UKC

I've seen a number of climbing vids recently showing top climbers redpointing routes with the first bolt or two ostensibly pre-clipped. What the videos leave out is the fact that the climber has climbed up clipped the first bolt or two then climbed back down to the ground. To leave this out is understandable as it hardly makes for riveting viewing and its not the job of the video to teach the rules of sport climbing.

However at the crags there seems to be an increasing number of people who now lead routes with bolts pre-clipped (with a clip stick) having never climbed up from the ground to clip the bolts in the first place. They're obviously under the illusion that they're redpointing the route but they're not. A redpoint means climbing up and clipping every piece from the ground - though you can downclimb at any time and leave gear above you clipped in. If you climb a route with pre-clipped runners then that is better described as a top rope ascent (even if you lead the upper part of the route).

I'm not blaming anyone here. I can see how this misunderstanding has come about. Even at a crag it may appear that good climbers are climbing with bolts pre-clipped. That's because usually once a climber has climbed up clipped the bolts and downclimbed they will leave the rope in place for all of their subsequent redpoint attempts that day.

For inexperienced climbers confusion on this issue is understandable. Maybe those of us with more experience need to highlight this whenever the chance arises.

In reply to stp:
There are occasions when having the first bolt pre-clipped, even though the climber has not climbed up and clipped it personally, is useful if the first bolt is a bit high with a bad landing and a slip could result in injury.

Obviously, doing that is not as ethically sound as climbing up and clipping it personally. However, I would not cast aspersions on anyone doing that and have done it myself many times. Clearly, if someone does the route in a more ethical way / better style, as you describe, that is a better ascent and I would always take my hat off to the bolder, better climber than myself.

In reply to stp:

Are you specifically thinking about the recent Mecca videos?

I've pre clipped the first bolt before when its likely that I'll deck it from the first moves but never more than that.

In reply to stp:

I think it's more a case of you misunderstanding a person's motives for pre-clipping the first bolt. I quite often do so. The reason being that I go sport climbing to enjoy myself climbing at my limit with minimum risk of injury. For lots of people a sprained or broken ankle is a serious business because it stops you working and earning -- not everyone has a cosey sit-on-yer-arse job with sick pay. Obviously not pre-clipping the first bolt is preferred, and maybe if I was 18 again with no responsibilities I'd be doing just that.

In reply to stp:

You´re kidding right? At the home of the redpoint (the Frankenjura) it´s standard practice to place the first bolt high and pre-clip it, it saves on bolts.

In reply to stp:


I find it impossible not to read that in my Mr Cholmondley-Warner voice

In reply to stp:

There is no problem whatsoever with preclipping the first, and in some cases second bolt if falling from the latter will result in a ground fall.

Obviously it's "purer" not to clip preclip, but I'm not going to break my ankles because you think differently.

In reply to stp:


I disagree. Pre-clipping high/dodgy first clips is normal practice and in my personal opinion perfectly acceptable as part of a redpoint. In your personal opinion not, which is fine, but I'm not clear why you seem to think your personal opinion on climbing style is some kind of objective/definitive Truth.

In reply to stp:

Never heard this.

This is toproping: https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150258939443984

But I think Ondra states that the first clip if preclipped for safety reasons or poor bolting is perfectly acceptable.

In reply to FreshSlate:

Did dave not climb the 'first' route then down climb all the way before battering back up?

In reply to Stevie989:
No idea. Doesn't really matter, the ascent of the second route he only has to clip one quickdraw and then the chain pretty much, saving considerable energy. The video depicts mainly top roping, how the rope gets there is besides the point in sporting climbing surely?

In reply to stp:

Thanks for clarification of THE RULES. Id forgotten how silly it was to try and dictate how people climb, now my memory is fully refreshed.

In reply to stp:

Who cares it's sport climbing - it's ethically sullied anyway.

In reply to stp:

10/10 - good troll. Would read again.

In reply to stp:

What about Hubble Steve?

In reply to stp:

I don't see how this is even related to redpointing. Surely you can do this with just as much justification on an onsight attempt.

In reply to stp:

What everyone else said. It is completely legit in redpointing to have the first or even second bolt pre-clipped with a clipstick to avoid risking a ground fall. I'm not blaming anyone here. I can see how this misunderstanding has come about. For inexperienced climbers confusion on this issue is understandable. Maybe those of us with more experience need to highlight this whenever the chance arises.

In reply to stp:

<facetious> If the route is short enough that clipping a bolt <5m up makes a big difference, then it is an oversized boulder problem :P </facetious>

In reply to stp: enquiry

Interesting post Steve.

You're a braver man than me. Plenty of replies of the "I only climb for fun, not ethical enquiry" nature.

Where does our "fun" come from? Wouldn't it be more fun, simply to attach a rope to the top of the crag and swing on it - like we used to when Basher's rope was in-situ down Mecca (or was it Leachy on the extension, I can't remember)?

I suppose the question concerns what challenge or test you're setting yourself, and whether you're bothered about claiming a valid ascent.

Isn't that the question we're starting to forget, beneath it all, what is a valid ascent? Is it really a valid question though, when we delve deeper?

Perhaps we're all just trying to get "closer" (interpret as you wish), and in so doing, are often willing to suspend the scrutiny required to ensure we don't try to equate things (claim ascents) that are in fact different (not ascents - if there is a reliable language for it)?

In my view, there's a spectrum between claiming an ascent with bolts pre-clipped and, say, ticking a route on which you got to the belay, but your foot slipped as you were trying to clip the 'biner - "I mean, I've done it, right, haven't I?". You could even derive some "fun" from ticking routes in guidebooks, on crags you've never even been to - just because you "know" you could do them if you wanted to.

There's always a difference between what we'd like to be the case, and what the words we use imply. How and where we manage that difference - publicly, or in private, is significant.

Bit long, this, but started to think I might post it.

Dave.

In reply to stp:


Remind me again of the relevant clause in 'THE RULES' where it states this.

I'll almost always preclip the first bolt on anything remotely dodgy. Having decked it last year on a warm-up route from below an unreachably high first bolt at Kilnsey, I have no qualms whatsoever about pre-clipping the first one or even two bolts.

There are no rules.

In reply to Fraser:


Indeed not. Though you cannot, of course, honourably claim the redpoint/onsight/flash/ground up or whatever if you break the non-existent rules.

In reply to wurzelinzummerset:


The best way to minimize injury is to top rope everything. It's not difficult to injure oneself taking lead falls and top roping can be perfectly enjoyable. Or you could leave all the bolts clipped and yo yo the route, rest on some bolts or do whatever. All that is fine by me.

What I've noticed seems to be commonplace is that many climbers are doing what they think is a redpoint ascent but in fact isn't. I've just outlined how and why this confusion has come about. It's also worth pointing out that this is a very recent trend and 10 or so years ago almost no one would do that because everyone understood what was and what was not a valid ascent.

In reply to Robert Durran:

... of which "no pre-clipping first bolts" isn't one

No, but, wait, but ... there are Rules:

"6.3.4 The IFSC Judge may decide, in consultation with the Chief Route-Setter and with the approval of the Jury President:
a) To have the climbing rope pre-fixed to the first (and, where deemed appropriate, other) protection points"

So there.

http://www.ifsc-climbing.org/images/World_competitions/Event_regulations/IF...

In reply to stp:


I bet they've got mats to stand on when stick clipping the first bolt as well, just in case they fall over.

In reply to The Pylon King:

It's shocking how the risk taking and adventure is being leached out of sport climbing, isn't it. Back in the day people had the balls to rock up to a blank looking bit of steep, protectionless rock, use a power drill to stick metal bolts in it from an ab rope until it was almost completely safe, and then face up to the risk of buggered ankles if they fell off before they got to the first one. Where's that spirit now?

In reply to stp:


Laughable. Tell that to Adam Ondra etc etc etc etc who routinely have the first bolt pre-clipped when it's a safety issue.

In reply to AlanLittle:


This has nothing to with anyone's personal opinions. It's about what constitutes a valid redpoint ascent. If you want to pre clip bolts and climb in that style or even top rope the whole that's fine. You can even use etriers if you want. Your personal opinion might be that its fine to use etriers for redpoint ascents but that doesn't make it true.

All sports have rules and we can't just change them to suit our preferences whenever we feel like it.

I also realize there are sometimes exceptions like when a route changes perhaps because holds break etc. and the route hasn't been rebolted to reflect the changes. But I'm not talking about these rare exceptions I'm talking about a general trend that didn't exist a few years ago.

In reply to stp:

Your definition of a redpoint is a bit different from others. Here is an alternative one from 8a.nu
Despite the slightly odd reference to clipping pieces of furniture, it seems to suggest that whilst not optimal, pre-clipping the first bolt is fine. I guess we can all choose which set of rules we follow.

"We do think that the best ascent is without any pre-clipped bolts. However, it's a common practice that you could use one or maximum two drawers pre-clipped for safety reasons, once red-pointing. If you think that you are on the border line, just be open (write comments). Sometimes climbers are forced to go beyond that in order to do a route, then we think that we are talking freepoint. Don't get addicted into that silly down-climbing/jumping tactic from high up on routes. Use common sense and enjoy the spirit of moving upwards!" www.8a.nu

In reply to stp:

You're taking my reply too literally, when it should be obvious from the general context that I mean minimising the risk of injury whilst still leading a route. Yes, you can still get hurt by falling high-up on a sport route, but it's significantly less risk than hitting the ground from a fall low down. Of course most people would still look at the bolt spacing, the quality of the bolts, and anything obvious they're likely to hit when falling if deciding to tackle something at their limit. Everyone has a different view of the level of risk they're taking when climbing in a certain way, and everyone has an opinion as to whether that risk is acceptable to them. That might mean clipping the first bolt with a clipstick for one person, or deciding not to do a route at all because the bolts are decades-old corroded 8mms for another. This has nothing to do with any misunderstanding about the definition of redpointing; it's just plain common sense.

In reply to stp:



I rather think you can in climbing

In reply to stp:

It's only natural that with most people climbing indoors as well as out there's been some movement in 'mainstream' outdoor ethics towards competition rules. These things aren't cast in stone.

In reply to stp:

And where do you imagine these "Rules" exist? Can you point to anywhere outside your own head?

In reply to stp:

It depends how strict you want to be about it. I don't always pre-clip (generally I do it only if the start looks hard) but I certainly would not consider that pre-clipping somehow invalidates an onsight or a redpoint, as long as the rope isn't tensioned while you are below the pre-clipped bolt. Sport climbing is meant to be safe! I suspect a lot of people would agree.

What about pre-placed quickdraws? Would you say that an ascent is valid only if you're placing them on lead? That can make much more difference than having the first or second bolt pre-clipped! I think it's fine to have them in place.

In reply to Richard White:

Exactly.

In reply to stp:

Extending your logic, the only valid ascent of a sport route would be to do it on trad gear or in fact to solo it (might be no choice there anyway). Barefoot. In the middle of a winter storm. Because that would be more ethically pure.

In reply to stp:

In that case, one of the rules (which I've just made up but which a lot of people would agree with) is that you can't retro bolt trad routes, regardless of how neglected they might be. Do you agree with this 'rule'? If you disagree, sorry, you're just wrong, because that's a rule (which I've just made up but which a lot of people would agree with).

One of the great things about climbing is that it doesn't have rules, just some commonly accepted principles about what is and isn't acceptable. These principles evolve over time, that's just part of what climbing is about. So may be back in the 1980s and 1990s what you've said was generally accepted but, as evidenced by the responses on this thread, it's now commonly accepted to pre-clip because it makes sense from a safety point of view. Yes, it might make the climbing a bit easier but in the vast majority of cases only very marginally so or not at all if the start is relatively easy for the grade. As people have said, an ascent without pre-clipping is a purer style for sure but that doesn't mean that preclipping invalidates the 'tick'. If you think it does, fine, that's your own opinion, but most people wouldn't agree these days.


Sport climbing as a whole didn't exist until the 1980s and was very controversial in the early years (and some people still don't fully accept it). Things change!!!

In reply to Misha:


It used to be called a pinkpoint. Nowadays having the quickdraws pre-placed is normally accepted for a redpoint.

In reply to Tris:

It used to be called a pinkpoint.

and having the rope through the first quickdraw was known as a Leedspoint. At least that's what I read in 'On the Edge' many, many years ago...

In reply to stp:

In some places there's no way I'd agree to belay someone without the first bolt . Like at malham where if they fell they could pull us both off the catwalk. It's common sense.

In reply to stp:

None of this matters except in competition; in which we would expect the same rule to be applied to all participants, whatever rule it was.

Reminds me of all those TV addicts who complain incessantly about the quality of programs available. Maybe you're watching too many videos ?

In reply to Misha:


The risk part of a route is defined by the first ascentionist by where they put the bolts. Some routes are very safe and have closely spaced bolts whilst other routes can have really long runouts and are bold and serious. This is more obvious in places abroad where this more rock. Verdon, Ceuse, and Gorges du Tarn for instance all have some routes with huge fall potential. They were equipped that way deliberately because they wanted to create bold routes. If 'sport climbing is meant to be safe' then should we ignore the way the route is equipped and just stick more bolts in where we want them? Of course not. If a route is too bold or dangerous for us at that time the obvious thing to do is to choose a safer route. Come back to the bolder routes when we're climbing better.



Pre placed quickdraws have been the norm since before redpoint style ascents were used in Britain.

In reply to Misha:


It's not really logic its about a definition. If someone new to climbing asks what a redpoint ascent is we can tell them what it means. It means climbing up a route clipping all the gear as we go, not weighting it etc. That's what it is. If someone want to climb it differently that's totally fine just don't call it something it is not.

Apparently some people are even getting the terms 'flash', 'redpoint' and 'onsight' mixed up. Some think if they climb from the ground to the top clipping all the gear after working a route that is a flash ascent. It isn't. It's the wrong word. A flash means climbing a route in certain way and if you didn't do that way then you didn't flash it.

In reply to stp:
>

The horror, the horror……

In reply to TonyB:

8a.nu is pretty much saying the same as me. I have said that I'm talking about general trend and that occasionally things on route change.

I think if someone pre-clips a second bolt then you have to wonder about the first ascentiont's intentions about the way the route is bolted. Why did they bolt it that way? Did they just do a bad job, or maybe they wanted it to be a bit bold? Or maybe its not particularly dangerous after all?

In Britain some routes are so short that if you pre-clip the second bolt you end up top roping the crux. On steep ground clipping a bolt can be really strenuous because you have to hang much longer on one hand when pulling up the rope than you do if your just grabbing the next hold. This means pre-clipping bolts not only make a route psychologically easier. It often makes it physically easier as well.

In reply to LeeWood:

Is climbing not a competitive sport then?

In reply to stp:
Ok, there are some areas where the sport routes can be run out. In the UK the obvious example is the slate quarries where the older sport routes can be a tad bold (I mean the pure sport routes, not the trad lines with the odd bolt in them). Generally though, sport climbing is designed to be fairly safe. In fact even run out sport routes can be fairly safe as long as the bolts are in good shape - you go further if you fall but if it's reasonably steep that doesn't matter that much, what matters is that the bolt holds. So a lot of people take the common sense view that given that it's meant to be reasonably safe, it's fair game to clip the first one or two bolts if the start is relatively tricky and/or the landing is dodgy.

Imagine a situation where the first bolt is several metres off the ground, the starting moves are pretty hard, tenuous and steep so you have to pretty much go horizontal for a bit and there are big blocks scattered below you, waiting to break your back if you fall off. Would you pre-clip the bolt? Ok, that's an extreme example which comes from dry tooling (some of the routes at White Goods in Wales are like that) but that's essentially sport climbing and it illustrates the point pretty well!

In reply to stp:
Re flash ascents, not sure what you mean by climbing a route in a certain way but agree that a clean ascent after practice isn't a flat. I think the generally accepted definition of a flash is where you do the route first go but with some beta - you've seen someone do it and/or got information on gear/moves etc from someone who's done it or abbed down it.

In reply to stp:

>If someone new to climbing asks what a redpoint ascent is we can tell them what [we think] it means.

I'm puzzled. I went away and read a few of your other posts and you seem to be a generally intelligent, reasonable and well informed. And yet in this thread you are for some reason completely failing or refusing to see the point, which is that

(a) no objective, formal definition of redpoint rules exists
(b) as with most things in climbing outside competitions, the "rules" are the vague informal consensus of climbers at large.
(c) lots of people here, many of them with similar levels of experience to your own, believe in slightly different "rules" than you do. This does necessarily/automatically mean you are right and they are wrong.


Agree with this.

In reply to Misha:


I have a current project that is a mild version of this: first bolt at about four metres with the technical crux below it and a dodgy landing . (Broken ankle dodgy not death dodgy). Hats off to anybody who is climbing near their limit on this and effectively solos the crux, but (imo) what they're doing then isn't sport climbing any more. I'm pre-clipping, and I suspect that may be what was intended.

In reply to stp:

After last night's seance, where I spoke with Kurt Albert, I can confirm that it's ok to clip the first bolt for rotpunkt.

In reply to stp:


You do realize, that huge fall is not necessary unsafe.

by definition sport climbing is "safe", but of course there are bad routes (where because of sh*tty bolting you end up falling on ledges or something = dangerous). Then there are routes, where fallin' off might mean 10+ m falls... into space, guess what that might feel intimidating or dangerous but in all honestly it's rather safe.

In reply to stp:

Perhaps, but I don't think 8a is saying exactly the same as you. Unless I missunderstood in your OP you said pre-clipped draws = no redpoint, whereas 8a.nu seem to say pre-clipped draws* = redpoint (albeit in a less good style).

*1 and in extreme cases 2.

In reply to stp:

Many routes are sparsely bolted not to make them bold but because they were trying to save money. My friend has rebolted several and the first ascentionist was only too happy for it be done. At the time money was tight and battery drills didn't last too long. and I actually read in a guidebook that many newer ones have a high first bolt on the assumption that people WILL use a clipstick. Climbing rules and etiquette evolve rightly or wrongly over time.

In reply to julesp:

Lots of people have replied in completely reasonable ways but it's pretty clear stp has dug his heels in and ignores everything that is inconvenient to his view.

In reply to stp:

Many British climbers have a trad climbing background which does affect their approach to sport Climbing. It would be interesting to see what our European neighbours (many of which only climb sport) would make of your comments and the comments on this thread.

In reply to ericinbristol:

You're right but I'm injured and got to get my fix of the climbing world somehow

In reply to Sl@te Head:


If anything, my trad climbing background probably makes me less concerned with how people get the first clip in - if I want the excitement and adventure of temporarily risking my ankles then I'll climb trad.

It seems rather odd to accept someone almost completely removing the danger and commitment from a climb by drilling a load of holes in the rock and sticking bolts in them, but to then claim that the small amount of danger and commitment that's left because you have to climb up to the first bolt to clip it is a vitally important part of the challenge.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

>if I want the excitement and adventure of temporarily risking my ankles then I'll climb trad.

'zactly. I'd contemplate risking an ankle for the Dervish, but not for some generic sport route

In reply to jimtitt:

Not totally correct, it was to discourage less experienced climbers from attempting the routes (late 80's)

In reply to stp:


Only for pillocks.

In reply to stp:

Of course it is. It also has rules. Both unofficially though (Except in "competition climbing").

A lot of people are using the blanket "it's to protect our ankles" argument without being specific. The fact is there are lots of examples of routes where it is now the norm to preclip the second bolt but the overriding reason reason for doing so is to make the route easier, I'm thinking of New Dawn, Raindogs, Truth Drug, Mescalito* and many more. I know this because I did it myself on L'Ob Session, I know by being stronger or fitter I could safely clip the second bolt but by having it preclipped it makes the route easier, I then hide behind the excuse that the clip is a bit spicey.

It doesn't matter but let's not kid ourselves as to why we are doing it, same reason we go after soft touches and take the higher grade and then in our logbooks make the mealy mouthed comment that "soft but probably worth X" when we know deep down it isn't. We all want the tick and we all take the easiest route to get it.

* Contrast these with, say, Comedy where at the grade you'd be mad not to have the second preclipped

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


Climbers! Know your limits!

In reply to Tyler:

I'll be specific...... on the two hardest Redpoints I've done (The Medium and Tambourine Man on the slate), I've managed to deck it going for the 2nd clip on both routes, landed on my arse on one and on my head sans helmet on the other. I always pre clip one or both on anything but easy sport routes now.

In reply to Sl@te Head:


Here's an old thread from 8a.nu about the confusion surrounding trad ethics:

www.8a.nu/?IncPage=http%3A//www.8a.nu/forum/ViewForumThread.aspx%3FObjectId%3D9334%26ObjectClass%3DCLS_UserNewsComment%26CountryCode%3DGLOBAL

I don't think anything in this thread had been about rules, but trying to be clear about what we're talking about, what we can claim and what we can't. Believe it or not, there has been a lot of debate about all of this over the years.

And no-one is telling anyone how to have fun either.

If I climbed Mecca with the rope clipped onto the bolt at the top of the groove, I'd be stoked. I definitely would have had fun. But I wouldn't say I've ticked Mecca.

Most people I know get hung up at some point about the style of their ascent on a route that matters to them. Some people take their climbing a little more seriously than others. No one is trying to tell anyone what to do, but some ways of climbing a route are a little harder - and probably a little more satisfying - than others.

Dave T.

In reply to TonyB:

And there was me thinking that on many crags insitu/preplaced draws were assumed. Indeed, that they were graded for such a style. Especially on the top end routes. And all this in france... where we get the french grade from. So doing a french 7c in my eyes could be valid by all criteria with the draws in.

If UK grades are not for such a style, then maybe we have the wrong style, eh?

But then is being abnormally tall (etc) cheating on a sport route? If one can easily clip the route where others struggle?

Obviously as a UK trad climber, placing on lead would be an improvement. A bit like unnecessarily carrying my shopping whilst walking the dog, its not a proper walk without carrying a load of some type. is it?
Surely sport climbing is a gymnastic exercise, its about aiming to climb the route clean and in one glorious, flowing, effortless, wad empowering push, we hope, at some point in time. And when that happens, may the eyes of the world be upon us to testify to the greatness and purity of the ascent.

At this point, can I suggest "holiday ticks" and "sh**e route ticks" as allowable under onsight/flash rules.
Lets face it, we know when a route will go next time!

Peace and love.

kev

In reply to Tyler:
Not convinced by some of your examples - clipping on New Dawn is off a very polished undercut and small and polished footholds with a pretty certain ground fall if your slipped off while clipping, it was definitely safety (or cowardice!) which made me pre-clip expecially since with the nature of the route I don't see it would make any difference to the overall difficulty of the route. Similarly on Mescolito you're in the middle of powerful moves off undercuts and sidepulls on tiny feet, I have to admit I didn't even consider not pre-clipping. I guess Raindogs is a maybe a bit different since as a short pe route the savings from not clipping may affect the overall difficulty (not that I'm ever likely to do it anyway).

For me the overriding issue is that I'm getting older and more knackered every year and don't like messing around with potential ground falls particular when climbing on polished British limestone. Get me higher up and with a decent fall zone then I'm much happier and quite enjoy the odd runnout or skipped clip in the knowledge that the real danger is pretty small.

I'm not going to let any of this get in the way of doing classic routes like New Dawn so will continue to pre-clip 1 or 2 bolt where it feels appropriate to me. If stp feels the need to explain to me that this isn't a redpoint then so be it but he'll definitely be wasting his and my time.

In reply to Ian Patterson:


Thank you for making my point for me


I know that feeling, I'm currently laid up unable to do much climbing because I twisted my ankle on that polished horro known as Malham cat walk!


Exactly, none of it matters and. I wouldn't have said anything if people stuck to the 'so what' line instead of the 'it's necessary' argument.

In reply to Tyler:
Not really, the 'and if your feet slip off those tiny polished footholds you're hitting the ground' was assumed ;-p

In reply to Kevster:

Hi Kev,
Was your response was really to me? If so, I was talking about pre-clipped draws not pre-placed draws. I was under the impression that everyone thought pre-placed draws were fine. Anyway, I have a very laissez faire attitude to ethics. It's all fine by me!

Cheers, Tony

In reply to Misha:


I actually agree with this. I think the vast majority of routes are bolted safely. However...


If the the first bit is true, if most routes are bolted to be climbed safely, then it shouldn't necessary to stick clip the first one or more bolts (and I know there are odd exceptions).

I actually think this safety aspect is being overplayed a lot of the time. The real reason people pre-clip is probably to make the route a bit easier psychologically and often physically too.

I also think the introduction of the commercially produced clip stick also has a lot to do with it. If you spend money and buy a new piece of kit and carry it out the crag it's natural to want to use it whether you need to or not. You have an investment in it. If you never use it its going to seem like a waste of money. If the same climbers went to the crags without their clip sticks, then if they wanted to pre-clip bolts it would take time and effore. First they'd have to find a long enough stick, tape the krab to it and generally faff about for long enough to make it not seem worth the effort.

I recently spoke to the person who pretty much invented the stick clip. It was made out of old tent poles and used to clip a very badly placed bolt on an extremely steep 8b route in France. Interestingly he never uses a clip stick now and actually despises them. The reason is nothing to do with the fact and pre-clipping is cheating. He didn't use it for that in the first place - only when working a route. What he said was that "stick clips turn you into a total wimp". In other words he felt that using one was making him a worse climber. They're really bad for your head. You start to get used to using them and after a while can't think about climbing without one.

Perhaps the commercial stick clip has made people worse climbers, turned them into wimps, unable or at least unwilling to even try climbing up to first bolts. Perhaps if people left their stick clips at home they'd soon realise that most routes don't require them because as you said above, and something I agree with, most routes are bolted to be safe.

In reply to stp:
Do you still not see how weirdly arbitrary it is to climb crags that have had 99% of the danger and adventure removed from them by being bolted and then get all upset about how awful it is to remove another 0.9% by stick clipping the first bolt? It's like saying that taking the cable car up the Aiguille de Midi is a mountaineering expedition, but being shocked that people cheat by taking the bus to the station from their hotel rather than walking.

(Don't mean to denigrate sport climbing, by the way, just the idea that climbing up to the first bolt without pre-clipping it is one of the last great frontiers of adventure climbing.)

In reply to stp:


I still don't entirely agree with agree with you, but this is certainly a much more reasonable position than "using a clip stick is a violation of The Rules"

The time I actually did find myself recently faced with a high first bolt / crux below it / bad landing scenario, I hadn't brought my clip stick and I did do the whole searching in the the woods / faffing around with tape thing. It worked a treat and I duly felt a warm glow of satisfaction at my mad engineering sk1llz.

In reply to stp:

Perhaps the commercial stick clip has made people worse climbers, turned them into wimps, unable or at least unwilling to even try climbing up to first bolts. Perhaps if people left their stick clips at home they'd soon realise that most routes don't require them because as you said above, and something I agree with, most routes are bolted to be safe.

Many sport routes have the potential for hitting the floor clipping the first and/or second bolt.

I'm happy to be a wimp not wishing to risk that but its ok, I trad climb too, so I'm a hero

In reply to AlanLittle:


If there's no definition then the word has no real meaning. It can mean anything we want it to.

Its worth looking at why British climbers decided to start using redpoint style in the first place. Was it so they could climb harder? No, at that time we had two of world's best climbers and the existing style wasn't yet a barrier to harder climbs. Was it so they could do harder climbs faster? Well maybe, but that was never the answer they gave. The reason stated was that redpoint ascents were clear and unambiguous. You either climbed the route from bottom to top clipping the bolts as you go or you did not. There was no grey area, unlike the traditional British style of the time. Yo-yoing was fully accepted but what about leaving your ropes in overnight? Or putting them back in at your previous high point a day or more later? You could lower to a hands off rest but then some hands off rests turned out not to be very restful. It was all very messy and redpointing, which was clearly defined and understood by everyone was an attractive way to blow away all of the dodgy tactics that were evolving back then.

If we now change it and say you can now pre-clip the first, second or however many bolts we feel like then we muddy the waters again. Worse if we say anything goes, the term redpoint can be defined how we want then it just gets ridiculous. It doesn't mean anything. What counts as a valid ascent? What doesn't count? How do we even decide?

An example of clarity that climbers had regarding redpoint style was the controversy over repeat ascents of Chouca, the world's first 8b, at Buoux. The first section involves campus moves on pockets up a 45 degree wall. This section to the third bolt is meant to a be powerful 7b. What climbers would do was clip the first 3 bolts then down climb, rest before trying to do the route in one go. The controversy arose when some people only did the downclimb once and then on subsequent days just clipped the rope back in through the first 3 bolts. Shouldn't the bolts be clipped on lead for every new days attempts? Obviously there was no preclipping like some people are doing today. If it had been acceptable to pre-clip those first bolts there would have been no issue and everyone would have done it that way. It's obviously easier than having to climb up and down a strenuous 7b first.

Finally there is the issue of motivation. If we now accept its fine to do routes with bolts pre-clipped then what motivation is there to do a route without preclipping? If a route is at your limit you're going to want to give yourself every advantage so why not just preclip the first two or more bolts on every hard route you do? If that's just as valid an ascent then there seems to be no incentive to climb clipping all bolts from the ground at all. To do so is going to appear to be a contrived and unnecessary handicap? From comments on here it seems that some climbers are doing that already and that's an obvious thing to do. In all sports, from running to motor racing to golf, people try to give themselves every allowable advantage they can.

In reply to stp:


It means what the current informal consensus holds it to mean. That's how rules/definitions work in the absence of a formal rulebook or governing body. And many climbers - including me - regard the absence of a formal rulebook or governing body in climbing as a feature not a bug.

People used to care about "pinkpoint" as a significant distinction. I know people who still do but they're a small and decidedly old school minority.

In reply to stp:

From your own logbook: "Second bolt is a gripper clipper and after a few falls into the first ascentionist I took his advice and pre-clipped the second bolt".

Oh the irony.

In reply to TonyB:

Tony, not personal, just stirred my sarcasmto reply to the thread, which I am tempted to highjack to ask how you are. Pulling hard I believe
Fancy a climb sometime?

In reply to Sally Bustyerface:
Busted - quality snooping. Expect to be ignored though, like anyone else who posts stuff inconvenient for stp.

In reply to AlanLittle:
That's an interesting one in that the crux is below the first bolt. The intention was either that you solo it or that you do it with the bolt pre-clipped. I agree it was probably the latter! If it was intended to be led clipping the bolts, there would have been one lower down.

In reply to Sally Bustyerface:

Another of his logbook entries makes for interesting reading...

'Failed to get to the first bolt. I'm guessing some holds have come off the start. Clipping the first bolt seems really hard unless you've got 8a finger strength and a fall from here would be nasty, bouncing down 15' of limestone ledges then down the slope into the nettles. Clipping the low bolt on the route to right would save you from the nettles but not the ledges. Since I doubt that this was the first ascentionist's intention I think an extra bolt in the start would make sense. I later found out that a friend who had tried had the same problem'.

Maybe pre clipping the first bolt makes sense after all

In reply to stp:

May be clip sticks have indeed turned *some* sport climbers into wimps, I don't know. But when it comes to adventurous trad climbers getting on sport routes, using a clip stick isn't due to being a wimp, it's due to the fact that it's simply not worth risking your ankles etc on a sport route. If I want to do a serious route, I go and do an adventurous trad route. As someone has said above, it's ridiculous to debate the boldness or otherwise of making the first few moves on a route which has been bolted to basically make it safe enough for climbing.

Where pre-clipping makes an appreciable difference to the difficulty, that's a different point and for sure a pre-clipped ascent will be less pure but I wouldn't deride anyone for claiming a redpoint. I guess anyone who is really bothered about it would go back and do it without pre-clipping.

In reply to stp:
Isn't climbing up to the first/second/third bolt, followed by climbing back down and a rest before a single push to the top already a compromise? Ok, you've clipped everything yourself but on the final push the rope was already pre-clipped so it's not that different to preclipping with a clip stick. Overall it's harder (and bolder, if you like) but when you look at the final push in isolation it's no different (assuming most people would have a good rest after the downclimb).

In reply to stp:

It's actually very clear cut if you see sport climbing as a game where falling is made safe. In competition climbing this view is explicit in rule 6.3.3 "Each route shall be designed a. So as to avoid the danger of a competitor's fall injuring the competitor....".

In this world-view if the first part of the climb is unsafe without pre-clipping then you can pre-clip.

In reply to stp:


And why do we even care? OK, at the top level of newsworthy ascents we care, and things get discussed and scrutinised. Did Pete Whittaker flash Freerider or not? Does one have to lead every pitch when doing the Nose free? OK, not sport climbing examples, but they have happened recently and have been the subject of generally interested and polite discussion about the definitions and the shades of grey involved in them.

Formal competitions have formal rules (which explicitly include pre-clipping sometimes being ok)

At the other end of the scale it doesn't matter to anybody except ourselves anyway. I have my standards for what goes my insignificant logbook. They seem to be in line with the general consensus here. I have a climbing partner who isn't interested in getting on routes more than once; he makes his way to the top, with or without a hang or a fall or two, and is happy. Why would I care what he chooses to put in his logbook?

In reply to julesp:


Good point.

Bit of a pain in the bum, having to sort out a clipstick.

Also good to have some open debate about what the accepted practices of the day are. There is obviously some misconception about laying down the law, rules etc from "on-high" - which isn't the case.

This sort of discussion is a great way of clarifying where, how, why things are a little different now, and finding out what other people's thoughts are.

Personally, I'm not so bothered - Steve (stp) had to remind me to pull my rope on a route recently - pre-clipped to first two pieces, ha ha!, but I always like to be clear in my own mind about whether or not I'm maintaining the challenge of a route - as that's where I derive my own satisfaction, get my kicks. Even have some fun occasionally!

One thing I do think is stupid, is applying redpoint ethics to trad. I'm fully in favour of yo-yo-ing, I mean, why pull your ropes?! (On trad, ground-up on-sight.)

It's worth remembering that redpointing was brought in as a minimum acceptable standard of ascent, so it's probably worth having a discussion about where that minimum level currently sits.

Good thread.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


True but what makes it unsafe? Why did the first ascentionist bolt it in an 'unsafe' way? There are exceptions that really are unsafe, which often come about because the route changes in some way, but they are the exceptions and not the norm.

Personally if I think its somewhat demeaning to oneself to routinely pre-clip gear on routes. To me it raises a question about oneself: "Am I really so incompetent a climber that I can't even climb up to the first bolt safely, the way that everyone else does?"

In reply to AlanLittle:

Well if its an insignificant route that's not important to us then yes I agree it doesn't really matter what we do - though if a route has half the gear pre-clipped I'd still record it as a top rope rather than a redpoint, that's just honesty.

But if the route is of some personal significance, like the first of new grade or a famous route that we've been building up to for ages then personally I'd want to do it properly with no question marks in my mind about using dubious tactics. If there's some doubt about the ascent then for me some of the satisfaction is diminished. There's always the question mark of 'What if? 'What if I hadn't used such tactics? Is there a chance I might not have done it?'

Its true about the importance being more significant on say first ascents. But the problem then is if its acceptable for everyone doing later repeats to use dodgy tactics x, y, or z then pretty soon the first ascentionists will be doing the same thing.

Also I think if we're all playing the same game shouldn't we all be using the same 'rules' (at least for most of the time).

In reply to ericinbristol:


Looks like you were right.

In reply to stp:

No disrespect but it seems we ARE using the same rules you just don't agree with the general consensus

In reply to Sl@te Head:


...

Ha ha. Nice find. Wot a wimp (to use his own words).

In reply to stp:


It's unsafe because the geometry is such the rope won't catch you before you hit the ground and the ground surface/distance to fall/angle of your body when you fall mean an injury is likely. Those factors are fairly objective. If the objective factors mean a fall is dangerous then ethically it is fine to preclip (but if the climbing is easy you might well decide you can't be bothered to do so).

If your world view is that sport climbing is supposed to be safe it doesn't matter what the first ascentionist was thinking it only matters whether the situation is unsafe without pre-clipping.


One way to avoid turning it into a question about the climber's self worth is for the belayer to make the decision on whether pre-clipping the first bolt is necessary.

In reply to Sally Bustyerface:



Is stp really trying to suggest that people are wimps, or trying to lay down rules? I don't think so, and neither is he saying "do as I say, not as I do". The notes in his logbook reflect his beliefs and some of his dilemmas, and also how difficult it can be to climb things as well as we'd like.

In reference to the thread in general, I think it's worth giving some thought to how we ended up sport climbing in the first place, and how much carry over there has been from trad.

We all know that clipping bolts when climbing at your limit can be very difficult. Missing clips out can give us a better chance of success, but obviously increase the risks, but even in that instance there are ethical questions; maybe it's cheating to miss out gear, given that protecting a pitch is an important skill (aren't I quite good/strong/fit enough to hang on and clip?).

It has always been in this context - how to protect a climbing pitch - that the redpoint ethic has evolved. This is the carry over from trad.

Now I AM a self confessed wimp when climbing on bolts, and I know that I tend to give it more beans when the rope is pre-clipped above me. I suppose the problem is that there are plenty of routes where having the first/lower bolts pre-clipped really does make the physical act of climbing the route significantly easier. Is protecting the climbing an essential part of the challenge of climbing a pitch? It seems we are reaching a point where we might be avoiding trying to answer that question. The same problem arises with the increased use of mats - even suspended safety nets now! Are we trying to fudge the issue?

What is the place of risk in climbing? Clif Bar have dropped some of their sponsored climbers because they choose to embrace risk, and climb solo. Increasingly, the climbing wall environment is being transferred to the crag. No one is casting judgement on the way that people climb - I'm frankly amazed at the wippers some people are happy to take on bolts (eek) - but different interpretations give rise to different questions.

One question I have, which is similar to the question of how many mats/pads to use, is how far up the crag are we willing to have the first bolt placed and pre-clipped? If it's at 30 foot, then it's farcical not to pre-clip if the route is supposed to be a sport route - contrast this with Critics Choice at Avon, which was bolted minimally at a time when bolts were still controversial - pre-clipping was a definite no-no if you wanted to tick the route. A high pre-clipped bolt at Rubicon might be a top-rope.

Some times it's good to ask questions about "consensus" so that we can find out what we're trying to achieve, and what ends we're serving, Otherwise views of other people are rejected simply for being less popular, or different from the crowd.

In case you pull me up for it, I have been known to scream for a top-rope on more than one occasion

Dave T.

In reply to DAVETHOMAS90:

Try this from stp:


and he (claims) he is trying to lay out the rules. And the notion that he is right and Ondra is wrong is, as I said, laughable. And the rule these days generally is that it is okay to clip the first bolt for safety. So he is trying to change the rules back to what he asserts they were but pretending that they have never changed. As for specific routes where clipping the first bolt is considered not on, that's fine, there are exceptions - but they are exceptions not the rule.

As for your point about it being worth thinking through things around which a consensus has emerged, agreed. Rather different from the daft implied line that Ondra and just about everyone else are falsely claiming ascents that are not according to stp valid.

Hi Eric (in Brisol).

I'm not so sure he's really trying to lay down rules, or claiming that people "are" right or wrong. (Might be wrong of course )

Whose place is it to determine that "the rule these days" IS anything? What is a rule anyway?

Do we establish consensus according to debate about what we're trying to achieve, or on the basis of ..consensus?


There's a great vid of Ondra decking out repeatedly on a new route - which he equipped - which would suggest to me that he hasn't adopted a clear position of "pre-clip if it's unsafe".

Who is Ondra anyway? What would ericinbristol do?!

Given that bolts are artificial in the first place, it's difficult from one perspective, to argue against having gear (bolts) pre-clipped high enough to help guard against serious injury. But what happens if the climbing is hard enough to preclude clipping until you're in the deck-out zone again? We end up in a "if it's unsafe, then top-rope" position. My personal decision on that one would be to, either wait until I was able to climb the pitch protecting it as I go, or probably just stick up the top-rope - or otherwise frig it, until I could do it properly.

Dave.

In reply to stp:


With respect to fixed gear, Uk sport climbing is often created in a trad orientated minimalist style, it is generally not the same thing as continental style grid bolted routes (even though some of the easier routes may appear that way). Routes are more usually individually crafted for the grade. The FA or bolter does not always have to, or even need to consider 'apparent safety' as the highest priority. Spicy starts and run outs that feel like they deserve E Grades are not unusual.

For example routes can be designed with high first bolts such as at Lower Pen Trwyn. Here many bolts are intended to remain above the high tide level. The nervous may wish to protect the bottom section with trad gear or stick clip without feeling guilty.

In reply to MikeYouCanClimb:


I haven't noticed that much difference overall.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

Uk sport climbing is often created in a trad orientated minimalist style, it is generally not the same thing as continental style grid bolted routes

'Was' maybe but not for a long time

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

I assume that you have not done many of Gary’s routes then: )
The difference becomes more apparent when you consider the way the routes are created. Crafted routes that use a minimalist bolting technique are likely to contain designer run outs, either at the start or on the relatively easy sections. These sections may or may not feel spicy dependant how much you are inside your comfort zone for the particular route.

Grid bolted routes.
The protection is of primary is concern, the route is secondary.
i.e One or more lines of evenly spaced bolts are drilled in a crag. The route is defined by the line of bolts with little consideration taken of where the hard moves are.

Individually crafted sport routes.
The climbing is of primary concern, the protection is a secondary consideration
i.e After the line is chosen, the route is then judiciously bolted.

In reply to MikeYouCanClimb:

You can explain it all you like, but I don't agree.