back on.
3. As above but leave the rope in place, i.e. top rope to your high point. An easier style but you're still doing the route in one go from the bottom. If the crux is significantly harder than the climbing below it, it might not make too much difference anyway. You will still lead the section above your highest gear.
4. Climb up, fall off, get back on without lowering to the ground, finish the route and repeat until able to do it clean, i.e. as Caro did, stripping the gear on abseil after each attempt.
5. As above but leave the gear in place for subsequent attempts.
There are probably other variations as well. I can see that all of these could be considered ground up, with 2 being the 'purest' form. I would distinguish it from headpointing as that involves toprope or abseil practice. It's also different to doing a route with falls/rests as with ground up you do it clean eventually. Clearly it's different to an onsight or a flash.
So if someone did a route in any of these five styles, I would say that they've done it ground up. But because ground up encompasses these variations in style, simply saying 'I've done it ground up' with no further explanation doesn't mean much. What do people think?
In reply to Misha:
Ideally number 2 but most likely number 1.
The only time I wouldn't pull the rope is if I've fell on the first piece and clipping it would add no difficulty.
Dogging your way up something is not to mind ground up.
Ideally number 2 but most likely number 1.
The only time I wouldn't pull the rope is if I've fell on the first piece and clipping it would add no difficulty.
Dogging your way up something is not to mind ground up.
Post edited at 21:22
In reply to Misha:
I'd do the same as Steve. 2 would be best but I'd settle for 1. Dogging it is just that I'm afraid.
I'd do the same as Steve. 2 would be best but I'd settle for 1. Dogging it is just that I'm afraid.
1
In reply to Misha:
I'm pretty surprised at Caroline and James' apparent ignorance. If you are correct in your assessment of what she did (I couldn't make head nor tail of it!), it sounds as though technically she dogged her way up (though the term doesn't really fit a bold route like Requiem and the first time she got to the top would have definitely felt more like a ground-up success), and then tried to do it clean. So her subsequent attempts were redpoint attempts irrespective of whether she decided not to look at the crux on a rope.
The strict form of ground-up would be 2 (but with your partner abbing for the gear, not you).
The kind of ground-up many folk do would probably be 1 as it means you or your partner don't have to bother abbing for the gear. It would only be with entirely in-situ gear if on your successful attempt you placed no further gear on lead above your last highpoint.
As I understand it, 3 is technically not a ground-up ascent but a yo-yo.
4 and 5 are definitely not ground up.
I'm pretty surprised at Caroline and James' apparent ignorance. If you are correct in your assessment of what she did (I couldn't make head nor tail of it!), it sounds as though technically she dogged her way up (though the term doesn't really fit a bold route like Requiem and the first time she got to the top would have definitely felt more like a ground-up success), and then tried to do it clean. So her subsequent attempts were redpoint attempts irrespective of whether she decided not to look at the crux on a rope.
The strict form of ground-up would be 2 (but with your partner abbing for the gear, not you).
The kind of ground-up many folk do would probably be 1 as it means you or your partner don't have to bother abbing for the gear. It would only be with entirely in-situ gear if on your successful attempt you placed no further gear on lead above your last highpoint.
As I understand it, 3 is technically not a ground-up ascent but a yo-yo.
4 and 5 are definitely not ground up.
1
In reply to Misha:
To me it means not working a route on a top-rope.
Anything which involves stripping gear after each attempt is bad for the rock, so doing that in the interests of a purer form of ascent is daft. I can understand pulling your ropes each time, and not wanting to practice moves, but once you've come off a few times it's all a bit academic.
To me it means not working a route on a top-rope.
Anything which involves stripping gear after each attempt is bad for the rock, so doing that in the interests of a purer form of ascent is daft. I can understand pulling your ropes each time, and not wanting to practice moves, but once you've come off a few times it's all a bit academic.
1
I agree entirely with Michael Gordon.
It seems we have an ethical consensus for once!
It seems we have an ethical consensus for once!
In reply to Misha:
Reading things like this makes it hard to know what to make of ground-up claims from these two. So Caroline's ascent of Requiem wasn't ground-up after all, what about this one?
http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=68605
> "When I fell, I didn't lower to the ground, I finished the route, and it took me a lot of time, falling, trying again; James told me I couldn't lower from the top afterwards to improve my method on the crux, otherwise I wouldn't be ground up anymore."
>
>
Reading things like this makes it hard to know what to make of ground-up claims from these two. So Caroline's ascent of Requiem wasn't ground-up after all, what about this one?
http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=68605
Post edited at 22:30
In reply to deacondeacon:
Yes but I'd say that if you dog it then pull the ropes and may be strip the gear and do it clean it would still be ground up. Ground up returning to the ground each time is still dogging it effectively, you just do more climbing each time do it's harder. As long as you donut clean eventually I'd say it's still ground up. But I know what you mean.
Yes but I'd say that if you dog it then pull the ropes and may be strip the gear and do it clean it would still be ground up. Ground up returning to the ground each time is still dogging it effectively, you just do more climbing each time do it's harder. As long as you donut clean eventually I'd say it's still ground up. But I know what you mean.
In reply to Michael Gordon:
Ah yes, yo yo if you toprope to your top piece. Seem to recall that's how Fawcett did Strawberries.
So the distinction you draw with 4 and 5 is that it's dogging a route before a clean lead whereas with 1 and 2 you're starting from the ground each time you try it - but might still be effectively dogging it over several attempts.
Yeah I know it's a geeky discussion.
Ah yes, yo yo if you toprope to your top piece. Seem to recall that's how Fawcett did Strawberries.
So the distinction you draw with 4 and 5 is that it's dogging a route before a clean lead whereas with 1 and 2 you're starting from the ground each time you try it - but might still be effectively dogging it over several attempts.
Yeah I know it's a geeky discussion.
In reply to Michael Gordon:
Yes, it's hard to tell exactly what people mean because it's the least well defined style. At least in the article you linked it's clear that gear was placed on lead on the successful ascent.
I would suggest though that the distinction between pure ground up and dogging ground up isn't that massive. Pure will be harder as it involves more climbing but at the end of the day you haven't top roped it and it's the clean ascent that counts. I suppose it's at different points on the scale from onsight to headpoint but not that far apart.
Yes, it's hard to tell exactly what people mean because it's the least well defined style. At least in the article you linked it's clear that gear was placed on lead on the successful ascent.
I would suggest though that the distinction between pure ground up and dogging ground up isn't that massive. Pure will be harder as it involves more climbing but at the end of the day you haven't top roped it and it's the clean ascent that counts. I suppose it's at different points on the scale from onsight to headpoint but not that far apart.
Post edited at 22:54
In reply to Misha:
Effectively you're working the route on lead and once you get to the top all the moves and gear will be known to you. So the clean ascent will feel like a redpoint even if you've not initially approached it that way.
On a ground-up ascent there will always be some unknown ground above you until you eventually top out.
Effectively you're working the route on lead and once you get to the top all the moves and gear will be known to you. So the clean ascent will feel like a redpoint even if you've not initially approached it that way.
On a ground-up ascent there will always be some unknown ground above you until you eventually top out.
In reply to Misha:
It's a fairly well understood term of ascent - you fall - you start again from the bottom.
The technicalities of what is allowed are more ambiguous (yo-yo's or stripping gear etc) but saying it's just the same as dogging is failing to understand it I think.
It's a style I like but don't always adhere to.
Something's I like just to enjoy my climbing and not get myself wound up about it.
It's a fairly well understood term of ascent - you fall - you start again from the bottom.
The technicalities of what is allowed are more ambiguous (yo-yo's or stripping gear etc) but saying it's just the same as dogging is failing to understand it I think.
It's a style I like but don't always adhere to.
Something's I like just to enjoy my climbing and not get myself wound up about it.
1
In reply to Misha:
"Ground Up" is just a term invented in an attempt to give respectability to failure and/or cheating.
"Ground Up" is just a term invented in an attempt to give respectability to failure and/or cheating.
2
In reply to Michael Gordon:
I've always thought of "dog it then lead it clean later" as ground up on the basis that you're still approaching every bit of the climb for the first time on lead (ie from the ground, going up), so if there are any nasty surprises then you'll still get them while you're on the sharp end. It seems like I'm out of step here, but I'd certainly say this is much further removed from the full headpoint style, that removes any surprises beforehand by checking out the gear and trying out all the moves in complete safety on a top rope than it is from the strict ground up that insists that you lower to the ground and pull the rope if you fall.
> Effectively you're working the route on lead and once you get to the top all the moves and gear will be known to you. So the clean ascent will feel like a redpoint even if you've not initially approached it that way.
> On a ground-up ascent there will always be some unknown ground above you until you eventually top out.
I've always thought of "dog it then lead it clean later" as ground up on the basis that you're still approaching every bit of the climb for the first time on lead (ie from the ground, going up), so if there are any nasty surprises then you'll still get them while you're on the sharp end. It seems like I'm out of step here, but I'd certainly say this is much further removed from the full headpoint style, that removes any surprises beforehand by checking out the gear and trying out all the moves in complete safety on a top rope than it is from the strict ground up that insists that you lower to the ground and pull the rope if you fall.
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Maybe a bit more like a ground-up (though still not) if it's a bold route. But consider a well protected crackline which someone leads resting every metre or two, before going back and doing it clean. There is next to no difference between this and having a play on a top rope before a clean ascent. On a steep pumpy route, being able to rest as long as you like after a fall then start again from halfway up will be much easier than having to start leading again from the base, with the uncertainty of the hard moves you previously failed on still very much intact.
Maybe a bit more like a ground-up (though still not) if it's a bold route. But consider a well protected crackline which someone leads resting every metre or two, before going back and doing it clean. There is next to no difference between this and having a play on a top rope before a clean ascent. On a steep pumpy route, being able to rest as long as you like after a fall then start again from halfway up will be much easier than having to start leading again from the base, with the uncertainty of the hard moves you previously failed on still very much intact.
In reply to Misha:
ground up is start from the ground on every attempt at the route until its done,no pre practice.
ground up is start from the ground on every attempt at the route until its done,no pre practice.
1
In reply to Robert Durran:
I like this. Though it does extend the amount of fun you can have on short routes, especially swapping leads with a partner you are most definetly not in competition with.
> "Ground Up" is just a term invented in an attempt to give respectability to failure and/or cheating.
I like this. Though it does extend the amount of fun you can have on short routes, especially swapping leads with a partner you are most definetly not in competition with.
In reply to Misha:
'ground up' means damaged gear placements, everybody should headpoint things instead
'ground up' means damaged gear placements, everybody should headpoint things instead
In reply to Michael Gordon:
But does the uncertainty actually make much difference if it's a steep, well-protected crack line? You can just keep trying it until you get it, on gear that you've already tested, it's just a bit slower and more faffy because you have to untie and pull the rope and retie and climb back up every time. In this case, I'd say that dogging it to the top, having your mate second it, and then going at it again placing all your gear on lead to get a clean ascent is probably actually harder than lowering off and pulling the rope, since you don't have the luxury of pre-placed gear to save you energy.
> Maybe a bit more like a ground-up (though still not) if it's a bold route. But consider a well protected crackline which someone leads resting every metre or two, before going back and doing it clean. There is next to no difference between this and having a play on a top rope before a clean ascent.
> On a steep pumpy route, being able to rest as long as you like after a fall then start again from halfway up will be much easier than having to start leading again from the base, with the uncertainty of the hard moves you previously failed on still very much intact.
But does the uncertainty actually make much difference if it's a steep, well-protected crack line? You can just keep trying it until you get it, on gear that you've already tested, it's just a bit slower and more faffy because you have to untie and pull the rope and retie and climb back up every time. In this case, I'd say that dogging it to the top, having your mate second it, and then going at it again placing all your gear on lead to get a clean ascent is probably actually harder than lowering off and pulling the rope, since you don't have the luxury of pre-placed gear to save you energy.
In reply to Misha:
1 is a typical ground-up ascent.
2 is an anal ground-up ascent. Each to his/her own but I can't personally see the advantage outweighing the hassle.
3 is a traditional yo-yo.
4 is a series of dogged ascents followed by a red/headpoint (and actually the way many/most hard sport routes are climbed).
5 is a series of cheats followed by a cheat
The big grey area I don't think has yet been mentioned, which is that of inspecting/working the move you fall off before lowering. In the days before prior top-roping was accepted it became common for climbers to work their high-point move and maybe a couple more, as long as they didn't place any more gear. In effect this amounted to a tiny bit of virtual top-roping so I can't see the point now that top-roping itself is tolerated.
1 is a typical ground-up ascent.
2 is an anal ground-up ascent. Each to his/her own but I can't personally see the advantage outweighing the hassle.
3 is a traditional yo-yo.
4 is a series of dogged ascents followed by a red/headpoint (and actually the way many/most hard sport routes are climbed).
5 is a series of cheats followed by a cheat
The big grey area I don't think has yet been mentioned, which is that of inspecting/working the move you fall off before lowering. In the days before prior top-roping was accepted it became common for climbers to work their high-point move and maybe a couple more, as long as they didn't place any more gear. In effect this amounted to a tiny bit of virtual top-roping so I can't see the point now that top-roping itself is tolerated.
2
Ok so returning to the ground each time I s the strict definition of ground up but what do you call an ascent when you dog it withoutvreturning to the ground, then lead it clean? There isn't a special term for that. So is say it's just a less 'pure' for of ground up.
A couple of people have mentioned wearing out the gear placements. Surely that depends on the rock type and specific placements. It's irresponsible to overuse fragile placements but 99% of gear placements are fine so it won't make much difference.
A couple of people have mentioned wearing out the gear placements. Surely that depends on the rock type and specific placements. It's irresponsible to overuse fragile placements but 99% of gear placements are fine so it won't make much difference.
In reply to john arran:
Yes 4 is a redpoint for sport but I was thinking of trad. So you souks call it a headpoint. I'd distinguish that though as to my mind headpointng involves toproping or abbing in.
Good point on working the top moves. Shades of grey.
At the end of the day, if people are honest it doesn't matter what style they do it in.
Yes 4 is a redpoint for sport but I was thinking of trad. So you souks call it a headpoint. I'd distinguish that though as to my mind headpointng involves toproping or abbing in.
Good point on working the top moves. Shades of grey.
At the end of the day, if people are honest it doesn't matter what style they do it in.
In reply to mark20:
Pah, 1996 called it wants you and your trosuers back!
Meet me in the middle - a 'three strikes and you're out' approach?
> 'ground up' means damaged gear placements, everybody should headpoint things instead
Pah, 1996 called it wants you and your trosuers back!
Meet me in the middle - a 'three strikes and you're out' approach?
In reply to Misha:
If you start at the bottom and finish at the top, that's ground up.
Anything else is pedantic willy waving.
If you start at the bottom and finish at the top, that's ground up.
Anything else is pedantic willy waving.
In reply to mark20:
I do understand where you're coming from (and it should be obvious on certain routes) but if we continue along this line then we may as well adopt the knotted ropes of our bolder neighbours.
I do understand where you're coming from (and it should be obvious on certain routes) but if we continue along this line then we may as well adopt the knotted ropes of our bolder neighbours.
Post edited at 10:48
In reply to john arran:
Agree.
Amazed that some would classify 3 and 4 as ground up. I knew there were grey areas but I hadn't realised people could conceive of pushing the definition to include yoyoing and redpointing.
There's a halfway house between 1&2 where you take out some of the gear (leaving enough so you don't die if the top piece fails whilst lowering!) on the way down but it's all shades of what you can be arsed with.
Agree.
Amazed that some would classify 3 and 4 as ground up. I knew there were grey areas but I hadn't realised people could conceive of pushing the definition to include yoyoing and redpointing.
There's a halfway house between 1&2 where you take out some of the gear (leaving enough so you don't die if the top piece fails whilst lowering!) on the way down but it's all shades of what you can be arsed with.
In reply to mark20:
This is where bolts come into their own...
> But it only takes one strike to rip a flake or blow out a cam slot
This is where bolts come into their own...
In reply to Misha:
Headpoint.
> ... but what do you call an ascent when you dog it withoutvreturning to the ground, then lead it clean? There isn't a special term for that.
Headpoint.
In reply to Fraser:
If you say "headpoint" then I assume lots of top rope practice, probably before even going near the route on lead.
To me, an ascent that involves committing to a trad route on lead and taking it as it comes is a world apart from one where you check that you're going to be okay by toproping it (or more realistically for me, getting your harder mate to lead it so you can check it out on second) beforehand. Much bigger than the difference between committing to every section on lead possibly having hung on gear at some point and committing to every section on lead without having hung on gear, assuming you've also got the strength and technique to get it clean afterwards.
If it's not "ground up" then it probably needs another term to distinguish it from headpointing, particularly seeing as it's probably a fairly common style of ascent for UK trad punters - as in, "I've fallen off but I'm not going to make my mate hang around indefinitely while I faff about pulling the rope and trying again. I'll just get to the top as quickly as possible and come back for the clean ascent another day."
If you say "headpoint" then I assume lots of top rope practice, probably before even going near the route on lead.
To me, an ascent that involves committing to a trad route on lead and taking it as it comes is a world apart from one where you check that you're going to be okay by toproping it (or more realistically for me, getting your harder mate to lead it so you can check it out on second) beforehand. Much bigger than the difference between committing to every section on lead possibly having hung on gear at some point and committing to every section on lead without having hung on gear, assuming you've also got the strength and technique to get it clean afterwards.
If it's not "ground up" then it probably needs another term to distinguish it from headpointing, particularly seeing as it's probably a fairly common style of ascent for UK trad punters - as in, "I've fallen off but I'm not going to make my mate hang around indefinitely while I faff about pulling the rope and trying again. I'll just get to the top as quickly as possible and come back for the clean ascent another day."
1
In reply to Misha:
Or. We could all just go climbing, and be more focused on what we personally can do than the achievements of others. That would be fun.
Or. We could all just go climbing, and be more focused on what we personally can do than the achievements of others. That would be fun.
In reply to GuyVG and mark20:
Both oversimplifying, straw man-ish arguments!
If we all use good judgement to pick the style appropriate for the route (so the route remains intact for other climbers) and your ability (so you remain intact for other routes), whilst valuing the onsight as the aspirational style, then we shouldn't end up with blown flakes from ground up competitions and top ropes on easy classics.
Sometimes, good judgement is walking away and coming back when you have bigger forearms/biceps/balls.
Both oversimplifying, straw man-ish arguments!
If we all use good judgement to pick the style appropriate for the route (so the route remains intact for other climbers) and your ability (so you remain intact for other routes), whilst valuing the onsight as the aspirational style, then we shouldn't end up with blown flakes from ground up competitions and top ropes on easy classics.
Sometimes, good judgement is walking away and coming back when you have bigger forearms/biceps/balls.
In reply to AJM:
+1. Except I'd say 2 is a pretty grey area, as if you ab it to strip the gear it's not quite what I'd call ground up any more.. 4 and 5 are not even grey areas to my mind, they're just really inefficient headpointing. No idea where JP got that idea of ground up from?
+1. Except I'd say 2 is a pretty grey area, as if you ab it to strip the gear it's not quite what I'd call ground up any more.. 4 and 5 are not even grey areas to my mind, they're just really inefficient headpointing. No idea where JP got that idea of ground up from?
In reply to Ramblin dave:
How about 'headpoint, worked on lead" to describe 4 then.
It is a common and logical form of ascent, and is definitely a step up from top-roping something to death first.
How about 'headpoint, worked on lead" to describe 4 then.
It is a common and logical form of ascent, and is definitely a step up from top-roping something to death first.
In reply to abarro81:
1 & 2 are both common and imperfect solutions to the same problem - how many people have belayers who are willing to go round to the top and abb it for you after each fall
1 & 2 are both common and imperfect solutions to the same problem - how many people have belayers who are willing to go round to the top and abb it for you after each fall
In reply to Ramblin dave:
I think I would always say that climbing into tricky unknown ground (even if obviously well protected) is a lot harder after say 15m of already pumpy climbing than from sitting on the rope just below it. Dogging a route prior to a clean lead will nearly always be easier overall as (a) dogging is easier than ground-up and (b) the clean lead with full knowledge of moves and gear (headpoint) is easier than ground-up. You could argue that on something pumpy putting the two together might not be any harder physically than doing a proper ground-up, though in reality anyone with any sense of tactics would elect to come back another day for the clean lead if they were already tired.
> But does the uncertainty actually make much difference if it's a steep, well-protected crack line? You can just keep trying it until you get it, on gear that you've already tested, it's just a bit slower and more faffy because you have to untie and pull the rope and retie and climb back up every time. In this case, I'd say that dogging it to the top, having your mate second it, and then going at it again placing all your gear on lead to get a clean ascent is probably actually harder than lowering off and pulling the rope, since you don't have the luxury of pre-placed gear to save you energy.
I think I would always say that climbing into tricky unknown ground (even if obviously well protected) is a lot harder after say 15m of already pumpy climbing than from sitting on the rope just below it. Dogging a route prior to a clean lead will nearly always be easier overall as (a) dogging is easier than ground-up and (b) the clean lead with full knowledge of moves and gear (headpoint) is easier than ground-up. You could argue that on something pumpy putting the two together might not be any harder physically than doing a proper ground-up, though in reality anyone with any sense of tactics would elect to come back another day for the clean lead if they were already tired.
In reply to Fraser:
I would disagree because a headpoint involves working the moves on top rope or abseil i.e. in safety. If you're dogging it, you're still working the route on lead. Depending on the route, that could involve significant run outs. So it's a different kettle of fish to headpointing. It feels like 4 and 5 aren't strictly ground up and deserve their own term but there isn't one.
I suppose you could call it trad redpointing because that's what it effectively is. But I haven't seen redpointing used in a trade context, only sport.
I would disagree because a headpoint involves working the moves on top rope or abseil i.e. in safety. If you're dogging it, you're still working the route on lead. Depending on the route, that could involve significant run outs. So it's a different kettle of fish to headpointing. It feels like 4 and 5 aren't strictly ground up and deserve their own term but there isn't one.
I suppose you could call it trad redpointing because that's what it effectively is. But I haven't seen redpointing used in a trade context, only sport.
Post edited at 18:49
In reply to Misha:
If you working a route that far above your ability that you are fall alot and are worried about safety or damaging gear placements then Headpointing is a 'better' method than Ground up.
If you working a route that far above your ability that you are fall alot and are worried about safety or damaging gear placements then Headpointing is a 'better' method than Ground up.
In reply to MischaHY:
I'm not bothered about the achievements of others other than as inspiration. Nor am I questioning the style of Caroline's ascent. It's just that her comment got me thinking about this point, particularly as I'm thinking of trying to climb some harder routes ground up - so the question in my mind is 'what does that actually mean'. Partly as an abstract geeky question, partly because if I do a route in one of these styles I'd like to understand whether that's something that would be commonly accepted as ground up.
It seems that a few people are with me that 1, 2, 4 and 5 are all ground up, albeit with 1 and 2 being the purer forms. Whereas others think only 1 and 2 are ground up and I can see that argument. There's general agreement that 3 is yo-yo so not ground up.
I'm not bothered about the achievements of others other than as inspiration. Nor am I questioning the style of Caroline's ascent. It's just that her comment got me thinking about this point, particularly as I'm thinking of trying to climb some harder routes ground up - so the question in my mind is 'what does that actually mean'. Partly as an abstract geeky question, partly because if I do a route in one of these styles I'd like to understand whether that's something that would be commonly accepted as ground up.
It seems that a few people are with me that 1, 2, 4 and 5 are all ground up, albeit with 1 and 2 being the purer forms. Whereas others think only 1 and 2 are ground up and I can see that argument. There's general agreement that 3 is yo-yo so not ground up.
In reply to Stevie989:
I don't suppose many people would ground up something that's dangerous to fall off on or where the gear placements might not hold. I think this style is best suited to routes that are reasonably safe, too hard to onsight but not so desperate that you need to work the moves to death.
I don't suppose many people would ground up something that's dangerous to fall off on or where the gear placements might not hold. I think this style is best suited to routes that are reasonably safe, too hard to onsight but not so desperate that you need to work the moves to death.
In reply to Misha:
Dogging is still dogging - doesn't matter what you call it. It doen't seem a logical approach.
If you're gunning for a lead attempt - fall and then chose to carry on the pitch then thats fine but I don't know anyone who would set out to dog up a trad route.
Dogging is still dogging - doesn't matter what you call it. It doen't seem a logical approach.
If you're gunning for a lead attempt - fall and then chose to carry on the pitch then thats fine but I don't know anyone who would set out to dog up a trad route.
In reply to Stevie989:
Do you meant that the ground up style of climbing is somehow illogical or invalid? I suspect a lot of people would disagree! I've never tried it myself but have been thinking about it. Clearly it isn't a common style in that the vast majority of trad climbers won't do it but I suspect it gets more common as you move up the grades. It feels more fulfilling than headpointing, particularly if doing 1 or 2 above.
Besides, it doesn't have to involve dogging all the way like you might do on a sustained sport route. It could just be a few crux moves that take a few goes to work out. Or it could be that it's a pumpy route so the pump gets you as opposed to not being able to do the moves but with subsequent attempts you get more efficient and are thus able to do it.
Do you meant that the ground up style of climbing is somehow illogical or invalid? I suspect a lot of people would disagree! I've never tried it myself but have been thinking about it. Clearly it isn't a common style in that the vast majority of trad climbers won't do it but I suspect it gets more common as you move up the grades. It feels more fulfilling than headpointing, particularly if doing 1 or 2 above.
Besides, it doesn't have to involve dogging all the way like you might do on a sustained sport route. It could just be a few crux moves that take a few goes to work out. Or it could be that it's a pumpy route so the pump gets you as opposed to not being able to do the moves but with subsequent attempts you get more efficient and are thus able to do it.
In reply to Misha:
'Headpoint by default'?
As soon as the climber decides to rest on the gear and carry on (rather than lower off) the best they can hope for is a headpoint.
'Headpoint by default'?
As soon as the climber decides to rest on the gear and carry on (rather than lower off) the best they can hope for is a headpoint.
In reply to Misha:
A head point does not require an abseil or top rope, it just means that the moves have been "worked" prior to the clean ascent. If you've dogged to the top, the "best" style left to you is a head point.
Scenarios 1&2 are the only ones that are ground up. I don't see why we need any more terms for describing ascents. You know how you climbed a route, what else matters.
A head point does not require an abseil or top rope, it just means that the moves have been "worked" prior to the clean ascent. If you've dogged to the top, the "best" style left to you is a head point.
Scenarios 1&2 are the only ones that are ground up. I don't see why we need any more terms for describing ascents. You know how you climbed a route, what else matters.
In reply to Misha:
3, 4 and 5 are not ground up, ground up is only ground up if you don't know anything about the rest of the route you failed on when trying to onsight. Otherwise it's just shit headpointing. I don't have anything against headpointing but let's call things what they are. I never dog to the top if I fall or fail, I wouldn't tick any route I'd dogged either, I don't feel I've done it if I do either of those things .
3, 4 and 5 are not ground up, ground up is only ground up if you don't know anything about the rest of the route you failed on when trying to onsight. Otherwise it's just shit headpointing. I don't have anything against headpointing but let's call things what they are. I never dog to the top if I fall or fail, I wouldn't tick any route I'd dogged either, I don't feel I've done it if I do either of those things .
In reply to Misha:
I'm no ethics Nazi and its not for me to say something is 'invalid' but as an ascent, no its not valid. Not that anyone has said it is.
I've dogged up sport routes but I would be unlikely to dog up a trad route. Its a different thing.
If I've set out with every intention of climbing the thing, fell, then felt like I could continue to reach the belay/learn the moves and it was more practical to continue to the top. then I'd 'dog.
I usually get the most enjoyment out of the onsight or flash in mind though - so if I'm looking at a route outwith my current capabilities then I'm likely to go away and come back when I'm better or headpoint it. Rather than frig my way up.
I'm no ethics Nazi and its not for me to say something is 'invalid' but as an ascent, no its not valid. Not that anyone has said it is.
I've dogged up sport routes but I would be unlikely to dog up a trad route. Its a different thing.
If I've set out with every intention of climbing the thing, fell, then felt like I could continue to reach the belay/learn the moves and it was more practical to continue to the top. then I'd 'dog.
I usually get the most enjoyment out of the onsight or flash in mind though - so if I'm looking at a route outwith my current capabilities then I'm likely to go away and come back when I'm better or headpoint it. Rather than frig my way up.
In reply to Stevie989:
No argument with that. I generally aim to do stuff onsight, but if I blow the onsight I'll normally choose to just carry on to the top because, unless it's a route that i particularly care about, I'm probably more concerned about me and my partner each getting a full day of climbing in than getting than about doing that particular route in the best possible style - I guess mentally I flag my "turn" as having finished when I fall off and from that point on I'm wasting time when it's my partner's go...
> If you're gunning for a lead attempt - fall and then chose to carry on the pitch then thats fine but I don't know anyone who would set out to dog up a trad route.
No argument with that. I generally aim to do stuff onsight, but if I blow the onsight I'll normally choose to just carry on to the top because, unless it's a route that i particularly care about, I'm probably more concerned about me and my partner each getting a full day of climbing in than getting than about doing that particular route in the best possible style - I guess mentally I flag my "turn" as having finished when I fall off and from that point on I'm wasting time when it's my partner's go...
In reply to Michael Gordon:
Yeah, fair point.
I guess my perspective is coloured a bit by the fact I'm basically a gritstone bumbly and you don't often come across a 15m overhanging crack or an extended pumpy committing section on a gritstone HS or VS. Possibly if I was mostly climbing E3s in Pembroke I'd make more of a distinction...
Yeah, fair point.
I guess my perspective is coloured a bit by the fact I'm basically a gritstone bumbly and you don't often come across a 15m overhanging crack or an extended pumpy committing section on a gritstone HS or VS. Possibly if I was mostly climbing E3s in Pembroke I'd make more of a distinction...
In reply to Misha:
I make it 11 to 3 opinions that 3, 4 and 5 are not ground-up.
Its pretty clear what the accepted definition of the term is - no dogging.
I have done far more routes in style 4 than style 2. Often I wanted the convenience of getting to the top so I could spend my day trying to onsight something else. Sometimes because it was too pumpy, sometimes because I ran out of time.
However I am comfortable that the term used for that style is headpoint.
> It seems that a few people are with me that 1, 2, 4 and 5 are all ground up, albeit with 1 and 2 being the purer forms. Whereas others think only 1 and 2 are ground up and I can see that argument. There's general agreement that 3 is yo-yo so not ground up.
I make it 11 to 3 opinions that 3, 4 and 5 are not ground-up.
Its pretty clear what the accepted definition of the term is - no dogging.
I have done far more routes in style 4 than style 2. Often I wanted the convenience of getting to the top so I could spend my day trying to onsight something else. Sometimes because it was too pumpy, sometimes because I ran out of time.
However I am comfortable that the term used for that style is headpoint.
1
In reply to Dan Arkle:
Ok. Good to know what people think.
Of course the most common styles with trad are onsight and lead with falls/rests - it's not often people bother to get back on to lead the route clean.
Ok. Good to know what people think.
Of course the most common styles with trad are onsight and lead with falls/rests - it's not often people bother to get back on to lead the route clean.
1
In reply to Misha:
My view is that "ground-up" only applies to first ascents. So I think it only applies to trad climbs, which have not had previous abseil inspections and no pre-placed cleaning or protection. I have made a few ground-up first ascents. These required significant cleaning, sometimes aid, sometimes retreating to the ground to return later, but all leads were into the unknown, removing and throwing down moss and loose rock before climbing further.
If a route has already been established then there is no such notion as, "ground up"
My view is that "ground-up" only applies to first ascents. So I think it only applies to trad climbs, which have not had previous abseil inspections and no pre-placed cleaning or protection. I have made a few ground-up first ascents. These required significant cleaning, sometimes aid, sometimes retreating to the ground to return later, but all leads were into the unknown, removing and throwing down moss and loose rock before climbing further.
If a route has already been established then there is no such notion as, "ground up"
1
In reply to loose overhang:
I guess that is another take on it. For example, reports of a hard new multi-pitch might say 'They established the climb ground-up, resulting in a few falls and some resting on gear whilst cleaning. Each pitch was then led free."
I guess that is another take on it. For example, reports of a hard new multi-pitch might say 'They established the climb ground-up, resulting in a few falls and some resting on gear whilst cleaning. Each pitch was then led free."
In reply to John Roberts (JR):
Obviously - if we were to discuss this with a level head it would be far too near reality and far too boring.
> Both oversimplifying, straw man-ish arguments!
Obviously - if we were to discuss this with a level head it would be far too near reality and far too boring.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...