UKC

Is it an onsight when.....

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 radddogg 04 Aug 2015
....you side-step off route, shake out the pump, side-step back and continue the climb? No falls, no rest on rope.

Mod: Corrected your spelling in the title to appease the spelling police
1
 Graham Hoey 04 Aug 2015
In reply to radddogg:

OK, I'll bite. Yes, it's an onsight ascent of a variation on the route you attempted to do
1
 Chris Harris 04 Aug 2015
In reply to radddogg:

NO. BECAUSE THE TERM IS "ONSIGHT".

You know, "on sight", as in using your eyes, as in looking at something for the first time.

9
 tehmarks 04 Aug 2015
In reply to radddogg:

It's an onsight of something - whether it's an onsight of your chosen route depends on how long your legs are and how far you sidestep, I guess.
1
 jon 04 Aug 2015
In reply to radddogg:

Ha! My mate Traversing John often sidesteps from the route he started on... and then continues on THAT route... sometimes even sidestepping again... (hence his name). He has NO idea he's doing it - just like holding on to a quickdraw to clip it, which he does just as often. But you know what? He really enjoys himself!
1
Wiley Coyote2 04 Aug 2015
In reply to radddogg:

You can use the ones you can reach from the route but whether you have the ones you can reach from the ones you can reach...........
2
 The Pylon King 04 Aug 2015
In reply to jon:

I reckon the most liberating day of my climbing life was when I realised that all the people telling me that onsight was the only way were in fact deluded tw*ts.

4
In reply to radddogg:

> ....you side-step off route, shake out the pump, side-step back and continue the climb? No falls, no rest on rope.

No, because you have gone off-site!
2
 Robert Durran 04 Aug 2015
In reply to radddogg:

> ....you side-step off route, shake out the pump, side-step back and continue the climb? No falls, no rest on rope.

It's an onsight but of a contrived route if it makes it easier.
1
OP radddogg 04 Aug 2015
In reply to Chris Harris:
> NO. BECAUSE THE TERM IS "ONSIGHT".

> You know, "on sight", as in using your eyes, as in looking at something for the first time.

That's what I did though. I used my eyes to see there were no holds and side stepped to shake it off like Taylor Swift. What's the issue?

To be honest I think the issue is less about it being onsight and more about whether it is clean or dogged
Post edited at 23:53
1
 Robert Durran 04 Aug 2015
In reply to radddogg:

> To be honest I think the issue is less about it being on-site and more about whether it is clean or dogged.

I think it's more about spelling.

5
OP radddogg 04 Aug 2015
In reply to jon:

> He really enjoys himself!

I enjoyed myself too, despite it being my first mini epic
1
 Oogachooga 05 Aug 2015
In reply to radddogg:

I'm gonna vote no on-site for the route. Just as I find it easier to be strict about a personal on-site, makes it more rewarding. After all you didn't rest on route, which would have made the route easier. I would still log it as leading the route though.


1
 Billhook 05 Aug 2015
In reply to radddogg:

It hardly matters.
1
 Ciro 05 Aug 2015
In reply to radddogg:

As long as you're not sponsored, you can call it anything you like.
1
 Niall_li 05 Aug 2015
In reply to radddogg:

Can't see how stepping off line to a rest would blow your onsight as long as it wasn't a step out and climb around the crux or something. Is keeping an eye out for slightly off the line rests not a fairly standard approach?
1
OP radddogg 05 Aug 2015
In reply to Oogachooga:

> I'm gonna vote no on-site for the route. Just as I find it easier to be strict about a personal on-site, makes it more rewarding. After all you didn't rest on route, which would have made the route easier. I would still log it as leading the route though.

How would you propose logging it per the ukc logbook options?
1
 Ciro 05 Aug 2015
In reply to radddogg:

> How would you propose logging it per the ukc logbook options?

Lead dog.
1
 Hephaestus 05 Aug 2015
In reply to Ciro:

Would you count it as that if you down climbed from a low crux and rested on the ground before having another go?
1
 Ciro 05 Aug 2015
In reply to Hephaestus:

No.
1
 JDC 05 Aug 2015
In reply to Hephaestus:

No. If you down climb then you're only using the holds on the route.

If you step off to the side then you're bringing different (larger?) holds in to play. The grade is given for the route, not for the route with a rest in it. You might as well take a rest on some gear
1
 Ean T 05 Aug 2015
In reply to radddogg:

It means you haven't climbed an eliminate.
1
 JimboWizbo 05 Aug 2015
In reply to radddogg:

Would you call it an onsight if you tried a 7a indoors and traversed to rest on a 4+ on the adjacent line?
1
 GridNorth 05 Aug 2015
In reply to Robert Durran:
> It's an onsight but of a contrived route if it makes it easier.

I would say the opposite. To me it's contrived if it seeks out difficulty. The best routes are those that take the line of least resistance up a cliff following a line but are inescapable onto easier routes.

Al
Post edited at 10:10
2
 Hephaestus 05 Aug 2015
In reply to Ciro:

I don't really see the difference. As long as all the moves on the main line are done. Mind you, I'm only imagining taking a step or two to the side. Anyone who doesn't take that rest is just making life hard for themselves
1
 mav 05 Aug 2015
In reply to radddogg:

It probably depends on whether we are talking trad, (I'd argue mostly yes), sport (no), bouldering (difficult) or indoors !
1
 Kemics 05 Aug 2015
In reply to JimboWizbo:

Yeah, I agree. No onsight points for you

As everyone points out, it doesn't really matter, but I'd probably call this dogged. It's the same as grabbing gear or resting on the rope. On this day the climb won

2
 GridNorth 05 Aug 2015
In reply to Kemics:
How do you know that the first ascensionist didn't intend this and grade the route accordingly? I think it depends how far a sidestep you take. In fact thinking about it, one sidestep seems reasonable but more is questionable.

Al
Post edited at 10:53
1
 beardy mike 05 Aug 2015
In reply to Kemics:
Really? In my view the only time the route wins is if you fail completely i.e. you fall off or rest on gear or the rope. At the end of the day, routes are in a guide book. And the point of a guide book is that it guides you. You don't HAVE to do what it says. A route is only one way of getting to the top of the cliff and there are infinite possibilities. How are we going to make our lives even more difficult next? Do we not get the onsight if we don't do it exactly the same way the first ascensionist did it? Just because you are able to find an easy to get to rest doesn't mean you didn't climb the route onsight, you just stopped to have a rest. Maybe if you traverse 20 feet off route to a rest and then back, but really? Sounds like a knickers in a twist scenario to me...
Post edited at 10:53
1
 Robert Durran 05 Aug 2015
In reply to GridNorth:

> I would say the opposite. To me it's contrived if it seeks out difficulty. The best routes are those that take the line of least resistance up a cliff following a line but are inescapable onto easier routes.

I thought that was exactly my point! If it's possible to step off onto a rest or easier ground then it is contrived not to do so.



1
 GridNorth 05 Aug 2015
In reply to Robert Durran:

I'm afraid I read it wrong. Sorry.

Al
 Chris the Tall 05 Aug 2015
In reply to Robert Durran:

> If it's possible to step off onto a rest or easier ground then it is contrived not to do so.

Of course it's contrived, but thats climbing - anything but the easiest line is an eliminate. If your aim is simply to get to the top than anything is fair, but most of the time you want to climb a particular line. And that means not using holds on parallel routes. Would anyone claim an ascent of Hairless Heart if they'd stepped onto the diff to rest their aching calfs ?

Obviously what constitutes going off route is another matter, and depends on how closely packed the routes are, and how long your arms are
 Ciro 05 Aug 2015
In reply to Hephaestus:

You don't see a difference between downclimbing the route and traversing off it?
 Martin Hore 05 Aug 2015
In reply to radddogg:

All rather hypothetical so far - so lets put a "Top 50" route in the frame which came straight to mind when I read this. Manzoku at Stennis Head.

Quite close to the top, when you're really pumped if the climb is at your limit, you can step left (two steps at most) to a virtually hands off rest on Stennis Elbow (a harder climb). Once rested you can step back and finish up the proper line. The alternative is to shake out on the holds on route - just about adequate holds but on steep terrain.

On my first ascent I didn't step left, but I had "borrowed" a few moves from "Cool for Cats" lower down which are IMO easier than the true Manzoku line. So probably not a true on-sight of Manzoku. On subsequent ascents (not on-sights of course) I've tried all the permutations. My most recent attempt in June was the only time I've taken the true full Manzoku line and not stepped left near the top. That felt the hardest to date - but possibly because of advancing years rather than any other reason.

Main thing is that every time I've done the route it's been a highlight of the trip - a fantastic route - and I'm really not that bovvered whether I've ever actually on-sighted it.

Martin
 Fraser 05 Aug 2015
In reply to radddogg:

It's a First Ascent! (maybe)
 jon 05 Aug 2015
In reply to Martin Hore:

> to a virtually hands off rest on Stennis Elbow (a harder climb).

Might I say, a very fine climb to step left to.
 Oogachooga 05 Aug 2015
In reply to radddogg:

Pretty sure there is a 'lead' option. Without on-site, flash etc. May be wrong.

Thinking about it more, it's a friggin good question. I'm interested to see what the majority vote is.

How far roughly did you leave the route? There is a similar debate going on with a few of us on a route at cheddar gorge 'screwballed'. A lot of the guys seem to traverse right by 2m making the crux easier. Presumably making the route feel soft for the grade.

 Hephaestus 05 Aug 2015
In reply to Ciro:

No, not in this context. Unless traversing miles off route.
 Chris the Tall 05 Aug 2015
In reply to Martin Hore:

The one that sprang to my mind was Remember Wadi Rum, a 6c at Kalymnos, cos I sidestepped to the right to take a rest on a tufa blob, which led to shouts of "Oi thats cheating" from my mate. Didn't really matter as I wasn't leading, but my defense of "but this route is 7a" didn't cut the mustard !
 Ciro 05 Aug 2015
In reply to Hephaestus:

Lol, you're kidding right? You're either on the route or you're not.
 rocksol 05 Aug 2015
In reply to Ciro:

That,s the problem with closely packed sports routes following lines of bolts. Again and again I actually wonder if I,m on line or not, sometimes inventing difficulty to avoid the possibility of moving onto adjacent routes. Moving for a shake out, does it matter.
 jon 05 Aug 2015
In reply to rocksol:

We used to use the word 'blinkered', Phil.
 tmawer 05 Aug 2015
In reply to radddogg:

Some route descriptions are specific were this may be considered "an issue" eg Predator at Curbar says

"13m. The thin crack on the right is rather unsatisfying. The bulge is the crux (knee-bar rest) and although the ledges on the right are difficult to avoid, you have got to try!"

Perhaps, unless something like this is included in the description it will remain a grey area in which we can do what the heck we like!
 Jimbo C 05 Aug 2015
In reply to radddogg:

> ....you side-step off route

It's an onsight of a poor route because the line is escapable
 rocksol 05 Aug 2015
In reply to jon:

Yes correct. How are you and Hilary. I,m in Cham. next week
Cheers
Phil
 Martin Hore 05 Aug 2015
In reply to jon:

> Might I say, a very fine climb to step left to.

Ah - just spotted. It's one of yours!

Martin
 Hephaestus 05 Aug 2015
In reply to Ciro:

No, not kidding. Why would you ignore an obvious rest? There's no one way to do a route. Different people use different sequences, but you wouldn't say one person had succeeded and another had failed.
 LakesWinter 05 Aug 2015
In reply to Robert Durran:

If it's possible to step off onto a rest or easier ground then it is contrived not to do so.

This. Basically unless it involves traversing miles andmiles, and the issue is only an issue on crap eliminates or short crags.

 Robert Durran 05 Aug 2015
In reply to Chris the Tall:
> Anything but the easiest line is an eliminate.

Suppose you have a wall with two routes on it, an E1 crack and an E5 crack. The wall is otherwise completely blank and so the routes are completely inescapable. By your logic, you seem to be saying that the E5 is contrived/eliminate because it's not the easiest line. Or would you say both are contrived/eliminate because walking round the side of the crag is easier. Taken to its logical conclusion the only uncontrived/non-elimnate route would be the easiest route to the summit of a mountain!

I would say that a route is non-eliminate if it goes from point A (at the bottom of the crag) to point B (at the top) and, once embarked on the route at A, it is the easiest way to reach B without standing on the ground again at any point other than A.
Post edited at 14:20
 GridNorth 05 Aug 2015
In reply to radddogg:

BETA ALERT! There's a route at Wintours Leap called Yesterdays Dreams E2 5c. At the top there is an overhang that has to be surmounted with a bolt above the hard bit. If you do it direct it's desperate but if you traverse a couple of feet right there are jugs and the route is all the better for it. I've done it several times and every time I'm drawn right so I'm still not sure if I've really climbed the route as it was intended. If it wasn't intended to be climbed that way, it should have been. Going direct is creating difficulty for the sake of it.

Al
 Ciro 05 Aug 2015
In reply to Hephaestus:

I assume when the OP mentioned an off-route rest, they meant "off" as in "not on", not that the route smelled a bit sour. I don't think you're going to get many people arguing that you shouldn't use whatever rests you like on the route. Except maybe a bored belayer.
OP radddogg 05 Aug 2015
In reply to radddogg:

For more clarity, the climb was Central Wall (HS 4b)

Rockfax Description
10m. Excellent. Climb the centre of the buttress passing through the conspicuous shallow notch (the bull's horns) to below the capping roof. Finish left or right over this

I've done a diagram detailing the intended route in green, what I believe to be the route boundaries in amber and the route I took in red.

http://smg.photobucket.com/user/radddogg/media/central%20wall%20line.png.ht...

Removed User 05 Aug 2015
In reply to radddogg:

Absolutely disgusting - you should be ashamed young man. You should have been heckled and hounded from the crag. I suggest you update you logbook forthwith and ensure you have the climb down as dogged.
 GridNorth 05 Aug 2015
In reply to radddogg:

That looks like a 2 metre detour on a 10 metre route that wandered onto another route? I wouldn't be happy with that but at the same time I wouldn't care enough in this context to worry about it.

Al
OP radddogg 05 Aug 2015
In reply to Oogachooga:

> Thinking about it more, it's a friggin good question. I'm interested to see what the majority vote is.

Having thought about it and considered the comments so far I think the fairest way to log it would be Lead Dogged. While I didn't rest on the rope or fall off, the reason I didn't is because I temporarily escaped the route for the rest. I pumped myself trying to get a good placement before the crux and I just wasn't happy with the one wire I had in. If I had gone for it I may have made it but I would have been risking a groundfall if the wire popped.

Something I forgot to mention was that as I was topping out the rope jammed in a crack in the first overlap so I had to untie and solo the very top part.
OP radddogg 05 Aug 2015
In reply to Removed User:

> I suggest you update you logbook forthwith and ensure you have the climb down as dogged.

I already did

 Chris the Tall 05 Aug 2015
In reply to Robert Durran:

>Taken to its logical conclusion the only uncontrived/non-elimnate route would be the easiest route to the summit of a mountain!

Precisely. So climbing is about accepting a challenge. In your example, why would you climb the E5 when there's an E1 which takes in much the same ground ? Because you want the challenge of climbing the harder route. And we make the challenge harder by eliminating things that could make it easier.

Now my advice is always do whatever is practical, just be honest and don't damage the rock. I'd normally be quite happy to take a rest off-route if the other option was falling off. But if I was looking to climb a particular route (or grade) onsight, and did this, I'd know I'd ducked the challenge somewhat.
 Robert Durran 05 Aug 2015
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> In your example, why would you climb the E5 when there's an E1 which takes in much the same ground ?

No, the E1 and the E5 share no common ground.
 Chris the Tall 05 Aug 2015
In reply to radddogg:

Hold on, you didn't mention the route was in Lancashire, not so much Led and dogged as led and survived !

Not all ascents fit into neat pigeon holes, don't get hung up over it.
 jon 05 Aug 2015
In reply to radddogg:

> Something I forgot to mention was that as I was topping out the rope jammed in a crack in the first overlap so I had to untie and solo the very top part.

Hmmm, and did you have to step over the copulating couple in the bushes at the top only to get attacked by a pack of wild dogs and panic and have to................
 Ramblin dave 05 Aug 2015
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I would say that a route is non-eliminate if it goes from point A (at the bottom of the crag) to point B (at the top) and, once embarked on the route at A, it is the easiest way to reach B without standing on the ground again at any point other than A.

I think there's also a difference between an eliminate where you commit to a harder variant at one point but are basically following the line of least resistance from there on, and one where you need blinkers the whole way up to avoid getting onto easier stuff...
 Simon Caldwell 05 Aug 2015
In reply to radddogg:

> Something I forgot to mention was that as I was topping out the rope jammed in a crack in the first overlap so I had to untie and solo the very top part.

In that case you ought to log it as Solo dogged.
OP radddogg 05 Aug 2015
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

> In that case you ought to log it as Solo dogged.

Is that even an option?
 GridNorth 05 Aug 2015
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

> In that case you ought to log it as Solo dogged.

Is that because of the copulating couple Jon mentioned?

Al
 Robert Durran 05 Aug 2015
In reply to Ramblin dave:
> I think there's also a difference between an eliminate where you commit to a harder variant at one point but are basically following the line of least resistance from there on, and one where you need blinkers the whole way up to avoid getting onto easier stuff...

Yes, there are various degrees of elimination.
Post edited at 19:55
 stp 05 Aug 2015
In reply to radddogg:

If there's a line of black gaffer tape marking the edge of the route and you step over it I'm afraid it doesn't count.

In the absence of black tape its up to you, its about your interpretation of the line of the route. I agree with others that if the line is escapable its a not such a great route anyway. Generally I think if I can reach something then its on. Sometimes though two routes are really close and its obvious you're going onto the other route so I avoid that.
 Kemics 05 Aug 2015
In reply to GridNorth:

It's definitely harder going direct! It's the better route though. Much scarier to tackle the roof direct than scuttle off to the right The guide book is pretty specific on yesterday's dreams. Says something about using the finger slot in the lip of the roof. Which pretty much only sets you up for going direct.

For me climbing (trad) is largely psychological. It's a battle with fear not with the route. So sometimes I conquer fear, and sometimes it conquers me In my mind it's a much better to accept the challenge and fall short than to mentally quit.

I think it's a much purer attempt to feel the pump, decide to push on and ultimately take a fall. Than to mentally quit and find a way to rest or reduce the challenge. I'd rather fail spectacularly than succeed by a lesser means. But that's the climbing game, I cant expect anyone else to play by my rules, it's all totally arbitrary in the end.
 GridNorth 06 Aug 2015
In reply to Kemics:

I know it's harder, I can't do it but with regard to it being better I'm not so sure. It probably depends on what gives you satisfaction. For you it sounds like overcoming the physical /technical moves, for me it's the route finding and the challenge of finding the easiest way of doing something. Going right IMO makes it more homogeneous. I'm sure we can agree it's a good route however.

Al
 Kemics 06 Aug 2015
In reply to GridNorth:

Absolute classic one of my favourite E2s
 BarrySW19 06 Aug 2015
In reply to radddogg:

> ....you side-step off route, shake out the pump, side-step back and continue the climb? No falls, no rest on rope.

As no-one else really cares (*) you are free to log the climb however you like. If you want to call it an on-sight then log it as such.


(*) - Does not seem to apply if you are Franco Cookson.
 zimpara 06 Aug 2015
In reply to radddogg:

Don't log it as a dog. Add a "went off route" note on the onsight.

I don't think anyone would rather fall off, pumped on a trad line at their limit, than escape to a rest off route.

Did you have fun anyway?
 SenzuBean 06 Aug 2015
In reply to radddogg:
What about if you're on a short outcrop route, and you downclimb back to the ground to rest up before carrying on? I know it's generally accepted that on a long route, it's fine to downclimb to a rest before charging back up to the crux, but on a short route - there's usually nowhere else to rest but the start of the climb.
Is the onsight blown if if you climb up, attempt to put in gear - get pumped, climb back down to the ground for a rest and then try again?
Post edited at 12:20
 Flinticus 06 Aug 2015
In reply to radddogg:

Side issue: is it onsight, if you spend sometime at the base looking up at the route? UKC defines onsight as 'without prior inspection'. But surely you're going to look up at the line, which is inspecting, not approach with eyes downcast / upper view blocked?
 jon 06 Aug 2015
In reply to Flinticus:

Blindfolded?
 Flinticus 06 Aug 2015
In reply to jon:

I was thinking flat cap if north.

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