UKC

Applogies if this has been covered before, but I was just wondering whether folk think the style of ascent of a route is as important as the tick?

I'm thinking more in terms of trad than sport obviously.

Personally, if I can't climb a route in good style - by good style I mean ideally onsight, or if not, without taking multiple falls/rests or working the route to death - I'd sooner walk away and come back when I'm good enough.

In fact, I'd sooner not climb a route, than dog it to death purely to get the tick.

But am I in the minority?

In reply to Goucho:

It really depends.

Style does matter, but for those not blessed with endless supply of routes nearby will pretty soon either tick everything they can or never even venture on the borderline lines. This means that sooner or later, you might start to push your comfort zone a bit further and more often than not, it revolves around redpointing tactics.

So in short, you'll really have 2 grades to look at... your maximum limit (ie. redpoint/headpoint) and then your OS level (your best onsight). Naturally the order is reversed, so the hardest OS counts more, but as a training benchmark & target the maximum limit is also valuable.

In reply to Goucho:

For me, there's two sides to my climbing.

There's pootling about on outcrops, where I'd never dog the hell out of something. Then there's mountain routes, where I'm not fantastically bothered if I use minor aid (although all I've really done is pull on a nut, once, and I can't even remember where it was). I have completely different objectives on mountain routes vs. outcrops.

In reply to HeMa:



I've heard this repeated many times, but I can't recall either myself or anyone I climbed with having to adopt 'redpointing tactics' in order to move up through the grades?

Mind you, I've always climbed lots of routes at one grade before moving up to the next, and never tried to jump 2 grades

In reply to Goucho:


Why not? It's just a number.

In reply to Goucho:

I would think this entirely depends on the attitudes and motivations of the individual in question. I don't think anyone would argue that an onsight tick is far more rewarding than 'working the route to death'.

In my opinion, there is a massive difference than slowly dogging your way up a route falling off the same moves multiple times than reading the crux wrong the first time before completing the pitch clean for instance. At the moment, I am only likely to be in the area I am in for the next year or so so for the time being, I am just enjoying jumping on everything I possibly can. Sometimes this means I fall off, sometimes it doesn't - it doesn't massively bother me.

In reply to Goucho:

It happens, when you've already ticket the odd 20 routes at the grade you can climb. And then you have the next 15 to 20 routes that are quite a bit harder to go at.

We don't all live in places with abidance of routes within reasonable distance... Heck majority of the crags that are within reasonable distance from where I live have 10 to 20 routes on them, and most certainly ain't the the grade range I can climb.

To be honest, the complete guidebook for Finland is a lot thinner than Eastern Grit... And the area is 338 441 square Km, where as the whole island of Great Brittain is 216 777 square Km.

In reply to thom_jenkinson:


Completely agree.

In reply to Goucho:

Well, its about having fun innit? For me its either onsighting stuff I can 'probably' get up first go (while not too easy not to be interesting) or headpointing. Either way not taking repeated lobs onto trad gear. Whether that is due to placement-protecting ethics or lack of balls I'll let you decide

In reply to Goucho:

If I can't do a trad route after three goes I’ll pack my tail between my legs and move on. For me the 'tick' is to get it first go, second go ground-up being a consolation prize. Grades are given for the onsight, you can't fall off a route a load of times, get up it eventually and then say "First E2!", so it's all about that first go (for me, maybe not for others).

Something I learned from previous hobbies was that I appreciate more the style of a climber's movement more than the grade or style of ascent. Watching a climber move in a fluid and confident manner is a joy and really inspires. This can be on a Pembroke HVS, Malham 8c or down the foundry on the Wave. This is ironic as I am often lambasted for my rather frantic and less than fluid approach.

In reply to planetmarshall:


Because to jump 2 grades would necessitate me adopting redpointing tactics, which I find as interesting as spending a week locked in a shed with a copy of Discount Tupperware Monthly

In reply to Goucho:

I will try really really hard on a trad route to onsight it. For me personally, the onsight of a trad route at my limit is always a huge personal achievement. I don't particularity like working and then 'headpointing' trad routes, though have done it and may do it again, depending on the circumstances.

Of course, what strategies others do is fine and I would not take anything away from someone who has worked and headpointed a trad route.

Sport climbing is different, but we aren't talking about that.

In reply to Goucho:
There are no rules. What matters to you is what matters.

I doubt it.

In reply to Southern Mark Smith:


We could... it's the same there... after all. You aim for the onsight.... and might end up redpointing it.

Or you pick something that you know is above your limits and redpoint it, in order to get better.

In reply to Goucho:

Absolutely, definitely, good style is not only more important than the tick, it is essential and actually defines the tick.

Bad style is self-defeatist: Ticking the grade without actually doing it in the style the grade is intended for isn't ticking the grade at all.

Good style not only gets you the tick and the grade (if that is what matters), it gets you a quality experience that tackles the full challenge the grade defines, allows you to exercise your true climbing capabilities, and shows respect for the route and other people who climb it in good style.

Good style is also completely non-elitist, it is open to everyone across the grade spectrum. A VDiff climber can push themselves and tackle a VDiff or Severe in good style just as much as an E5 climber on an E5 or 6, the experience and personal challenge is equally valid.

Furthermore in this day and age, there are so many factors in the climber's favour that promote good style: High quality guidebooks, excellent climbing gear, information and discussion on the internet, cunning tactics (getting partners to brush routes, tied down spotters, running belayers etc), that there is more opportunity than ever to tackle routes in the best style possible.


(N.B. as always new routes (without any of the usual information) and cutting edge routes (yet to be done in good style) are likely exceptions, style has less relevance there as setting a previously-unknown path for others to follow is very different to repeating well known well established routes).

In reply to GuyVG:
I remember many years ago climbing on the Grochan in the Pass.

We arrived at the crag at about 9.30 am, put our sacs down below Brant and started gearing up. There was a guy about on 10 foot up Brant Direct.

Anyway we went off did a route, came back to our sacs for a fag, and the guy on Brant Direct was now about 15 foot up, hanging off a runner.

Off we went and did another route, came back and the guy on Brant Direct was now lowering down to the ground from about 30 foot up.

We sat and watched him dog his way back to his highpoint, falling twice, and pulling on gear, before we went off to do another couple of routes.

When we got back to our sacs again by which time it was about 4.30 pm, we were just in time to see the guy on Brant Direct finally reach the top of the pitch, at which point he punched his arms in the air, and shouted down to his mates - "See, I f*ckin told you I climbed HVS!"

In reply to HeMa:


No, don't agree with you on that. The onsight in trad climbing has always been the ultimate goal, certainly from my climbing background and what I learnt early on as a climber anyway. Climbing from the bottom to the top, finding and placing protection as you climb for me is the goal in trad climbing. It is the ultimate challenge and is what trad, for me anyway, is all about.

Onsighting in sport climbing is a big achievement, but I don't mind as much if I don't onsight a sport route and then work and redpoint it. Infact, in sport climbing, for me, I get as much out of a hard redpoint, that I have worked for, as I do onsighting. In trad climbing, working and redpointing a route does not give me the same sense of achievement. For me, trad is about the onsight.

So, to answer Goucho's question, yes the style in trad is important. Especially if we are trying to build on the history of trad climbing from the early days when the leader did not fall. Thankfully, that is not the case with modern protection. But that premise, that the leader does it first go, no falls is, in my opinion, very important.

In reply to Goucho:

I'll try and onsight as much as I can after top roping an HVS just after starting out and thinking, "I'll never be good enough to lead that." I led it 2 years later and that taught me that with enough practice and experience I could progress further and so there was no point in headpointing or top roping routes in general.

Nowadays I will try onsight, then try ground up and then walk away in general. I have made a couple of exceptions recently as I'd tried routes ground up, got a long way more than once and not done them so they were hardly onsight experiences anymore and so I headpointed them. But it's an unfulfilling and cheap experience compared to onsighting, even though the lead goes much more smoothly.

In reply to Southern Mark Smith:


So Onsighting a sport route is the same as redpointing it...

Style matters, which ever discipline it is.

No matter if it is sport, boulder, mountain or trad.

Style still matters. It's only the purely indoor focused climbers that just look at the "grade". But for most of them, indoor climbing is just another physical exercise... same as running or going to the gym to pump some iron.

In reply to Southern Mark Smith:

I've got many personal milestone routes, the memories and experiences of which, were so much more intense, satisfying and meaningful because I waited until I was good enough to do them onsight.

In reply to Goucho:




I'm basically with you but it really depends on the definition of "good style". If I did a three pitch route and took one fall or sneaked a quick rest I'd consider it "ticked" but imperfectly.
If I dogged my way up a gritstone route with two falls, two rests and a submission I wouldn't regard it as ticked.

I guess my assessment is whether I have basically achieved the experience of a free ground up ascent. I'm not terribly interested in whether it is "onsight".

In reply to Fiend:

Agreed. You've said it perfectly, so I won't repeat.

In reply to Goucho:

I have no style, so am happy enough with the tick...

In reply to Goucho:



A good topic and a great thread Goucho et al... Refreshing. And not a bolt in sight!
'Style' every time, surely? And, if it's not done in 'style' then it doesn't get the 'tick'. Surely again?
Plus; The louder the Lycra and the more - apropros Brant Direct - 'fags' involved the bigger the texta you can use in the guidebook. Ha! (Then again I would say that).
Oh, and by the way: There's nowt wrong with decent Tupperware you know. Have you seen what a sandwich box goes for these days on Fleabay? Me & my fellow collectors at our last T'ware Victorian State branch meeting were only just lamenting how.............
OK. Goodnight.

In reply to Goucho:
FWIW, I don't think that people who headpoint seriously are doing it "just to get the tick". They're presumably doing it because they find the process interesting.

For my part, I'm a trad punter and basically aim to onsight everything when I'm out tradding. But when I'm indoors (which happens more than I'd like on accounts of living in East Anglia) or bouldering outdoors I find that, in the absence of a lot of the stuff that makes the onsight trad headgame interesting - the commitment, specifically - the stuff that's interesting is that stuff that involves spending a lot of time trying to unlock a something, thinking through things, trying to understand what isn't working, what I need to do differently, trying to stay focused and not just give up in disgust and go and do something else...

So yeah, I can kind of understand the attraction of trad headpointing even if I don't do it myself. Particularly, I suppose, for full time climbers, who've might well find that there's more interest in trying to nail a couple of hard projects over a couple of months than just rocking up and down dozens and dozens of onsights.

Edit: and yeah, style is important, but style is a matter of playing honestly by the rules of the game that you've chosen, not a matter of which game you choose to play.

In reply to Goucho:

In the words of the late, great, Philip 'Bish' MacAra ;

'any downward movement or weighting gear is failure '

Sadly the first condition means I have done very few routes.

In reply to Goucho:

There's no denying that climbing something on first attempt is great but I guess it depends on if it was something that was well within your capabilities or if it gave just the right amount of challenge for the climber. I think style is important but that can take work and it may mean either taking the time to work on a route and learn how to climb it well or go back, improve on other routes and then climb that once you've improved. Either way work needs to be done and even on routes that I've done a few times, being able to climb them well and where I'm in flow is just as satisfying as climbing something that I found to be just the right amount of challenge for the first time.

If I climb and I feel like it's just all flowing together then it's good to see how things have got better from in the past. This week I had a few climbs where I was like that. Things just came together and I could see how all the things I'd struggled with had improved. My confidence dip has pretty much gone, I no longer find my hands sweat stupid amounts, I've got more confident in my balance and it's letting me do things I didn't or found very difficult to do, my hands are a bit stronger so I can use holds that I was perhaps not so happy to use. The end result is that I've been improving and been able to enjoy myself and that's what matters most.

In reply to AP Melbourne:

I can't match your climbing or your lycra Andy, but I might be able to keep up with the fags

Also, I've got a really nice set of 1977 Tuperware cereal boxes in various sizes if your interested?

In reply to Goucho:

Each to their own, and the best climber is the one having the most fun. That said, i feel like a wee rant...

Personally (and with a very small number of exceptions) if I fail on a trad route that I care about, and am likely to be able to return to (i.e. not on the other side of the world) then I would rather walk away and return when I have got better. One obvious exception would be a mountain route where you cant just lower-off

Fiend's point about the same subjective challenge facing the HVDiff leader and the E5 leader is good. That is one of the aspects that has always really attracted me to climbing as a sport.
As you get better, it isnt meant to get easier.

Thus, I dont see the headpoint tactic as any way to progress in ones ability. It only makes you rely more on headpointing, while one's onsight level will remain about the same. You might get some bigger numbers in your logbook, but where's the progress in that? You have simply lowered the bar.

I also sometimes get depressed when I think of what we are leaving for future generations. I would personally like to take my (eventual) children climbing, perhaps even grandchildren. There are some routes, cursed by their 3star status, that will become polished to glass within the decade. Easier routes will perhaps become unpleasant but still within the realms of most climbers, but harder lines (which are so frequently headpointed and worked to death) may well be placed beyond the reach of all but an elite of polish-specialists. On sandstone the holds may disappear entirely!
Its usually not very PC to complain about over top-roping and sieging. Routes should be there for all to enjoy however they wish, right? But looking at rock as something we are only borrowing from future generations, routine headpointing is ultimately selfish. Perhaps we should take only our fair share, and leave what we can for our children?
I was recently climbing on the Czech sandstone at Teplice, and while I would not advocate the no-chalk, no-nuts, no-top-roping approach in the UK, it was an eye-opener how much emphasis the locals placed on the preservation of rocks for future climbers.

rant over, enjoy your climbs...

In reply to Goucho:

Ta Goucho,
If you have a 500oz (serial No XP 1-00/zp' with the green top) I'll take it. Reckon I can store my tights in it for posterity (sadly, yes I still have them).
Joking aside, good topic and style's definitely the only way...
Best.
AP.

In reply to Dr Toph:
One of the disadvantages of rushing through the grades in pursuit of E numbers, is all the brilliant routes you miss out in lower grades.

Whilst a lot of my most treasured memories are on harder routes, I've also had some equally wonderful days on mid grade routes.

In reply to AP Melbourne:



Only got it in blue unfortunately Andy?

In reply to Dr Toph:

It forces you out of your comfort zone and make harder moves (physically, mentally or both).


True, it might... if you only headpoint. Even most headpointers actually climb OS a lot, so that really isn't true.


Indeed. But if you manage to easily headpoint numerous E(x)s, well then you're more likely to try to OS E(x-2)s and most prolly with good results. And BTW. you're not lowering the bar on your logbook anywhere. E-grades are for OS... so by headpointing you've ticked to route but can't claim the E-points .

Oh, and to re-enstate... OS is great (and the best style)... but if you only have a limited amount of routes at your OS-grade (say, about 50 to 100) within reasonable distance and time... well, you really don't progress at all. Since before long, you have ticked them all and still ain't strong enough to progress up the grade ladder.

Just ask Toby, he spent quite a long while here... and still struggles with E1s (like I do). Albeit quite soon that is about the change for him, considering he now lives back within spitting distance of Stanage.

In reply to planetmarshall:


It's not just a number. It's a different reality. The number is just an abstraction of that reality, a convenient shorthand that we use. But potentially fatal to confuse the abstraction with the reality.

Let's take an example of two grades, two grades apart - E5 and E7, both with a single 6b crux. Failure on the E5? Probably a whipper; hurt ego, not more. Failure on the E7? Chances are it's gonna hurt... a lot more than your ego.

Mick

In reply to Fiend:

Good post Fiend.

In reply to Mick Ward:



Succinctly put Mick.

My approach to grade progression - always motivated by my desire for the routes, not the number attached to them - has been to work my way up to routes at the top end of each grade, then move up to routes at the bottom end of the next grade up, and repeat.

Not only does it avoid the need to 'work' routes in the next grade up, but gives a stronger foundation for future progression IMHO.

In reply to Mick Ward:

Well, your examples are outside my realm of experience, but is it not possible to have a well protected E7 and a lethal E5? In which case, if you're comfortable at high technical grades but not the boldness, why not make the jump?

My point wasn't that grades aren't useful, just that personally they aren't the only guide to what routes to try. If it's safe, and the climb is worth doing, I see no reason in not attempting it just because it's a 2 instead of a 1.

In reply to planetmarshall:

I think there's a difference between thinking "this route is safe and only a grade or so above my usual onsight grade so I'll have a crack at it and see if I surprise myself" and thinking "this route is four[1] or so grades above my usual onsight grade so I'll get a shunt and spend six months projecting it."


[1] For some value of "four".

In reply to Goucho:

When I first went to Cwm Glas Mawr in about 1971, there was an entry in the log book by Jim Perrin, discussing two guys frigging their way up The Corner - much like your example of Brant Direct. Jim didn't slag them off but he did raise the issue of style and its relevance to the experience. He got flamed. People scribbled all sorts of crap on the article. I was shocked. He was, of course, absolutely in the right.

Wilson used to bang on about serving your apprenticeship and again he was absolutely correct. If people just go for the big numbers, as quickly as possible, they miss your 'stronger foundation', Wilson's apprenticeship and there's a fundamentally deadly weakness in their climbing. For example, they might have pissed up some fingery E5 on slate, headpointed an E6 on Burbage but end up on some gnarly Gogarth E3, sloping, insecure, three-dimensional, protection peg withered to rust, seepage on the crux... That's when the stronger foundation, the apprenticeship, comes into its own.

A funny old thing, climbing. But, if you get it wrong, it can be anything but funny.

Mick

In reply to planetmarshall:

Whatever works for you, just please be careful.

(And sorry if I sound like your granny, but that's how you end up!)

Mick

In reply to Ramblin dave:


Sure, but 'a grade' is an entirely arbitrary unit. In some areas and for some skill types it may be incredibly wide, or it may be very narrow. Maybe you're not even using UK grades and have decided to use YDS instead. In which case, do you still decide to never 'jump' a grade?

For the record, I've never jumped a trad grade (though I had a go at a 7a+ sport climb, 6b being my current best onsight), but I wouldn't rule it out just for the sake of a number.

In reply to Mick Ward:

You can build a shed on flimsy foundations Mick, but not a tower block

In reply to Goucho: I thought everyone who's been climbing outdoors for a few months knew you only get the 'tick' for a clean onsight lead? I doubt you are in a minority there. I think there might be a split between people who climb primarily for the 'tick', and those that climb for other reasons.

In reply to Goucho:

For trad yes, it has to be onsight for me, or failing than a honourable attempt! Sport happy to flash, can't be bothered to work them for too long but happy redpointing.

O seem to do much more sport nowadays!

In reply to Mike Stretford:


I thought everyone who's been climbing outdoors for a few years knew that this bollocks about a 'tick', where the 'tick' is some arbitrary bollocks pulled out of the arse end of ukc, is a nonsense.

People should just get on with enjoy their own climbing and stop worrying so much about how other people climb.

What does it matter if you dog your way up a route? Or, god forbid, head point it? As long as you try not to detrimentally affect other people's enjoyment of the route I see no harm.

In reply to Goucho:

Personally I'd say for Trad you should be aiming for a clean on-sight lead (no falls or resting on gear) for that ultimate tick. However ff you climb the route many times on top rope and then lead it then cleanly I suppose it's not quite the same thing but still worthy of a tick.

However if you are going to fall off a route multiple times then I'd count that as dogged (no tick) and perhaps you should try something easier if you want to stay alive...

On the other hand if it's sport then why not work the route (it's safe to do so) and then eventually lead it cleanly?

I agree Remus, there is an awful lot of judging going on here, 'its only good if you do it my way....' Sounds like British colonials in the Raj! Every ascent is as valid as the person doing it feels it is. Don't impact others but after that go enjoy your climbing.

In reply to philhilo:


Aren't people just expressing their opinions?

Every ascent is as valid as the person doing it feels it is.

That's called operating in denial isn't it?

In reply to remus:


Actually, it's been pretty much the standard benchmark for good style for several decades before UKC existed.

In reply to Fiend:

Amen to this . It captures the magic of the climbing sport. "equally valid" is the key sentiment. The thrills are the same across the spectrum of grades

"......Good style is also completely non-elitist, it is open to everyone across the grade spectrum. A VDiff climber can push themselves and tackle a VDiff or Severe in good style just as much as an E5 climber on an E5 or 6, the experience and personal challenge is equally valid....."

In reply to remus:


Completely agree, I climb in different styles, however I wouldn't say the 'tick' is bollocks. I meant that we all know pretty quickly that the grade is given for a clean onsight lead, but it isn't necessarily how we want to climb all the time.

In reply to Goucho:


"As valid as the person doing it feels it is" is probably not quite right.

But the idea that my onsight wobble up Via Media at Stanage is more "valid" than Dave Mac's FFA of the Longhope Route because he "cheated" and I didn't seems a bit forced as well...

In reply to Goucho:

style usually trumps the tick HOWEVER for me it's more the style you attempt the route in as being most important. For example going for the onsight is better than saving it forever and never doing it (though obviously you pick and choose your routes).

I have no desire to head point trad routes - the bold grit ones would have to be a formality thus pointless and the spicy mountain sea cliff ones would be a waste of time when I could go on sighting.

Occasionally I will take the tick if I feel I have had the experience of the route. For example Hanging out at Galstonbury at Castell Helen. Did it with GuyVG last summer. I led the first crux pitch onsight but fell seconding the second crux pitch with 20m rope coiled round my shoulders and painful feet. We both topped out with eyes on stalks. I feel like I had the adventure on that route and in my mind deserve the tick. It's not a single pitch test piece it's a big adventure route.

As long as people are honest, having fun and not trashing the rock I'm psyched for whatever style people choose to climb in

Dunc

In reply to Ramblin dave:



I don't think working a route is necessarily cheating - and certainly not when it comes to the kind of stuff Dave Mac and other top climbers do - it's just a different style, though obviously not as good in pure style terms as an onsight.

However, my original post was just asking whether style of ascent was an important factor or not?

In reply to Mike Stretford:


Yeah, agree.

Bragging in the pub about being an "E5 leader" because you once toproped a gritstone slab until you could do it in your sleep and then nipped up it on lead is obviously pretty ridiculous. On the other hand, saying that some hard headpoint that someone's put god knows how much mental and physical effort and self-sacrifice into over a period of several years is a waste of time because they don't get the "tick" seems almost equally ridiculous.

In reply to Goucho:

For me, yes, definitely. Not because it's some handed-down dogma that it's the One True Ascent, but because a style lays down a challenge, and the challenge is (often) what's interesting. And to me, onsight trad is a natural, satisfying and, er, challenging challenge.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

I'm a bit baffled why everyone is scratching their heads over this one. The phrase 'style that matters' has two completely different meanings. Style that matters to others, and style that matters to oneself. At the end of the day, it is surely what matters to oneself, and what one feels in one's heart of hearts about the way one's done something? It's really just a question of doing something well or badly, a job done well or a job done badly. It seems fantastic to me that something so central to life is a riddle that needs explaining to some young folks in 2015 !

In reply to Goucho:


I want a pair of those rose tinted spectacles you're sporting. The past must seem a happy place.

In reply to remus:

It was, and just like today, there were plenty of people climbing routes in various different styles, but we called it frigging, yo yoing or dogging, not working or headpointing.

Changing the terminology doesn't alter the fact it's the same thing.

Climb a route in whatever style you want, but don't try and dress it up as something it isn't.

In reply to Fiend:

4 dislikes to that spot on post. What and who the fukc?

In reply to People in general

I don't want to generalise (but will! )

There appears to be a bit of an assumption by some that people who head point are doing it to cheat their way up a particular grade they can then claim which feeds their ego and possibly stature in the eyes of others. But in the wee dark hours, in the corner of their mind, they'll need to face their demands of style, and God help them then. (that may be a little dramatic, but you get my point.)

Two general points from a personal perspective related to the tongue in cheek drivel above.

Firstly, head pointing has saved my climbing. Having come back to climbing after my wife and I had two kids (when I went to cycling and fell running - don't worry, I've had counselling), head pointing and red pointing opened up a whole new dimension to climbing which really wasn't there before and has enriched the overall experience. In some respects it isn't as overtly adventurous as on sighting but the feeling of moving over rock on a potentially dangerous trad route at my absolute ability limit, (or a lot closer to it than I can on sight), is very special and involved dealing with its own set of different, but real, fears. I don't do it a lot - maybe one hard (for me) head point and one hard red point a year - but I really enjoy it. I appreciate what on sighting brings - for me one of the best days out is still on a hard route on a big winter cliff on sighting with a good mate - but it's not the only experience that's great, and for me I guess too much of the same thing leads to stagnation.

Interestingly my lead onsight grade in both Summer and Winter have improved while doing this.

Secondly if you genuinely don't care what others think about your climbing (something my 20 year old self may have struggled with but my now 40 something has no issue with) then it doesn't matter what style you are climbing in as long as you don't damage anything, If one style is more important to you personally then fair enough, if you do a route in a HP style but say / let others believe you OSed it then you are back to dealing with your own deamonds (but only if OS is more important to you). As long as you are enjoying climbing you've won - if others want to rank your ascents or compare them with their own that's their problem not yours. The original post asked Is it the style or tick that matters - it only matters to you.

In reply to Goucho:

The problem with trad climbing at the moment is that there seems to be no consensus view of what to do on a route once you've fallen off it. I asked this on these forums a while back and got a lot of different answers. This is in stark contrast to sport climbing where a redpoint ascent clearly defines one's success or failure.

In the past on trad you either lowered off and tried again (a yo yo) or you could try the moves after resting on you top bit of gear (but only that which you'd placed on lead from the ground). I think headpointing in particular has added to this confusion which is another style that I think ought to be separated from trad ascents. The essence of trad climbs used to be climbing from the ground up and anything else was considered cheating.

So without clarity on this I think any trad ascent other than a flash or onsight is going to feel unsatisfactory, particularly with routes you're very close to flashing. In the past if you didn't do a route first try you could still take pride in doing it with just one fall or two, without dogging etc.. But this doesn't seem to exist today.

In reply to Goucho:

Onsighting is fun. Headpointing is fun. Being safe is fun. Being bold is fun. Climbing is FUN.

Can't we just have fun?

In reply to stp:

I think it only counts if you climb from bottom to top without falling or weighting gear or pulling on gear, otherwise, no tick, you've not done the route.

Obviously this includes, in rough order of style quality; onsight, then flashing with some beta, or going ground up, pulling the ropes between attempts and lastly headpointing, or gaining beta from an abseil inspection or some such.

In reply to MischaHY:



I don't think you get UKC at all.

In reply to Goucho:

Totally unable to empathise with fellow climbers who simply want to see just how hard they can climb, it is not unusual to hear traditional climbers making this argument against sport climbers, boulderers and headpointers.

If you only onsight then you will always be climbing within yourself, never truly testing just how far you can go. If anything onsight climbing seems closer to the safe and sensible Tupperware shopping analogy.

The laughable point is that pretty much all redpointers also enjoy onsighting as well so why is it that we get curmudgeonly types unable to enjoy both styles of climbing and desperate to look down upon and deride other styles? Is it perhaps because their fragile egos are battered by those climber harder but in worse style?

If you don't enjoy redpointing/headpointing then don't do it but don't pretend that this some how makes you a superior climber or person.

In reply to planetmarshall:

Eh, what can I say. I prefer positivity

In reply to Tru:


This is a generalisation. Contrary to urban myth, there are climbers who really like pushing and testing themselves onsight.


Climbing a hard route in poor style is not exactly demonstrating prowess is it?


I'm not sure that's what people are actually saying, they are just - like me - expressing a personal preference on how they prefer to climb.

In reply to Goucho:

Incidentally I'm about to post a blog about headpointing. After the routes mentioned in the blog, I went and got the onsight on Artless (E5 6b).

Honestly, I'm equally stoked about climbing hard (for me) in both styles. Isn't that ok?

In reply to MischaHY:



Of course. It's all down to personal preference - which is all my original post was actually asking.

In reply to Goucho:

Ahhh sweet, I totally get that.

In reply to Goucho:

"Is the tick or the style the most important?" Neither. It's the EXPERIENCE that counts!

Climbing a route onsight which on paper is your top grade but which doesn't test you to the limit may be less memorable than going for something after working it and the arms only just holding out on lead. Or abbing into a big mountain cliff on your own to take a look at something while the clouds swirl around you (then later going back for the lead).

In reply to Michael Gordon:


I think that goes without saying.


A route doesn't have to push you to your limits to be memorable - unless difficulty is the only metric you're interested in measuring your climbing experiences by?

In reply to Goucho:

I guess many people here are thinking along the lines of shorter trad routes where difficulty is the main (or only) issue. On longer routes we may do what ever is needed - and sometimes the pleasure is covering ground quickly and efficiently - or in getting up in spite of the conditions - or before the storm breaks! Tempted to say that's why multi pitch routes are so rewarding - but then that's merely my perspective. How we record or tick routes. and how and why we enjoy a particular climb is a personal thing surely. Often it has been for me the pleasure of a shared experience.

In reply to Goucho:

Style is the man.
Dangling about on a rope is the antithesis of climbing.
Similarly, standing around for hours, slotting in endless runners has little to do with, and only sullys, the act of climbing.
Shaking, sweating and grunting also mar the experience.
Proper cruising, which can occur without warning at your easiest or hardest grades, is the way to go...
I'd say.

In reply to Goucho:


No, but the most memorable leads tend to be the difficult ones...

In reply to Goucho:


Depends how hard, surely?



Isn't it exactly what you said two lines up?

In reply to Goucho:

For me, I've either ticked a route, or I've cocked it up. Never really been interested in 'headpoint' and 'ground-up' ascents. I understand that if I wanted to climb harder grades, I'd need to fail more (and then learn to get something out of these different styles), but for me, once in a while is enough.

In reply to Goucho:


What does 'poor style' even mean? Why is one style superior to another? If you're spending days on a route it's obviously going to be much harder than something you can onsight. It's also likely to be more memorable because you've spent longer on it and more rewarding because you've had to put much more effort in and the outcome is often far less certain.

And because its a much harder route then surely the sheer difficulty would help demonstrate prowess too (though is that really even a factor in this?)

In reply to uphillnow:


I do agree, but then again not many of us would even attempt a real multipitch at our maximum (OS) level. I know I wouldn't, and think I'd cruise it.



Nope, I believe your view is shared by many. My most memorable instances of climbing have mostly been about multipitch climbs (Gran Cap, Presten, Stetind, Kundalini, Via del Veterano, Henrike Fossen, Gausta Maraton and so on)... Ok, the most vibrant memory might have been a few of the boulders I've managed to climb... But still.

In the early '90s I went over to Caley for a day's bouldering with a young chap who was very keen and very good. Quite why he was climbing with me I'm not sure; let's say he had the talent, I had the car...

It was a lovely day, we had a good time, did a lot of problems. Then we fetched up by Adrenaline Rush. He said 'I think I could do that. Can we put a rope up on it?' I've no doubt he could have, but I refused, making puritanical noises on the lines of 'I'd really like to wait until we're good enough - I want to do it in good style'.

What a prat. He was too nice a guy to complain but the air chilled slightly. And of course I never did get good enough. He did, and way more. There may be a moral there...

In reply to Bob Kemp:

Then again, if he found himself back there again and this time went for the onsight, he may have thanked you afterwards?