UKC

Onsight question

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Removed User 29 Jul 2011
It is widely accepted that if you downclimb a route without weighting the gear you can go back and claim the onight on another occasion, even on another day.

However, do you have to strip the gear during the descent in order for this to remain valid.

In other words, if you down climb, leave the gear and the get your mate to abb off an retrieve it, CAN YOU STILL CLAIM THE ONSIGHT at a later date?


I having trouble sleeping at the minute so prompt answers are requested...
In reply to Removed User:

This is so obvious I'm not even going to dignify it with an answer.
 Dean177 29 Jul 2011
In reply to Removed User:
If we are talking about having a go at the start, getting someone else to ge the gear out, then coming back a week later, then i would say that is not an onsight.
 Jon Read 29 Jul 2011
In reply to Removed User:
If you get up it without falling off next time, then you'd have to be pretty hard on yourself not to claim O/S. But, how often is this going to happen?
You've only backed off, cleanly. The gear is irrelevant, but abbing down it to retrieve the gear would clearly give you some advance knowledge of the route. Probably.
 Mark Bull 29 Jul 2011
In reply to Removed User:

Don't get hung up about the O word: it's so ill defined. You should be happy to have done the route in a decent style.
In reply to victim of mathematics:
> (In reply to Hardonicus)
>
> This is so obvious I'm not even going to dignify it with an answer.

Errr....I don't want to state the obvious but.....
 sammycolon 29 Jul 2011
In reply to Removed User:

Depends if you read the guide book first, then its only a delayed flash.

If you back down without falling, this can be termed an unsight.
 y2keable 29 Jul 2011
In reply to Removed User:

I can't believe you're actually losing sleep over this
Rat know-all 29 Jul 2011
In reply to Removed User:
Yes, but make it pretty quick before your gut gets in the way...
Removed User 29 Jul 2011
In reply to Rat know-all:

Interestingly my top grade has remained constant regardless of my beer and pie intake. This leads me to the conclusion that if I drop 2 stone I will suddenly attain the lofty heights of at least E4...
 Jonny2vests 29 Jul 2011
In reply to Dean177:
> (In reply to Hardonicus)
> If we are talking about having a go at the start, getting someone else to ge the gear out, then coming back a week later, then i would say that is not an onsight.

Then I would say why not? No 'naughty' information has been gained, and he hasn't weighted the gear. Its not something that would trouble me mind, I just find it interesting that you would deny him.
 Rich Guest 29 Jul 2011
In reply to Removed User:
> It is widely accepted that if you downclimb a route without weighting the gear you can go back and claim the onight on another occasion, even on another day.
>
> However, do you have to strip the gear during the descent in order for this to remain valid.
>
> In other words, if you down climb, leave the gear and the get your mate to abb off an retrieve it, CAN YOU STILL CLAIM THE ONSIGHT at a later date?
>

I met a guy who pointed out to me that it does INVALIDATE the Onsight ascent if you don't remove the gear whilst downclimbing, as it effectively means that you've retreated under the artificially safe conditions of a top-rope.

I just thought he was a fanatic, egotistical, style obsessed, grade chasing number monkey and proceeded to outclimb him with a strict clean onsight ethic, all day long, by two full grades to highlight what a tit he was...

... that showed him!!

 George Fisher 29 Jul 2011
In reply to Removed User:

I think it's called an oversight.

or something
 halo 30 Jul 2011
In reply to Removed User:
> It is widely accepted that if you downclimb a route without weighting the gear you can go back and claim the onight on another occasion, even on another day.
>
> However, do you have to strip the gear during the descent in order for this to remain valid.
>
> In other words, if you down climb, leave the gear and the get your mate to abb off an retrieve it, CAN YOU STILL CLAIM THE ONSIGHT at a later date?
>
>
> I having trouble sleeping at the minute so prompt answers are requested...

Which route are we talking about on question?
 birdie num num 30 Jul 2011
In reply to Removed User:
No, You have blown the onsight I'm afraid. Select yourself another project elsewhere.
Rat know-all 30 Jul 2011
In reply to halo:
> (In reply to Hardonicus)
> [...]
>
> Which route are we talking about on question?

Flying Buttress (Stanage)
 FreshSlate 30 Jul 2011
In reply to Removed User: Blown the onsight. There's 1000's more routes to get your onsights =)
 ray 30 Jul 2011
In reply to Removed User: with so many people having differing ideas about this, maybe you could just go and climb the route and enjoy the thing for what it is without worrying about the opinions of people who you don't know, and who can't agree anyway.
you yourself know how you climbed the route, it doesn't matter if those particular conditions don't fit imaginary pigeon holes.
 Bobhart85 30 Jul 2011
In reply to victim of mathematics:
> (In reply to Hardonicus)
>
> This is so obvious I'm not even going to dignify it with an answer.
But yet you took the time to write this cocky knowitall line instead of just answering - man some people on here are just pathetic
 standard 30 Jul 2011
Last time the leading ladder was at my local, there was a chap adopting this tactic. He claimed the route as his first go, as his first three attempts included a down climb to the floor.
 halo 31 Jul 2011
In reply to Rat know-all: A well known route, think if I was going to climb it then just do it. A much more memorable experience.
 Dave Ing 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Removed User:
Surely the consistency / accepted ethics of whether it's onsight or not is only really relevant at the top end of the grade scale or where few other people have managed a particular route because in those cases it is useful information about how straightforward it is to work out the route's moves.

In this case I wouldn't claim it as onsight, but so what? Why should you listen to me?
Removed User 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Removed User: Ok peeps,

This was a) not Heaven Crack b) Hypothetical

Obviously my own ascents are so pure that God let's me know directly whether my onsight was valid...
 CurlyStevo 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Removed User:
I think we all make our own rules here. For instance placing a high first runner before clipping it abn down climbing to the ground is considered fine by most. But I think most would agree much more than this is not an onsight. I think the best you can claim is groundup with no falls. Personally I'd still count it as a pretty good lead but does it matter? Not like you are resting on the gear and ticking the route like some people I've met.
 Dean177 01 Aug 2011
In reply to jonny2vests:
Id say no because the information that has been gained is: How to do the start and where the first few bits of gear go and what that gear needs to be. This would mean on the next attempt, you know exactly what you need, and where and how to put it, which i think gives you a bit of an advantage from when you are just looking from the bottom.

I really wouldn't lose any sleep if it was claimed as an on sight if he climbed it the next time, i was just offering what i thought based on what has been said.

I hope the thread starter isn't that hung up about this either, as it really isn't that important
 Bulls Crack 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Removed User:

Not a question that's ever bothererd me I have to say! You down-climbed it end of
dan 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Removed User: IMOP onsite = turn up, chalk up, climb up, thats why its called on(first)site.
None of this having a go,cant do it so climb down, really if you have climbed part of it it is not an onsite.
 Robert Durran 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Removed User:

If you had left the gear (and rope) in place, it would certainly have still been onsight (assuming no gear was weighted). The fact that your partner has stripped the gear and you have to replace next time actually makes it harder, so it is definitely still onsight. If you had abbed for the gear yourself and gained knowledge of the upper part of the route, it would have been decidedly dodgy.
 CurlyStevo 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:
actually that isn't the generally accepted definition of an onsight, down climbing to a ledge is fine but the ground is not!
 Robert Durran 01 Aug 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> actually that isn't the generally accepted definition of an onsight, down climbing to a ledge is fine but the ground is not!

You are wrong.

 CurlyStevo 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:
your arguing style is deficient and factually incorrect!
 CurlyStevo 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:
for example try using these defintions I googled
"On-sight climbing means to attempt a rock climbing route for the first time without inspection or any form of "beta" (such as route description, watching others climb it, etc.)."

"a clean ascent with no falls, first try, with no prior knowledge of the route. "

how can coming back to the ground and having another go from the bottom be defined as first try with no prior knowledge, it simply is not.

Or try this web page
http://www.8a.nu/?IncPage=http%3A//www.8a.nu/articles/ShowArticle.aspx%3FAr...

"As for an onsight, you can't down-climb and save it. "

etc etc etc

You can kid your self about what the term 'on sight' means but it is supposed to be a pure definition of turning up and climbing a route from bottom to top with no prior knowledge, how can returning to the ground from part way up be counted as this!

Personally I won't be loosing any sleep either way!
 Robert Durran 01 Aug 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> your arguing style is deficient and factually incorrect!

Even if you were right (which you're not), your definition would be hopelessly open to interpretation - would down-climbing to a large ledge one foot off the ground be ok? My (correct) definition is clear cut and unambiguous; no gear weighted equals onsight. The issue of prior knowledge (from other people, books etc.) is, of course somewhat thornier.

 CurlyStevo 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:
The definition I am using is not my defintion it is the globally accepted defintion of the term 'on sight'. You can't take a definition that has a sepcific globally accepted meaning in climbing rename it your definition and then claim you are right about the globally accepted definition!

It is meant to descibe the purist type of ascent, from bottom to top with no prior knowldeg in one push. How can down climbing to the ground be as pure as doing the climbing one push clean?

As for your rather pedantic boulder example you can only be honest to your self regarding this.
 Robert Durran 01 Aug 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> "a clean ascent with no falls, first try, with no prior knowledge of the route. "
>
> how can coming back to the ground and having another go from the bottom be defined as first try with no prior knowledge, it simply is not.

I disagree - a try ends when gear is weighted.

> "As for an onsight, you can't down-climb and save it. "

I simply don't believe this is the mainsteam view. In the rockfax sport climbing book, downclimbing to preserve the onsight is specifically discussed as a good tactic. In the Onsight DVD, Pete Robins points out that downclimbing (on Master's Edge) does preserve the onsight.
 CurlyStevo 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:
"downclimbing to preserve the onsight is specifically discussed as a good tactic."

downclimbing is a great tactic - just not to the ground, simples!
 Robert Durran 01 Aug 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> The definition I am using is not my defintion it is the globally accepted defintion of the term 'on sight'.

The point is that I simply disagree that your definition is globally accepted.

> As for your rather pedantic boulder example you can only be honest to your self regarding this.

I was taking your definition to its logical conclusion to show that it is ill-defined and therefore hoipeless as a useful definition.

 Robert Durran 01 Aug 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> downclimbing is a great tactic - just not to the ground, simples!

No. Down-climbing to the ground is a standard and great tactic. We are clearly not going to agree on this......



 Justin T 01 Aug 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo:

> The definition I am using is not my defintion it is the globally accepted defintion of the term 'on sight'.

You are wrong. The term "onsight" is agreed by the climbing community to include allowing you to downclimb as much as you like, to the ground if necessary / possible, provided you don't weight any gear. That is a vital tactic on many routes and becomes more and more useful as technical grade increases and your chance of working out the right way to do a move first time diminishes.
 CurlyStevo 01 Aug 2011
In reply to quadmyre:
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?

 Rich Guest 01 Aug 2011
In reply to quadmyre:

I'm with you and Robert on this!
 Robert Durran 01 Aug 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo:
> (In reply to quadmyre)
> 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?

It is not as pure, but that is not the point; it is still onsight if no gear is weighted. I certainly get more satisfaction from onsighting a climb with no down-climbing (to the ground or a rest), but I would always down-climb if I thought it would save the onsight.

 CurlyStevo 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to CurlyStevo)
> [...]
>
> It is not as pure, but that is not the point; it is still onsight if no gear is weighted. I certainly get more satisfaction from onsighting a climb with no down-climbing (to the ground or a rest), but I would always down-climb if I thought it would save the onsight.

so there are two types of onsight then?

The pure onsight and the less pure onsight? Come on this is rediculous there is only one type of proper on sight and I think deep down you know it!
 Robert Durran 01 Aug 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)

> so there are two types of onsight then?
> The pure onsight and the less pure onsight?

Yes, if you want to put it like that, I suppose there are. I don't see the problem. You don't seem to have a problem with down-climbing to a rest and still preserving the onsight; that too is less pure than climbing continuously upwards.
 Rich Guest 01 Aug 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo:


In a court of law, your case would but picked apart faster than a pigeon carcass on bird banned ledge!!

 CurlyStevo 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:
Is it really? For example in sport climbing comps you can down climb as much as you like just not to the ground. Also if you can't climb back to the ground you can't walk away and do the climb over a period of months / years and still claim the 'less pure onsight'.

If you were properly on sight climbing a piece of rock (either putting up a new route or climbing an unworn route with no guidebook) climbing up and down ON THE ROUTE would be part of it as you investigate the easiest / best way to go. Climbing back down and going home for tea is not part of the climbing IMO!

 CurlyStevo 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Cragrat Rich:
Seems to me you have bent the definition of on sight to suit your self, how can down climbing the route from different points over a period of months / years and then eventually getting it in one push be counted as climbing a route first try with no prior knowledge!

What about a boulder problem is it really any different jumping off, to falling off to down climbing when claiming an onsight????
 Rich Guest 01 Aug 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)

> Climbing back down and going home for tea is not part of the climbing IMO!

In your particularly murky world of thinking.... Would it depend what you had for tea??
 CurlyStevo 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Cragrat Rich:
you seem a little confused to me why would would I had for tea have anything to do with it, its not what you eat but where you eat it.

Please write succinctly as you are capable of your defintion of onsight if it's so clear to you. Then think if it would apply to all types of climbing or just your rather warped version of UK trad!
 Robert Durran 01 Aug 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> Is it really? For example in sport climbing comps you can down climb as much as you like just not to the ground.

Presumably because, if returning to the ground was allowed, the competition would take too long!

> Also if you can't climb back to the ground you can't walk away and do the climb over a period of months / years and still claim the 'less pure onsight'.

True. I'm not sure what your point is.
>
> If you were properly on sight climbing a piece of rock (either putting up a new route or climbing an unworn route with no guidebook) climbing up and down ON THE ROUTE would be part of it as you investigate the easiest / best way to go. Climbing back down and going home for tea is not part of the climbing IMO!

Your only problem is that your opinion is wrong (in that you do not share the consensus view).

 CurlyStevo 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:
OK my view is that it ok to tick the route after climbing back to the ground if you pull the rope and you can claim the UK trad grade if you didn't fall off. However I wouldn't say strictly that you onsighted the climb and I think if you started telling trad and sports climbers and boulders throughout the world you'd onsighted a climb when actually you'd done it over a period of years climbing up and down the route with no falls they'd laugh at you!
 Justin T 01 Aug 2011
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.
dan 01 Aug 2011
On Friday I flashed an E7 6c,(I really did) I did have a top rope on but it was slack so really I could have lead it, does that count... no, it doesnt...
on site is on site none of this looking, climbing down bull.
 CurlyStevo 01 Aug 2011
In reply to quadmyre:
please point me at the literature which has settled these arguments I am genuinely interested.

In any case I very much doubt they have been settled globally (a quick google confirms this) perhaps in some part(s) of the UK.

 Robert Durran 01 Aug 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> OK my view is that it ok to tick the route after climbing back to the ground if you pull the rope and you can claim the UK trad grade if you didn't fall off.

So a "tick" ascent is a new valid form of ascent you have invented for what (almost) everyone else would call an onsight with down-climbing (it is, of course, not necessary to pull the rope to preserve the onsight). I think you are struggling a bit with your case now......

> However I wouldn't say strictly that you onsighted the climb.

And you would be wrong.

 Rich Guest 01 Aug 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo:
> (In reply to Cragrat Rich)
> Seems to me you have bent the definition of on sight to suit your self

You're barking up the wrong tree here mate.
My conscience is extremely clear on the issue... If there is no 'history of failure' then I've climbed the route Onsight.

Cut and dried, pure and simple!

History of failure = Falling/Resting on gear

History of failure does not = Downward movement/be it to ground or a rest (since there's no difference)

What you are attempting to distinguish between would best be described as an Onsight and an Onsight Competition Rules Flash.... But I wouldn't want to over-complicate things at this point.



 CurlyStevo 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:
If you didn't pull the rope the next time you climb it, it's not lead for part of it (perhaps you will not actually need to clip anything), I think that is really stretching the term leading.

Using your defintion of lead after you tried the route once and failed down climbing, the next time at the crag is it ok to let you mate put all them same gear in for you and clip the rope in and then you just climb up to your last high point?
 Robert Durran 01 Aug 2011
In reply to quadmyre:
> 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.

I would have thought a "flash" is generally better style than "ground-up". But then I wouldn't tick a route I had done ground up - call me old-fashioned, but once I have weighted gear, it is a "fail" for me!
 CurlyStevo 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Cragrat Rich:
I kind of agree with you I just don't think that repeatedly trying the moves up and down will then eventually be an onsight lead.
 CurlyStevo 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:

BTW neither of your definitions agrees with the glossary on UKC

"ONSIGHT. To climb a route free with no beta, without falls, without prior inspection, from bottom to top. The "purest" way to do a route. (The ultra-pure onsight is done nude, possibly at night.) [Adam Palmer.] Any route which is led first time, with no falls. To be a true onsight the climber must not have seen anyone else perform the moves. [Wil Treasure]"

I will let you argue it out with them
 Rich Guest 01 Aug 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo:

Well... I kind of agree with you, but distinguishing between someone failing Onsight and retreating to save the Onsight opportunity (regardless of whether it's to a ledge for a piss or back home for Spagetti Hoops on toast) is... Shall we say 'dodgy territory'

and leave it at that!
 Robert Durran 01 Aug 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> If you didn't pull the rope the next time you climb it, it's not lead for part of it.

You could say the same thing about down-climbing to a rest. The point is that you have already done the "leading" bit.

> Using your defintion of lead after you tried the route once and failed down climbing, the next time at the crag is it ok to let you mate put all them same gear in for you and clip the rope in and then you just climb up to your last high point?

Given that I would have no qualms about leaving my gear and rope in situ while I took a 10 minute rest/had my tea/got a night's sleep/went away for a couple of months and got stronger and fitter if I didn't think it would get nicked, then I suppose, strictly speaking, this would be ok. In practice, hoiwever, I have always done it myself.
 CurlyStevo 01 Aug 2011
In reply to quadmyre:
you don't seem to have been able to find any literature to back up your claim of these arguments being settled I will further point you to the glossary on UKC under the CHEATING and BETA items both of which suggest your onsight in invalidated once you have downclimbed to the ground / retreated!

BETA. Knowledge of trick moves or protection or just about anything about a route available before you start. Initially from the US, possibly from "Betamax" (early videotape format). If you get the beta on a route, you shouldn't encounter any nasty surprises. However, knowing the beta also negates the ideal onsight. Some purists argue that even route descriptions in guidebooks constitute beta, though this makes it hard to know how you could knowingly climb the route.

CHEATING. In a "sport" which has no rules, and where death is always a distinct possibility, it's hard to say that cheating as such exists while on a route. Pulling on protection, falling off, escaping to another, easier route or simply retreating can all be wise in the event. These only become "cheating" if you deny them afterwards and inflate your claims, perhaps saying you flashed a route when in fact you fell, or rested on the gear. Even this can be irrelevant ... nobody cares if you made it up that HVS cleanly except, apparently, you ... unless such claims could endanger others. Honesty is thus highly prized among climbers, and the suggestion that someone did not climb a route cleanly or never reached the top is a great insult. With no rules, climbing relies on a web of ethics; without trust, the enjoyment goes. OK?

 CurlyStevo 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Cragrat Rich:
> (In reply to CurlyStevo)
>
> Well... I kind of agree with you, but distinguishing between someone failing Onsight and retreating to save the Onsight opportunity (regardless of whether it's to a ledge for a piss or back home for Spagetti Hoops on toast) is... Shall we say 'dodgy territory'
>
> and leave it at that!

See above post regarding CHEATING and RETREATING.

I think my work is done here, if you believe the UKC glossary is incorrect I'll let you all take up your issues with them
 Robert Durran 01 Aug 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> BTW neither of your definitions agrees with the glossary on UKC
>
> "ONSIGHT. To climb a route free with no beta, without falls, without prior inspection, from bottom to top. The "purest" way to do a route."

The only bit we are debating there is "from bottom to top"; well I have certainly done this even if I down-climb to the ground. You can't,under this definition allow down-climbing to a rest, but not to the ground. You are trying to have have it both ways; this is the source of your muddled thinking.
 CurlyStevo 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:
nope I believe I have put up a good case involving far more than one point if you have failed to grasp this I really don't believe I can help you further.

I really don't feel I need to write anything else all the necessary information is very clearly laid out in the UKC glossary. I also feel most people would not agree with your definition of the term lead but we'll leave that for another time
 Rich Guest 01 Aug 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo:


Before you go can you clear up the issue of what the difference is between :

A) Retreating to a ledge for a rest (potentially on which a shelter could be constructed and hunting animals could take place)
B) Going home

... In terms of whether Onsight failure has occurred!

 Robert Durran 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Cragrat Rich:
> (In reply to CurlyStevo)
>
>
> Before you go can you clear up the issue of what the difference is between :
>
> A) Retreating to a ledge for a rest (potentially on which a shelter could be constructed and hunting animals could take place)
> B) Going home
>
> ... In terms of whether Onsight failure has occurred!

Yes, this is the nub of the issue and CurlyStevo appears to be ducking it.

 Blue Straggler 01 Aug 2011
Is every poster on this thread (apart from the OP and I) actually the same person, having a bit of a laugh?
In reply to Blue Straggler:

It's a very long-winded and feeble joke, if so
 Jack_F 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Removed User: I love it how everyone is over obsessed with what everything is and isn't.. I myself fall into the same trap but at the end of the day isn't climbing about your own ethics and the way YOU feel?? And whether you've had a good time out??
 Robert Durran 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Blue Straggler:
> Is every poster on this thread (apart from the OP and I) actually the same person, having a bit of a laugh?

No, we are different people having an interesting and, in its context, serious discusssion.

 Rich Guest 01 Aug 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo:

I think CurlyStevo has probably spent hours of uncomfortable faffing and contorted belligerent stubbornness in refusing to return to the ground for a rest when attempting onsight ascents, and this is the driving force behind his utter disregard for the majority and widely accepted view that this is in-fact good and even commendable trad Onsight strategy!

Respect dude... But I won't be towing the line of that one man speedboat you're fleeing this debate on!!
 Bulls Crack 01 Aug 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> "downclimbing to preserve the onsight is specifically discussed as a good tactic."
>
> downclimbing is a great tactic - just not to the ground, simples!


if you can downclimb to a hands - off rest I can't see that it matters.
The ground is just a big ledge!
 CurlyStevo 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Bulls Crack:
As I said I'd happily tick the route and claim the grade after climbing up and downclimbing. However if the runners weren't reachable from the ground I'd pull the rope. However I wouldn't say I had onsighted it and the UKC glossary agrees.

"ONSIGHT. To climb a route free with no beta, without falls, without prior inspection, from bottom to top. The "purest" way to do a route. (The ultra-pure onsight is done nude, possibly at night.) [Adam Palmer.] Any route which is led first time, with no falls. To be a true onsight the climber must not have seen anyone else perform the moves. [Wil Treasure]"

How can you come back to the ground and then climb it from the bottom to the top and claim the onsight but say you have not had prior inspection and that you have done it first time!
 Robert Durran 01 Aug 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo:
> (In reply to Bulls Crack)
> As I said I'd happily tick the route and claim the grade after climbing up and downclimbing. However if the runners weren't reachable from the ground I'd pull the rope.

No need to do that!

> However I wouldn't say I had onsighted it and the UKC glossary agrees.

No it doesn't:
> "ONSIGHT. To climb a route free with no beta, without falls, without prior inspection, from bottom to top.

> How can you come back to the ground and then climb it from the bottom to the top and claim the onsight but say you have not had prior inspection and that you have done it first time!

Because you have not weighted any gear, so it is still "first time". As long as the inspection is done without weighting gear, it is not considered "prior" and the onsight has not been blown. Grey areas start to appear if you were to climb a neighbouring route to inspect it, but that is a separate issue!

 Chris the Tall 01 Aug 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo:
There is no internationally accepted definition of ONSIGHT, because there is no internationally accepted governing body for climbing. Long may that continue.

There is such a body for competition climbing, and the onsight definition you use is specific to comps. Yes 8a.nu may use it, but very few people care what they think, since most people regard their attempt to quantify climbing as faintly ridiculous.

The guiding principle for the rest of us is that onsight consists of not gaining knowledge by any means other than climbing the route ourselves, and obviously not by weighting the gear.

But the great thing about climbing is that you can have your definition of onsight, I can have mine, and everyone else can have a myriad of others
 CurlyStevo 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:
I guess you have also managed to redefine the terms retreating and cheating from the UKC glossary also then?
 CurlyStevo 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Chris the Tall:
whilst I think we agree on the same rules we can use to claim a route, I don't think the degenerate case of these rules is a pure onsight (given that reading a guide book is OK and probably even stretching to seeing someone else climbing it!)

I think saying you onsighted a route that you have already had an attempt and retreat to ground level from downclimbing is an incredibally UK tradcentric defintion.
 Robert Durran 01 Aug 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> I guess you have also managed to redefine the terms retreating and cheating from the UKC glossary also then?

No I havn't.
However, I do happen to think the UKC onsight definition is rather vague, which explains why you are succeeding in convincing yourself that it does not allow down-climbing to the ground. You will no doubt say that I have similarly convinced myself of the opposite. I am afraid the difference is that I am right and you are wrong!

Maybe you should contact UKC and ask for a clarification since you clearly need one.
 Robert Durran 01 Aug 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo:
> (In reply to Chris the Tall)
> I think saying you onsighted a route that you have already had an attempt and retreat to ground level from downclimbing is an incredibally UK tradcentric defintion.

Well, we are talking about UK trad here! And as has been pointed out, no one really takes 8a.nu attempt at ownership of world climbing seriously (especially when they have such a poor understanding of trad in general).

We could all agree (but certainly don't) that down-climbing to the ground blows the onsight, but, as myself and Cragrat Rich have pointed out, this leads to ambiguity and absurdity. The prior-knowledge side of the onsight definition is so open to interpretation, it would be crazy to introduce further ambiguity about down-climbing.

In the end we need as uncontrived a definition as possible and I think we have this - things like insisting on pulling the rope you have put there without weighting gear or climbing down and resting six inches off the ground are very contrived.

 Nj 01 Aug 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo:
Sorry Curly Steve but you are wrong here.

I don't know where any description is written or set in stone or whatever but you do NOT ruin the onsight by down climbing.

You can have as many goes as you want as long as you don't weight the gear.

This isn't UK tradcentric by any stretch, it applies to sports climbing the world over as well.
 Budge 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Removed User:
> It is widely accepted that if you downclimb a route without weighting the gear you can go back and claim the onight on another occasion, even on another day.

We have always called this Preserving your Flash after a particularly vocal climber did this after spending 3 hours on the Butcher and announced at the the bottom "Ive Preserved My Flash"

 Charlie_Zero 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:

So if you climb a route, discover that the crux move needs a size 3 cam to protect it (which you haven't got), downclimb, borrow the cam from a mate, and then climb and complete the route - it's an onsight!

However, if your mate told you that you would need a size 3 cam for that crack before you started, you'd have blown the onsight (prior beta).

Also, how many false starts would be allowed for an onsight, if the first couple of moves are tricky? Can you step (or jump) down to the ground once or many times if you start the wrong way?

Tongue in cheek questions I know, but it seems that there is no single accepted definition of onsight. Makes interpreting peoples' achievements a bit difficult. Perhaps when there are major climbing news items involving onsights, more details should be provided about what method has been used.
 Chris the Tall 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Charlie_Zero:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> So if you climb a route, discover that the crux move needs a size 3 cam to protect it (which you haven't got), downclimb, borrow the cam from a mate, and then climb and complete the route - it's an onsight!

Correct (IMO)

> However, if your mate told you that you would need a size 3 cam for that crack before you started, you'd have blown the onsight (prior beta).

Correct (IMO)

> Also, how many false starts would be allowed for an onsight, if the first couple of moves are tricky? Can you step (or jump) down to the ground once or many times if you start the wrong way?

As many as you like (IMO)

> Tongue in cheek questions I know, but it seems that there is no single accepted definition of onsight.

Correct

>Makes interpreting peoples' achievements a bit difficult. Perhaps when there are major climbing news items involving onsights, more details should be provided about what method has been used.

Correct, correct

Onsight is not black and white, you should think of it more of a sliding scale, and just do what you think is pratical. Getting a mate to ab for you gear so that you can later claim an onsight is ridiculous, but so is saying to a mate "Nah, you can't claim an onsight, you did this"
 Bulls Crack 01 Aug 2011
In reply to CurlyStevo:

But your arguments could apply to any reversed move to a less 'stressfull' situation!
 Dan Arkle 01 Aug 2011
I am tending to agree with Robert Durran.

We are talking (in general) about UK trad here, competition rules and the 8a.nu definition are not the whole story. The UKC glossary offers no clear opinion on this and to argue what the wording means is futile.

We want to know what top UK trad climbers think -here is some evidence.

1. Neil Gresham - Downclimbing allowed "I can’t stress enough that the intention is not so much to present my view, but the views of thousands of influential climbers that I have interacted with over the years" http://www.climber.co.uk/categories/articleitem.asp?cate=1&topic=6&...

2. Onsight-the film. James McHaffie iirc says of course you can downclimb to the ground, and nobody in the film seems to think any differently.

Find me a top UK trad climber who thinks otherwise...
 George Fisher 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Removed User:

If you can read a whole guidebook description of a route without stopping or getting distracted by the pictures, can you claim an onsite for the beta but then not the onsite because you had the beta?

What if you drive a Lancia Beta, does that blow all your onsites?

I'm confused
 Rich Guest 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Gfunk:

Don't be a nob.... This is serious!
 Robert Durran 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Charlie_Zero:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> So if you climb a route, discover that the crux move needs a size 3 cam to protect it (which you haven't got), downclimb, borrow the cam from a mate, and then climb and complete the route - it's an onsight!

Yes, of course.

> However, if your mate told you that you would need a size 3 cam for that crack before you started, you'd have blown the onsight (prior beta).

Arguably debatable. No one is saying there are not grey areas concerning prior knowledge (I can think of plenty of cases where a guidebook mentions specific gear). However, down-climbing and weighting gear, which is what this discussion is about, are clear cut and not a grey area.

> Also, how many false starts would be allowed for an onsight, if the first couple of moves are tricky? Can you step (or jump) down to the ground once or many times if you start the wrong way?

As many as you like. Any other rule whould be completely contrived.
 Robert Durran 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Cragrat Rich:
> (In reply to Gfunk)
>
> Don't be a nob.... This is serious!

Yes, stop lowering the tone. This is a crucial and important issue.

 aln 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Jayson Keable:
> (In reply to Hardonicus)
>
> I can't believe you're actually losing sleep over this

I can't believe you actually think he is.

 aln 01 Aug 2011
In reply to standard:
> Last time the leading ladder was at my local, there was a chap adopting this tactic.

Use of a ladder is definitely cheating.
 George Fisher 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Cragrat Rich:

Oh yes sorry serious... I think I would allow down climbing all the way to the ground in 'my' definition of onsite. Would I insist on stripping gear or pulling rope, no, that's just work.

I suppose it's a less pure onsite but I'm not really fussed about how pure my climbing might be. (I pretty much always read route descriptions anyway).

I can hardly remember the question.


 Rich Guest 01 Aug 2011
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to Charlie_Zero)
> [...]
>
>
> Arguably debatable. No one is saying there are not grey areas concerning prior knowledge (I can think of plenty of cases where a guidebook mentions specific gear).

The biggest grey area in climbing style is at what point does an Onsight become a Beta Flash.

Overhearing a loudmouth who refuses to stop telling you all there is to know about the route (having done it), usually because they have a whopping ego problem, is sometimes simply unavoidable...

as is having to watch someone a bit whilst belaying them on a potential lead, for eg.

But once you're getting involved with standing under a route watching a procession of leaders perform crux moves, asking for gear/rest/tactics info or freezeframing video footage... you've clearly crossed the line.

ie. There is no reason in this day and age, why a person should be unable to determine whether they were Onsight or not, but the amount of beta (from guidebook upwards) is a matter for personal conscience and cannot be at all defined or regulated.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...