This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
What would you call the style of ascent in each of these cases?
1) You decide a route's too hard so you climb back down removing all of the gear as you go. At no point did you weight the gear. Then if you come back on another day and get up the route cleanly. Is it still a clean onsight? Would it be with Beta? Or perhaps worked?
2) How about on a multi pitch route where you have to make an abseil retreat? What would a subsequent clean ascent be classed as?
Cheers
1) You decide a route's too hard so you climb back down removing all of the gear as you go. At no point did you weight the gear. Then if you come back on another day and get up the route cleanly. Is it still a clean onsight? Would it be with Beta? Or perhaps worked?
2) How about on a multi pitch route where you have to make an abseil retreat? What would a subsequent clean ascent be classed as?
Cheers
In reply to Chris Davids:
1 - clean onsight - maybe not a pure flash but much 'better' than any of the other styles
2 Again somewhere in between not a flash but beter than working
1 - clean onsight - maybe not a pure flash but much 'better' than any of the other styles
2 Again somewhere in between not a flash but beter than working
In reply to Chris Davids:
Id say they were pretty much the same and neither onsight, the means of descent when youve failed on a route IMO is completely immaterial.
If in case (1) you had downclimbed and then gone back up without touching the ground or going off route, then that would be different IMO.
Id say they were pretty much the same and neither onsight, the means of descent when youve failed on a route IMO is completely immaterial.
If in case (1) you had downclimbed and then gone back up without touching the ground or going off route, then that would be different IMO.
In reply to Yorkspud:
Please explain how it can be 'on sight' if you've been most of the way up the route or pitch already? Seems like a rather poor style of ascent.
Please explain how it can be 'on sight' if you've been most of the way up the route or pitch already? Seems like a rather poor style of ascent.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
The gear has not been weighted, so you have just returned to a rest point. No advantage has been gained. The crux (which presumably wasn't reached), is still unknown
The gear has not been weighted, so you have just returned to a rest point. No advantage has been gained. The crux (which presumably wasn't reached), is still unknown
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Hardly poor style, Gordon (IMHO naturally). Often the most tactical thing to do for steep or cruxy routes. Exceptionally mean to discount an onsight for stepping on the ground.
If there was a ledge at half height, would you not scuttle back to it after stenuously placing heigher gear, or would this also ruin an onsight tick?
Hardly poor style, Gordon (IMHO naturally). Often the most tactical thing to do for steep or cruxy routes. Exceptionally mean to discount an onsight for stepping on the ground.
If there was a ledge at half height, would you not scuttle back to it after stenuously placing heigher gear, or would this also ruin an onsight tick?
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Going home and coming back another day is more than a "rest".
> The gear has not been weighted, so you have just returned to a rest point.
Going home and coming back another day is more than a "rest".
In reply to Jon Read:
Yes, I admit I've often reversed a few moves if there's a resting place below a crux, having placed the crucial runners - but of course it's not as satisfactory as doing it in one go. I think it all comes down to personal satisfaction. On the few ascents when I've rested on a runner, or even used it for aid, it's more or less ruined it for me.
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
>
>
> If there was a ledge at half height, would you not scuttle back to it after stenuously placing heigher gear, or would this also ruin an onsight tick?
>
>
> If there was a ledge at half height, would you not scuttle back to it after stenuously placing heigher gear, or would this also ruin an onsight tick?
Yes, I admit I've often reversed a few moves if there's a resting place below a crux, having placed the crucial runners - but of course it's not as satisfactory as doing it in one go. I think it all comes down to personal satisfaction. On the few ascents when I've rested on a runner, or even used it for aid, it's more or less ruined it for me.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Yes, I agree with that. The clssification, if you have to give it one at all, i.e. onsight flash, or whatever are a bit irrelevant to me. I know if I've done a climb in a good style or not, and no one else really gives a stuff.
Yes, I agree with that. The clssification, if you have to give it one at all, i.e. onsight flash, or whatever are a bit irrelevant to me. I know if I've done a climb in a good style or not, and no one else really gives a stuff.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
There's a huge difference between resting on a runner and resting naturally. The ability to find and take a decent rest is often critical (and usually harder for the tall, I might add!)
> Yes, I admit I've often reversed a few moves if there's a resting place below a crux, having placed the crucial runners - but of course it's not as satisfactory as doing it in one go. I think it all comes down to personal satisfaction. On the few ascents when I've rested on a runner, or even used it for aid, it's more or less ruined it for me.
There's a huge difference between resting on a runner and resting naturally. The ability to find and take a decent rest is often critical (and usually harder for the tall, I might add!)
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Well - the route has been climbed to the failure point clean and then the 'crux' left undone. Climber comes back leads it again with prior knowledge of the ground up to the crux and successfully completes the route. The final ascent is clean with knowledge of the ground covered already so not a flash but the hardest bit to that climber is still done clean without dogging/practicing. Its the next best thing to a on-sight flash, much more honurable than top-roping, dogging etc. and sometimes harder as there is a psychological fear of previous failure to overcome!
Well - the route has been climbed to the failure point clean and then the 'crux' left undone. Climber comes back leads it again with prior knowledge of the ground up to the crux and successfully completes the route. The final ascent is clean with knowledge of the ground covered already so not a flash but the hardest bit to that climber is still done clean without dogging/practicing. Its the next best thing to a on-sight flash, much more honurable than top-roping, dogging etc. and sometimes harder as there is a psychological fear of previous failure to overcome!
In reply to Si dH:
The means of descent is crucial, failing on a route means making use of runners and the rope, if you climb back down the gear was just a precaution as with a successful onsight ascent. The difference is only between a "10 point" onsight and a slightly lesser quality of onsight if you've climbed back down to the ground (whether that be for a few minutes or a few years).
> the means of descent when youve failed on a route IMO is completely immaterial.
The means of descent is crucial, failing on a route means making use of runners and the rope, if you climb back down the gear was just a precaution as with a successful onsight ascent. The difference is only between a "10 point" onsight and a slightly lesser quality of onsight if you've climbed back down to the ground (whether that be for a few minutes or a few years).
In reply to Stefan Lloyd:
I reckon as long as you climb down without weighting the gear, *walk* home and don't use any mechanical transport in the interim, and then walk back to the crag, you're in the clear.
> (In reply to Chris the Tall)
> [...]
>
> Going home and coming back another day is more than a "rest".
> [...]
>
> Going home and coming back another day is more than a "rest".
I reckon as long as you climb down without weighting the gear, *walk* home and don't use any mechanical transport in the interim, and then walk back to the crag, you're in the clear.
In reply to K9:
What about using a Stanner stairlift to get to the loo after downing 8 cans of spesh. Would that be ok?
> (In reply to Stefan Lloyd)
> [...]
>
> I reckon as long as you climb down without weighting the gear, *walk* home and don't use any mechanical transport in the interim, and then walk back to the crag, you're in the clear.
> [...]
>
> I reckon as long as you climb down without weighting the gear, *walk* home and don't use any mechanical transport in the interim, and then walk back to the crag, you're in the clear.
What about using a Stanner stairlift to get to the loo after downing 8 cans of spesh. Would that be ok?
In reply to Simon22:
You would blow the onsight, but needs must...
> What about using a Stanner stairlift to get to the loo after downing 8 cans of spesh. Would that be ok?
You would blow the onsight, but needs must...
In reply to K9:
Of course there's another style, 'conceptual climbing' (cp. conceptual art), that many people have forgotten about, in which you don't have to bother to climb the route at all.
Of course there's another style, 'conceptual climbing' (cp. conceptual art), that many people have forgotten about, in which you don't have to bother to climb the route at all.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
How about if I built a shed at the bottom of a crag, disassembled it, carried it up piece by piece in good style, and then reassembled it at the top, do you think that would get me the Turner prize?
> (In reply to K9)
>
> Of course there's another style, 'conceptual climbing' (cp. conceptual art), that many people have forgotten about, in which you don't have to bother to climb the route at all.
>
> Of course there's another style, 'conceptual climbing' (cp. conceptual art), that many people have forgotten about, in which you don't have to bother to climb the route at all.
How about if I built a shed at the bottom of a crag, disassembled it, carried it up piece by piece in good style, and then reassembled it at the top, do you think that would get me the Turner prize?
In reply to K9:
So the route starts as soon as you leave the mechanical transport. So if you walk up to the crag, but decide not to do it that day, you've blown the on-sight. And if not, where is demarcation point ? Gearing up ? First runner ? And have I blown the on-sight of Left Unconquerable because I've second RU, and they have a common start ? Wheres a lawyer when you need one ?
> (In reply to Stefan Lloyd)
> [...]
>
> I reckon as long as you climb down without weighting the gear, *walk* home and don't use any mechanical transport in the interim, and then walk back to the crag, you're in the clear.
> [...]
>
> I reckon as long as you climb down without weighting the gear, *walk* home and don't use any mechanical transport in the interim, and then walk back to the crag, you're in the clear.
So the route starts as soon as you leave the mechanical transport. So if you walk up to the crag, but decide not to do it that day, you've blown the on-sight. And if not, where is demarcation point ? Gearing up ? First runner ? And have I blown the on-sight of Left Unconquerable because I've second RU, and they have a common start ? Wheres a lawyer when you need one ?
In reply to K9:
Yes, you would stand a very good chance. You would also be able to say you've 'shedpointed' the climb.
Yes, you would stand a very good chance. You would also be able to say you've 'shedpointed' the climb.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
I never said that. The route starts when you start climbing it.
> So the route starts as soon as you leave the mechanical transport.
I never said that. The route starts when you start climbing it.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Nice
> (In reply to K9)
>
> Yes, you would stand a very good chance. You would also be able to say you've 'shedpointed' the climb.
>
> Yes, you would stand a very good chance. You would also be able to say you've 'shedpointed' the climb.
Nice
In reply to ellis:
In my opinion "onsight" has a literal meaning, that is, you climb the route on sight. If youve already been most teh way up it then youre nt doing it on sight, so its not an onsight.
As far as Im concerned, if you get up to the crux or wherever, down climb and step o nto the ground, thats definitely a failed attempt. Whetehr or not geasr is weighted is immaterial, its not as though stepping off and coming back thenetx day is "cleverly finding a rest", rofl.
In my opinion "onsight" has a literal meaning, that is, you climb the route on sight. If youve already been most teh way up it then youre nt doing it on sight, so its not an onsight.
As far as Im concerned, if you get up to the crux or wherever, down climb and step o nto the ground, thats definitely a failed attempt. Whetehr or not geasr is weighted is immaterial, its not as though stepping off and coming back thenetx day is "cleverly finding a rest", rofl.
In reply to Chris Davids:
to me groundup (which i think is what your first ascent is) leading is a good form of ascent. I don't feel this is much different to a pure on sight.
To me weighting gear in any form is cheating once I've done that I feel I have dirtied the route.
Leading is a personal thing, it's what you think that's important IMHO...
Stevo
to me groundup (which i think is what your first ascent is) leading is a good form of ascent. I don't feel this is much different to a pure on sight.
To me weighting gear in any form is cheating once I've done that I feel I have dirtied the route.
Leading is a personal thing, it's what you think that's important IMHO...
Stevo
In reply to Si dH:
but climbing up and climbing down is not really cheating. how do you feel about doing a move from the ground fiddleing in a runner comming back down to the ground and then climbing?
What about climbing past a ledge placing gear and then climbing back down to it. This is all a grey area if you ask me and not worth worrying about.
For me leading is to be compared to soloing. When soloing I don't care how many times I go up and down as long as I get up and don't fall off.
but climbing up and climbing down is not really cheating. how do you feel about doing a move from the ground fiddleing in a runner comming back down to the ground and then climbing?
What about climbing past a ledge placing gear and then climbing back down to it. This is all a grey area if you ask me and not worth worrying about.
For me leading is to be compared to soloing. When soloing I don't care how many times I go up and down as long as I get up and don't fall off.
In reply to Si dH:
But you've onsighted the first bit already, so it's fine to come back and onsight the next bit to add to the first bit of onsight to make a full onsight. If you weight gear you fail to onsight, if you don't you defer the onsight!
But you've onsighted the first bit already, so it's fine to come back and onsight the next bit to add to the first bit of onsight to make a full onsight. If you weight gear you fail to onsight, if you don't you defer the onsight!
In reply to ellis:
I think techincally it is not an onsight, but I personally don't feel that it is a poor style of ascent. Yo yoing/red points is far worse IMHO
I think techincally it is not an onsight, but I personally don't feel that it is a poor style of ascent. Yo yoing/red points is far worse IMHO
In reply to Si dH:
What about climbing down to a rest - thats just initiative and skill not cheating!
What about climbing down to a rest - thats just initiative and skill not cheating!
In reply to Yorkspud:
If you climb up, place some gear, climb back down cleanly then go up again and complete the lcimb, all in the same attempy without weighting gear or stepping on to the ground or going off-route, then I would consider that an onsight ascent the same as any other. But if you step off the rock and then come back later (or even do it straight away agin after a quick rest) this is clearly not the same ascent and is ground-up, not onsight.
I agree its still a respectable style of ascent, alhtough I would feel a bit annoyed with myself if I have to do this.
If you climb up, place some gear, climb back down cleanly then go up again and complete the lcimb, all in the same attempy without weighting gear or stepping on to the ground or going off-route, then I would consider that an onsight ascent the same as any other. But if you step off the rock and then come back later (or even do it straight away agin after a quick rest) this is clearly not the same ascent and is ground-up, not onsight.
I agree its still a respectable style of ascent, alhtough I would feel a bit annoyed with myself if I have to do this.
In reply to Si dH:
I routinely place my first piece of gear before ropeing up, in fact sometimes how good the first bit is, makes my mind up if I'm going to do the route or not!!!
And I never worry about this. Call me careless, but I'm amazed that anyone could give a damn about this type of thing.
What's your driving like? If you go over 70 do you consider your journey invalid?
Stevo
I routinely place my first piece of gear before ropeing up, in fact sometimes how good the first bit is, makes my mind up if I'm going to do the route or not!!!
And I never worry about this. Call me careless, but I'm amazed that anyone could give a damn about this type of thing.
What's your driving like? If you go over 70 do you consider your journey invalid?
Stevo
In reply to CurlyStevo:
Sorry, I didnt mea na foot or two fr the ground, I mean once youve properly started the route.
In all honesty I dont worry myself about having repeated goe sat the first move either, but I would if I had to higher up!
I meant if you were say 10 metres up then downclimbed and came back and did it the next day.
Sorry, I didnt mea na foot or two fr the ground, I mean once youve properly started the route.
In all honesty I dont worry myself about having repeated goe sat the first move either, but I would if I had to higher up!
I meant if you were say 10 metres up then downclimbed and came back and did it the next day.
I just ask as I'm wondering which box to tick in the logbook. Never thought it would start such a debate.
IMO climbing back down, removing the gear as you go, coming back and climbing it clean on another day (albeit when you're a better climber or you own a bigger piece of pro)is quite a good style of ascent.
How about on climbs where you boulder out the first couple of moves 'just to get a feel', does that negate the onsight?
IMO climbing back down, removing the gear as you go, coming back and climbing it clean on another day (albeit when you're a better climber or you own a bigger piece of pro)is quite a good style of ascent.
How about on climbs where you boulder out the first couple of moves 'just to get a feel', does that negate the onsight?
In reply to Chris Davids: They both sound like ground-up ascents to me. Not pure onsights, but as close as you can get (as long as you don't get any beta between attempts).
Andy F
Andy F
In reply to Si dH:
Hmm - I did Traffic Jam at Stoney by climbing up to the crux , putting all the gear in and climbing back down to the ground - supposie I could have rested just as well on the easier lower bit but didn't see the point at the time!
Hmm - I did Traffic Jam at Stoney by climbing up to the crux , putting all the gear in and climbing back down to the ground - supposie I could have rested just as well on the easier lower bit but didn't see the point at the time!
In reply to Si dH:
technically if your feet leave the ground and then return you have failed the onsight. But I mean who cares!!!!
technically if your feet leave the ground and then return you have failed the onsight. But I mean who cares!!!!
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Fri Night Vid Finding Focus - Life Behind The Lens of a Climbing Photographer
This week's Friday Night Video is a portrait of a prolific climbing photographer from Wedge Climbing. Sam Pratt is well known in both the outdoor and competition scene but if you haven't heard of him, you've likely seen...
26 Apr
Loading Notifications...