UKC

"It seems that bouldering mats, and what they allow modern climbers to do, climb hard and high without pre-practice (onsight and ground up) are now an integral part of traditional climbing, as much so as heapointing."

Andy Earl repeats the highball Careless Torque....

Report in the news at UKClimbing.com.. http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:


No, just stick to "ground up" as otherwise people will get confused and think it's a flash / first attempt.

In reply to Fiend:

You mean first attempt after practice, or first attempt onsight or ground up first try, or ground up flash?

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Ground up second go is how it reads to me so not onsight

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

“After a brief warm up Percy lowered down and chalked the top grips, it was on.”

So with a good chalker upper, one does not have to work out the sequence of moves to do it onsight?

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

What?

He did it ground up. Simple.

Good effort Andy!

In reply to Fiend:

You are of course right Fiend. Ground Up is usually the correct terminolgy to describe an onsight attempt of a bouder problem.

But not lets get too tied up in an ethical debate about style, I says chuckling.

Mick

In reply to:

AFAIK Andy's ascent was ground up over several days, not onsight and not a flash.

In reply to Fiend:

Just out of interest, what is the most stylish ascent of Carless Torque so far? The first ascensionist's?

Big Up to Big Ron.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Erm, no it's not. An attempt is a failure. A ground-up (noun) is a completion with fall(s).

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Sorry Mick, not normally with fiend, but I am with this one.

Flash is the usual term to describe an 'onsight' of a bloc. The term 'onsight' doesn't have a meaning in bouldering. A ground up ascent is an ascent with falls but no toprope practise.

In reply to Anonymous:

How can we categories that...Ground Up, 19 attemps, day three?

In reply to Jon Read:

What's a ground up no falls, ground-up flash? Ground-up first try?

In reply to Anonymous: obviously you're trolling. you and all the other tedious muppets who's reaction to this achievement is to quibble over whether or not he might have seen the route before.

yawn

In reply to martin k:

Wise choice deleting your orignal post...

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Woops.....I'll get back to doing another news report and editing articles. This is just too much for my synapses to process.

In reply to martin k:

Got nothing to do with whether he's seen the route before and everything to do with falling off it a lot before the successful attempt. this isn't tediousness, it's history. The first onsight/flash of this route would be a major mile stone. As it is Andy's ascent is an awesome effort, and the second ground up ascent.

In reply to Anonymous:

Hit the nail on the head.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer: where's my original post when i need it?

out of 17 replies to the OP, only two have said anything congratulatory about this achievement. that's pathetic, wouldn't you agree?

cheerio

In reply to martin k:

Congratulations Andy. Superb achievement indeed.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: I thought you said it was high!

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Percy needs to get his sensor cleaned!


Chris

Sterling effort btw

In reply to martin


I would agree that it is important to congratulate him, that is why my original post did just that. However, I didn't see you offering any kind of congratulation.

I don't agree that it is pathetic. Style of ascent is very important. The first flash would be a stupendous achievement, the second ground up ascent is still incredibly impressive but it is important to clarify that it was not a flash. Wouldn't you agree?

I thought all boulder problems were done from the ground up. I never did one from the top downward.

In reply to savage clip:

I have, several. They were high and needing a clean. On occaision I did practice some moves, so technically a headpoint. All have been ascended ground-up first try by many. They were on granite and tuff, which often needs a clean.

Mick

In reply to Jon Read:



My following comments is not related to the OP (congrats to AE btw.) -

Surely you can have a successful 'attempt'? To try something does not imply failure.

You can try and succeed in the one 'go' - or have I, as ever, missed something in the ethical minutiae?!

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: he said when the snow clears he was going to try a new problem down there, nice one andy!

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Just when I thought nothing you do could surprise me anymore, you make an amazing school boy error. Onsighting a font 8a move indeed - 8a flash'd be a newsworthy tick in it's own right. It explains a lot.

Generally boulder problems are flashed, because you can often touch the holds from the ground I like to think, but especially as he had Percy chalk holds for him - classic example of beta if ever there was one, (though this even resembles 'abseil inspection by proxy') - the best Andy could've claimed under the circumstances was a flash anyway, but as he correctly says, it was ground up.

More power (and karma ) to The Earl.

In reply to Fraser:

you can have a successful attempt, but it'd be pointless to call it an attempt when it was the desired 'send' that you'd tell people about anyway.

In reply to Paz:


Quite. Andy Earl - well done - go to the top of the class. Mick Ryan - could do a lot better - 100 lines - 'I must not persist with sloppy news reporting'

In reply to Simon Lee:

You never give up Simon, and more power to you.

As this thread illustrates, bouldering style of ascent terminology, for the majority, is like deciphering Egyptian hieroglyphics.

This being a fluid medium and interactive we have the assembled wisdom of the climbers in the UK to set us on the right path, and thank goodness for that.

Thanks Paz.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Having said that Mick, the difference between 'ground up' and 'onsight' is pretty clear.

One is from the ground without trying the moves on a top-rope (but falling off and getting back on again)and the the other is... from the ground without trying the moves on a top-rope but without any falls.

So simple even I understand it.

Andy F

In reply to andy farnell: Aye it never fails to astonish me how even seasoned climbers don't appreciate the simplicity of the 3 (main) styles of ascent, onsight,flash,worked(redpoint etc). It's really not complex. Bet about half of UKC's drive space is full of such confusion.


cheers
Tim

In reply to andy farnell:


Simple?

Ground-up is also used to describe establishing a route from the bottom to the top, rather from the top down. It's origin and common usage I believe is from the USA to describe 'bolting on the lead' rather than 'rap-bolting'.

You could also describe this as onsight new routing.

Ground-up has now been co-opted to bouldering terminology, in this particular case, Careless Torque, to distinguish the style of ascent of a very tall bouldering problem......or is it a route? E7 7a or Font 8a/V11!

You can see where the confusion arises. At least I can.

Further, it could be almost a redundant term because....don't we all attempt boulder problems from the ground-up?

I bet Panton and co are loving this thread, all the name checks of their publishing company. Genius.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

So basically you should have put a in your news head line to avoid name checking Pantontino's crew because now you've made yourself look like a right wally.

I'm, sure bouldering terminology is well established, what with all the international climbers I've ever met who all understand it, and all those DVDs, doseage's etc. There're some on 8a.nu who think you can flash a sit start problem after climbing the stand up, but they call them selves boulderers, and I think we can work out what they really did.

The whole reason why ground up of Careless Torque is newsworthy is because all the ascents up until Rich Simpson's have pretty much been headpointed as if it was a route (I'm pretty sure they all had a look at the top on a rope).

So sadly, some of us haven't always attempted every boulder problem from the ground up. Personally I think this is because people were too greedy to leave them for other peopel to climb properly first and so cheated themselves and everyone, but it's all very well me saying that after bouncy castle esque pads and planetfear professional spotting masterclasses have been invented. This is probably why some people regard Huffy trying voyager in esteem -I don't know that he isnpected it on a rope when he was triyng it, but I know Moon did and was bit annoyed with himslef (though he is a) an Old school legend and b) an Old Man so I can't diss him). These guys might well say that back then, these boulder problems were micro routes.

It is a bit unclear with routes, as you also have the equally ambiguous terms 'yo-yo', 'gogarth style' and the oxymoronic 'onsight with falls', people even try to justify having a look on an ab rope but this isn't on for an onsight or even a flash people - it could be best practical style but you know then what you're up against. In first ascent records the best you can assume is that if they said the ascent was onsight then it was, if it was just a claim then if not a flash, it was at best a headpoint albeit often a more stylishly impressive ascent described by one of the other terms, than a multi day rehearsed hard grit pantomine ascent. This is normally obvious from the crag. After sport climbing, with bouldering the styles of ascent have never been clearer.
With trad you can't tick a route until you've got the clean lead (though we're giving seconds the benefit of the doubt to reward our belayers). Some like Macleod (and I agree) would say that the clean lead involves the physical penalty of placing the gear yourself and climbing each whole pitch. This technically invalidates all the above terms of mine, they're only there to put a gloss on tainted ascents anyway, but it may not be that important practically and noone's about to ab for their gear between falls at Gogarth. The tide would come in FFS. I believe the best style is to pull your ropes, though if you can reverse cleanly from that point then some people think you're allowed to leave them clipped. And a lot of us might well do so anyway, if we wouldn't find some other escape entirely.

So with trad it's a quagmire, but with bouldering and sport you've got two or three styles to worry about, respectively.

In reply to Paz:

I don't mind 'checking' them. Fair play for a great name. I put 'of course" in the title rather than


That's of no importance to me. The vast majority of climbers will be confused by the terminology and many not interested.


No it isn't.



Fawcett? Did Ron top rope it?



Yes sport is well established, like you say trad less so. As regards bouldering to establish a mode of reporting at UKC how does this sound. I'll avoid any mention of flash or onsight to avoid confusion with routes.

Ground-up first try: Walk up to a problem and climb it first try, no falls to the top

Ground-up multiple-tries: Eventual success after a fall/falls.

Headpoint: Top rope practice then ropeless ascent.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Those first two basic ones are just flash and send.

Though people don't like to advertise the fact that they used a rope on a boulder problem, so they probably still just call that a send/ climb/ tick.

As ascents go, The Headpoints are a sub set of The Sends.
The Ground ups are a subset of the rest of the Sends (the set difference (is this called the symmetric difference?)) of the Sends and the Headpoints). The Flashes are a sub set of the Ground ups.

Ground ups and Headpoints are therefore mutually exclusive, and of course there is a bloody great non empty grey area in between that all still counts as a send. I guess as long as you climb the problem then that's the important thing.

Running the other way, a flash is always ground up, a ground up is always a send, but a send doesn't have to be a ground up as it may instead be either a headpoint or something else which is not ground up

Pretty Sure Ron checked it out on a rope, as they say, as on UKB the first ground up ascent of Careless Torque was being touted as a big prize. Top ropes were only invented in 1997 when Hard Grit came out; two years before the bouldering mat in 1999.

Thankyou Mick, for bringing this news story to my attention.

In reply to Paz:

People are using 'send' now? Very American.


Vern Clevenger, an American climber, told me that people were 'headpointing' in Tuolumne in the 1970's.

John Gill soloed...or ground-up'd the Thimble, using a spotter, when he eventually succeeded, but he did use a rope on several boulder problems at the time, 50's and 60's. Not sure if he went on to solo these after practice. I'd have to check.

The Bleausards of Font certainly used ropes on occaision, as I'm sure some early British bouldering pioneers did even earlier.

Mick

In reply to All: Good grief.

Everyone needs to lighten up.

Instead, have a look at this picture.

http://wtw.tarka.org/images/edna.jpg

Hmmmm

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
This is one BIG can of worms you've opened!
Anyway nice one Andy I'm sure either way it wasn't easy.

In reply to just wanna climb:

You need to get off the internet and go climbing!

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:


Amen

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Some individuals are not happy unless they are nit-picking and moaning, its the way of the world!


Chris

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

It's just me using 'send' here, for the sake of argument. We British and Americans have taken part in the Slave trade, the oppression of Ireland, used child labour, denied women the vote and banned alchohol. Like top roping, just because we did it in the past doesn't make it right today.

In reply to Paz:

LOL, like the comparisons in there

Josh.

In reply to Chris Craggs:

I won't patronise you by starting a thread called 'List Everything That Makes You Happy!' and I'll assume you were referring to someone else.

In reply to freelancer_85:

On the off chance, you don't want to go to Cheddar tommorrow do you?

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

You're the moderator! We're just posters

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

Some of us are fans of climbing as well as climbers.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: All of these styles of ascent are valid if people are honest about how they do it. And climbing Careless Torque's a big acheivement but having someone else rope down and chalk holds just seems WRONG.

In reply to aln:

If only he'd have reached them himself from the jugs on Not To Be Taken Away!

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:


i would agree that this is tedious, and that the style of ascent matters to noone at all apart from the person making the ascent. you may chose to let it affect you and be significant to you, but why would you need to do that?

i love a good wind up. feel free to respond in an outraged/moralistic manner.

cheerio!