UKC

In the sense of rock climbing, specifically it seems to be used to do with trad climbing. Something to do with preplaced gear maybe, not sure. Thanks!

In reply to Kemics:

An ascent of a route that is only tried from the bottom up (not practised on a top rope).

Example: A lad goes for an onsight of a route, falls and then pulls his ropes through his gear and then leads off from the bottom, clipping the gear he placed first time round.

A similar style (albeit a lesser used terminology) is the yo-yo; this is when someone does the same as above but does not pull the rope through and leads off with the rope still clipped to the top bit of gear - effectively top roping the route until the final piece of gear.

This is my understanding of the term anyway.

In reply to Kemics:

I believe it's an on-site, clean ascent.

In reply to Kemics:

For future reference there is a glossary you can find on ukc which basically outlines most climbing terms you may come across. Have a look.

In reply to LastBoyScout:

Negatory, see Andrew's post

In reply to Kemics:

Ground-up is suitably vague and gets used by folk who've pulled every trick in the book except abseiling in. It makes their ascent sound good but it's just the same as red-point but often aiding up from the bottom to practise the moves rather than abseiling.

In reply to GuyVG:

i did, ground up isn't included. Yo-yo is though.

It's a term i keep reading quite often, i think the first poster nailed it.

In reply to Kemics:

also i dont see why it would be thought of in a bad light? It's not like having preplaced gear on abseil where you can find the perfect place and make sure it's seated in nicely. You've still taken all the same risks etc, once you know which bit of gear goes where it hardly would save any energy replacing it. The only thing it saves, is the huge amount of time cleaning it between every single attempt.

I suppose if you really wanted to be super ethical you could remove each piece and put it back in to prove you're not saving energy, but seriously who cares

In reply to Kemics: Kemics: Kemics:

I think failed onsight/flash is the short answer.

The longer answer is that typically when you fail you lower to the ground pull your ropes through and have another go (or several other goes) and if you suceed this way you can describe the ascent as ground-up. Obviously any abseil pre-inspection would mean it was not ground-up.

Its not a new approach but has gained more prominence recently as a kind of backlash against headpointing. It is described as a more 'authentic' style of ascent by Simon Panton's 'Ground-Up' guidebook publications. The Ground-Up approach (including hand drilling bolts on lead) is far more engrained in US climbing probably because dropping a rope down a route is far less practical on big cliffs.

In reply to andrew sandercock:
Sounds about right. Although I think that a yo-yo is still "ground-up".
If you abseil down and remove gear before trying again, I guess it's no longer ground-up?

In reply to Andy Stephenson:

What else would it be?

In reply to GuyVG:

Oh I don't know...it would have to be on-site wouldn't it?

In reply to Bulls Crack:

Well it cant be an onsite, if you have weighted the gear and its not a headpoint, so it must be a........?

In reply to Dr Sidehead:

Well if it's not on site then which site is in on? If you are at a different site then it would be impossible to climb it all, although it would rule out the possibility of inspecting the route on an ab rope first meaning that you might be able to get the onsight at a later time.

In reply to Byronius Maximus:

Come again?

In reply to Kemics:

I think you have said it all!

In reply to Dr Sidehead:

Perhaps pointing out that it is on-sight not on site, onsite, or on-site.

In reply to GeoffRadcliffe:

oh right

In reply to Kemics: yo-yo is when you get to a hiugh point then climb bacik down to ground then climb again, as opposed to second try after working it, whic is climb to high point fall off, lowered and climb again.

In reply to tonanf: yo - yo means you fell off and then tried again from the ground without pulling the ropes
Ground up just means you didn't inspect the top of the route by any means.

In reply to tonanf:

Yo-yo, which I believe came from the USA, was a style of climbing where after falling off the climber lowered off and left the rope clipped through all the runners on subsequent tries. This style of ascent is no longer reqarded (by many) as a valid ascent. Note that the legendary climber Wolfgang Gullich used to climb using this controversial style, he subsequently changed to redpointing.

Also, prevalent at that time, was hang-dogging which was similar to yo-yo climbing execept that the climber tried out the next series of moves after falling off before lowering back down.

In reply to Kemics:

I understand "ground up" to mean that you climbed the route from the ground to the top without resting on the rope, on that particular ascent. You could have done anything before, including practicing the route, doing bits of the route, inspecting it on abseil etc.

There is a difference in doing a route "ground up" on your first attempt, compared to doing the same thing after numerous tries, and that is where more specific phrases, such as red point or flash come in...

In reply to tlm:

This is a redpoint ascent not ground-up.

In reply to Kemics:

Fair enough if its not in the glossary, bit of a glaring omission if thats the case.

Hope you've got the gist of it now. Agreed, Andrew and shark's replies some it up neatly

In reply to GeoffRadcliffe:

A red point is just one type of ground-up ascent as I understand it...

In reply to Kemics:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=1499

This article says:

"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. This time we're running a full story as the route in question is very topical and has been part of a larger grade debate."

In reply to tlm:
your last two posts contradict each other 'ground up means climbing a route without top rope or abseil inspection' but you also say that 'a redpoint is just one type of ground-up ascent.'

a ground up literally means climbing a route from the ground up without top roping or abseil inspection, ie not redpoint. ground up usually refers to a failed onsight, but can also include a successfull clean onsight.

In reply to Kemics:
Am intrigred by the implication from several of the posts that a redpoint ascent is a better ascent than a ground up one; in my book the redpoint ascent is a baseline for other people to compare their ascents with your own i.e. you know that the whole route was led with gear placed in the lead.
Unfortunately, by top-roping the line you remove the 2 hardest things about trad climbing which are: Can I do the moves and is there any gear.
So for me a redpoint ascent is only valid on the hardest routes where it is unlikely that your peers are going to do a ground up ascent. Grit is slightly different because you are always going to hit the ground if you fall off and there is probably no gear to place anyway.
So, a ground-up with 2 yo-yo's is a worse finished product if you like but the process is more challanging and satisfying but of less use in terms of setting the bar for the next guy, because they don't really know what you've been up to!
Gullich was mentioned as being dissatisfied with yoyoing: Interestingly, when he and Kurt Albert brought RP to Elbsandstein Gebirge in the 80's they genuinely thought they were improving the style of ascent from the local ethos of ground-up bolting-on-the-lead but with the bolts placed hanging off aid. I would only recommend to anyone who thinks the West German boys were right in this believe to go and try the 2 methods out for themselves to find out for sure!

I am new here but figured I'd chime in...

Here in the US the term "ground up" is usually used to describe the First Ascent of a route. For example, the First Ascent of El Capitan was done ground up by Warren Harding in 1958. Now, he could have hiked to the top and rapped in to inspect the route, but he did not. He started at the ground every time.

In North Carolina, most of our routes are FAed in "ground up style." Even our bolted routes were usually bolted on lead, either from a good stance or while hanging on hooks.

Most of the popular sport areas around the world are not developed ground up, but are bolted on rappel and then red-pointed.

When approaching an established route, going ground up would simply mean that you climb, onsight, until you fall. When you fall, you will lower off, pull the rope, and try to make a clean ascent again starting from the ground. This is still a red-point, but lowering immediately after each fall keeps one from working out the moves, thus preserving the ground up style.

In reply to Dr Sidehead:
A yo-yo ascent could be a ground-up ascent as well, but doesn't have to be. You might have abseiled down first to check holds and runner placements and practiced a move; then led the route but lowered off on the first attempt and not pulled the ropes through. So a yo-yo and not ground-up.

If you've abseiled down the route, only to remove gear, then you've lost the chance to "on-sight" the route as there's always an element of abseil inspection.

I think that there is some confusion because there are different categories of term being compared. A red point could be ground-up as well, for instance, but doesn't have to be. In my opinion, ground-up is a general term for climbing the route without trying any of the moves except in the natural order, i.e. bottom to top.

In reply to Andy Stephenson:


Yo-yo and dodo - both dead as

In reply to Kemics:

well i'm glad we've cleared that up


Looks like i wasn't the only one who was confused, it seems to be used in various ways by different people. The definition i'm going with is -

A route climbed with no abseil inspection, after falling, you pull your ropes and leave the gear (but was obv placed on the lead) and attempt another ascent. So blow the onsight, pull the ropes, climb it clean and it's a ground up ascent.

In reply to Kemics:

Ground-up is exactly what it sounds like: Climbing from the ground... Up. It covers a multitude of styles but is most commonly used to describe something between an onsight and a full-on redpoint. Whether gear is all, partially or not in-situ for the successful attempt varies. Also, some of it may be pre-clipped from a previous attempt, what was previously referred to as a yo-yo.

jk

In reply to Kemics:


It seems to me that 'ground-up' has only fairly recently come into more common parlance as there appears to be more climbers regarding top-roping as being a creditable style of ascent. Do I also perceive that it implies a 'better' style than 'headpoint', especially where this latter style is extended down the grades?

Supposedly 'ground-up' means any style of ascent (good or poor) other than on some form of top-rope, whereas 'headpoint' implicitly means climbed after (extensive, in some cases) top-rope practice.

Calling an ascent after practice 'ground-up' muddies the water a bit when compared to a more specific type of on-sight ascent in one form or another (e.g. with/without falls/beta/yo-yoing, etc)

There are well-established hierarchies of style which include sufficient terms to accurately describe pretty much any ascent.

'Ground-up' generalises many of those terms and is a pretty superfluous term to apply to climbing at the best of times - which is probably why it doesn't appear in the glossary on here - yet(?)!

Also, surely 'redpoint' is a sport style?

The trad equivalent would be a flash (not on-sight)?

In reply to Ian Milward:


I think it is good to differentiate between 'harder' and 'better' on this subject.

Usually Ground-Up makes the route harder but it depends on the route. Ground-up on some routes might in fact be easier than headpoint especially if a route is sieged ground-up gangbang style compared to if it had been headpointed with minimal top-roping.

As for better I can appreciate an aesthetic perspective that could describe Ground-Up as always being better in terms of being a more genuinely adventurous and obvious approach to trad climbing which Adam Long articulated nicely here: www.adamlong.blogspot.com

Having said that it is also obvious that the headpointing style has put climbers in undeniably perilous and adventurous situations at the limit of their abilities.

I think Ground-Up as a style is more than a 'superfluous term' as you describe it. My take is it is a legitimate alternative to headpointing (rather than lower or higher on a hierarchical scale) for when the onsight or flash has been blown or was never on in the first place.

The fact that 'Ground-Up' doesn't neatly describe the actual style of an ascent is only really a problem for the anal.

In reply to shark:

I've never been entirely sure what yo-yoing was - the magazines of the time (in the early 80s) seemed quite guarded in saying exactly what tactics were employed, in much the same way as us punters were aware of the prevalence of headpointing until Hard Grit came out.

Am I right in thinking that a yo-yo ascent means that the both the gear and the rope were left in place after a fall ? Did the climber even return to the ground after a fall. And was Ron's ascent of Strawberries such an ascent ? The answer may be in his book, but it was my xmas present !

My view on ground up is that it's a common sense approach to trad climbing - if you fall off on your first attempt, leave the gear in place but pull your ropes. Pretty much the same approach I take when sport climbing.

In reply to shark:

If it wasn't Christmas I'd take that last comment as rather rude, you cheeky little elf, you!

Thanks for helping point out the usefulness of the term 'ground-up'.

It seems I was on the right track anyway, and I can now confidently describe about 98% of the routes I've done over the last 37 years as being in the 'ground-up' style.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Yes yo-yoing always meant returning to the ground (rest point otherwise)with the rope left in place for the next go - hence up and down like a yo-yo. The main variation was whether you dogged the move at the point you fell off or not.

I read Ron's book last week - its very good and covers his dilemmas on the tactics he employed.

In reply to Ian Milward:


Me too - except for such things as abseiling to clean new routes or reclimbing previously seconded or frigged routes. I was never comfortable with prior top-roping/headpointing so never did it as it always seems at odds of how I think about trad but thats just my mindset. Its a matter of personal preference. Maybe I'd give it a go when I take up trad climbing again.

In reply to Kemics: I don't think anyone has actually correctly defined 'ground-up' yet, which is surprising considering how much everyone talks about these things.

For an ascent to be ground-up, all climbing must be done from the ground, not from the rope. Once an attempt has failed and you're on the rope you have to lower down, pull the rope and start again climbing from the ground. If you get back on straight after falling then you're climbing from the rope and the subsequent clean ascent would be redpoint/headpoint because you've worked the route from the rope.

BTW a flash is an first try, ground up with beta, not the trad version of redpoint.