UKC

Jordan Buys has made the first ground-up ascent of Tim Emmett's Chicama​ E9 6c at Trearddur Bay​.

Read more

In reply to UKC News:

Does this really count as ground up? I've always thought of ground up as going for it onsight but not quite managing so doing it on a subsequent attempt. This is more like a failed flash.

In reply to UKC News:

Having it large. Go big or go home is what the cool kids say!!

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Come again?

• 1st go - gear placed on lead, beta from Sam, chalk on holds though still damp in bottom half, got to last move of crux -> fell off = failed flash
• 2nd go - ropes pulled, the gear placed on first go still in place -> topped out = ground up ascent

Yeah you could strip the gear (mainly quickdraws on pegs and a couple of cams) but it's a total epic stripping that crag requiring a proper team effort to go up and down on those routes. The tide was coming in rapidly, which would have covered the belay ledge and submerged the first pieces of gear within 20 mins, as well as soaking the bottom of route (it only dries if there's direct sunlight and a light wind after high tide), so we just pulled the rope, abbed back in and he climbed it still pumped before I drowned on the belay.

I'd say that was ground up, on an E9, after a failed flash (that came ever so close) and a damn fine effort.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):

My question wasn't anything to do with whether you strip the gear or not. It was regarding whether something counts as ground up if you are given beta. As I say I've always thought of a ground up ascent as something you might salvage after a failed onsight attempt. In my mind a ground up is often better than a flash.

In reply to Michael Gordon:



How is a ground up better than a flash? Jordan had some beta from Sam, but it might have been the wrong beta for Jordan as not everyone climbs the same way. Ground up, flash, its still a stunning ascent of a great looking line.

Andy F

In reply to Michael Gordon:


That's just a different version of going ground up which means any number of goes, starting from the bottom each time.

Beta is such a grey area it's pointless defining ground up as anything other than that. Beta you gain from others is often of no use. Jordan is about 18 inches shorter than me, 30kg lighter and can do 30 more one armers than me so I basically ignore any beta he gives me. On routes like this, where one wet hold could cause you serious damage, there's always going to be some element of beta - ie someone drying holds for you, putting chalk on etc. If it's wet it's not going to be E9 to onsight, it's going to be harder. Better described as 8a+ R and highly condition dependent.

At the end of the day, regardless of the grade of the route it's about having a good time. Having to pigeon hole everything into tight boxes is not my idea of having a good time. We had a great weekend, a major success for Jordan, and all reported accurately. Now all the routes there are clean, with some new tat on Crow Road and with the snapped peg replaced on Treacherous Underfoot, with the knowledge they have all been climbed in the last week, you should go and have a go there while conditions are amenable, it's an awesome crag. Sorry, have I blown your onsight?!

In reply to Michael Gordon:

You would be alone in that thinking then.

In reply to andy farnell:



Well you don't have any beta. You've got to work it out for yourself.


Ground up, flash, its still a stunning ascent of a great looking line.

Of course!

In reply to Adam Lincoln:


I doubt it. I imagine most ground ups take place following a fall on the onsight attempt.

In reply to Michael Gordon: But a flash is still doing it first go, without falls. Ergo, better than ground up.

Andy F

In reply to Michael Gordon:

No, i mean you would be the only one thinking it wasn't really a ground up.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


Correct, but that doesn't define a ground up as exclusively like that, or mean they can't be defined as ground up if you have beta. If 'most' occur like that, what are the others like?

In reply to John Roberts (JR):

To be honest it's news to me that many seem to consider this sort of ascent ground-up. I do wonder how useful the term is when there can be a pretty huge gulf between 2nd go after going for it onsight and 2nd go after having every move demonstrated in minute detail (a James Pearson ground-up).

In reply to John Roberts (JR):


I meant 'most' under your definition of ground up.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


Who cares? Its better than top roping it first. It wasn't onsight. His first go was a flash go. Easy.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


i.e the accepted one


There's such a gulf between seeing a demonstration and trying to do it on the sharp end pumped out your mind. In Jordan's case, the only difference between 1st and 2nd go was that he actually followed the beta 2nd go instead of ignoring it as he was.... on the sharp end pumped out his mind! The knowledge of doing it the first time gave him that information, not Sam's beta, ergo, he got more beta by trying to flash it, than from Sam.

In reply to andy farnell:

>

I think when a route has tricky climbing a fair way above gear (particularly if the moves are hard to read), doing it ground up (without beta) is often better than a flash knowing the moves, gear etc.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

The clues in the name.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):

I think he would say that the beta was still helpful though (for the 2nd attempt)?

In reply to Michael Gordon:

I know he'd say the beta he had from his first go was way more relevant and useful. Anyway, semantics. I'm 100% the consensus is that it was a ground up.

In reply to doylo:


No-one would know what 'onsight' meant without a definition. It's arguably only in more modern times it's come to mean no falls or rests. To many it would just mean turn up at the crag and go for it.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):

OK. Out of interest, how many in your E9 list were 'ground up with beta' and how many were proper ground up? As you say, there perhaps wasn't much difference in Jordan's case but I'm sure you know there can be with other examples.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

I would be surprised if it wasn't all of them. In what form that beta was passed on, I don't know.

In reply to UKC News:

Dan Varian with The Dark Side (E9 7b) has been added to the list.

In reply to Michael Gordon: He started from the ground. He went up.

In reply to UKC News:

well i cant believe i wasted time reading this drivel .....awesome effort on a logistically desperate venue .

In reply to UKC News:

It's simple, the terms onsight and groundup exist within the constraints of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

One thing's for sure, I know Jordan won't have tried to define his ascent.
Good effort Jordon.
Cheers
Graham

In reply to Micky J:

Could anyone propose a H grade for this one?

In reply to Michael Gordon:


I totally agree. For some serious trad routes knowing what gear goes where can be an even more significant factor than knowing the moves. Some routes one can see from the ground where you're gonna get gear but others it can be completely impossible to tell. Such routes are a nightmare to climb ground up without beta (this is what on sight used to mean before we adopted the current French sport climbing definition of without falls and beta.).

Making committing moves up an overhanging wall, getting pumped, with no sign the next gear placement is obviously very different to knowing that you're heading for a bomber tricam 3 in that hidden pocket off to the right.

If your mate abs a route and gets all the numbers on it for you and you then lead it starting from the ground can that even still be called 'ground up'? You may be starting from the bottom but the information you're using was gleaned from a top down inspection. Its not much different from if you inspected the route yourself.

I think 'ground up' really has to mean without beta. It's should mean the same as the old use of 'on sight' did as that is the term it is replacing.

In reply to doylo:


Not really. Ground up seems to involve going back down.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


Do you have a problem with "redpoint" which could mean anything from second go after a careless slip to a multi-year no-holds-barred siege?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Or flash which covers everything from, say, knowing there's a heel at the crux to watching people on it for days and having full running beta the whole way.
Or onsight which covers everything from no chalk dirty and dusty to clips in, ticked up obviousness...

In reply to stp:

We have to have umbrella terms for styles of ascent or else headlines would take all day to read! But within each umbrella term is a massive variation of awesomeness....

Onsight: Means a no pre-practice or beta, no falls ascent, but within that style you have a spectrum - turning up at the crag, deciding you will have a crack at that piece of rock in front of you, not knowing if it can even be climbed is the purest. The minute you know a grade, that it can be done, the purity lessens. The other end of the onsight scale would be climbing your route when it has had a raft of previous ascents, been chalked and cleaned, you've aspired to the route for years, dreamed about it, read all the descriptions in several guidebooks, done all the other routes at the crag, you get the picture! It is still also an onsight if you (shock horror) have some gear in situ, the lowest of the low OS ascent. Clearly it is less impressive though.... and you would have to call it an onsight with pre-placed gear.

Flash: First go, with knowledge. But I know people who have taken flash instead of onsight just because someone shouted "left!" as they were mid route on an otherwise knowledge-free ascent. I also know people who have taken the flash after abseil inspection, cleaning holds, looking at the gear placements (but not trying any moves), watching numerous films, building replicas, getting the blow-by-blow account from a regular climbing partner. It's still a flash, but a waaaay inferior one. And yes, you can flash on in situ gear - it's just even more inferior!

Ground-up: Climb from the ground up with no pre-practice. When you fall, you lower straight down to try from the floor again - having a sneaky play on the next moves after a slump invalidates the ground-up.... And within this umbrella term you have a pure onsight attempt (new route, no info or cleaning), getting your mate to retrieve your gear between attempts so you can place it all again - pure ground-up. OR an 'inferior' flash attempt with all the beta, clean and chalked holds, you fall off, pull the ropes and go again on the gear you already placed. And anything in between.

The point is; for all these labels there is an enormous sliding scale of ethics. Some onsights are better than others, some flashes are better than others, some ground-ups are better than others. The important thing is to be honest about how you did it.

In reply to UKC News:

just wanted to add my two pence

..

cheers

In reply to UKC News:

This thread highlights what I think is a bit of a problem with attitudes towards trad ethics in the UK. I can understand that the ascent of an E9 without top rope practice is a significant event and that people are interested in understanding the style in which it was climbed. If an ascent is being reported in the news, I don't have any problem with what style it was done in as long as it is reported honestly and accurately. The style in which this ascent was carried out was reported very clearly in the article (well done on the climb by the way). The debate on this thread seems to me to be concerned with placing climbs into lists of what has or hasn't been onsighted, flashed, ground upped, etc. Lists can be interesting, but at the very top of the performance ladder the sample size is so small that they are less meaningful and I think each ascent should be judged on its own merits.

The temptation to pigeon hole, means that most posters (including me) are not focusing on congratulating the climber on their ascent which is a very poor state of affairs.

In reply to Jimbo C:

Eh? This is a discussion forum. It would be very, very boring if the thread consisted of nothing but congratulations. The fact that an interesting discussion has resulted from the news story suggests a healthy state of affairs.

In reply to Naomi Buys and others:

Some have suggested that the terms 'onsight' and 'headpoint' are just as open to variation as ground up. I disagree. To me they both lie at the opposite end of the scale but are actually very well defined by what you can and can't do to claim an ascent.

Onsight - no prior knowledge, no inspection, no falls. There is very little room for variation there.
Headpoint - do whatever you like as long as the final lead is clean. Apart from the issue of pre-placed gear (personally I'm against it for trad routes) again there are really no grey areas.

By contrast, an accepted ground up ascent seems to be much more down to personal ethics. The difference between a 'ground up' with beta and a proper ground up is by definition going to be very similar to the (extremely significant) difference between a flash and an onsight. Yet in the latter case there are 2 terms, not just one!

I feel that ground up after an onsight attempt is a very worthy form of ascent, often much more so than a flash. This is what a ground up should be. Having it lower down the style chain encourages those looking for a trophy (not aimed at Jordan) to go for the flash rather than the onsight as their ascent can still be 'salvaged' later. My view is if you fail on the flash, too bad - you've already chosen to compromise on style. You can still get a lot of personal satisfaction without having to categorise your ascent.

In reply to Michael Gordon:
So would you be happier if people differentiated between a beta ground-up and a non-beta ground-up. Seems fair enough to me in the same way we differentiate between onsight and flash.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


What constitutes prior knowledge? Seems like there's a lot of room for variation there.

In reply to Robert Durran:

It would be an improvement I guess. Personally I don't think a beta ascent should be labelled 'ground up' at all. It should be recognised that part of the reason we use these tags is the kudos associated with them and therefore when it doesn't apply, better not to use the term at all. Not everything needs a label.

In reply to planetmarshall:

Prior knowledge is what we would call beta. One might debate what is and isn't beta but it's very simple - if you judge that the information has helped you climb the route then it is beta and the onsight wouldn't apply. So it's quite black and white really - either you have beta or you don't, different levels of beta don't come into it.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

You're f*ckin crackers

In reply to Michael Gordon:

I take it all your onsight ascents have been done without reading a guidebook.... In fact, I assume you don't class it as onsight if you know the grade of the route, because that constitutes prior knowledge?? And clean, chalky routes are out for sure. Definitely no grey areas there....

In reply to Naomi Buys:

I think you must be being deliberately awkward. We all know that reading the guidebook is allowed, as is knowing the grade of the route so there's no point to be made there. OK so chalk on a route can make a bit of a difference but you're really exaggerating if you think that is in any way comparable to the difference between an onsight and a flash (which is what ground up vs ground up with beta is).

In reply to abarro81:

why do you say that?

In reply to Naomi Buys:
I was going to make the same point.

Michael - she's making the point (which I'm sure you must get, if not agree with?) that there are different levels of prior knowledge - it's not black and white. That includes guidebook descriptions, some of which can be a lot more specific than others and grades (often soft for grade or hard for grade and the reasons why may be known but most would still claim the onsight. Eg sustained but good gear- that would alter my chances of success)
There are obviously many layers beyond that. Most folks who claim an onsight of Right Wall have some knowledge of the porthole and the gear.
I don't agree that it's as black and white as you suggest and I reckon there's a substantial number who agree with this view. Doesn't mean you or I are wrong, but surely you can see that there are different perceptions on this?

In reply to Michael Gordon: Do you even climb? I can't see how you find the time as you spend all of it on here under your bridge. Abarro was right.

Andy F

In reply to Michael Gordon:



For what it's worth Michael, I tend to agree with him. Personally I prefer to enjoy my climbing in the moment however I do it, rather than indulge in this hand wringing post mortem pedantry afterwards. I couldn't give a toss if I've seen someone do the route, if it's got chalk on it, if someone's told me every move or told me every bit of gear, if I've abseiled down it - the essential thing is that I've enjoyed climbing it.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


Because
1) You don't seem to get that you're in the 1% who thinks that the definition of ground-up is anything other than exactly that: no TR, no ab inspection etc. From the ground. Upwards. Fall = lower. Within that there are a raft of different possibilities - beta, no beta, how much beta, chalk on the route, ticks on the holds, gear left in or have a mate ab to strip it etc etc... so there's one name which covers everything from 2nd go on dirty rock with no chalk or beta to 5 sessions on a perfectly ticked route with 15 different vids to watch. It doesn't matter that some of these are more impressive than others, that's always the case (see point 2)

2) You don't seem to get that ALL styles have this spread of 'impressiveness'/'kudos' - again, chalk, tick marks etc on an onsight; how much beta for a flash; whether your redpoint is 2nd go or 34792th go...

3) You generally don't seem to have a clue, e.g. "OK so chalk on a route can make a bit of a difference but you're really exaggerating if you think that is in any way comparable to the difference between an onsight and a flash" is total bullshit. If you offered me a go on a hard route with either a little bit of beta and no chalk or a fully chalked and ticked route with no beta, the later would give me a better chance of getting up it in most situations. This is not something curious to me, this is standard; chalk and ticks can be just as valuable if not more so than beta on many climbs. To not appreciate that this can be the case, whilst being so convinced by your viewpoint, is enough for me to make a judgement that basically you don't have a clue about this shit and thus your view that we should change what ground-up means to most climbers can be roundly ignored as the view of someone a bit crackers...

Firstly, congratulations to Jordan for a world-class achievement -- an E9 climbed without prior practice and with only one fall, a tremendous achievement. And well done to the rest of the team for getting into such a tricky looking place to support Jordan in getting his glory!

Secondly, I can't believe I'm entering this discussion, but there's a point that needs making because Michael Gordon seems to not understand it (or is willfully ignoring it).

Practice (physical familiarity) and knowledge (beta) are two separate things. It's much easier to climb something with some of the former than some of the latter.

It's also much easier to define ascents in terms of the former than the latter, and that's probably why we do so. Not that beta doesn't make a different, of course it can, but in my mind a flash (clean, first go, with beta) is a better ascent than a ground-up without beta (one or more falls to final clean ascent; clearly knowledge of how to do some moves is gained in the process)

I've never heard of anyone defining a ground-up in such as way as the climber must have had beta prior to setting off.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


No. An onsight is NOT a ground-up -- onsight is clean, first go, no-fall ascent. A ground-up is neither first go nor no-fall.
A ground-up can never be classed as an onsight. They are mutually exclusive.
I think you are operating with a widely different set of definitions to the rest of the climbing community here.

In reply to Jon Read:




That wasn't the point Michael was making. He was comparing the two types of ground up ascent (ground up with or without beta) with the two types of leading it first go ascent (onsight and flash)

In reply to CurlyStevo:

You're right, I furiously typed out a response without reading properly -- my apologies to Michael. However, I'm not sure I agree with him about chalked holds not being as useful as spoken (or mimed) beta. Seems too subjective to call.

In reply to UKC News:

Its actually quite hard to find a web definition of ground up, especially one that says you can't practice the moves once you've fallen off (without lowering to the ground) etc

In reply to Jon Read:

Why not? An onsight could be seen as a subset of ground up (one in which you happened to get it first go). Likewise, an onsight could also be sen as a subset of flash (one in which you didn't happen to have beta). Actuallly, I think this is the sensible way of looking at it; all styles of ascent basically fall into a big Venn Diagram based on concentric circles with the smallest Onsight one right in the middle.

In reply to UKC News:

Heaven's sake people, all this arseness. I propose a simple solution, which would also make the reporting of ascents much more succinct so that we can process more of them faster: an extension of logbook shorthand to include all the essential details of an ascent. In this case Lead G/U#2w/<beta>w/oRG

Who can argue with that?

Less finger-tapping for UKC, less obligation to argue amongst its users, everyone can knock off early and go climbing. Show me who loses.

In reply to Andy Moles:
Or perhaps drop the whole lead/onsight/flash thing from the public logbooks (make it private to the owner). You just climbed it. End of story. If you want to make a public style statement, then link to a video of the ascent. Not important enough to take a video? Well you have the answer just there!

In reply to Robert Durran:

I see your point, but in normal usage they are surely mutually exclusive categories of ascent style?
My fevered imagination offers:
"I onsighted that F8c+."
"John Roberts told me where all the holds were and the secret nut placement, so I can only claim the a beta-flash for that route."
"I tried to onsight Party On Shop, but fell off at the crux. I then tried to do it ground-up, taking some cool whippers until I broke the flake. So, I set up a top-rope, practiced it for the next month and finally headpointed it. I'm thinking of renaming it."

In reply to Jon Read:

If I onsight a route, I start on the ground and climb to the top, so, to me it just seems natural to categorise it as a subcategory of ground up. Don't know whether most would agree with me or not.

People used to talk about an "onsight flash" (which is now normally shortened to "onsight"), which implies that "onsight" is a subcategory of "flash".

All styles are subcategories of "doing" the route.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

You have made my lunch thoroughly boring. Who cares!

Michael

You've made a small number of valid points in between a lot of not very valid ones.

You are right that "ground up" in itself isn't a particularly useful term - but it is widely used and it's definition is clear (apparently to pretty much everyone apart from you!). A ground up ascent can be extremely good style (as you say, it can often even be better style than a flash with stacks of beta) or really very poor style (ie on a very safe route, dogging the heck out of it over a number of years before completing it ground up).

As Robert Durran pointed out, you could have 2 labels - one for ground up with beta, one for ground up without beta. There's no particular objection to that - it's just not how in reality the terminology has evolved.

But as Naomi and Abarro have pointed out in detail - there's stacks of room for variation in any of the styles we give labels to - none of them are even remotely black or white. ie: the difference between an onsight of the Indian Face with or without chalk would be astronomical.

In short, for newsworthy ascents, labels in headlines are never a substitute for a paragragh describing the style of ascent.

But Naomi has given a good set of definitions above as to how these terms are actually used by pretty much everyone these days. And if you want more, this has all been done before in gory detail:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=508611&v=1#x6906713



I wrote that in the (wildly optimistic) hope we wouldn't need any more threads like this...



Anyway, great effort by Jordan.

And what Ding Dong said on the other channel - the pegs on this route sound way gnarly:

http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,10607.msg496095.html#msg49609...


(Edit: having read it properly, Naomi is using a stricter definition of ground up than some others use - insisting on immediately lowering to ground on falling, rather than allowing working of moves. That is probably a better definition - I've seen lots of ascents get called "ground up", when in reality the routes were just dogged into submission (from the ground up). Of course on safe routes it's still possible to dog things without sitting on gear by loads of tries...)

In reply to andy farnell:

>

That's rich coming from you!

In reply to CurlyStevo:


I was wondering about that. Perhaps my view of it was formed partly subconsciously because whenever the term is explained or talked about it's invariably by way of defining an onsight then saying "after a fall the onsight is lost but a ground up ascent may be possible" (or words to that effect)

In reply to Michael Gordon: I fully admit I have doubts about a certain persons grade claims and have explained in detail why. I also have a profile visible to all which shows what I've done. Unlike you.

Andy F

In reply to thread:

OK I'm backing down in the face of overwhelming opposition! I didn't think differentiating between 'ground up' and 'ground up with beta' was a bad idea (not mine) but if folk don't give a monkeys then fair dos.