UKC

In reply to matt cousins:

i would say yes but undoubtedly we will both get flamed by the purists

well done anyway the celebration shot is superb!

In reply to matt cousins:

Of course it's not an onsight.

You abbed down it, checked it out and even chalked up a hold.

Next question.

In reply to matt cousins:

But well done anyway. I failed miserably on it.

In reply to matt cousins:
Good effort! Of course some people will tell you that it doesn't count, but ignore them. You have been honest in your thread (which is more than most) and you should definitely take the on-sight tick.
G

In reply to shortyx: yer thanks, i wasn't going to absail down something else just so i didnt see the route and have the 'purist' onsight

In reply to Geezuz: thanks, i have put my onsight to E4 on my ukc profile!

In reply to matt cousins:

You know it wasn't an onsight, otherwise you wouldn't have felt the need to ask.

In reply to matt cousins:

I wouldn't have said it was because you were able to check out the holds/moves, etc. before hand. This is just my opinion, which may or may not be right, but to me an onsight is going at a route with NO prior knowledge of it other than what the guide book says. No prior inspection of the holds or that nifty little stuch cam, etc.

In reply to brothersoulshine: so how did you get down to the start??
would you have counted it as a onsight????

In reply to brothersoulshine:

next time i will close my eyes on the absail then

In reply to matt cousins:

In effect, its really a flash.

Onsight is walking upto a route with no prior knowledge and
leading it in one go from top to bottom without weighting the rope.

Flash is some knowledge, abbing a line, beta from someone.

Still, good effort though, its one hell of a pumpy route!

In reply to matt cousins:

From the glossary

ONSIGHT. To climb a route free with no beta, without falls, without prior inspection, from bottom to top. The "purest" way to do a route. (The ultra-pure onsight is done nude, possibly at night.) [Adam Palmer.] Any route which is led first time, with no falls. To be a true onsight the climber must not have seen anyone else perform the moves. [Wil Treasure]

Abbing down, checking out the gear and chalking a hold means it's not an onsight. Sorry.

Still impressive though, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to diss you or owt. You asked a question of terminology and I answered, that's all.

Now if you'd abbed down with your eyes shut...

In reply to matt cousins:


No

Does it matter?

No

In reply to Adam Lincoln:

wat about the guide book are you aalowed to read the guide book and look at pictures in the guide???
also on this particular route the is no other way down to the start

In reply to matt cousins:


Makes no shite of difference. Good effort on climbing the route but it doesn't matter how you try to justify it, it wasn't an onsight.

In reply to brothersoulshine:

thanks for you opinion but ill just take the onsight, i the mau mau was some where that i could walk into then i still would have gone for the onsight and i =m pretty certain that i would have done it!
cheers though

In reply to Geezuz:

Don't be silly. If you've abbed down a route, checked out the holds, noticed that one of them is wet, dried it out, seen a stuck cam and then led the route it can't really be an onsight can it?

Good effort on the OP's part anyway, it's certainly not a route I could see myself getting up.

In reply to Andy Hobson:

its not my fault the cam was stuck there, its quite famous itrs been there for years

In reply to matt cousins:

i think it's daft as some guidebooks tell you about hidden holds on routes etc!!

In reply to matt cousins:

You can walk round to the Mau Mau. At least thats what most people do.

Reading the guidebook is fine. Depends how strict you want to be.

In reply to matt cousins: Id probably say it was , but it doesnt really matter does it?

In reply to matt cousins:

Does it really matter anymore. You're didn't onsight, you're gonna say you did regardless, you're gonna argue the toss and try to jutify it any which way you can, just let it go.

In reply to matt cousins:

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-sight_climbing

In reply to matt cousins:

I climbed a route in similar style to yours earlier this year, the key starting flake was covered in snow so I abbed down the route(Great Arete at Millstone). I noted a nice wire placement near the top (the only gear after the poor runners at the start) but didn't brush anything other than the snow off the aforemented flake and patted some chalk on it.

After 30 mins or so I flashed the route - one of my best efforts this year of which I am proud - end of story i.e. it was a flash rather than an onsight.

Congratulations on your effort!

Cheers,

In reply to Old Joker Cox:
good effort

im still gunna count mine as a onsight however i we=ill explain the situation in which i did the climb when i use the term 'onsight'

In reply to Adam Lincoln:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902

But you're right of course.

In reply to matt cousins: that's a flash not an onsight. very different. well done, but you're kidding yourself and other people if you think it's an onsight.

I agree with most here - definitely a flash. Don't underestimate the value of taking a look at the route before you climb it...

In reply to matt cousins:

Well thanks for all your opinions guys,

regardless of wether it was a flash or onsight i hope you liked the pictures!

In reply to matt cousins:

It is a very good flash. It can't really be considered an onsight...

In reply to matt cousins:

Good effort on your flash of the Mau Mau, but why ask the question on the forum as to whether it was "onsight" and then ignore the consensus that it was not?

Dave

In reply to matt cousins:

So you gonna remove the references to onsighting the Mau Mau from your profile then?

In reply to brothersoulshine:

no i count it as a onsight as it was an onsight.

In reply to matt cousins:

Don't be a prat...it was a bloody Flash. It's a good effort all the same but you're just kidding yourself.

In reply to matt cousins:

Why bother asking peoples opinions if your going to ignore them? Everyone said it was a flash....

In reply to Adam Lincoln:

Onsight-flash......??!!

In reply to matt cousins:

Is that your 'profound thought of the day'? Why bother starting this thread in the first place?

You're coming across as a bit of a tosser.

In reply to matt cousins:

it's not an onsight.

but i know where you are coming from. sometimes i pretend to have onsighted a route when in reality i had some prior knowledge.

In reply to Bret (rock god):
ps and if anyone knows what is and isn't an onsight, you can bet your bottom dollar it's a rock god...

In reply to matt cousins: Why did you ask the question if you were going to call it onsight regardless?

Doesn't seem much point in asking people if your are just going to ignore what they say

In reply to Mikey_07:

its what i consider to be an onsight

1. i hadn't tried it before
2. i hadn't fallen off
3. i hadn't seen anyone on the route
4. i hadn't pulled on any of the holds before
5. i had to absail down to the start of the route
6. i chalked up 1 hold and had a look at a cam to see wether it was dangerous or not

although it is not the most 'pure' onsight it is still a onsight!

In reply to matt cousins:

i kind of agree with you a bit...i mean you hadn't worked it....the ab inspection seemed kind of incidental....so wa'eva....anyway does this mean that people who look at your rather excellent pics can never onsight the route.....what if they only look a little bit?

In reply to matt cousins:

I don't really want to have this argument as it feels like I'm pissing on your bonfire. I don't want to undermine what is a fine achievement, one which I was not up to doing myself when I tried it.

But don't claim you've done something when you haven't. That just makes you look silly. You'll get your E4 onsight soon enough, and probably more.

In reply to matt cousins:


Thus you had prior knowledge, both of the route and the insitu gear, so not onsight!!!

You can walk to the base of the route instead of abseiling in.

In reply to Alphin:

Yes, i thought thats what i did. Glad i am not going mad!

Why do people think they have to abseil into this route?

In reply to brothersoulshine:

piss away my friend!

however i will TOTALLY agree it was not the purest of onsights but its still a onsight

In reply to matt cousins:

Congratulations, You are possibly the most "full of shit" person I have had the pleasure of meeting today.

It was a bloody flash...you chalked a hold, you checked out the gear, you made sure the stuck cam could be clipped safely. Andy's right, you're coming across as abit of a tosser.

In reply to Adam Lincoln:

I dunno. It's ages since I've been up there so I was thinking maybe the access situation had changed. I seem to remember just walking round to the base of it.

In reply to matt cousins: Just call it a flash, theres not a whole lot of difference there anyway. You could have abbed down another route but you didnt, you chalked a hold (which you couldnt have done groundup). And you inspected the line, it isnt an onsight, you know it, and youll get an onsight E4 within a month if you could do that.

In reply to brothersoulshine:

well i was with an extremely experianced climber (he took the pictures) and he decided it was best/easyest/safest way to get to the bottom so i wasnt going to question absailing in

In reply to matt cousins:

Pity he f*cked up the onsight for you.

In reply to matt cousins:

At risk of repeating myself, it's not.

You seem to be having a bit of difficulty accepting this which kind of makes me think you started this thread for a bit of self publicity. Am I right?

In reply to Adam Lincoln:

I seem to remember we approached that area from below.

In reply to Andy Hobson:

no not at all.

I tell you wat you call it a flash ill call it an onsight

In reply to matt cousins: Why does it matter anyway?

Come on hes 17, and hes just almost onsighted an E4, give it to him if he wants it. Not going to kill anyone

In reply to brothersoulshine:

With regard to ego, it doesnt matter if it was a flash or an onsight for the UKC onsight section ... both flashes and onsights can be included in the "Best Onsight" bit ...

In reply to Ri:

You no what guys lets call it a flash

its a hard E4

i can cope with calling it a flash
ive done harder than E4 i don't really care

In reply to matt cousins:


Done! Sold to the lady in the bowler hat.

Mick

In reply to matt cousins:


that's the question you asked. The answer is NO, it isn't an onsight. Your "opinion" on it actually being an onsight is completely invalid, because you obviously dont seem to understand what an onsight is.. It'd be like me saying "in my opinion the E5 i did at the weekend is the hardest route in the world, therefore i am the best climber in the world". Not true.

You flashed it. Which as many people have said is very different to onsighting it. You can call it an onsight, but it's not, and you're just kidding yourself.

If this is actually just a way of doing a bit of willy waving, then you've come across as a bit of a tit

In reply to Ri:

I think hes a flasher but an onsight troll (this has gotta be a wind up).

In reply to matt cousins:

Blimey, you don't often see someone change their opinion on here. It does take a bit to do that. Well done sir!

And again, a very fine effort with the route.

In reply to matt cousins: no, no, its cool, if i did the same thing id probably be trying to call it onsight myself

In reply to Ri: id probably run around naked for a while celebrating , but thats not got anything to do with anything so ill just keep out i think

In reply to brothersoulshine:

cheers

In reply to matt cousins:

Good effort, wish I could flash E4

In reply to matt cousins: At the end of the day it doesn't make a huge difference. With so many people looking into styles of ascents and juding peoples ascents, it's easy for people to get carried away with chasing numbers and on-siting etc. i am probably guilty as i would have thought most people are but this thread just seemed to bring it to the surface a bit.
if you are looking into it that much, it seems as though you are asking purely so you can claim "the on-site". At the end of your question, you said you think it is an on-site. So if you think it is, why are you asking? Its sorted.
It seems to me that you shouldn't look into it that much and whther you enjoyed it should be the important thing, which by the sounds of things you did, which should be enough.
Generally, clean on-siting a route is probably the most enjoyable form of ascent as it can be very testing and to pull it off cleanly is amazing. But you shouldn't look into it so deeply as asking the rest of the climbing fraternity if you have on-sited it because you chalked a hold up before is irrelevant, everyopne will have a different opinion and seeing as you already think you did it then there is no point in asking anyway. It depends what you think on-siting means, and to be honest why do you care about it so much that you have to ask everyone else?
If you think you on-sited it then cool, and well done but (in my opinion because of the climbing media)i reckon that we look into ascent styles far too much and unfortunately are just forgetting to just go out, crank a route and enjoy it for the climbing, not concerning ourselves with whether we saw someone do a move or if you have seen a photo of it, and just having fun with mates.
Most orutes nowadays are not pure on-sites anyway because people know stuff about them. if you went to the Himalaya and were stood at the bottom of a pitch you knew nothing about then that would be a proper on-site - and impressive!
So if you want an answer to your question then, no, you obviously chalked the hold up first and checked the cam for a reason, whether it helped you or not, you had that info which you would not have had if you had done a climb like the style i mentioned before.
ED

In reply to matt cousins:

Nevermind the ethics, it's a cracking photo. Well done.

In reply to boothy:

yer i 100% agree there, i loved the route it was hard and sustained with supurb moves in a superb position i doesnt matter wether i onsighted/ flashed / redpoited / headpionted a route i enjoyed!

In reply to matt cousins: Fair enough - so why did you ask then? ED

In reply to boothy:

because im bord at home doing nothing

In reply to matt cousins: Says on your profile, you have a car, can't you go climbing?

In reply to boothy:

i would but i failed my driving test and i live down south

In reply to matt cousins: What other routes did you get done in the quarries. I've been playin alot there this summer - i love the slate, its mint! ED

In reply to boothy:


Well of course it's "on-site". Couldn't climb it off-site...

He was asking about the "onsight"...

</tedious pedent>

In reply to matt cousins: Sorry richard, onsight*

In reply to Richard:


Damn that's embarrassing.

In reply to boothy:

we were only there for a few days and we climbed in the quarries for 2 eavenings all the rest of the time it was wet or we were in the pass - i got close to leading cockblock on the grochan but i fell on about 4 moves from easy ground. it was a nice fall though

In reply to boothy:
this may annoy a few people, but i feel it was a worthy onsight, as matt did it on sight of it..as in, he saw it, and he did it. surely if you break down the word "onsight" that is what it means, doing something upon seeing it.

if you're not alowed to see it from an abseil then surely your not allowed to see it from the ground or with a telescope on the other side of the valley??

in my opinion matt, you need to hurry up and pass your driving test and drive me up to the peak district and we can headpoint* some E8s and 9s

*is headpoint where you toprope it first?

In reply to bony tony: well no actually, the definition of a clean on-site is goign up to it with NO(none at all) prior knowledge and knowing only what you can see from the ground and leading it.

In reply to matt cousins: I have to say that I'd agree with you on this one more than many of the other posters.

I think we must take a pragmatic and workable view of the 'onsight' ethic otherwise no one would ever be able to claim to onsight anything remotely hard.

What is 'beta' and how can you define it?

Where do you draw the line between:
a) watching a climbing video 3 years ago
b) studying a video frame by frame
c) watching your mate climbing it 1996
d) watching your mate climb it 5 miuntes before you
e) reading a detailed move by move description
f) getting advice on gear in the pub the night before
g) a mate whose climbing standard you know saying 'I managed it, it's strenous with good gear'
h) reading a guidebook description or multiple description(s)
i) knowing who the first ascent and what sytle of ascent they made it in.
e) knowing the line and the grade.

The whole thing quickly becomes a nonsense. Obviously as soon as you hold any hold you've blown the flash. But I can only think of two things that completely blow the onsight:

- Deliberately watching closely another climber do any of the moves (in person or on video but not just looking at a photograph).

- Physically checking any gear placements.

Any talk of 'banning' photographs is stupid. In many cases it is classic photgraphs that inspire you to climb the route in the first place. Equally I can't see how you can draw any logical distinction between any differing methods of observing a route whether from the ground, through binoculars, from nearby routes, from hot air balloon, from photographs or from abseil.

As for cleaning any route, again I'd again take the view that having to get your mate to do it rather than blow this almost unaobtainable nirvana of an ethically pure onsight is being a bit too anal.

Matt didn't didn't pull on and check holds. He didn't watch a mate climb it move by move, he didn't yank on the in-situ cam to check it was good and he didn't check to see what sizes of wires/cams would fit and how bomber they would be.

He climbed it in very good style applying the traditional Brtish approach. He started at the bottom and climbed it to the top on his first attempt.

If he wants to claim it as an 'onsight' I'm not going to tell him he's wrong.

I'd really rather not get into the situation where every one of my E3s and E4s apart from one and 95% of my E2s are declared not to have been climbed strictly 'onsight' by the RT ethics police.

In reply to SARS:

For arguments sake, what about when routes are studied with binoculars b4 the first attempt. There have been many 'onsights' in this manner?

In reply to bony tony:

Aye, and "Redpoint" means a point that's red, but that's somewhat beside the point (red or not) when talking about redpointing. If you break words down and work out what they actually mean, then the English language goes to pot.

In reply to petrophile: well according to some posts that wouldnt count and all that does is just walking to it , and climbing up it with out inspecting it. IMO an onsight is where someone climbs it first time , without altering the holds , e.g. chalking them up. I think they should/can work out all the moves first.

In reply to Mark Stevenson:

I can't be arsed reading your entire post so I'm just going to say Bollocks. It was not an onsight, he checked out the stuck cam and chalked up a wet hold.

In reply to Mark Stevenson:

thanks mark, i would agree however i have said that i will call my ascent a flash because 90% of people who have replied to this thread dissagree with me calling my ascent an onsight.

In reply to matt cousins: dont give in to the peer pressure!!!

also in reply to some guy who said stuff about redpoints not bieng red. here is what happened:
a long time ago in a galaxy far far away people decided to give an name to things they did after trying them...trypoint made it sound like you didnt actually do it (do not try, do - yoda)...so they thought of triedpoint because they tried (past tense makes all the difference) but it didnt roll off the tounge too easilly. with this being the twentyfirst century and everything, why not just remove some letters. they removed the t and i to give redpoint...which is handy because it sounds like something else to do with climbing, deadpoint which i a sort of dynamic snatch move...they originally thought about just removing the i and using tredpoint but they just didnt feel the vibe.

i hope you all enjoyed my story

In reply to bony tony (the same as before):
yes i did!

In reply to matt cousins: Mita just onsighted her first ever sport route.

In reply to matt cousins: claim the onsight, you know in yourself if you took in too much info on the way down (checked out hidden possibilities you wouldn't have seen from below). It doesn't matter to anyone else as long as you know.

In reply to matt cousins:
You didn't onsught the route, you flashed it with beta. You were miles from an onsight having chalked a hold on the route whilst abbing down it. An onsight is amongst other things a ground up ascent without pre-inspection. Your ascent fulfills neither criteria. Good effort but don't make a prat of yourself by trying to claim an onsight.

In reply to matt cousins: that looks an awsome route where is it? what grade?

In reply to 01wills:

The guide book and everyone else says its E4 6a but maybe in matt cousins mind its E5 or E6 or 5 stone 7 pounds or a bag of potatos

In reply to Tyler:

have you done it?

i have never said it was harder than E4 why are you being a tw*t??

In reply to Tyler:

It was E5 when I didn't do it.

In reply to matt cousins:
Probs cos you're trying to claim an onsight ascent for something that you obviously did not onsight. Possibly more pr*t than tw*t but still irritating and a bit tragic...

In reply to brothersoulshine:


It was, wasn't it? "Big Jimmy Jewell versus the Mau Mau" and all that.

In reply to matt cousins: You should have abbed down German School Girl, then you would have got the on-sight.

Good effort though, great route and the pictures are some of my favourites.

Mark has a good eye for a shot!

In reply to whispering nic:

thats a bit harsh. Hes obviously just asking and willing to adapt his record to popular opinion.

Interestingly for a number of peoples definition here in sport climbing, Yuji, who had 'worlds hardest onsight' title for a number of years had abseiled down the line and examined holds but 'didn't touch' and this was classed as onsight by Grimpeur and other mags....

In reply to Jeff25:

He asked for opinions, the jury said: No Onsight. So he claimed it anyway! So Nic's comments arn't really that harsh!

In reply to Tyler:

Aye, that's the one.

It really is quite a while ago now

In reply to matt cousins: What a thread, dose seem that some hard Oxford dictionary definitions need to be spelled out for the new language that has arisen over the last hundred+ years of climbing, more so the last 20. Onsight was I guess once a useful strait forward description which summed up a lot of narative about a climb. Where it now fits is as can be seen by the disagreement of so many posting climbers may be needs clarification. Everyone should have hopefully realised by now that climbs look totally different from the base up, What looks like a good ledge or hold may be a horrid sloper or bomber jug. The last hold in the photo on pre-inspection by absail may have given the confidence to make a bold reach/dyno but when viewed from below may leave an element of doubt, increasing stress/fatigue etc. I applaud your honesty in recounting all the details of your climb but hope you can understand the reasons why there are others who initially would not hold the asscent as an onsight. No answers from me, I'd just be pleased with the climb.
killy

In reply to matt cousins: i have no opinion on whether it was a flash or an onsight or a grey point, but no matter what you decide, if you have the ability to flash E4, then you have the ability to onsight E4. Go do the purest, most naked in the moonlight onsight of another E4, post on here (censor the pics tho plz) and achieve victory.

In reply to Smitz: by the way, I do agree with most people on this thread in one respect: those are excellent photos.

In reply to matt cousins: in fairness youre photo even refers to it as a flash?
Again, dont get me wrong, youre clearly miles better than me, but looking at the definitions, it seems to me to be a flash.
great effort.

In reply to Mark Stevenson:

You are right that we must take a pragmatic and workable view of the 'onsight' ethic but you are wrong that no one would ever be able to claim to onsight anything remotely hard as I've belayed E6 and have mates with E7 onsights.

Beta is anything not in the guidebook that significantly improves your chances on a route and always flaws an onsight. I agree its difficult to avoid but some beta can makes a crucial difference where other beta may be no help at all. In particular watching someone on a route, abseil inspection, finding reliable in-situ gear, knowing the exact gear required, or a key tip from someone who knows your style and limitations will nearly always improve chances. Obviously bold routes are the most affected: where the grade is for power stamina with bomber gear all the way the only key beta would be sneaky rest information.

"onsight" is only a word and if you enjoyed the climb in the style you did it, that is an important experience you should cherish. I for one wouldnt want to soil that experience claiming something comparatively trivial I know isnt really true. Its not about ethics police (or any other people's views) its about honesty to yourself.

Hence I agree he climbed it in very good style applying a traditional British approach. He started at the bottom and climbed it to the top on his first attempt. The fact it wasnt really onsight is irrelevant in comparison to that significant acheivement.

In reply to matt cousins: what does it matter YOU ENJOYED YOURSELF.

In reply to : I'm not convinced about this photo......On the subject of style/ethics, is it really ethical to perform gay celebrations on routes? This is UK trad you know. The shot reminds me of lil' Timmy Henman when he gets 'pumped up' - never good!

If you are going to attempt a grit E6 is it still an onsight if you walk round to the top and have a look at the top holds to see any slopers to avoid and good holds to aim for?

In reply to MTMM:

Yep, i think people get hung up on all these onsights, redpointed all that malarky a bit too much.

In reply to matt cousins:

Good isn't it?

When I did it someone commented that they'd never seen anyone put so much gear in...I was quite proud!

In reply to JM:


Definately not.

BTW, the thing that makes on-sight climbing so special is that it's what you have to do on exploratory forages onto big mountains. It is the very soul of climbing.

In reply to Jamie B.:
Well said - true onsighting!

In reply to joe bailes:

Style is important to some.

In reply to Steve Ramsden:

not really gay mate, it wasn't planned i was just buzzing that i did the route

if it was gay then i would have celebrated the acent my having sexual relations with the same sex

do the route and you might understand although you'll probably celebrate with a cup of tee or manly hand shake cos you desire, drive and determination are dead where its very much alive in me

In reply to matt cousins:


You really have answered your own question....you climbed Mau-Mau from the bottom to the top, placing the gear as you went......you looked at the holds on abseil, touching one of them...possibly sussed gear placements.....and you had a bloody fine time.

Do you really need to stick a label on your ascent? Is it really that important? If so why?

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

no its not important but there are some of the climbing comunity are hung up on these things, i'd say "i did the mau mau the other day" they would say "oh did you onsight it?"

i wanna know wether to say yer i did or no it was a flsah

but now after this thread i would say
" it would have been an onsigt if i didnt chalk up a hold and look at a stuck bit of gear"

In reply to matt cousins:

Good thread this. I don't think people are hung up on these things at all. people are'nt cutting you any slack because of your attitude higher up this thread.

Like Mick says it is no big deal, just how you feel about it.

Incidently The Mau Mau was the one slate route i avoided like the Plague, wrong side of steep to most of the slate routes i did. Well done.

On something like the Mau Mau I'd have dried the hold too or maybe got a mate to do it or come back when it was dry.
Dunno why you abbed it because you can walk round to the bottom.

In reply to Enty:

thanks,

the walk round the bottem is inaccecable due to a rockfall

In reply to matt cousins:


...and did the Ab blindfolded.

In reply to matt cousins:
I have chum who closed his eyes whilst we abbed of Cave Crag recently as we were descending alongside a route he wanted to onsight...

In reply to matt cousins:

That's a bit unfair, chap's onsighted E5! Does look a bit "Tiger Tim" though.

In reply to matt cousins: It only matters what you think, since there's no rule-book or voice of authority anywhere to say what's what.

Personally, I wouldn't count it as an onsight.

In reply to matt cousins: what grade is that?

Great photo btw.

In reply to Andy S: Oh yeah, E4 6a. Well done, looks like a good climb.

In reply to Mikey_07:

the guy that holds the worlds hardest onsight absailed and inspected the route

In reply to matt cousins:

Erm......

NO HE DOESN'T.

You cannot onsight things after inspecting them on a motherf*cking abseil rope. And please, for Christ's sake, learn how to spell "abseil"!

(posted by necromancer85 on AJM's login. Seconded by paddy_the_facist as well.......)

(necromancer85 wishes me to add "go away and die" at this point)

In reply to Offwidth:

'no one would ever' is perhaps a bit strong but I standby my general point that insisting a climber has zero prior knowledge of harder routes is pretty much impossible at least as regards anything with 3 stars. I don't believe people are climbing E7s that they have never ever read anything about, or heard discussed by anyone in their entire climbing careers. It is not my experience that people just tip up at the crag and climb hard extremes that they have absolutely no knowledge of other than it's in the guidebook.


Example 1
Parthian Shot - cannot be onsighted by anyone who is aware that Seb Grieve fell off it and the gear held. Knowledge that the gear holds is valuable beta that is not mentioned in the guidebooks.

Example 2
Gaia (and others) - anyone who has watched Hard Grit cannot onsight this route. The video has vast amounts on beta on loads of routes and most grit climbers have seen it.

Example 3
Beau Geste, Hairless Heart, Strapadictomy - none of these can be onsighted by anyone who has read Extreme Rock. There is significant beta on all three (and most of the other routes in the book).

Example 4
Braille Trail - Could not be onsighted by anyone who was aware that 6" nails could be used as protection as this wasn't mentioned in the definative guide (Froggatt 1991).

Example 5
Everything listed on Jon Read's grit list - the top-rope grade given for each route is not in the guidebook and is valuable beta, therefore anyone who is aware of that information about a route cannot onsight it. Very few people climbing hard grit routes will be unaware this.

Example 6
Left Wall (Brimham), Pebble Mill - neither can be onsighted by anyone who has read http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=199221 Same applies to dozens of other routes and UKC threads containing beta.

Therefore, it would seem the only people who have real chance of onsighting classic hard UK routes are people who never read climbing books, never read climbing magazines, never watch climbing videos, never surf climbing websites, never read online climbing forums, never even talk about routes with any other climbers and never climb at the crag when there is a remote chance of anyone else climbing there....

In reply to Mark Stevenson:


Bollocks! Parthian Shot was graded E10 when John Dunne did it. It was downgraded to E9 after the gear held. Knowing the gear will hold is not beta.


I would not deny an onsight to somebody who knew ONLY that nails were gear.


Sorry mate, that is just wrong. Give me one good reason why a top rope grade is "valuable beta".


Agreed - in theory.

However, as any scientist will know, we do not live in a perfect world. No body will follow the above routine, it is almost impossible. We must make allowances for that.

In reply to matt cousins:

I don't think you heard me first time:
"It only matters what you think, since there's no rule-book or voice of authority anywhere to say what's what"

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

The Ent

In reply to Mark Stevenson:

I strongly disagree with you here. Knowing a (fairly arbitrary) french grade for a route does not give any more beta than the original UK grade. E4 5c is either going to be bold or safe and sustained; one look from the bottom would tell you which, only like a french grade of 6b or 7a+. IMO, beta tells you how to climb a route, such as where the holds are, what are they like, how to link them (moves). One could argue that info on gear placements are beta, but that's a gray area for me: too much will make it easier, knowing of trick or unusual placements on a bold route is surely prudence?

In reply to Jon Read:

Martin Berzins did an E6 at Kilnsey in the 80's (forgot the name), the crucial bit of gear was a filed down nut.
He didn't put this in the discription of the route.
I think I'd want to know this before I tried it!!!!!!

The Ent

In reply to Enty:

Or carry a file with you and a big rack!

The Ent

In reply to Jon Read: if he had got his mate to abe down to check the cam and to chalk wet holds, would it still be onsite?

also if i abe down the cumbrian to clean it for my mate do i invalidate his onsite?

Cheers tom

In reply to Enty:
So, does knowing that info make it Berzins E6, otherwise it would be hard E7?

In reply to Jon Read:
LOL, probably!

What grade?
Berzins E6
Oh ok, forget that then!

The Ent

In reply to The Great Pretender:

I would say yes, unless said mate tells him all about the route, placements, holds etc that he saw.


How could you?

In reply to Jon Read:


what about marking a hold, i.e chalking it, a bit like a tick mark

does a true onsight need to be clean of chalk, or are you following holds you see covered in white?

In reply to gear boy:

Well it's common sense isn't it? Holds marked up with chalk or 'tick-marks' are going to make it easier to either read a sequence or identify which holds to use/where they are. Chalked up holds on something like Right Wall, must make the route/sequence finding easier. I'd still class it as an onsight, you'd be pretty pedantic not too. Just remember some on-sights are harder than others!

In reply to Enty:

There are f*cking E6's out there that are 6b+. You can usually figure out a rough top rope grade just from looking at the route.

If it is E7 6b and has no gear, it is probably F7a. If it is E4 6b and is a crack line, it is also probably 7a.

Knowing the top rope grade does not void an onsight in the sightest.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
I'm not saying it does, just adds to the overload of info.


The Ent

In reply to Mikey_07:


This amused me quite a bit .

P.S. Sorry if the blue Camalot is still there - trigger wire snapped .

P.P.S. I abbed down the wall well to the left of it to get in - didn't want to miss out on the onsight experience.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
A bit like your proposed onsight of Messiah which you have now blown!!

The Ent

In reply to Enty:

I proposed a flash of Messiah.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
You can't fail now then!

The Ent

In reply to Enty:

Lol, we will see, we will see.

In reply to Mark Stevenson:

As I said pragmatism is required. The type of beta that I think mars an onsight is something that noticably increases your chances. As with the OP I cant understand why someone who sought such information would want to claim an onsight as it spoils a climb done in impressive style.

Example 1: I understood E9 assumes the gear might hold (gear might fail on lots of routes)

Example 2: Could be: it depends what route you watch on hard grit, some of the beta is better than others.

Example 3: Wouldn't know I've not read it

Example 4 Yes it could, it would just be better style.

Example 5 : Rubbish, the same if you think P grades are cheating. Those bits on Jon's site are just like another guidebook.

Example 6: Again it depends. I do think people should alert readers they are putting important beta up on threads.

In reply to Offwidth:

Like "Right Wall (Spoiler)"
"on RW at the Pod, look one metre left and you'll find a bomber rock 7"

The Ent

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:


That's exactly my point. The question is how much of an allowance we make about prior knowledge short of allowing someone to touch the rock...

I think a very 'generous' allowance is the only self consistent approach. If others want to jump through hoops doing such things as closing their eyes on abseils that is up to them.

In reply to Offwidth:


Make up your mind. It get very hard to jutify why the more detailed descriptions on Jon's grit list are fine but that the 'beta cheater' stuff on http://www.planetfear.com/search_articles.asp?at_id=6 isn't. What is a legitimate 'guidebook' comment and what isn't?

As far as I can see it, there are only 3 logical states here:

Option 1
No information, not even guidebooks - my original point stands i.e. no-one can every onsight anything!

Option 2
'Guidebook only' - as discussed you think this is arbitary and excessively prescriptive as it excludes perfectly reaonable information.

Option 3
Any standard 'guidebook information' allowed.
Guidebooks routinely mention gear, types of climbing and specifics holds/moves. Therefore any and all information on gear, types of climbing and specific holds/moves is therefore allowed. Effectively written/verbal beta cannot exist.

You might be happy in your own mind, but shades of grey are ultimately unworkable.

In reply to Mark Stevenson:

"You might be happy in your own mind" You got it...if I knowingly go to find extra help that turns out to work I dont claim the onsight. If I read something that doesnt affect my approach or reduce my rack or ease my nerves I'm fine. To be honest headpoints at my limit are as satisfying as onsights at my limit, or solos after a lead, or repeating a boulder problem in better style after a struggle to work it out.

In reply to Mark Stevenson:

Personally, I think a modified version of your third option would be the most apporopriate definition of "onsight".

You said:

"Any standard 'guidebook information' allowed. Guidebooks routinely mention gear, types of climbing and specifics holds/moves. Therefore any and all information on gear, types of climbing and specific holds/moves is therefore allowed. Effectively written/verbal beta cannot exist."

I would say:

"Any standard 'guidebook information' allowed. Unusual but useful pieces of gear such as nails or filed down nuts etc should be hinted at/mentioned if needed. Sequences of moves should never be refered to, neither should hold types."

A good description: "The flying arete is bouldery, powerful, hard and very good." or "An impressive route that needs crisp conditions and features some unusual moves." for sport climbing.

A good description: "The well named line of pebbles and creases crossing the green north face are followed to the exposed arete (poor hand-placed blade peg and six-inch-nail runners). Climb desperately into the thin crack and finish easily, avoiding the snapping void." for trad climbing.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

I think a lot of that third option is a symptom of rockfax guides that started with peak grit east, that's now seeped into definitive ones. Of course it's fair for guides to tell you about crucial gear without which the route would be a harder grade. But sometimes these recent descriptions're trying to teach your grandma to suck eggs.

How did we get on to this anyway?

- if you abbed down something with your eyes open it's not onsight. Period. You know what you're going for, which is a big psychological plus. I often stick my T-shirt over my head when abbing down. If only because it's more enjoyable to suddenly discover a line of jugs in extremis, than it is to know that you've got a line of jugs to go for.

Good effort and that none the less, you are almost certainly capable of onsighting E4 if you've flashed it. But why people want to pull their ropes down slate routes along with all that loose scree at the top of rainbow slab, on top of them, is beyond me when there's a five minute scramble round. Is it more solid at the top of rainbow walls?

Even if your mate abbed down something for you there's probably an implicit trust that if he saw a massive death flake on the way down that moved, then they'd have told you about it (if they hadn't trundled it).

What's wrong with a flash? OK not everyone is as totally mercenary about what you can do with that definition as I'm being with one project, but most people will probabyl give you that benefit of the doubt. Even so, for me a `quick look from a rope' would make a massive difference to the difficulty in my head. This difference is important for head routes.

In reply to Paz:
I can just imgaine tonnes of main land europeans having giggling fits at a vision of the British climber abbing down a line with a T shirt over his head so he can get an onsite.

Thankgod Geek Sheek is still fash.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

Tonnes of mainland Europeans are even stricter than that (from the comps with isolation and strong sport ethics) and would probably count the onsight as blown even with a T-shirt over your head.

It's only the odd route below a common ab point that I want to do in a certain style, and if I have to ab down it to get to the start or get down off something else then that's the quickest solution. I don't want to just get an onsite <sic>, but I often want as good an experience as possible.

In reply to Paz:
Perhaps your right in extreme top end of the sport cases, but I think onsighting is far more of a trad thing and redpointing a more common sport climbing style.

BTW I'm not dissing you in any way.... Although I do find it a bit train spotterish.

Personally I'm a bit more relaxed about my climbing style to worry about things like that, but then I'm never going to be top end of the sport type thing so I really don't care that much.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

Onsighting is very important to some people, and, Paz is one of those people.

It is no more train spotterish than you entering a debate about what constitutes an onsight on a climbing forum.

In reply to matt cousins: Dammit! I thought I may have done the odd 'on-sight'. Now I realise it probably only counts if I'm blindfolded, escorted to the crag, thrown at the bottom of a route, and expected to get to the top without taking the blindfold off just in-case I can see what move is coming next!

In reply to matt cousins:
Are you happy with your style of accent?
Thats all that matters

In reply to raspers:
I thought I'd onsighted loads of good stuff but now it seems I've only flashed them.
However it works the other way too.
Negative beta or Sandbagging.
Come to think of it most of the things I've done would have been much easier if I'd have ignored the advice i'd been given.


The Ent

PS, Raspers, its about time you got a profile pic up there!
Then everyone can see why we call you raspers.

The Ent

In reply to Enty:
try my best but it keeps getting rejected
Rasputin