This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Can anyone tell me what the difference is between the two?
Thanks in advance.
Thanks in advance.
In reply to wayno265: One is good, the other is bad.
In reply to wayno265:
HEADPOINT. A traditional1 route which is led after (toprope) practice, sometimes with preplaced protection. Sometimes thought to be a modern affliction for routes over E8, though it was clearly already in use in Joe Brown's day in the 1950s; see the first ascent description for Brown's Eliminate (E2 5b), which talks of careful practice in the days of nailed boots. The traditional equivalent of a redpoint.
Ground-up means climbing a route without top-rope or abseil inspection (you climb from the ground up). It usually means the route was attempted onsight/flash and then a fall (or a few falls) were taken. Climbers pushing this boundary enjoy ground-up 'team ascents', taking turns to try the routes, as they help each other to work things out and build each other's confidence. This 'group psyche' is more 'fun' than a lonely onsight. The style lies somewhere between the true onsight and a fully rehearsed headpoint. Ground-up ascents of E7's often don't make the news. They are a relatively common occurrence among the top trad climbers of the UK.
HEADPOINT. A traditional1 route which is led after (toprope) practice, sometimes with preplaced protection. Sometimes thought to be a modern affliction for routes over E8, though it was clearly already in use in Joe Brown's day in the 1950s; see the first ascent description for Brown's Eliminate (E2 5b), which talks of careful practice in the days of nailed boots. The traditional equivalent of a redpoint.
Ground-up means climbing a route without top-rope or abseil inspection (you climb from the ground up). It usually means the route was attempted onsight/flash and then a fall (or a few falls) were taken. Climbers pushing this boundary enjoy ground-up 'team ascents', taking turns to try the routes, as they help each other to work things out and build each other's confidence. This 'group psyche' is more 'fun' than a lonely onsight. The style lies somewhere between the true onsight and a fully rehearsed headpoint. Ground-up ascents of E7's often don't make the news. They are a relatively common occurrence among the top trad climbers of the UK.
In reply to McGuinness: Cheers!
In reply to McGuinness: Great concise description.
In reply to Mark Collins:
Handy things, UKC articles, but proper to acknowledge them as sources:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=1499
http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=33
> (In reply to McGuinness) Great concise description.
Handy things, UKC articles, but proper to acknowledge them as sources:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=1499
http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=33
In reply to wayno265:
It's worth noting that a 'true' ground up is only applicable (on a trad lead) whereby the climber has immediately lowered off after failing and then someone else has abbed to strip the gear, leaving the climber with no knowledge whatsoever of anything about the climb, after the point at which he failed.
There are various ways to achive that.
Have a very kind and patient partner strip it for you or get someone else (more capable than you) to do something with it on the sharpe end and then strip it or, failing that... find a third person to second it!
Either way, you shouldn't watch any of this taking place, and you should make sure the other people don't go blabbing off to you about what's up there.
The period of time which elapses between attempts is not relevant, but I would recommend at least 2 years, to maintain a more credible ascent.
It should also be noted that climbers who 'think' they are going Ground Up above mats, are in fact Headpointing at the grade!
If they've jumped off onto any kind of padding, this is in effect 'practising' the moves!
And even then, even when climbing the line cleanly onsight above pads, they can't claim the grade, until such time as they remove the padding protection and climb the line without it being there.
:0 Nothing for anyone to feel the need to comment on there then!!
It's worth noting that a 'true' ground up is only applicable (on a trad lead) whereby the climber has immediately lowered off after failing and then someone else has abbed to strip the gear, leaving the climber with no knowledge whatsoever of anything about the climb, after the point at which he failed.
There are various ways to achive that.
Have a very kind and patient partner strip it for you or get someone else (more capable than you) to do something with it on the sharpe end and then strip it or, failing that... find a third person to second it!
Either way, you shouldn't watch any of this taking place, and you should make sure the other people don't go blabbing off to you about what's up there.
The period of time which elapses between attempts is not relevant, but I would recommend at least 2 years, to maintain a more credible ascent.
It should also be noted that climbers who 'think' they are going Ground Up above mats, are in fact Headpointing at the grade!
If they've jumped off onto any kind of padding, this is in effect 'practising' the moves!
And even then, even when climbing the line cleanly onsight above pads, they can't claim the grade, until such time as they remove the padding protection and climb the line without it being there.
:0 Nothing for anyone to feel the need to comment on there then!!
In reply to Cragrat Rich:
Doesn't sound like you've done much above pads then! The opportunities for 'practising' moves are rather disappointing.
Doesn't sound like you've done much above pads then! The opportunities for 'practising' moves are rather disappointing.
In reply to Adam Long:
Lots of bouldering!
Really???
> (In reply to Cragrat Rich)
>
> Doesn't sound like you've done much above pads then!
>
> Doesn't sound like you've done much above pads then!
Lots of bouldering!
> The opportunities for 'practising' moves are rather disappointing.
Really???
In reply to Cragrat Rich:
You have no idea do you.
Go out. See what the best climbers are doing. Think why they are doing it that way. Come back. Reformulate your straight jacket.
> It should also be noted that climbers who 'think' they are going Ground Up above mats, are in fact Headpointing at the grade!
> If they've jumped off onto any kind of padding, this is in effect 'practising' the moves!
> And even then, even when climbing the line cleanly onsight above pads, they can't claim the grade, until such time as they remove the padding protection and climb the line without it being there.
>
> :0 Nothing for anyone to feel the need to comment on there then!!
> If they've jumped off onto any kind of padding, this is in effect 'practising' the moves!
> And even then, even when climbing the line cleanly onsight above pads, they can't claim the grade, until such time as they remove the padding protection and climb the line without it being there.
>
> :0 Nothing for anyone to feel the need to comment on there then!!
You have no idea do you.
Go out. See what the best climbers are doing. Think why they are doing it that way. Come back. Reformulate your straight jacket.
In reply to wayno265:
so ground-up is differnt to yo-yo ing then? Yo-yo ing being, ground up, onsight attempt, fall, leave gear and rope in but attempt again frm the ground so first bit of climb, the bit that has already been climbed, is effectively top roped, but the fall move and everything new is done on lead with no previous info. Jerry Moffat's Revelations makes this sound like a fairly comon way to climb when he started out and was seen as different but equally valid as redpointing when that appeared on the continent. Over a few years redpointing became more common and yo-yo ing died out?
so ground-up is differnt to yo-yo ing then? Yo-yo ing being, ground up, onsight attempt, fall, leave gear and rope in but attempt again frm the ground so first bit of climb, the bit that has already been climbed, is effectively top roped, but the fall move and everything new is done on lead with no previous info. Jerry Moffat's Revelations makes this sound like a fairly comon way to climb when he started out and was seen as different but equally valid as redpointing when that appeared on the continent. Over a few years redpointing became more common and yo-yo ing died out?
In reply to Cragrat Rich: doesnt sound to like youve fallen from a good height on to a mat.
infact it doesnt sound to me like you know what you are talking about.
ive just read the post again and you really must be taking the piss.
infact it doesnt sound to me like you know what you are talking about.
ive just read the post again and you really must be taking the piss.
In reply to neilnevill:
Yo-yoing was quite a popular frigging method back when the rules were more lax!
Chris
Yo-yoing was quite a popular frigging method back when the rules were more lax!
Chris
In reply to Chris Craggs:
moffat's description makes it sound equally valid. the reasoning being every move is attempted first time on lead when yo-yo ing, every move is done 'onsight' even though the whole route isn't. redpoint attempts can start on the top rope
moffat's description makes it sound equally valid. the reasoning being every move is attempted first time on lead when yo-yo ing, every move is done 'onsight' even though the whole route isn't. redpoint attempts can start on the top rope
In reply to neilnevill:
It can easily degenerate into a total frig though, sitting on the gear to check the holds and sort the gear out, do a move, drop an nut in the lower-off again. Once you start yo-yoing it is a slippery slope to an unsubtle aid ascent with a mobile top-rope - I know we did it way back when!
Chris
It can easily degenerate into a total frig though, sitting on the gear to check the holds and sort the gear out, do a move, drop an nut in the lower-off again. Once you start yo-yoing it is a slippery slope to an unsubtle aid ascent with a mobile top-rope - I know we did it way back when!
Chris
In reply to wayno265:
If you start from the ground then your ascent is done 'ground up' irrespective of whether you happen to fall off or not. Falling off only makes a difference to whether or not it's classed as an 'onsight ascent'. Of course when climbing 'ground up' a climber pretty much just attempts the route 'on sight', i.e. they turn up, look upwards and start climbing!
One can see why some people find the terms confusing as both can be used in different ways - depending on whether you're applying them to the 'general method' or the actual tick.
If you start from the ground then your ascent is done 'ground up' irrespective of whether you happen to fall off or not. Falling off only makes a difference to whether or not it's classed as an 'onsight ascent'. Of course when climbing 'ground up' a climber pretty much just attempts the route 'on sight', i.e. they turn up, look upwards and start climbing!
One can see why some people find the terms confusing as both can be used in different ways - depending on whether you're applying them to the 'general method' or the actual tick.
In reply to Chris Craggs:
sounds like me at the climbing wall on a regular basis
I see what you mean though. I'd not view it as a clean ascent until done ground up, but working the route on lead by yo-yoing does seem a bit harder than working it first on a top rope. Imagine a route where the crux is well past the last bit of gear....repeated attempts, repeated whippers....it's got to be ballsier/harder than doing it first on a top rope. Harder for me anyway!
sounds like me at the climbing wall on a regular basis
I see what you mean though. I'd not view it as a clean ascent until done ground up, but working the route on lead by yo-yoing does seem a bit harder than working it first on a top rope. Imagine a route where the crux is well past the last bit of gear....repeated attempts, repeated whippers....it's got to be ballsier/harder than doing it first on a top rope. Harder for me anyway!
In reply to petestack: Agreed
In reply to McGuinness:
Joe Brown headpointed Brown's Eliminate!!
The bastard
I on-sighted it, why couldn't he?
I feel let down.
Joe Brown headpointed Brown's Eliminate!!
The bastard
I on-sighted it, why couldn't he?
I feel let down.
In reply to Cragrat Rich:
<bemused> It's really not that noteworthy is it? In fact it barely resembles most people's idea of 'ground up', something that is by its very nature a flexible catch all term.
I'm never sure but I think sometimes you've gone a little too far, you must be taking the piss.
<Yawn>
You're an odd chap Mr Rat.
jk
> It's worth noting that a 'true' ground up is only applicable (on a trad lead) whereby the climber has immediately lowered off after failing and then someone else has abbed to strip the gear, leaving the climber with no knowledge whatsoever of anything about the climb, after the point at which he failed.
<bemused> It's really not that noteworthy is it? In fact it barely resembles most people's idea of 'ground up', something that is by its very nature a flexible catch all term.
> There are various ways to achive that.
> Have a very kind and patient partner strip it for you or get someone else (more capable than you) to do something with it on the sharpe end and then strip it or, failing that... find a third person to second it!
> Either way, you shouldn't watch any of this taking place, and you should make sure the other people don't go blabbing off to you about what's up there.
> The period of time which elapses between attempts is not relevant, but I would recommend at least 2 years, to maintain a more credible ascent.
> Have a very kind and patient partner strip it for you or get someone else (more capable than you) to do something with it on the sharpe end and then strip it or, failing that... find a third person to second it!
> Either way, you shouldn't watch any of this taking place, and you should make sure the other people don't go blabbing off to you about what's up there.
> The period of time which elapses between attempts is not relevant, but I would recommend at least 2 years, to maintain a more credible ascent.
I'm never sure but I think sometimes you've gone a little too far, you must be taking the piss.
> It should also be noted that climbers who 'think' they are going Ground Up above mats, are in fact Headpointing at the grade!
<Yawn>
You're an odd chap Mr Rat.
jk
In reply to Adam Long:
What I find irritating about folk like you Adam, is you're happy to talk from an ethical hilltop about people not headpointing routes that have had a 'purer' style ascent...
yet... when someone non-descript like me pops along with the suggestion that climbing routes without pads under them is an improvement in style... you suddenly spit your dummy out and start claiming all this crap that i'm an extreme purist, out of touch antagonist who is destined to break my ankles???
You people can't have it both ways.
You're not an authority on where ethical style should begin and end.
You are just where you are on the issue, that's all.
I'm more than aware that to solo a route is better style than me leading it. What's your problem with an ascent without mats being better style than with.
I just don't get it.
Is it just cos climbing above mats is acceptably 'cool' to the current/recent generation and goes well with a beanie hat and folk standing around with their arms in the air??
It's like, at the end of Hard Grit - when they're all standing around under Meshuga 'scarcely believing what is about to happen' and all that...
So if some dude rocks up in the future and takes the mats away before his ascent... are we all gonna stand around slagging him off, calling him a stupid tw*t and knocking his 'purist' ethics...
Or here's a novel idea.... Hand it to him that he's got a strong belief in why the climb has the grade it does, what he wants to achieve and commend him on his willingness to uphold his style ethics?
What I find irritating about folk like you Adam, is you're happy to talk from an ethical hilltop about people not headpointing routes that have had a 'purer' style ascent...
yet... when someone non-descript like me pops along with the suggestion that climbing routes without pads under them is an improvement in style... you suddenly spit your dummy out and start claiming all this crap that i'm an extreme purist, out of touch antagonist who is destined to break my ankles???
You people can't have it both ways.
You're not an authority on where ethical style should begin and end.
You are just where you are on the issue, that's all.
I'm more than aware that to solo a route is better style than me leading it. What's your problem with an ascent without mats being better style than with.
I just don't get it.
Is it just cos climbing above mats is acceptably 'cool' to the current/recent generation and goes well with a beanie hat and folk standing around with their arms in the air??
It's like, at the end of Hard Grit - when they're all standing around under Meshuga 'scarcely believing what is about to happen' and all that...
So if some dude rocks up in the future and takes the mats away before his ascent... are we all gonna stand around slagging him off, calling him a stupid tw*t and knocking his 'purist' ethics...
Or here's a novel idea.... Hand it to him that he's got a strong belief in why the climb has the grade it does, what he wants to achieve and commend him on his willingness to uphold his style ethics?
In reply to Boy:
I've no idea why 'what the best climbers are doing' has got anything at all to do with my personal beliefs on style and ethics?? Can you explain that to me?
> (In reply to Cragrat Rich)
>
> [...]
>
>
> You have no idea do you.
> Go out. See what the best climbers are doing. Think why they are doing it that way. Come back. Reformulate your straight jacket.
>
> [...]
>
>
> You have no idea do you.
> Go out. See what the best climbers are doing. Think why they are doing it that way. Come back. Reformulate your straight jacket.
I've no idea why 'what the best climbers are doing' has got anything at all to do with my personal beliefs on style and ethics?? Can you explain that to me?
In reply to Cragrat Rich:
I tend to lean towards your purist ethical attitude because it is similar to my own. I've done a bit of head pointing and onsighted above pads however because of my own ethical beliefs these routes are not recorded as on-sights and the tech grade I have managed isn't recorded either.
All I'll add to this thread is that in my opionion, everymans ethic is correct. If they are happy with what they are doing and can justify it to themselves then its all good with me. No mans ethics are wrong and no mans are right. It only becomes a discussion point when we discuss our own ethics with those who have different views. We need to acknowledge we are all different and have different view. I got a great feeling climing E2 but couldn't justiy the risk of a serious injury so did it above a pad. I was a little sad when topping out having not fallen and therefore could have done it without the pad but hey-ho, thats my ethics and I'm happy to live with them. I'll never get chance to improve that style now as I've been on the moves and so couldn't count as a true onsight but it ain't the end of the world, its just a route and there a 1000's more of them.
I tend to lean towards your purist ethical attitude because it is similar to my own. I've done a bit of head pointing and onsighted above pads however because of my own ethical beliefs these routes are not recorded as on-sights and the tech grade I have managed isn't recorded either.
All I'll add to this thread is that in my opionion, everymans ethic is correct. If they are happy with what they are doing and can justify it to themselves then its all good with me. No mans ethics are wrong and no mans are right. It only becomes a discussion point when we discuss our own ethics with those who have different views. We need to acknowledge we are all different and have different view. I got a great feeling climing E2 but couldn't justiy the risk of a serious injury so did it above a pad. I was a little sad when topping out having not fallen and therefore could have done it without the pad but hey-ho, thats my ethics and I'm happy to live with them. I'll never get chance to improve that style now as I've been on the moves and so couldn't count as a true onsight but it ain't the end of the world, its just a route and there a 1000's more of them.
In reply to Cragrat Rich:
Hmm, I think you've read far too much into what I wrote - presumably you're referring to another poster, or comments on another thread here?
Either way I've no argument with your assertion that without pads is better than with. I quite agree - its precisely analogous to soloing vs leading. If you're good enough, you can do more with less reliance on gear. Its what the sport is all about isn't it?
My beef is with your deduction that climbing above mats is effectively headpointing. It isn't. Its pretty similar to yo-yoing, sure, but with a built in guarantee that the kind of frigging Chris describes can't happen. Plus its kinder on the rock.
Maybe highballing looks really safe on films - it isn't in reality. Seems to be a common theme that folk who haven't done it assume its really safe. Generally it isn't - obviously there's a sliding scale but if it used to get an E-grade it will likely remain closer to soloing than bouldering. And if the landing is bad, there's not a lot pads can do. Seeing a load in the background can give a false impression - its a bit like placing shit RPs sometimes - you place them cos you've got them with you, but you wouldn't want to fall on them...
Hmm, I think you've read far too much into what I wrote - presumably you're referring to another poster, or comments on another thread here?
Either way I've no argument with your assertion that without pads is better than with. I quite agree - its precisely analogous to soloing vs leading. If you're good enough, you can do more with less reliance on gear. Its what the sport is all about isn't it?
My beef is with your deduction that climbing above mats is effectively headpointing. It isn't. Its pretty similar to yo-yoing, sure, but with a built in guarantee that the kind of frigging Chris describes can't happen. Plus its kinder on the rock.
Maybe highballing looks really safe on films - it isn't in reality. Seems to be a common theme that folk who haven't done it assume its really safe. Generally it isn't - obviously there's a sliding scale but if it used to get an E-grade it will likely remain closer to soloing than bouldering. And if the landing is bad, there's not a lot pads can do. Seeing a load in the background can give a false impression - its a bit like placing shit RPs sometimes - you place them cos you've got them with you, but you wouldn't want to fall on them...
In reply to Cragrat Rich:
So after reading this thread as well I'm not sure I would ever stick up for you mate. Not only do I disagree with you, I also think you're a bit obnoxious. Are you honestly suggesting that risking a fall of several (usually more) metres whilst climbing into unknown territory is anywhere near the same as top roping?!?
50 years ago they didn't have cams. Do people complain when they stuff them into right unconquerable now? Of course they don't. A stack of pads might reduce the E grade, which is only a shame if you give a shit about that kind of thing, but anything that makes a ground up ascent safer, doesn't harm the rock or the ground, and encourages ground up ascents rather than toproping, can only be a good thing can't it?
So after reading this thread as well I'm not sure I would ever stick up for you mate. Not only do I disagree with you, I also think you're a bit obnoxious. Are you honestly suggesting that risking a fall of several (usually more) metres whilst climbing into unknown territory is anywhere near the same as top roping?!?
50 years ago they didn't have cams. Do people complain when they stuff them into right unconquerable now? Of course they don't. A stack of pads might reduce the E grade, which is only a shame if you give a shit about that kind of thing, but anything that makes a ground up ascent safer, doesn't harm the rock or the ground, and encourages ground up ascents rather than toproping, can only be a good thing can't it?
In reply to wayno265:
This is probably totally irrelevant, but back in the dark ages....late 70's/early80's, if we fell leading, we pulled the ropes through and started again.......yoyoing. But the gear stayed in place.
We had fun tho'.
This is probably totally irrelevant, but back in the dark ages....late 70's/early80's, if we fell leading, we pulled the ropes through and started again.......yoyoing. But the gear stayed in place.
We had fun tho'.
In reply to Adam Long:
I said it is effectively headpointing... AT THE GRADE GIVEN!
What happens on a padded out ascent is a climber (who is using the mat as passive protection) either
a. Completes the climb (which means that he's done the moves, fulfilled himself after being inspired by the line etc etc) but hasn't properly addressed the challenge AT THE GRADE GIVEN.
b. Jumps/falls off onto the pads until he completes the climb. This is pre-practice, as the climber is using gear/protecion to take away the consequences of failed attempts (like what a top-rope is used for when Headpointing)
The overiding point being of course (and this is actually the crucial point) that in either scenario, the ascent (AT THE GRADE GIVEN) still hasn't even being completed, until he climbs it without the pads being there.
And in either scenario, pre-practice has occured.
So whatever way it pans out, it's much like a Headpoint ascent (pre-practised) AT THE GRADE GIVEN....
The very ironic thing being that most of the time, it ends up resembling a Headpoint without a lead at the end of it! (just a load of protected practice) Which is proper crap!!
> (In reply to Cragrat Rich)
>
> > My beef is with your deduction that climbing above mats is effectively headpointing. It isn't.
>
> > My beef is with your deduction that climbing above mats is effectively headpointing. It isn't.
I said it is effectively headpointing... AT THE GRADE GIVEN!
What happens on a padded out ascent is a climber (who is using the mat as passive protection) either
a. Completes the climb (which means that he's done the moves, fulfilled himself after being inspired by the line etc etc) but hasn't properly addressed the challenge AT THE GRADE GIVEN.
b. Jumps/falls off onto the pads until he completes the climb. This is pre-practice, as the climber is using gear/protecion to take away the consequences of failed attempts (like what a top-rope is used for when Headpointing)
The overiding point being of course (and this is actually the crucial point) that in either scenario, the ascent (AT THE GRADE GIVEN) still hasn't even being completed, until he climbs it without the pads being there.
And in either scenario, pre-practice has occured.
So whatever way it pans out, it's much like a Headpoint ascent (pre-practised) AT THE GRADE GIVEN....
The very ironic thing being that most of the time, it ends up resembling a Headpoint without a lead at the end of it! (just a load of protected practice) Which is proper crap!!
In reply to Cragrat Rich: I reckon theuse of mats will result in one of two options depending on the route, either:
It will be similar to a headpoint
or
It will be a clean ascent but at a reduced grade and style.
So I think I basically agree with you.
Thats not to say people shouldn't use mats if they chose, but they won't climb the route at the given grade.
It will be similar to a headpoint
or
It will be a clean ascent but at a reduced grade and style.
So I think I basically agree with you.
Thats not to say people shouldn't use mats if they chose, but they won't climb the route at the given grade.
In reply to Cragrat Rich:
Let me remind you what you said earlier....
You are stating your own opinions on pads as THE RULES, applicable to everyone else. Therefore I thought it relevant that you considered what others do and why they do it. The reason I suggested looking at the cutting edge is because that is where the over-simplicity of your rules is most apparent. Seeing something for yourself might change your attitude in a way that no amount of forum discussion is ever likely to.
For instance, it didn't look to me like headpointing when I was spotting Dan Varian taking big lobs onto iffy padding from the top of Superstition (an E8 7a only ever previously headpointed above runners) in an attempt to climb it ground up. Had you been there I think you might have found it hard to uphold your dismissive attitude, or maybe not. The idea of him then having to take the pads away and climb it again is an absurdity which only makes sense to those obsessed with 'claiming the grade'.
> (In reply to Boy)
> [...]
>
> I've no idea why 'what the best climbers are doing' has got anything at all to do with my personal beliefs on style and ethics?? Can you explain that to me?
Why certainly.> [...]
>
> I've no idea why 'what the best climbers are doing' has got anything at all to do with my personal beliefs on style and ethics?? Can you explain that to me?
Let me remind you what you said earlier....
> It should also be noted that climbers who 'think' they are going Ground Up above mats, are in fact Headpointing at the grade!
> If they've jumped off onto any kind of padding, this is in effect 'practising' the moves!
> And even then, even when climbing the line cleanly onsight above pads, they can't claim the grade, until such time as they remove the padding protection and climb the line without it being there.
>> If they've jumped off onto any kind of padding, this is in effect 'practising' the moves!
> And even then, even when climbing the line cleanly onsight above pads, they can't claim the grade, until such time as they remove the padding protection and climb the line without it being there.
> :0 Nothing for anyone to feel the need to comment on there then!!
You are stating your own opinions on pads as THE RULES, applicable to everyone else. Therefore I thought it relevant that you considered what others do and why they do it. The reason I suggested looking at the cutting edge is because that is where the over-simplicity of your rules is most apparent. Seeing something for yourself might change your attitude in a way that no amount of forum discussion is ever likely to.
For instance, it didn't look to me like headpointing when I was spotting Dan Varian taking big lobs onto iffy padding from the top of Superstition (an E8 7a only ever previously headpointed above runners) in an attempt to climb it ground up. Had you been there I think you might have found it hard to uphold your dismissive attitude, or maybe not. The idea of him then having to take the pads away and climb it again is an absurdity which only makes sense to those obsessed with 'claiming the grade'.
In reply to Cragrat Rich:
>The very ironic thing being that most of the time, it ends up resembling a Headpoint without a lead at the end of it! (just a load of protected practice) Which is proper crap!!
What a ludicrous statement. All you've succeeded in explaining is that you really don't know what you're talking about.
I think you need to get over this obsession with grades. Folk climbing ground-up above mats aren't after a grade - they just want to climb the route ground-up.
We don't have grading system for pads yet, so the E-grade continues to get used in news reports. In some cases pads make a big difference to the E-grade, sometimes not. For roped ascents like Gaia or Kaluza, I don't think a few strategic pads affects the grade at all. Its analogous to putting two cams in instead of one. Whereas, as has been debated on here ad infinitum, headpointing doesn't really earn you an E-grade at all.
>The very ironic thing being that most of the time, it ends up resembling a Headpoint without a lead at the end of it! (just a load of protected practice) Which is proper crap!!
What a ludicrous statement. All you've succeeded in explaining is that you really don't know what you're talking about.
I think you need to get over this obsession with grades. Folk climbing ground-up above mats aren't after a grade - they just want to climb the route ground-up.
We don't have grading system for pads yet, so the E-grade continues to get used in news reports. In some cases pads make a big difference to the E-grade, sometimes not. For roped ascents like Gaia or Kaluza, I don't think a few strategic pads affects the grade at all. Its analogous to putting two cams in instead of one. Whereas, as has been debated on here ad infinitum, headpointing doesn't really earn you an E-grade at all.
In reply to Boy:
I think this highlights the point i've tried to clarify on the other thread.
Either a climber is driven by the desire to improve the style of an ascent (as in this case) or they are driven by the natural challenge of climbing the route (which is set by it's grade)
Climbing these days, I think, has become obsessed with the former whilst the latter is being left behind.
All in all, it suggests that climbers have now (and this is the example being set to new generations) have pushed climbing to 'artificial levels' of achievement!
Whereby, an original idea of starting from the ground and taking on the challenge of a climb, has been replaced by lowering the challenge of the climb to suit, particularly with the use of padding.
In other words, your friend wouldn't have been able to do the climb in the style he did... ground up... if it wasn't for padding.
Anyway, well done to him... even if I don't see the point of taking the risk of doing what he did!
> (In reply to Cragrat Rich)
> [...]
> Why certainly.
> Let me remind you what you said earlier....
>
> [...]
>
> > For instance, it didn't look to me like headpointing when I was spotting Dan Varian taking big lobs onto iffy padding from the top of Superstition (an E8 7a only ever previously headpointed above runners) in an attempt to climb it ground up. Had you been there I think you might have found it hard to uphold your dismissive attitude, or maybe not. The idea of him then having to take the pads away and climb it again is an absurdity which only makes sense to those obsessed with 'claiming the grade'.
> [...]
> Why certainly.
> Let me remind you what you said earlier....
>
> [...]
>
> > For instance, it didn't look to me like headpointing when I was spotting Dan Varian taking big lobs onto iffy padding from the top of Superstition (an E8 7a only ever previously headpointed above runners) in an attempt to climb it ground up. Had you been there I think you might have found it hard to uphold your dismissive attitude, or maybe not. The idea of him then having to take the pads away and climb it again is an absurdity which only makes sense to those obsessed with 'claiming the grade'.
I think this highlights the point i've tried to clarify on the other thread.
Either a climber is driven by the desire to improve the style of an ascent (as in this case) or they are driven by the natural challenge of climbing the route (which is set by it's grade)
Climbing these days, I think, has become obsessed with the former whilst the latter is being left behind.
All in all, it suggests that climbers have now (and this is the example being set to new generations) have pushed climbing to 'artificial levels' of achievement!
Whereby, an original idea of starting from the ground and taking on the challenge of a climb, has been replaced by lowering the challenge of the climb to suit, particularly with the use of padding.
In other words, your friend wouldn't have been able to do the climb in the style he did... ground up... if it wasn't for padding.
Anyway, well done to him... even if I don't see the point of taking the risk of doing what he did!
In reply to Adam Long:
Adam, it seems that you've done a hell of a lot more 'padding' than I have so I ask you a question:
Doing a hard ground up, would the climber -
A) Knowing he has the landing area padded, he'd be able to relax a little more knowing the chances of serious injury are reduced slightly and therefore be able to commit to the moves more thus rendering sucess.
or
B) Knowing that should he fluff the moves, he has no padding and therefore can not afford a mistake of any kind. In this mindset he is more commited mentally and more focused thus rendering sucess.
Serious question BTW and I apologise in advance for detracting away from the main topic. IMO both points could be valid dependant upon the climber himself and how he is able to respond under intense pressure. Interested in other views on this.
Adam, it seems that you've done a hell of a lot more 'padding' than I have so I ask you a question:
Doing a hard ground up, would the climber -
A) Knowing he has the landing area padded, he'd be able to relax a little more knowing the chances of serious injury are reduced slightly and therefore be able to commit to the moves more thus rendering sucess.
or
B) Knowing that should he fluff the moves, he has no padding and therefore can not afford a mistake of any kind. In this mindset he is more commited mentally and more focused thus rendering sucess.
Serious question BTW and I apologise in advance for detracting away from the main topic. IMO both points could be valid dependant upon the climber himself and how he is able to respond under intense pressure. Interested in other views on this.
In reply to bomb:
Totally agree with you bomb. So what if a mat reduces the grade or if your style is unacceptable to someone elses 'ethics' (ethics they have not determined for themselves, but borrowed them from some interview or book or whatever.)
I've climbed E grades over mats as there was no pro to stop a ground fall. I'm not fooling myself that I've climbed E whatever, but I dont care. I enjoyed the personal challenge I set myself to scale the climb I chose and walked to the pub afterwards with my mates instead of to the hospital to have my leg set in plaster.
The ethics police have forgotten primarily that people like myself climb for fun, because we enjoy it. It's personal, I compete only against myself, my fears and my abilitites. I dont climb to impress or for respect, I climb for fun.
I enjoy the technical moves and the feeling of exposure. If I'm going to hurt myself, it'll be on something in the mountains, something worth fighting for, not on a easily accessible crag on a sunny afternoon with my mates...there's no need for it.
I totally respect people wanting to climb hard trad where ground fall is possible, thats their business, but preaching gets on my tits.
> (In reply to Cragrat Rich)
>
> So after reading this thread as well I'm not sure I would ever stick up for you mate. Not only do I disagree with you, I also think you're a bit obnoxious. Are you honestly suggesting that risking a fall of several (usually more) metres whilst climbing into unknown territory is anywhere near the same as top roping?!?
> 50 years ago they didn't have cams. Do people complain when they stuff them into right unconquerable now? Of course they don't. A stack of pads might reduce the E grade, which is only a shame if you give a shit about that kind of thing, but anything that makes a ground up ascent safer, doesn't harm the rock or the ground, and encourages ground up ascents rather than toproping, can only be a good thing can't it?
>
> So after reading this thread as well I'm not sure I would ever stick up for you mate. Not only do I disagree with you, I also think you're a bit obnoxious. Are you honestly suggesting that risking a fall of several (usually more) metres whilst climbing into unknown territory is anywhere near the same as top roping?!?
> 50 years ago they didn't have cams. Do people complain when they stuff them into right unconquerable now? Of course they don't. A stack of pads might reduce the E grade, which is only a shame if you give a shit about that kind of thing, but anything that makes a ground up ascent safer, doesn't harm the rock or the ground, and encourages ground up ascents rather than toproping, can only be a good thing can't it?
Totally agree with you bomb. So what if a mat reduces the grade or if your style is unacceptable to someone elses 'ethics' (ethics they have not determined for themselves, but borrowed them from some interview or book or whatever.)
I've climbed E grades over mats as there was no pro to stop a ground fall. I'm not fooling myself that I've climbed E whatever, but I dont care. I enjoyed the personal challenge I set myself to scale the climb I chose and walked to the pub afterwards with my mates instead of to the hospital to have my leg set in plaster.
The ethics police have forgotten primarily that people like myself climb for fun, because we enjoy it. It's personal, I compete only against myself, my fears and my abilitites. I dont climb to impress or for respect, I climb for fun.
I enjoy the technical moves and the feeling of exposure. If I'm going to hurt myself, it'll be on something in the mountains, something worth fighting for, not on a easily accessible crag on a sunny afternoon with my mates...there's no need for it.
I totally respect people wanting to climb hard trad where ground fall is possible, thats their business, but preaching gets on my tits.
In reply to Adam Long:
It's not an obsession with grades. It's an obsession with trying to climb bits of rock in their natural state of challenge to the climber.
It's just a choice actually... not right or wrong or obsessive!
If someone wants to climb a route ground-up, i don't understand why they don't climb ones that they can climb ground up without padding?
> (In reply to Cragrat Rich)
>
> > I think you need to get over this obsession with grades. Folk climbing ground-up above mats aren't after a grade - they just want to climb the route ground-up
>
> > I think you need to get over this obsession with grades. Folk climbing ground-up above mats aren't after a grade - they just want to climb the route ground-up
It's not an obsession with grades. It's an obsession with trying to climb bits of rock in their natural state of challenge to the climber.
It's just a choice actually... not right or wrong or obsessive!
If someone wants to climb a route ground-up, i don't understand why they don't climb ones that they can climb ground up without padding?
In reply to Cragrat Rich:
A route is no less in its natural state with a pad under it than with a load of gear in a crack. Can't you see that?
I'll say it again - you're over-estimating the difference pads create. They are just a new piece of gear - like chalk, cams, or sticky rubber.
A route is no less in its natural state with a pad under it than with a load of gear in a crack. Can't you see that?
I'll say it again - you're over-estimating the difference pads create. They are just a new piece of gear - like chalk, cams, or sticky rubber.
In reply to BOOGA:
If that were truly the case you would probably only ever top-rope, second, or boulder.
So i don't believe in people who claim that... there are undoubtably more aspects to why you climb.
And my guess is that they are related to 'challenge'
> (In reply to bomb)
> [...]
>
> I climb for fun.
> [...]
>
> I climb for fun.
If that were truly the case you would probably only ever top-rope, second, or boulder.
So i don't believe in people who claim that... there are undoubtably more aspects to why you climb.
And my guess is that they are related to 'challenge'
In reply to Cragrat Rich:
Being scared is fun for most people. Or Alton Towers wouldn't be in business.
Being scared is fun for most people. Or Alton Towers wouldn't be in business.
In reply to Adam Long:
No I understand that Adam.
But all those things like rubber and cams etc are what set the given challenge. Pads aren't.
So for me, and perhaps you can help inspire me to change my mind on this, if you will, rather than just trying to prove me foolish???
I'm happy to work my way through the grades, challenge by challenge, without the pads, rather than unnecessarily setting the bar a couple of steps higher for no reason at all, by padding the challenges out.
Does that make sense or not?
> (In reply to Cragrat Rich)
>
> A route is no less in its natural state with a pad under it than with a load of gear in a crack. Can't you see that?
>
> I'll say it again - you're over-estimating the difference pads create. They are just a new piece of gear - like chalk, cams, or sticky rubber.
>
> A route is no less in its natural state with a pad under it than with a load of gear in a crack. Can't you see that?
>
> I'll say it again - you're over-estimating the difference pads create. They are just a new piece of gear - like chalk, cams, or sticky rubber.
No I understand that Adam.
But all those things like rubber and cams etc are what set the given challenge. Pads aren't.
So for me, and perhaps you can help inspire me to change my mind on this, if you will, rather than just trying to prove me foolish???
I'm happy to work my way through the grades, challenge by challenge, without the pads, rather than unnecessarily setting the bar a couple of steps higher for no reason at all, by padding the challenges out.
Does that make sense or not?
In reply to Adam Long:
I agree with you there as well Adam.
But saying that a person who rockclimbs isn't in some way driven by aspects of challenging themselves, well, it's ludicrous really!
It's suggesting that they stand at the bottom with no thoughts of reaching the top, just concentrating on making sure whatever happens is 'fun'!
> (In reply to Cragrat Rich)
>
> Being scared is fun for most people. Or Alton Towers wouldn't be in business.
>
> Being scared is fun for most people. Or Alton Towers wouldn't be in business.
I agree with you there as well Adam.
But saying that a person who rockclimbs isn't in some way driven by aspects of challenging themselves, well, it's ludicrous really!
It's suggesting that they stand at the bottom with no thoughts of reaching the top, just concentrating on making sure whatever happens is 'fun'!
In reply to Cragrat Rich:
You miss the point.
He wasn't trying to create an artificial challenge, or to better the style of a previous ascent. He wanted to climb the route from the bottom without pre-practice because he mostly boulders and that's how he enjoys climbing. Not as a statement of anything, simply as an inspiring and satisfying thing to do.
> (In reply to Boy)
> [...]
>
> I think this highlights the point i've tried to clarify on the other thread.
> Either a climber is driven by the desire to improve the style of an ascent (as in this case) or they are driven by the natural challenge of climbing the route (which is set by it's grade)
> Climbing these days, I think, has become obsessed with the former whilst the latter is being left behind.
>
> All in all, it suggests that climbers have now (and this is the example being set to new generations) have pushed climbing to 'artificial levels' of achievement!
> Whereby, an original idea of starting from the ground and taking on the challenge of a climb, has been replaced by lowering the challenge of the climb to suit, particularly with the use of padding.
>
> In other words, your friend wouldn't have been able to do the climb in the style he did... ground up... if it wasn't for padding.
>
> Anyway, well done to him... even if I don't see the point of taking the risk of doing what he did!
> [...]
>
> I think this highlights the point i've tried to clarify on the other thread.
> Either a climber is driven by the desire to improve the style of an ascent (as in this case) or they are driven by the natural challenge of climbing the route (which is set by it's grade)
> Climbing these days, I think, has become obsessed with the former whilst the latter is being left behind.
>
> All in all, it suggests that climbers have now (and this is the example being set to new generations) have pushed climbing to 'artificial levels' of achievement!
> Whereby, an original idea of starting from the ground and taking on the challenge of a climb, has been replaced by lowering the challenge of the climb to suit, particularly with the use of padding.
>
> In other words, your friend wouldn't have been able to do the climb in the style he did... ground up... if it wasn't for padding.
>
> Anyway, well done to him... even if I don't see the point of taking the risk of doing what he did!
You miss the point.
He wasn't trying to create an artificial challenge, or to better the style of a previous ascent. He wanted to climb the route from the bottom without pre-practice because he mostly boulders and that's how he enjoys climbing. Not as a statement of anything, simply as an inspiring and satisfying thing to do.
In reply to blanchie14c:
I think in both cases the climber would have a differing reason for the rendering of success (like you said), but in the case of A, the climber would be 'better off' should he not render it enough
and in the case of B, the climber would be pretty f*cked should he not render it enough
So climber B most definately has the harder task at hand.
However, climber A, under the impression they are safe-ish, might relax too much and then might get badly hurt, depite the padding (as Adam rightly states)
but climber B is likely to have thought increadibly carefully about what they're undertaking, their chances of success and how serious they are about committment, so are less likely to fail, especially when that is combined with what you already said about their rendering of success mechanism
That's my view anyway, and pretty effectively sums up why i'm a climber B
> (In reply to Adam Long)
>
> Doing a hard ground up, would the climber -
>
> A) Knowing he has the landing area padded, he'd be able to relax a little more knowing the chances of serious injury are reduced slightly and therefore be able to commit to the moves more thus rendering sucess.
>
> or
>
> B) Knowing that should he fluff the moves, he has no padding and therefore can not afford a mistake of any kind. In this mindset he is more commited mentally and more focused thus rendering sucess.
>
> Doing a hard ground up, would the climber -
>
> A) Knowing he has the landing area padded, he'd be able to relax a little more knowing the chances of serious injury are reduced slightly and therefore be able to commit to the moves more thus rendering sucess.
>
> or
>
> B) Knowing that should he fluff the moves, he has no padding and therefore can not afford a mistake of any kind. In this mindset he is more commited mentally and more focused thus rendering sucess.
I think in both cases the climber would have a differing reason for the rendering of success (like you said), but in the case of A, the climber would be 'better off' should he not render it enough
and in the case of B, the climber would be pretty f*cked should he not render it enough
So climber B most definately has the harder task at hand.
However, climber A, under the impression they are safe-ish, might relax too much and then might get badly hurt, depite the padding (as Adam rightly states)
but climber B is likely to have thought increadibly carefully about what they're undertaking, their chances of success and how serious they are about committment, so are less likely to fail, especially when that is combined with what you already said about their rendering of success mechanism
That's my view anyway, and pretty effectively sums up why i'm a climber B
In reply to Boy:
No i haven't missed it.
I just wouldn't do what he did.
I'd do something easier, without the padding.
That's definately not to suggest he was wrong, stupid or any other judgement, just that he'd chosen to use padding to do something inspiring and satisfying at a harder grade than he would have without it.
So put another way... If you transfered my attitude to him, he'd have got the same inspiration and satisfaction from an easier challenge
> (In reply to Cragrat Rich)
> [...]
>
> You miss the point.
> He wasn't trying to create an artificial challenge, or to better the style of a previous ascent. He wanted to climb the route from the bottom without pre-practice because he mostly boulders and that's how he enjoys climbing. Not as a statement of anything, simply as an inspiring and satisfying thing to do.
> [...]
>
> You miss the point.
> He wasn't trying to create an artificial challenge, or to better the style of a previous ascent. He wanted to climb the route from the bottom without pre-practice because he mostly boulders and that's how he enjoys climbing. Not as a statement of anything, simply as an inspiring and satisfying thing to do.
No i haven't missed it.
I just wouldn't do what he did.
I'd do something easier, without the padding.
That's definately not to suggest he was wrong, stupid or any other judgement, just that he'd chosen to use padding to do something inspiring and satisfying at a harder grade than he would have without it.
So put another way... If you transfered my attitude to him, he'd have got the same inspiration and satisfaction from an easier challenge
In reply to Cragrat Rich:
Interesting question isn't it? I am slightly more B than A as I know that the end result of B is all the more sweeter <no pads> but that mindset also holds me back due to fear of injury, option A can offer a way of stepping outside of my comfort zone so both are valid to me.
It still freeking hurts when dropping on a pad though!
Interesting question isn't it? I am slightly more B than A as I know that the end result of B is all the more sweeter <no pads> but that mindset also holds me back due to fear of injury, option A can offer a way of stepping outside of my comfort zone so both are valid to me.
It still freeking hurts when dropping on a pad though!
In reply to blanchie14c:
Sounds nice in theory, but in reality the situation is going to be exactly the same - you take into account all aspects of the situation, and then focus completely on the climbing. The key skill in on-sighting dangerous routes is to find that middle ground where you acknowledge the danger without being overcome by it.
If you're talking about being on the same route - obviously having pads will be easier mentally than not. But nowhere near as easy as having practised the moves beforehand.
> (In reply to Adam Long)
> Doing a hard ground up, would the climber -
>
> A) Knowing he has the landing area padded, he'd be able to relax a little more knowing the chances of serious injury are reduced slightly and therefore be able to commit to the moves more thus rendering sucess.
>
> or
>
> B) Knowing that should he fluff the moves, he has no padding and therefore can not afford a mistake of any kind. In this mindset he is more commited mentally and more focused thus rendering sucess.
>
> A) Knowing he has the landing area padded, he'd be able to relax a little more knowing the chances of serious injury are reduced slightly and therefore be able to commit to the moves more thus rendering sucess.
>
> or
>
> B) Knowing that should he fluff the moves, he has no padding and therefore can not afford a mistake of any kind. In this mindset he is more commited mentally and more focused thus rendering sucess.
Sounds nice in theory, but in reality the situation is going to be exactly the same - you take into account all aspects of the situation, and then focus completely on the climbing. The key skill in on-sighting dangerous routes is to find that middle ground where you acknowledge the danger without being overcome by it.
If you're talking about being on the same route - obviously having pads will be easier mentally than not. But nowhere near as easy as having practised the moves beforehand.
In reply to Cragrat Rich:
You're taking this 'natural challenge' thing to the level of artificial nonsense.
Climbing isn't static. No doubt early man climbed rocks barefoot in a loincloth, then came tweed and nail-boots, then plimsolls and machine nuts, etc, etc. Shit moves on, why is one approach more 'natural' than another? Climbing with gear and ropes rather than no gear and pads has no special claim to be 'the natural way to climb a rock', it has just been done that way for longer. One thing was invented before the other, it's a historical peculiarity not a natural law. Man wasn't born with a rope dangling from his waist nor a pad under his feet, both are inventions to suit the game. The gritstone game suits pads, get over it. If that messes with our tidy little grading systems so what? Either we live with the discrepancy or invent some new exciting numbers to describe what we do. Anything else is the tail wagging the dog.
People want to climb cool bits of rock, as many and as hard as possible. Why in hells name would they limit which ones they can try by ignoring a widely available bit of gear which they probably already own a couple of??
Look at the bigger picture for a moment. What kind of twisted logic dictates that you use a crashpad for short climbing but as soon as you hit 6m you have to climb above bare ground? It makes not sense, unless you are primarily interested in claiming the grade and there are names for people like that.
> (In reply to Adam Long)
> [...]
>
> It's not an obsession with grades. It's an obsession with trying to climb bits of rock in their natural state of challenge to the climber.
> It's just a choice actually... not right or wrong or obsessive!
> [...]
>
> It's not an obsession with grades. It's an obsession with trying to climb bits of rock in their natural state of challenge to the climber.
> It's just a choice actually... not right or wrong or obsessive!
You're taking this 'natural challenge' thing to the level of artificial nonsense.
Climbing isn't static. No doubt early man climbed rocks barefoot in a loincloth, then came tweed and nail-boots, then plimsolls and machine nuts, etc, etc. Shit moves on, why is one approach more 'natural' than another? Climbing with gear and ropes rather than no gear and pads has no special claim to be 'the natural way to climb a rock', it has just been done that way for longer. One thing was invented before the other, it's a historical peculiarity not a natural law. Man wasn't born with a rope dangling from his waist nor a pad under his feet, both are inventions to suit the game. The gritstone game suits pads, get over it. If that messes with our tidy little grading systems so what? Either we live with the discrepancy or invent some new exciting numbers to describe what we do. Anything else is the tail wagging the dog.
>
> If someone wants to climb a route ground-up, i don't understand why they don't climb ones that they can climb ground up without padding?
You really have got this arse about face.> If someone wants to climb a route ground-up, i don't understand why they don't climb ones that they can climb ground up without padding?
People want to climb cool bits of rock, as many and as hard as possible. Why in hells name would they limit which ones they can try by ignoring a widely available bit of gear which they probably already own a couple of??
Look at the bigger picture for a moment. What kind of twisted logic dictates that you use a crashpad for short climbing but as soon as you hit 6m you have to climb above bare ground? It makes not sense, unless you are primarily interested in claiming the grade and there are names for people like that.
In reply to Cragrat Rich:
So why, instead of headpointing, don't you on-sight something easier instead? That's the contradiction we all can't grasp here. I'll repeat myself again - pads make less of a difference than pre-practise. And yet you'd rather top-rope an E6 than try to onsight an E4 - pads or no pads.
> (In reply to Boy)
> [...]
>
> No i haven't missed it.
> I just wouldn't do what he did.
> I'd do something easier, without the padding.
>
> So put another way... If you transfered my attitude to him, he'd have got the same inspiration and satisfaction from an easier challenge
> [...]
>
> No i haven't missed it.
> I just wouldn't do what he did.
> I'd do something easier, without the padding.
>
> So put another way... If you transfered my attitude to him, he'd have got the same inspiration and satisfaction from an easier challenge
So why, instead of headpointing, don't you on-sight something easier instead? That's the contradiction we all can't grasp here. I'll repeat myself again - pads make less of a difference than pre-practise. And yet you'd rather top-rope an E6 than try to onsight an E4 - pads or no pads.
In reply to Adam Long:
I agree btw and wanted to add to my post that...
Either the route is the same, in which case climber B will undoubtably be found to have more mental/physical ability and likewise should the climbers be identical, type B is likely to be found on an easier climb
This is all academically obvious though
> (In reply to blanchie14c)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> > If you're talking about being on the same route - obviously having pads will be easier mentally than not. But nowhere near as easy as having practised the moves beforehand.
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> > If you're talking about being on the same route - obviously having pads will be easier mentally than not. But nowhere near as easy as having practised the moves beforehand.
I agree btw and wanted to add to my post that...
Either the route is the same, in which case climber B will undoubtably be found to have more mental/physical ability and likewise should the climbers be identical, type B is likely to be found on an easier climb
This is all academically obvious though
In reply to Adam Long:
That's not a contradiction, because i've hardly headpointed anything at all.
I'm massively passionate and driven by onsight climbing!
To answer your question though, I would entertain headpointing as a means of testing my ability to link very technically taxing sequences, and my ability to climb cooly and methodically in a stressful final lead.
I would see this as a seperate entity to other climbing styles such as onsight climbing, and would 'test/challenge' myself in the style of headpointing at given grades. The grade would be far in advance of what I would be prepared to commit to onsight!
I don't understand where there would be any point in me using padding to effectively mean I could shove things forward a small amount in terms of difficulty. I'd rather improve sufficiently to not have to bother.
To me, padded high ascents just breed a shit mindset for climbing.
Like a crap halfway house dilemma between the two other options
> (In reply to Cragrat Rich)
> [...]
>
> So why, instead of headpointing, don't you on-sight something easier instead? That's the contradiction we all can't grasp here.
> [...]
>
> So why, instead of headpointing, don't you on-sight something easier instead? That's the contradiction we all can't grasp here.
That's not a contradiction, because i've hardly headpointed anything at all.
I'm massively passionate and driven by onsight climbing!
To answer your question though, I would entertain headpointing as a means of testing my ability to link very technically taxing sequences, and my ability to climb cooly and methodically in a stressful final lead.
I would see this as a seperate entity to other climbing styles such as onsight climbing, and would 'test/challenge' myself in the style of headpointing at given grades. The grade would be far in advance of what I would be prepared to commit to onsight!
I don't understand where there would be any point in me using padding to effectively mean I could shove things forward a small amount in terms of difficulty. I'd rather improve sufficiently to not have to bother.
To me, padded high ascents just breed a shit mindset for climbing.
Like a crap halfway house dilemma between the two other options
In reply to MattG: both can be bad on how many times you try!
In reply to Boy:
What kind of twisted logic dictates that you use gear to place in the rock on your way up a route and then climb above it and take the chance that it might hold you if you happen to fall off?
It makes no sense unless you are primarily interested in claiming the grade and there are names for people like that....
Lets go further shall we....
What kind of twisted logic dictates that soemone places bolts every few meters up a massive wall in Red Rocks and then Alex Honold climbs past them all without even having a rope & harness with him?
It makes no sense unless he was primarily interested in claiming the solo and there are names for people like that...
People (like me) use bouldering mats to practice 'really hard moves' that they'd never try to do 6-8 meters up in the air, so that when they apply themsleves to the challenge of doing 'hard moves' 6-8 meters up in the air without the mat, they can manage it. Bleedin rocket science innit!
> (In reply to Cragrat Rich)
>
> Look at the bigger picture for a moment. What kind of twisted logic dictates that you use a crashpad for short climbing but as soon as you hit 6m you have to climb above bare ground? It makes not sense, unless you are primarily interested in claiming the grade and there are names for people like that.
>
> Look at the bigger picture for a moment. What kind of twisted logic dictates that you use a crashpad for short climbing but as soon as you hit 6m you have to climb above bare ground? It makes not sense, unless you are primarily interested in claiming the grade and there are names for people like that.
What kind of twisted logic dictates that you use gear to place in the rock on your way up a route and then climb above it and take the chance that it might hold you if you happen to fall off?
It makes no sense unless you are primarily interested in claiming the grade and there are names for people like that....
Lets go further shall we....
What kind of twisted logic dictates that soemone places bolts every few meters up a massive wall in Red Rocks and then Alex Honold climbs past them all without even having a rope & harness with him?
It makes no sense unless he was primarily interested in claiming the solo and there are names for people like that...
People (like me) use bouldering mats to practice 'really hard moves' that they'd never try to do 6-8 meters up in the air, so that when they apply themsleves to the challenge of doing 'hard moves' 6-8 meters up in the air without the mat, they can manage it. Bleedin rocket science innit!
In reply to peewee2008:
Do you want to borrow a few pads so you can jump down and join me
> (In reply to Cragrat Rich)
>
> Do you want to borrow a ladder as the hole your in is getting deeper.
>
> Do you want to borrow a ladder as the hole your in is getting deeper.
Do you want to borrow a few pads so you can jump down and join me
In reply to Cragrat Rich:
Nope, not much more than fun. The challenge puts me in a meditative place, all the bullshit drops away and its just you and the rock. I enjoy it, its fun. Simple as.
Winter routes.... thats a different story.
> (In reply to BOOGA)
> [...]
>
> If that were truly the case you would probably only ever top-rope, second, or boulder.
>
> So i don't believe in people who claim that... there are undoubtably more aspects to why you climb.
> And my guess is that they are related to 'challenge'
> [...]
>
> If that were truly the case you would probably only ever top-rope, second, or boulder.
>
> So i don't believe in people who claim that... there are undoubtably more aspects to why you climb.
> And my guess is that they are related to 'challenge'
Nope, not much more than fun. The challenge puts me in a meditative place, all the bullshit drops away and its just you and the rock. I enjoy it, its fun. Simple as.
Winter routes.... thats a different story.
In reply to Cragrat Rich:
Except for the thousands and thousands of routes that were done before chalk, rubber, cams, harnesses etc etc. Look noone is saying that padding routes doesn't change the brutally fundamental challenge of the climb, they do. I think what has got peoples backs up is that you're saying that ground up with pads is equal to or even less than the value of a headpoint ascent. I can understand the former point, but that I just cannot grasp.
With the whole padding routes debate, do you not boulder with a pad? So if people aren't claiming the grades but still climbing the routes ground up, isn't it just theoretically very dangerous bouldering? You're talking yourself into a right ball of confusion, you're starting to contradict yourself, and whilst I am by no means one to talk as im sure people will point out, there are ways of addressing others without sounding like a bit of a dickhead. Especially when you're wrong...
> (In reply to Adam Long)
> [...]
>
> No I understand that Adam.
>
> But all those things like rubber and cams etc are what set the given challenge. Pads aren't.
> [...]
>
> No I understand that Adam.
>
> But all those things like rubber and cams etc are what set the given challenge. Pads aren't.
Except for the thousands and thousands of routes that were done before chalk, rubber, cams, harnesses etc etc. Look noone is saying that padding routes doesn't change the brutally fundamental challenge of the climb, they do. I think what has got peoples backs up is that you're saying that ground up with pads is equal to or even less than the value of a headpoint ascent. I can understand the former point, but that I just cannot grasp.
With the whole padding routes debate, do you not boulder with a pad? So if people aren't claiming the grades but still climbing the routes ground up, isn't it just theoretically very dangerous bouldering? You're talking yourself into a right ball of confusion, you're starting to contradict yourself, and whilst I am by no means one to talk as im sure people will point out, there are ways of addressing others without sounding like a bit of a dickhead. Especially when you're wrong...
In reply to BOOGA:
Oh God, ere we go! Somebody shoot me quick
> (In reply to Cragrat Rich)
> [...]
>
> Winter routes.... thats a different story.
> [...]
>
> Winter routes.... thats a different story.
Oh God, ere we go! Somebody shoot me quick
In reply to bomb:
That seems too undecisive. You almost sound like you don't think I'm sounding like that :/ ???
> (In reply to Cragrat Rich)
> [...]
> without sounding like a bit of a dickhead
> [...]
> without sounding like a bit of a dickhead
That seems too undecisive. You almost sound like you don't think I'm sounding like that :/ ???
In reply to Cragrat Rich:
"To me, padded high ascents just breed a shit mindset for climbing"
Right there can be no possible answer to this, the debate is over, as that is well and truly the single most retarded thing I have ever read, or heard, not only on these forums (which is an impressive feat in itself), but possibly in my entire life.
"To me, padded high ascents just breed a shit mindset for climbing"
Right there can be no possible answer to this, the debate is over, as that is well and truly the single most retarded thing I have ever read, or heard, not only on these forums (which is an impressive feat in itself), but possibly in my entire life.
In reply to bomb:
Lol
No way dude?.... You've not spent enough time on here!!
> (In reply to Cragrat Rich)
>
> "To me, padded high ascents just breed a shit mindset for climbing"
>
> Right there can be no possible answer to this, the debate is over, as that is well and truly the single most retarded thing I have ever read, or heard, not only on these forums (which is an impressive feat in itself), but possibly in my entire life.
>
> "To me, padded high ascents just breed a shit mindset for climbing"
>
> Right there can be no possible answer to this, the debate is over, as that is well and truly the single most retarded thing I have ever read, or heard, not only on these forums (which is an impressive feat in itself), but possibly in my entire life.
Lol
No way dude?.... You've not spent enough time on here!!
In reply to bomb:
To be fair, cragrat did start the sentence with "to me" basically acknowledging that the statement is his own opinion. Difficlut to change folks opinions just as its difficult to change their ethic beliefs. I do like his use of the term 'halfway house' though. Thats where I see all of this, pads are a halfway house between the best possible style and toperope practice.
To be fair, cragrat did start the sentence with "to me" basically acknowledging that the statement is his own opinion. Difficlut to change folks opinions just as its difficult to change their ethic beliefs. I do like his use of the term 'halfway house' though. Thats where I see all of this, pads are a halfway house between the best possible style and toperope practice.
In reply to bomb:
I guess with all things being equal, a lot of routes can never be done in the same style of the FA. Take away sticky rubber, chalk, beta, modern gear, modern fitness levels, guidebooks etc the FA climbers prob removed some loose rock and grass and also had doubt in his mind if it was even possible to reach the top. We don't have those things to deal with eh
I guess with all things being equal, a lot of routes can never be done in the same style of the FA. Take away sticky rubber, chalk, beta, modern gear, modern fitness levels, guidebooks etc the FA climbers prob removed some loose rock and grass and also had doubt in his mind if it was even possible to reach the top. We don't have those things to deal with eh
In reply to bomb:
Dude. There's sooooo much truth in that, you wouldn't believe it!
Any climber who finds themselves in the zone above padding, between 3 and 8 meters is likely to be in an indecisive state of mind, in terms of committment.
At the very least, a much more indecisive state of mind than if the padding wasn't there.
This is because the padding creates the option in his mindset to jump off (inside this zone!), which is why he put it there in the first place.
So that's really undeniable!
After a certain height fair enough, that diminishes rapidly...
Which is why the mat debate only really centres around shortish grit routes
So, the mat debate is not just about 'claiming the grade'; for me anyway...
It's about maintaining an ethic of committment to ascents, and breeding a positive mindset of applying to the task at hand, training to capability, separating bouldering ideology from route ideology so the lines don't get blurred!
The only debate with mats and padding on routes is...
Do you want to turn a short route into an extended technical practice exercise?
That's a simple Yes or No - And everyone is welcome to make their choice
But if you're choosing yes, you're doing something effectively similar to Headpointing
> (In reply to Cragrat Rich)
>
> "To me, padded high ascents just breed a shit mindset for climbing"
>
> Right there can be no possible answer to this, the debate is over, as that is well and truly the single most retarded thing I have ever read, or heard, not only on these forums (which is an impressive feat in itself), but possibly in my entire life.
>
> "To me, padded high ascents just breed a shit mindset for climbing"
>
> Right there can be no possible answer to this, the debate is over, as that is well and truly the single most retarded thing I have ever read, or heard, not only on these forums (which is an impressive feat in itself), but possibly in my entire life.
Dude. There's sooooo much truth in that, you wouldn't believe it!
Any climber who finds themselves in the zone above padding, between 3 and 8 meters is likely to be in an indecisive state of mind, in terms of committment.
At the very least, a much more indecisive state of mind than if the padding wasn't there.
This is because the padding creates the option in his mindset to jump off (inside this zone!), which is why he put it there in the first place.
So that's really undeniable!
After a certain height fair enough, that diminishes rapidly...
Which is why the mat debate only really centres around shortish grit routes
So, the mat debate is not just about 'claiming the grade'; for me anyway...
It's about maintaining an ethic of committment to ascents, and breeding a positive mindset of applying to the task at hand, training to capability, separating bouldering ideology from route ideology so the lines don't get blurred!
The only debate with mats and padding on routes is...
Do you want to turn a short route into an extended technical practice exercise?
That's a simple Yes or No - And everyone is welcome to make their choice
But if you're choosing yes, you're doing something effectively similar to Headpointing
In reply to bomb:
You 'aint read or heard much so far then?
> (In reply to Cragrat Rich)
>
> "To me, padded high ascents just breed a shit mindset for climbing"
>
> Right there can be no possible answer to this, the debate is over, as that is well and truly the single most retarded thing I have ever read, or heard, not only on these forums (which is an impressive feat in itself), but possibly in my entire life.
>
> "To me, padded high ascents just breed a shit mindset for climbing"
>
> Right there can be no possible answer to this, the debate is over, as that is well and truly the single most retarded thing I have ever read, or heard, not only on these forums (which is an impressive feat in itself), but possibly in my entire life.
You 'aint read or heard much so far then?
In reply to Cragrat Rich:
Winter routes, a far better story......... Let's hear that one
> (In reply to BOOGA)
> [...]
>
> Oh God, ere we go! Somebody shoot me quick
> [...]
>
> Oh God, ere we go! Somebody shoot me quick
Winter routes, a far better story......... Let's hear that one
In reply to wayno265: I can't believe that nobody's mentioned climbing over bogs or marshy areas. How does that fit into this?
In reply to Fatboyteesside:
Solo with a base rig needs discussion too
Solo with a base rig needs discussion too
In reply to Chris Craggs:
I always thought;
Ground up- you climb up as an attempt on the onsite, fall off, get lowered to the floor. untie and pull the rope through, climb again with the gear you placed still in and just clipping it.. then doing this until the climb is climbed.
Yo-yo ing- is much the same but after falling you climb back up to your high point with the gear and rope in.... effectivly on a top rope to your last high point.
Headpointing- dogging up a route on top rope or lead with pre-placed protection, then going on to climb it clean placing gear as you go.
This is also what was said on the film Onsight.
I always thought;
Ground up- you climb up as an attempt on the onsite, fall off, get lowered to the floor. untie and pull the rope through, climb again with the gear you placed still in and just clipping it.. then doing this until the climb is climbed.
Yo-yo ing- is much the same but after falling you climb back up to your high point with the gear and rope in.... effectivly on a top rope to your last high point.
Headpointing- dogging up a route on top rope or lead with pre-placed protection, then going on to climb it clean placing gear as you go.
This is also what was said on the film Onsight.
In reply to Cragrat Rich:
I personally think that trying to climb hard stuff without pads is more unethical than climbing something with pads. Pads are supposed to help prevent ground erosion (wether they do or not - i dont know).
i also think attempting a hard route solo without pads is entirely selfish, youre relying on your partner to drag you off the crag with open fractures to your ankles (in the case of failure) and your making a statement that you dont care about the unnessasary stress you will put your partner through. I personally would be well f*cked off if a friend ruined what is supposed to be a good day out by attempting a route for 'E' points. If your out with your friends, you should think about them too if u ask me. Yeah you could hurt yourself with pads, but at least youve made the effort to control the danger as much as you can.
I personally think that trying to climb hard stuff without pads is more unethical than climbing something with pads. Pads are supposed to help prevent ground erosion (wether they do or not - i dont know).
i also think attempting a hard route solo without pads is entirely selfish, youre relying on your partner to drag you off the crag with open fractures to your ankles (in the case of failure) and your making a statement that you dont care about the unnessasary stress you will put your partner through. I personally would be well f*cked off if a friend ruined what is supposed to be a good day out by attempting a route for 'E' points. If your out with your friends, you should think about them too if u ask me. Yeah you could hurt yourself with pads, but at least youve made the effort to control the danger as much as you can.
In reply to tallsop:
Ok... I don't agree with the selfish bit. I'd like to think a trusted partner would be supportive of what I was attempting to do, regardless.
But in any case, you're making the mistake that loads of folk on here make when I state that I don't like padding out routes, that i'm destined to break ankles etc etc blar blar
The point everybody tends to ignore, is that I wouldn't find myself on hard highballs and routes without pads if i suspected that there was too much risk.
My point of view is about saving these things until i'm good enough to go without pads, even if that never happens.
Not jumping on them as readily as everyone else, at the mercy of my own stance on style.
Hope that makes sense.
> (In reply to Cragrat Rich)
>
> i also think attempting a hard route solo without pads is entirely selfish, youre relying on your partner to drag you off the crag with open fractures to your ankles (in the case of failure) and your making a statement that you dont care about the unnessasary stress you will put your partner through. I personally would be well f*cked off if a friend ruined what is supposed to be a good day out by attempting a route for 'E' points. If your out with your friends, you should think about them too if u ask me. Yeah you could hurt yourself with pads, but at least youve made the effort to control the danger as much as you can.
>
> i also think attempting a hard route solo without pads is entirely selfish, youre relying on your partner to drag you off the crag with open fractures to your ankles (in the case of failure) and your making a statement that you dont care about the unnessasary stress you will put your partner through. I personally would be well f*cked off if a friend ruined what is supposed to be a good day out by attempting a route for 'E' points. If your out with your friends, you should think about them too if u ask me. Yeah you could hurt yourself with pads, but at least youve made the effort to control the danger as much as you can.
Ok... I don't agree with the selfish bit. I'd like to think a trusted partner would be supportive of what I was attempting to do, regardless.
But in any case, you're making the mistake that loads of folk on here make when I state that I don't like padding out routes, that i'm destined to break ankles etc etc blar blar
The point everybody tends to ignore, is that I wouldn't find myself on hard highballs and routes without pads if i suspected that there was too much risk.
My point of view is about saving these things until i'm good enough to go without pads, even if that never happens.
Not jumping on them as readily as everyone else, at the mercy of my own stance on style.
Hope that makes sense.
In reply to wayno265: I think whether pads make a real difference to the adjectival grade of a route depends on where the crux of the route is. On a practical note, I find bad landings hard to protect satisfactorily with pads in any case.
I don't know for sure, but I don't think the advent of cams brought about a wholesale regrading (downwards)of routes. Perhaps the same logic (or lack of) should apply to pads.
Personally, I can't be arsed carrying a mat and all my gear, so it tends to be an academic argument for me.
I don't know for sure, but I don't think the advent of cams brought about a wholesale regrading (downwards)of routes. Perhaps the same logic (or lack of) should apply to pads.
Personally, I can't be arsed carrying a mat and all my gear, so it tends to be an academic argument for me.
In reply to Chris Craggs:
Basically there's onsight (flash/attempt) and then everything else.
> (In reply to chrisbaggy)
>
> Yes, as I said - frigging.
>
> Chris
>
> Yes, as I said - frigging.
>
> Chris
Basically there's onsight (flash/attempt) and then everything else.
In reply to Bulls Crack: I pissed myself laughing when I read this guy's thing about mats being unethical. I've never used one, but it's just plain stupid, and the reason I won't get into an argument over it is, IT'S JUST PLAIN STUPID.
And this is coming from someone who, tho a lowly level of climber, does think that top-roped inspections and practicing moves etc detracts from the experience. But mats, FFS - no different from the old habit of putting a well-stuffed sack on the jagged rocks at the bottom.
I think cams are a bit wanky, tho...
And this is coming from someone who, tho a lowly level of climber, does think that top-roped inspections and practicing moves etc detracts from the experience. But mats, FFS - no different from the old habit of putting a well-stuffed sack on the jagged rocks at the bottom.
I think cams are a bit wanky, tho...
In reply to Richard Baynes:
I've never jumped onto cams - a bit knobbly non?
> (In reply to Bulls Crack) I pissed myself laughing when I read this guy's thing about mats being unethical. I've never used one, but it's just plain stupid, and the reason I won't get into an argument over it is, IT'S JUST PLAIN STUPID.
> And this is coming from someone who, tho a lowly level of climber, does think that top-roped inspections and practicing moves etc detracts from the experience. But mats, FFS - no different from the old habit of putting a well-stuffed sack on the jagged rocks at the bottom.
> I think cams are a bit wanky, tho...
> And this is coming from someone who, tho a lowly level of climber, does think that top-roped inspections and practicing moves etc detracts from the experience. But mats, FFS - no different from the old habit of putting a well-stuffed sack on the jagged rocks at the bottom.
> I think cams are a bit wanky, tho...
I've never jumped onto cams - a bit knobbly non?
In reply to Cragrat Rich:
You have your opinion, i have mine. I wasnt trying to 'get through to you', i know that is impossible...
You have your opinion, i have mine. I wasnt trying to 'get through to you', i know that is impossible...
In reply to tallsop & adam etc etc:
It does have a facility to log your ascent as
White Wand E5 6b - Sent O/S, x, or dnf
if you used padding...
as opposed to
White Wand E5 6b - Solo O/S
One, almost anyone could have a crack at... (bit like Headpoint practice)
the other is, well... only for the very talented to attempt really!
This highlights the correlation between padded ascents and headpointing, which I spent most of last night trying to get through to you all!!
I've had enough trying to 'get through to you all' too.
I'll leave you with this....
youtube.com/watch?v=lY1SealpQ4w&
check out what he says about the 'Telegraph Repair Man' and just substitute 'El Cap' with 'Short Grit Extremes'....
Night night...
> Maybe UKC should have a new category Padpointing?
It does have a facility to log your ascent as
White Wand E5 6b - Sent O/S, x, or dnf
if you used padding...
as opposed to
White Wand E5 6b - Solo O/S
One, almost anyone could have a crack at... (bit like Headpoint practice)
the other is, well... only for the very talented to attempt really!
This highlights the correlation between padded ascents and headpointing, which I spent most of last night trying to get through to you all!!
I've had enough trying to 'get through to you all' too.
I'll leave you with this....
youtube.com/watch?v=lY1SealpQ4w&
check out what he says about the 'Telegraph Repair Man' and just substitute 'El Cap' with 'Short Grit Extremes'....
Night night...
In reply to Richard Baynes:
I can't agree. I try always push myself to climb GU although some routes are to hard for me mentally to do this without pad. I use them then. I have respect for those of my friends they have done this without this mostly mental support. It is nothing ethical or unethical to use crash pad, climb route HP or GU. But very unethical is to don't say true about my ascent.
If I ll say. I did it GU. (dot) and that was ascent with pad, I ll call myself a layer because if I would believe - pad doesn't make big difference I shouldn't use them at all. There is no such a thing like "good" (in terms of ethic) or "bad" style. The problem begins when People do not say true about own's ascents. Somebody can say - I climb for myself so I can say whatever I want. Ofcourse so don't tell me what you have done - keep it for yourself as well, otherwise tell me a true.
I can't agree. I try always push myself to climb GU although some routes are to hard for me mentally to do this without pad. I use them then. I have respect for those of my friends they have done this without this mostly mental support. It is nothing ethical or unethical to use crash pad, climb route HP or GU. But very unethical is to don't say true about my ascent.
If I ll say. I did it GU. (dot) and that was ascent with pad, I ll call myself a layer because if I would believe - pad doesn't make big difference I shouldn't use them at all. There is no such a thing like "good" (in terms of ethic) or "bad" style. The problem begins when People do not say true about own's ascents. Somebody can say - I climb for myself so I can say whatever I want. Ofcourse so don't tell me what you have done - keep it for yourself as well, otherwise tell me a true.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...