UKC

Just wondering how many of us are left who simply climb? By this I mean don't even acknowledge terms such as ; headpoint, redpoint, ground up etc!

In reply to shaun stephens:

I make a distinction between fun climbing (what the French term 'pour plaisir') and performance climbing. With the former, such terms don't matter. But with the latter, I would argue that they do. Their emergence saved us from the ethical murk of the past.

I admit to finding other terms irritating, e.g. building a belay, versus belaying. 

Mick 

In reply to Mick Ward:

Mick, I was going to suggest that bouldering is immune to this, but can’t. That footblock and the sidepull is out, and the sit start is graded for one mat  😂

In reply to shaun stephens:

It perhaps depends on your motivations for the passtime and in the word passtime it gives a clue as I don't see my own personal participation as a sport. I have friends who do take their personal development much more seriously and these terms can help measure progress. I personally just like climbing nice lines.

In reply to shaun stephens:

By page 3 of your logbook I count 11 climbs you’ve chosen to log as ground up and 13 as onsight. You’ve also chosen to fill out the “best onsights” section of your profile. Trolling or some sort of semi-delusional inverse snobbery?

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

Hi Paul, Hope you're enjoying Cumbria. When the weather improves, it'll be great. 

I've always felt that, with Games Climbers Play, Lito Tejada-Flores gave us our equivalent of a Periodic Table. A ladder doesn't matter in the Khumbu Icefall; elsewhere it does. 

Where performance matters, we adjust the 'rules' of our chosen game to preserve uncertainty of outcome.  

Mick 

In reply to Stuart Williams:

I think OP has just reached that point in a man's life where his sense of moral superiority and self-righteousness starts to overrule common sense and rationality. 

In reply to shaun stephens:

I think I understand what you're getting at but I don't think the terms you mention can be avoided if you're climbing regularly outside, even if you couldn't care less about them, and certainly not if we're talking single pitch grit.

That said- after a break from climbing regularly for a few years (It had been the biggest thing in my life outside of work from the age of 15) and returning with no pressure, grade chasing or expectations along with having a higher than ever general fitness level from other sports, I enjoy it far far more than I did when I was obsessed.........and climb to a higher standard, strangely enough!

Maybe it's called growing up....;p

In reply to Mick Ward:

Hi Mick, trying not to be ridiculous and drift into a black hole of homesickness. I’m giving myself a good talking to about entitlement😂 

I think the vast majority of those rules simply don’t apply to the vast bulk of climbers who just get on with it and have a good time, in which case just the French ‘Laissez Propre’ seen on signs at crags applies.

In reply to shaun stephens:

I don't climb now but...

I used to go 'climbing' or 'winter climbing'. 

What's now called 'trad' to me is climbing. 'Bouldering' was warming up. Winter climbing was when you got your axes and crampons out.

I went to an indoor climbing centre once....just the once!

In reply to shaun stephens:

After reading Mick's post, perhaps you should have asked who climbs pour plaisir and who climbs for performance. Maybe a poll would work there.

I'm a pour plaisir climber BTW.  My enthusiasm for the outdoors - and even just having fun indoors, greatly surpasses any natural talent I may have (lack of talent more like!) but I still enjoy myself !

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

I think you’re missing the point that was being made in Games Climbers Play. We apply rules because getting to the top by any means necessary wouldn’t be particularly challenging or especially fun somewhere like Stanage, whereas in high altitude mountaineering you don’t need to impose (as many) arbitrary constraints to make it a challenge. 

The vast majority of climbers absolutely do apply all sorts of arbitrary rules. Leading is seen as better style than top roping. A lead with no falls is a success while falling is less of a success. Pulling on gear means you haven’t climbed the route. Following specific routes rather than just taking the easiest option for getting to the top. Etc etc.

How bothered people are by “success” or performance varies massively, but as soon as you decide to get to the top of the crag by some means other than the path at the back you are playing by rules. The less intrinsically challenging it is to get to the top, the more rules we set to keep it interesting. 

In reply to midgen:

The OP is asking a simple question he hasn't reached any point. Can't believe that because I ask a question about a topic this is the sort of reply. 

In reply to Stuart Williams:

This is kind of what I meant by struggling to avoid the terms mentioned in the OP on single pitch, and especially on short grit routes. On mountain routes I've found myself in a "fck it, let's just get to the top however and GTF before it gets dark/that storm over there hits us" mindset whereas on the grit it's " I must get this onsight or I'll have blown my chance and it will only be a ground up or a head point"

In reply to peppermill:

Goodness how utterly ridiculous does that seem when you see it in print? Ha.

In reply to shaun stephens:

You're being dishonest here, perhaps with yourself as well as the rest of us.

When you ask the question: "How many of us are left who still do X?" you are making two statements:

• 'X' (which is laudable) is a practice that is dying out.
• I am one of the few still doing it.

It's just your basic old man shouts at clouds "youth of today" malarky.  Your profile says you're only 45 - quite an early onset if that's up to date.

In reply to shaun stephens:

There are people out there who just solo naked, the purest form of climbing. Maybe you could join him? 

https://youtu.be/XIFqpEwCZgU?si=AMDWVjRDWVqdY9RA

In reply to shaun stephens:

If you dogged your way up something up that , what would you call it? 

Most people climb for fun , and try to climb harder/improve as well.  Polling that would be an artificial split for curmudgeon points

In reply to deepsoup:

Exactly.

How many of us are left who still don't use chalk?

How many of us are left who've still never clipped a bolt?

How many of us are left who still never train?

How many of us are left who still have never climbed outside?

How many of us are left who still have never climbed in the rain?

By all means enjoy your own approach to climbing fulfilment, but as long as we're not damaging anything, inconveniencing anyone or lying, one approach is pretty much as worthy as the next.

In reply to abr1966:

or as Joe Brown used to call it, 'arsing about'

In reply to shaun stephens:

Hi Shaun

Sorry you're experiencing the usual UKC abuse.

I'm a 'pour plaisir' and the only thing I record is whether I led or seconded for my own reference. My log is public simply so if I'm looking for a partner anyone responding can know what sort of level I climb at.

Because I come from a trad background getting to the top of a route is what matters to me, not the individual moves or style.

I don't care about what other people think, and I don't judge other people.

All the best, Steve

In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

I've given you a dislike for that.....   

a) it was far too early for me,  and b) The view from below and behind put me off my breakfast especially the  view of the two  swinging hairy tomatoes and the dangling frankfurter..    

 

In reply to shaun stephens:

You may want to consider how your original post comes across then if you genuinely cannot believe you might get a reply like that. Perhaps the lack of self-reflection is something that comes to us with age as well. 

Anyway the answer to your question is a categoric no​​​​. Vast numbers of people are out climbing every single day, purely for the simple joy of climbing. I myself sometimes will be trying to onsight routes, sometimes redpointing, but often just climbing lines because they look nice.

Even all those young whipper snappers at indoor gyms puling on plastic are just climbing for the fun of it, probably more so than us old fart trad climbers. 

In reply to Fredt:

what they were doing probably was arsing about…while John Gill was putting up V10s and soloing the first 5.12a in the States. 😂

In reply to deepsoup:

Asking the question, with the phrasing used, makes neither of those statements. 'Us' refers to 'climbers'; not 'climbers who eschew such terms'. 

I don't understand why the OP is getting such a hard time; maybe you all want to take a step back and ask yourselves why such a simple question has so upset you.

In reply to Billhook:

I did say what the link contained in my post. I think thou doth protest too much and you actually liked it

In reply to john arran:

Whilst that is a totally accurate assessment, it would seriously cut into UKC's advertising revenue if at least a few people weren't willing to argue otherwise...

In reply to captain paranoia:

If you think about that bit I think you'll see that it doesn't make sense.  The 'us' is distinctly refers to a subset of climbers.  (One which the question assumes is dwindling.)

I'm not upset at all.  I could just as easily ask why the replies the OP is getting, which are not at all abusive, are so upsetting to you.  But that would clearly be silly, because I don't really think you're upset either.  If the OP can't handle the incredibly mild flak he's getting in this thread, he's trolling on the wrong forum.

In reply to shaun stephens:

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers.

In reply to DaveHK:

😂

In reply to shaun stephens:

Well I've got to say I may be looking through Rose tinted specs, but the ukc community doesn't seem to be what I used to think it was.  For one thing just to put certain people right if you look at a photo of me you will see I'm not a mythical norse creature that lives under bridges chasing children.  I'm amazed that a simple question by a person can bring out some of the replies given.  Please don't turn me into a liar when I'm telling new inexperienced climbers that our community is one of the most supportive non judgmental grps I've ever known. 

Thanks to some of you for your honest replies.

In reply to shaun stephens:

Apologies as you do seem to genuinely not see how your post has come across. It does read very much in the vein of a typical 'old man yells at cloud' type post, implying you are part of some dying breed of superior climbers and bemoaning all those that have come after. It comes across as very judgemental, whether or not it was your intention. Plus people might find your claim to not acknowledge the term ground up, when your log book is full of ground up ascents, a bit odd! 

In reply to shaun stephens:

Yup - there was never a time you could have posted your 'question' here and not had a wee bit of mickey taking at the very least.  If anything it's more polite than it was.

They're all honest, you just don't like some of them.

In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

Yes.... fair point - but you could have posted one of a female climbing........   

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

I would suggest that ALL climbing is "arsing about", it's just that some people take (have taken, in this case) arsing about more seriously. Arsing about is the the whole point!

In reply to Marek:

Yes! ^^^

In reply to shaun stephens:

There's doing, and there's telling. If you're not bothered about telling, just enjoy the doing. I like the Isaac Newton role model, it being said during his lifetime that there were two parts to making a scientific or mathematical discovery -the making of it, then the discovering of when Newton had already made it but not told anyone.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

And therein lies the choice (for all of us).

Mick 

In reply to Mick Ward:

You often have to set up the belay before you can start belaying, otherwise your second may not be too happy... 

In reply to shaun stephens:

Most people these days would probably distinguish the different  styles for their own reference and to be open with their friends. If neither you nor your friends care about style then it doesn’t really matter.

I’m interested though, if you fell off one or more times, would you say you climbed it without qualifying that you fell off or dogged it?

Edit - I suspect the dislikes are due to you saying ‘not even acknowledge’, which comes across as dismissive of the distinctions other people make and the fact that there are indeed different styles out there. I assume you just meant you don’t use these terms for your own climbing.

In reply to CantClimbTom:

A fair few people climb both pour plaisir and for performance, depending on how they feel, where they are and who they are with. I suspect very few don’t climb pour plaisir at all. It’s just that for a 9a climber that might be on sighting some 8as. 

In reply to Mick Ward:

I never use the term "build a belay" but the fact that "belay" means two different things, means that the call "on belay" is downright dangerous (mostly a US thing though I think).

In reply to Steve Woollard:

I suspect you don’t fall off much but imagine if someone is looking for a partner and has a logbook with lots of leads at grade x but actually they’ve fallen off / dogged them all and their hardest onsight is a few grades lower. That could be problematic if you’re going trad climbing with them. 

In reply to deepsoup:

I think if the question was phrased along the lines of “I was wondering how many people don’t use the various terms referring to the style in which a route is climbed (onsight, redpoint, etc) and instead simply say that a route has been ‘climbed’”, the responses would have been fairly neutral.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Sorry, you’ve lost me there. How can the call ‘on belay’ mean anything else than one's attached to the rockface/mountain?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

It might also mean that you have put someone on the belay plate and can hold them when they fall. Obviously if the partner thought that when it just meant they had attached themselves to the mountain, there could be tragic consequences. I actually don't know which is usually meant when people use it. Best avoided anyway.

An old man I worked with said "the gym is for people who haven't done enough work"....

In reply to Robert Durran:

And Michael Gordon:

Offhand, I can't think what I do say (unconscious competence or unconscious incompetence - who knows?)

I suspect it's, "Safe!" and "Climb when you're ready!"

What I do know is that I prioritise clear, unambiguous communication - whatever that may be. To date, in nearly 60 years of climbing, I don't think a single person has complained. 

'What can be said at all can be said clearly.' Wittgenstein. 

Mick 

In reply to Robert Durran:

I'd use it to mean exactly that- partner is being safely belayed. If I'm safe, I'll say so by shouting 'safe'.

In reply to CantClimbTom:

What about those who get pleasure from performance (probably most)? These distinctions are pretty daft.

In reply to Misha:

Fair point

In reply to Robert Durran:

No they're not. 

Fun/pour plaisir: Cruising. Not putting a lot of effort in. 

Performance: Highly focused - probably putting a lot of effort in. 

Yes, you get pleasure from the first (the clue is in the name, no?) And yes, in many situations, you'll get pleasure from the second. May be a different kind of pleasure, though. 

Mick 

P.S. I sometimes get the feeling that, no matter what's written, you'll disagree with it. 

In reply to planetmarshall:

Oh no it wouldn't!

#panto

In reply to Mick Ward:

Which is my point. Pleasure of all sorts from all climbing. I really dislike this "plaisir" thing; it tends to come across as a "them and us thing" - not good.

Simply not true. Obviously I only tend to reply to a post when I disagree or have a differing view though - that's how discussion works.

In reply to Mick Ward:

I think those are the British standard calls. "On belay" (whichever of those it means) seems to be a recent import.

In reply to mrjonathanr:

The calls I always used with various climbing partners were:

“I’m there” (not essential, not always used)

Once safely belayed leader shouts:

“(I’m) safe!” (and second starts dismantling his/her belay)

“Taking in!” Leader starts taking in rope fast, stacking it neatly if possible on belay ledge.

[second shouts “That’s me!” when rope comes tight on his/her waist.]

(leader puts rope/s into belay plate, does final checks, then shouts"

“Climb when you’re ready!” (long and old fashioned, but has the merit of not being easily confused with other calls.)

Second “Climbing!”

Leader: “OK!"

Something like that anyway!

Of course when leader and second are out of earshot one has to resort to the dangerous business of signalling with tugs on the rope.

In reply to Mick Ward:

We may be playing at semantics, but for me at least, even 'fun' climbing involves putting a lot of effort in. Perhaps if I made the effort to invest in performance climbing then fun climbing might become "not putting a lot of effort in". Or maybe I get 'fun' from the 'effort'. Lots of ways to play this game!

In reply to Gordon Stainforth

You can shout 'I'm there' and 'taking in' but they are basically redundant, the rest is the standard calls most instructors will teach and use.

In reply to Marek:

We may indeed.

Mick 

In reply to mrjonathanr:

Agreed. I said ‘I’m there’ is not essential, and ‘Taking in’ is simply useful to say what’s going on, and becomes more important if it’s difficult for the climbers to hear each other very well. It all adds to an ambiance of confidence, and a reassuring ‘rhythm’ to the process. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

So you don't like a distinction because (to you, anyway) it connotes social difference? I'd argue that's not good. 

Can't each of us indulge in fun climbing and performance climbing - only not at the same time? For instance, I've bust my ass at what to me is performance climbing, over the last few weeks. Now I want a week or two to recover, just go out and cruise easy stuff. 

Will this somehow make me a lesser person this week than I was last week? 

It's not how discussion works. It's merely a part of how discussion works. Life would be pretty grim if all we had were dialectics. 

You could reply to a post to amplify a point or because you thought of an interesting observation, or it triggered a memory, or... 

The Irish poet, Patrick Kavanagh, once coined a marvellous phrase, ‘the oriental streets of thought’. I leave that thought with you. 

Mick 

In reply to Mick Ward:

I’d say plaisir isn’t always the same as no effort (edit - you said little effort so I guess it depends what that means in practice but I think plaisir can still involve a fair bit of effort, just not performance level effort). There will be routes which require some effort but are plaisir as they are a few grades below the climber’s top grade and are climber for enjoyment rather than to push the grade. Say if someone goes to Pembroke for get on E5s but does some classic E1/2/3 routes, that’s not going to be no effort but would be plaisir. 

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

No need for tugs. Once ready to take in, just start taking in. If the second isn’t sure they just keep belaying till the rope runs out. Once the rope goes tight, the leader drops a few metres, puts the second on belay again and takes in. The second then knows to start climbing. If they start climbing but the rope isn’t taken in, they wait. 

In reply to Mick Ward:

No, of course not. We are all just climbers doing our stuff presumably for some sort of pleasure and satisfaction. That is precisely why I don't like this "plaisir" phrase which seems to result in a distinction between types of climber (apparently in Switzerland they even need different guidebooks!).

Of course, but if we all agreed on everything, there would be little debate.

Of course. I should have said that more of my posts will be disagreeing than agreeing, but that doesn't mean I don't very often agree with people but feel no need to say so (though I might sometimes do so). 

In reply to Misha:

There are plenty of climbs, or certainly a few, where there is enough drag / friction for the exact state of play to be ambiguous when the leader is out of earshot. Yes, the second starts climbing and sees if the rope is taken in. If not, the second waits a bit, then tries again. Is generally reluctant about moving fast for a while Of course, worst scenario, which might happen once or twice in a climbing lifetime, is when the second thinks the leader is safe, and tugs suggest ‘come on’, when in fact the leader is in extremis, in very bad position having run out of rope, and you’re both moving together, unbelayed, 140-150 feet apart ...

In reply to Fredt:

Otherwise known as crack climbing

In reply to Rich W Parker:

My wife's uncle (elderly farmer, he lifts and carries all day, builds fences etc) last Summer told me a story that when the 50Kg sacks became problematic for health and safety and 20 or 25kg became the norm, someone he knew had to provide a gym for his workers. So the oldskool thinking would be that gyms only needed if you didn't work enough. Not necessarily agreeing or endorsing it, but confirming that's the old fashioned view

In reply to shaun stephens:

I haven’t checked my log book, lest I have sinned 😁 Not terms I use often, but not acknowledge is to deny their existence in a way.  I think if I looked I’d find my most common entries are lead, alt lead, seconded.  Certainly that’s what I’ll have written in my guidebooks with a year and who with.  On UKC I’ll have used whatever the best match was from the choices at the time.

I don’t think the terms someone uses for their climbs means they don’t climb for fun.  Some just like to record their ascents in more or less detail than others.  It’s all good.

In reply to shaun stephens:

Neatly sums up the last 50 years of my life.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Only once or twice, Gordon? Surely not. I seem to recall that it was the default standard - and only - resort when all communication had failed and more rope was, apparently, still needed!

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

True, more of an alpine and winter climbing thing but if not sure just belay till the rope runs out. 

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I'm much younger than you but the series of calls you listed are pretty much what I've always used. With the occasional addition when the leader can't see the second of the leader calling out "is that you?" when they think they've taken in all the slack. To which the response is usually and hilariously "well who else would it be?"

In reply to Misha:

Always a little unnerving when leaving a hanging stance or small stance, straight into a 'boulder problem' type move.

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

Precisely.

I once did a route at Avon which had a long traverse, for which my "dear leader" had put gear before each awkward move, but not after. This meant his poor second - myself - had to fight against his constant tugging which threatened to pull me off the delicate holds and send me for a decidedly long and dangerous pendulum into E-nasty territory. Against my protests the plonker then did the same again when I attempted to second the next pitch which went over an overhang. I moved up towards the move, and he just pulled the rope tight which meant I couldn't reach the holds under the overhang that I needed to use to get over said overhang. I ended up climbing up the actual rope while in space until I reached some holds again.

I never climbed with him again.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

But assuming there's good gear between you, that is probably better than the alternative.

In reply to Mick Ward:

I didn't realise you were talking about climbing calls. I thought you were just talking about describing what one was doing, in any context. I was just stating the obvious point that setting up the belay (or 'building the belay') was a different thing to belaying. 

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Of course.

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

Very true. Still, if the rope is fully out and tight and has been tight for however long it usually takes your partner to put you on belay plus a margin, it should be safe to assume you’re on… This is where dropping some slack and taking it up again once belaying can be very handy, as that’s a clear sign not to climb and then to start climbing. 

In reply to Misha:

Well the system han't gone wrong to date...

In reply to shaun stephens: Back to the OP - isn't the description of what we're doing rather context driven? As an example, if someone at work asks me what I did at the weekend , I might comment that I went climbing.  I might, if they have some knowledge add a small amount of detail, but if someone I knew asked me at the wall I might say I went bouldering, or that I was at nnnn location and climbed this and that.  Whether I went ot the level of detail of saying that I redpointed sometihng I probably wouldn't mention.

If however I was asked by a climbing partner what shall we do then I might very well say lets go to cray y so I can have another go at redpointing my mediocre project.  If all I said was 'lets go climbing' there is some scope for misunderstanding.

But yes, fundamentally I go climbing.

In reply to Misha:

I would say that it's quite possible to be clear about what happened on a route without having to use these terms. If you had been up on the Ben and were chatting to a mate afterwards, you might say you'd gone for the Bat, pumped out on the big corner and took a real flyer! All good pub chat. They might ask if you still got up the route. You might say yes - you swapped leads and your partner made a better go at it. A quality day. Fine sunset on the way down. Etc...

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Agree but that’s just another way of describing it (in fact a better one) - the point is most people probably wouldn’t just say they just climbed it.

That corner is certainly a bit old school and felt tough even in when dry!