In reply to CurlyStevo:
> Is it really? For example in sport climbing comps you can down climb as much as you like just not to the ground.
Which is obviously a rule to make sport climbing comps work better. Doesn't have any reflection on the discussion we're having on onsight ethics.
> Onsight is meant to descibe the purist type of ascent, from bottom to top with no prior knowledge in one push. How can down climbing to the ground numerous times perhaps over a period of weeks/months/years gaining knowledge of the route and getting stronger at the moves be as pure as doing the climbing one push clean?
Whether or not each style is as pure as the other is irrelevant to the discussion, we're not arguing purity we're arguing the definition of "onsight" which, downclimb or no downclimb, is still the purest defined style of roped climbing.
> so there are two types of onsight then? The pure onsight and the less pure onsight?
No. There is only "onsight". If you feel better about climbing with your own rules that's fine, but arguments over the definition of the term "onsight" were all settled a couple of decades ago now.
The two points I think that define "onsight", if you want an alternate definition, is that all beta is gained yourself on the sharp end, and no gear weighted. That differs from the next best ethic, "ground up", where all beta is gained yourself on the sharp end but falls are taken. Then "flash" where you have external beta on how to do the moves or where the gear is but no falls on your attempt, then "redpoint / headpoint" where you have a full-on practice.
All these styles have degrees within them - a ground-up attempt with one fall is obviously more impressive than a multi-day seige. And likewise a redpoint after one session working the crux is more impressive than a redpoint after a month of sustained effort.