UKC

James McHaffie and Ryan Pasquill have made quick ascents of The Big Issue (E9 6c) at Bosherston Head, Pembroke. They both had an onsight attempt at the route the previous week, only to be thrown off by the technical crux. However, both returned the following weekend and completed the climb.

Read more

In reply to UKC News:

Awesome, what a duo, heavy night....

In reply to UKC News:

An old favourite!

Juts noticed the brush at 27:41.......I say!

In reply to UKC News:

Obviously not having a go at Caff, but the blurb at the top of the article is incorrect when it says they "completed the climb ground up".

Caff is quite clear that he didn't do it ground up in his description. Not clear how Ryan climbed it but probably in a similar style to James?

It doesn't really matter how they did it, but if the route hasn't yet had a ground up ascent (has it? or did those strong foreigners do it G/U?) then it's not helpful to state here that it has been done GU. Someone might still want that prize of doing the first GU ascent.

In reply to Will Hunt:

Maybe I'm being thick here Will but where does he say that?

In reply to Adam Long:

The opening post on this thread:


But the ground up bit doesn't appear in the article.

In reply to jon:

No, I meant where does Caff say that it isn't.

I suspect people may have different definitions of ground-up here. I've always understood it to mean 'anything goes except pre-inspection'. So falling off, leaving kit in or having to drive home to do a week's work between attempts are all fair game.

In reply to Adam Long:

I'm with you here Adam, my take on ground-up is relatively liberal compared to the onsight (which is simple: you either do it or you don't).

That said I've never left gear in for multi-day ascents, but that's more down to it being impractical. If it was more practical I can assure you I'd have done it!

In reply to Adam Long:

"After falling from an onsight attempt, James tied off the old peg and did the crux and then lowered down, thinking they would both climb it on their next attempt. Unfortunately, they were..."

In reply to UKC News:

sounds like caff pre-practiced the crux meaning no ground up

In reply to UKC News:

That's interesting. Firstly, I want to be clear that I'm not having a go, because obviously Caff is in an incredibly exclusive group of the world's best trad climbers and he's a total wad.

However, I always took ground-up to mean: climbing from the start of the pitch (with beta or without), placing gear on lead, and if you fall off you lower straight away, pull the ropes and have another go - continuing this until you get to the top. In a perfect world you'd be putting the kit in on every try, but in practice this is a complete ball ache unless you're some sponsored Red Bull supping hero who has an assortment of sycophants to abseil down after each go and strip the gear.

I'm aware there's almost infinite variations on ground-up, but thought that these should always be accompanied by a caveat explaining what particular concession was made.

Caff says he fell off and then did the crux on dog, which I always thought meant ruling yourself out of a ground-up ascent. From an academic point of view (and it obviously depends on the particular route), this is a bigger concession to make than your usual tricks since it means you can rest and then work the crux - possibly in isolation if the pro is close to hand. In a true GU style you'd always be coming to the crux in some state of pump and trying to climb it from the previous sequence, as opposed to in isolation.

Rob. Next April Fool's Day we need a 10,000 word dissertation on the various frigs which can be made, when they're appropriate, and what they should be called. I've a feeling that you're the man for the job. My favourite is my anonymous mate who was going to lead a new E2 out in the back of beyond and forgot to pack the crucial Friend 1 in his bag that protects the crux. He dangled a rope down from the top with a bight of rope to clip in just the location that he would have placed the Friend. What can we call that? A yousaidyouwerebringingtherackpoint.

In reply to Will Hunt:

As much as it pains me to say it, I agree with Will!

In reply to Will Hunt:

Ah right, I had missed the bit about dogging the crux. What you describe sounds like yo-yo though, I know it isn't used much any more but ground-up I think shouldn't mean any more than is implied by the words 'ground up'. Doesn't sound like Ryan did any dogging though and, to be fair, getting Ryan on these things is usually the crux so I'd be prepared to cut Caff a bit of slack for that.

The team ground-up ascent is powerful way to break down routes that have only ever been headpointed, as well as fun, natural way to go about things. Where a few are involved it will always result in different shades of grey in terms of style - so Caff took a step back by dogging the crux which gives Ryan the beta for a 'better' ascent. Being too dogmatic about terminology (are these terms officially defined anywhere anyway?) ends up with the tail wagging the dog, e.g. yosemite style where one guy leading everything with a 'fluffer' partner jugging and cleaning is seen as superior to two swinging leads and both freeing everything..

In reply to Adam Long:

Im not sure we're suggesting caff is playing fast and loose with the truth, merely that the reporting is confused.

caff has described exactly what he did, then someone incorrectly reports it as ground up.... easy to fix.

In reply to Will Hunt:


Better than a belay!

In reply to Adam Long:

For clarity, what I understand to be the absolute undeniable definition of "ground up" is: climbing from the start of the pitch (with beta or without), placing gear on lead, and if you fall off you lower straight away, pull the ropes, strip the gear, and have another go - continuing this until you get to the top.

This is obviously a really impracticable and not very fun way to climb. As La Benya says, Caff has been nothing but transparent in what he's described - it's just that I'm not sure that this can be described as ground-up with no caveat, which is how it is described in the blurb.

I totally get that the true ground up style is rarely going to be adhered to. When we did Strapadictomy there were four of us. I went up first, put the gear in Strapiombante, pressed to the arête and realised I should have put the wire in before I did so and jumped off. Warbs went up and clipped my gear and then leant out and placed the wire blind (with three of us shouting "up, up, up, left, back a bit, to me, to you, to me, to you, it's in!"), had a rest on the spike and then climbed the rest of it in his usual flawless style. All subsequent attempts and ascents were made with all the gear pre-clipped and varying numbers of falls! Everyone has got "Lead G/U" in their logbook, except Warbs who logged a flash, and I wouldn't argue with any of them about it.

In reply to UKC News:

This is ground up to me, even with a quick dog of the crux. Ground up covers a very wide range of styles, from an almost pure onsight to a frig. It just means all the climbing is first encountered from the ground, not from above.

In reply to Andrew Popp:

I don't think that's how the majority view it, but i could be wrong.

In reply to La benya:

I'd Call that ground up. It all gets a bit tenuous When you start saying things lie "you have to lower off straight away". Are
You allowed to dangle from the rope and look at the holds? Do you have to close your eyes straight away ? Keep it simple. Ground up means no abseil rope or top rope.

In reply to GDes:

Agree with Ged on this, to me this a ground up

In reply to La benya:

I think this is a good example. When I did The 39 Slaps on Scimitar Ridge I started from the bottom and with no beta. I climbed to the top (very gingerly) sitting on three of the pegs. This was pretty scary, each section of climbing had to be absolutely committed to. When I got to the top I dropped the rope, walked round to the bottom and led it. I was and am very happy to call that ground up.

In reply to Andrew Popp:

Id call that a redpoint, albeit a second go redpoint

In reply to GDes:

Lower immediately without further climbing. The challenge is yours alone, so make any rules up as you wish. If you want to grope some holds on the way down that's fine. If you want to try the crux again before lowering that's fine. But say what you did and don't claim anything other.

If you practice a move you've pre-practiced and it cant be ground up.

In reply to UKC News:

I s'pose it depends on whether your personal ethics allow you to try a move you've touched while hanging on the rope after a fall/take, or not. I guess the strictest would lower off immediately and pull the rope. The more liberal would try the move you fell off on (but no higher), the most liberal would crank up a few moves and examine placements and subsequent moves before lowering and pulling...

I like to do solo's my ground up... i think falling would totally spoil the onsight.

In reply to La benya:

I was an active member of the generation who pioneered the term and that is how it was understood and used. But what do I know?

In reply to UKC News:

Do we have to make such a big issue about the exact style this was done in?

(Sorry)

P.S Well done Caff and nice to see the Quill back in the game.

In reply to Andrew Popp:
I'd also say it was ground up, but you only really get a measure of the achievement (which in this case is not insubstantial) when you hear the full story. If you had any interest in comparing between two different ascents, then would you distinguish this from a ground up ascent that lowered off after falling? Which would be deemed "better"?

It's clear that there's lots of different interpretations of ground up. I don't think that's a bad thing, but I'd be intrigued to know what the "official" definition is amongst those who are involved in doing things ground up. The nerd in me finds it interesting, and it sounds like what I thought "ground up" meant is not in line with the consensus.

In reply to Andrew Popp:


Actually I think the term was pioneered only after the style had been superseded by redpoint as the usual alternative once the onsight/flash was no longer possible. Before that, what we now call 'ground up' used to be called 'climbing'

Also, I'm pretty sure a big reason why redpoint became so popular was precisely the kind of can-you-can't-you bullshit this thread has highlighted. If a style is to become an objective rather than a description, it'd better be worth going out of your way to achieve, and IMO the various possibilities of looking at and/or trying moves while hanging don't greatly affect the experience, so I wouldn't feel the need to get arsey with myself about whether and how much better I knew the move I fell off before having another go.

In reply to Will Hunt:

Sure. I did Berlin Wall at Nesscliffe with two falls on the top peg, lowering straight off both times (this was over two days because my mate broke his ankle while I was resting after my first go). That was a better ascent than the 39 Slaps one. Ground up covers a multitude of sins.

In reply to john arran:

I agree John, the term emerged as other styles started to become more defined.

In reply to Andrew Popp:

The 39 slaps ascent- where did you complete the top climbing from? The pegs or the ground? Its not ground up cos, you know, it wasn't up from the ground. It was from the pegs.

In reply to Andrew Popp:
As with grades the, issue is that we are trying to describe a multi-faceted entity with a one or two component descriptor. The term is essentially meaningless unless there is surrounding narrative. Not a problem except that GU supposedly fits above a redpoint or dogged ascent but below an on-sight in terms of "goodness", the latter is indisputable but the former I'd question. One of the most inspiring bits of climbing I remember reading about was Ben Bransbury trying to on-sight Impact Day he ultimately failed (I think) had he gone around and dropped a rope down it to check out the holds and then done it he would have been 'allowed' a RP. On the other hand someone else could have spent days inching their way up higher, lowering off sky hooks, backing up gear whilst hanging on other gear etc taking multiple lobs and they would be able to claim a GU but which is the better ascent? Again, not really a problem and just a long winded way of repeating my first point, GU is a meaningless term if used to try and describe or measure an ascent.

I guess what has happened is that over time what the spirit of the definition has changed and what was originally intended to be "I nearly onishgted it and got it next go" has become "I dogged it for as long as necessary using every tick in the books to claim a morally superior tick than a redpoint". Hopefully goes without saying that this is not directed at JM or RP, who seem to be very much adhering to the original spirit, but to people I increasingly hear saying they are going out to GU a route rather to try and OS it.

In reply to La benya:

It means not from above (either abseil or toprope), nothing else. But whatever. To the point I think Tyler is making, a GUY ascent can certainly be much more impressive than a nominally better one, such as super beta intensive flash.

In reply to john arran:

I think the old term was "on-sight lead"!

In reply to Andrew Popp:


Actually the example I was using was to point out a RP (or even a dogged ascent) can be more impressive than GU but GU is held up to be the superior style. The real point though was that it is such a vague term it's useless and can be used ever so slightly dishonestly as it implies one thing but can mean almost anything.

In reply to Tyler:
Sure, it can cut that way too. I don't think it's meaningless but as Will pointed out it really needs an accompanying narrative.

In reply to La benya:
I would have said that his first ascent was ground up with 3 rest points and his second was a repeat lead which would be considered a redpoint if it was a sports climb.

To everyone: I always took ground up to mean that each time you get to a new move, you've got there from the ground with no rests etc. Doesn't matter how many falls, lowers etc as long as that rule is kept. If the rope was left in then it'd be a yo-yo.

So practising a move above your high point is not ground up. But practising moves below your high point would be ok - hmm.

In reply to Will Hunt:
I think ground-up originally came from Euro/American bolting ethics. In EuroLand and the States it was seen to be much better ethics to open routes from the bottom rather than inspecting/cleaning them on an ab-rope first. This was considered more important than the presence of bolts or not.

In the UK, the big debate was bolts vs no bolts. 99% of new climbs were cleaned and inspected on abseil anyway.

Ground-up ethics definitely allowed sitting on gear (often sky-hooks), drilling bolts and then continuing upwards. The likes of Piola even became masters of the art of drilling bolts off opposing sky-hooks or even undercut skyhooks!

Piola differentiates between 'ouvert du bas' (opened ground-up) or 'équipée du haut' (bolted on abseil). The latter he sees as a form of heresy and many Americans thought the same way in the 80/90s.

So in my book ground-up means anything goes as long as you don't go near the route on an ab rope! What you describe, I would call yo-yoing.

ps yo-yoing gets bad press these days, but it's often a lot more difficult than red-pointing, coz it's ground-up and you don't get to frig.

In reply to nb:


But does it himself when it pleases him!

In reply to jon:

Age mellows!

In reply to nb:

... into hypocracy?

In reply to Andrew Popp:

It depends if you're taking the literal meaning or the modern definition which is same as onsight but you fall off and have to make another attempt at the route. I've often attempted a route 'ground up' but ended up just climbing it with a rest or two then going back later to do it properly. 'Headpoint' doesn't quite do this justice since on the initial attempt there may have been some committing ground-up climbing involved, but it's possible to be proud of the way you attempted a route without necessarily having to pigeon-hole the style.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Something like "worked on lead" could be useful to differentiate red/headpoints resulting from ground-up attempts and without recourse to top-roping. For those for whom such distinctions may be important anyway.

In reply to john arran:

If you 'work on lead' you're using a point of aid and thus not free climbing. You may have got to the top but it's not a valid 'free' ascent of any variety.

In reply to La benya:


You misunderstand. The working precedes the successful ascent. I don't think anyone's seriously suggesting aided ascents are in any way successful except for aid climbs.

In reply to UKC News:

Of all the modern climbers in my opinion this guy is top man.....say what you like...

In reply to nb:
Agree most of my 300+ FA's in the States mainly in New Hampshire , Utah and Colorado were always done ground up on sight ..cleaned on the lead ... these included about 30 unclimbed towers ..you cannot get a top rope on these beauties !...

In reply to USBRIT:


which guy?

I think the term for what Caff did is a Did. He Didded The Big Issue.

In reply to Niall Grimes:

diddled?

In reply to Niall Grimes:


John Dunne done it though. Which is better?

In reply to drysori:

Some of the Sheffield mafia still aren't so sure what John Dunne done/didded!

In reply to UKC News:

I find this debate really interesting. It seems that with the easy access to forums and social media that the details of style of ascent have become much more easily accessed and as a result get analysed so much more.
This seems to have bred a climbing culture where style of ascent sometimes seems to be striving harder to meet the confines of a few defining words, at the cost of just doing what it most practical and natural and fun.
As somebody who has done varying ascents of all styles, I personally have least enjoyed the ones where retrospectively I feel I have done something forced or unnatural in an attempt to try and meet a certain criteria. E.g not looking at holds if the route involves an abseil approach where you have to go out of your way to not see the holds... I have no particular bias to any particular style, and see them all for their own merits and I like to be open minded about them all.
I do find it a particularly interesting debate, as Tyler has mentioned in a reply previously, that people seem to hold a rigid hierarchy of on sight, then flash, then ground-up, then head point as the order of best style. I think there is so much overlap that they all have their own hierarchy.
To me it seems that some head points are much more impressive than some ground up attempts i've heard of. As discussed, within each definition of style there is such a wide spectrum.
I was interested to hear of Niall Mcnair's recent ground up of Requiem. I have full respect for Niall's effort and his perserverance with the route. It was clearly a really difficult challenge, and nice to do it on such an iconic route. To me though, it seemed that 60 or so attempts on a route where the gear is left in just seems way more time consuming and whilst perhaps more impressive from a challenge point of view, not necessarily the most naturally practical way of climbing the route? Or necessarily the best style available to him? Im curious to know how long it took young Dave Macleod to headpoint it ( I assume he didn't do it ground up or I suspect this would be more widely known).

I fully appreciate people like to give routes a chance, or enjoy the challenge of not knowing what is coming, or even raising the challenge in order to prolong the experience because we have less climbs in the UK. At the end of the day we all pick the level of challenge we want on routes and if we didn't want any form of challenge, we would not be doing it all in the first place, and as non-climbers always suggest, we would just be taking the path round the side of the cliff. On some cliffs in the world, it may be the only option to go ground up or work on the lead upwards, however many crags in the uk, you can get round to the top in minutes and drop a rope to check or try moves.
At what point does a ground up become inferior style to a head point? This seems more appropriate on routes that are well protected but physically very difficult. Sometimes climbing the route placing the gear is more more difficult than having it all pre-placed.
Strawberries is a good example. I have no shame it not having tried to have an onsight attempt at this. I turned up with a plan to try and head point it in a day placing the gear. Unfortunately we left a bit too late and it was freezing so I didn't get it done but returned a few days later to finish it off. Had i have tried ground up, it would have taken more visits i suspect, which is valuable life time that I could be experiencing even more amazing climbs, and I probably would have doing the final ascent with all the gear in.
Many 'purists' would say that head pointing a route like that or not even trying it onsight was bad or a worse style, especially for a route that has been onsighted. I personally couldn't see the point in wasting my time having a few ground up attempts at a route that has only be onsighted by people climbing at least 8c or above. What I find interesting with routes like this is that for me placing all of the gear on the head point certainly added a french grade, and more importantly felt a significant challenge of the route. Many people who have done it ground up in a day, have ended up doing it as a clip up on the eventual go they have done it which fundamentally makes a difference.
Do people think that a quick head point , say half an hour working it, and then doing it placing all the gear on lead is 'better style' than said person doing the same route ground up but it taking 20 tries over a few session and pulling ropes each time but all the gear is in place on the eventual ascent??
Or what about a quick head point over an on sight where the person does it over hundreds of sessions, but reverses to the ground each session after making another move each time? In simple logbook terms they would be reported as Lead RP and Lead OS but as a hypothetical example it shows that the details of what actually happened is hugely more relevant and ultimately what makes something impressive rather that just a category title that doesn't say too much about the relative experience had.
Waffle over!
P.S That is not an attempt to criticise N. mcnair's ascent of Requiem, He is a climber I have a lot of respect for and irrespective of whether its good or bad style or whatever you want to call it, its still a bloody impressive feat.

In reply to Removed User:


didded or dinted - what a brave new lexicon.

In reply to UKC News:

After all that i forgot to mention, doing Big Issue ground up (worked lead up, anti-gravity up, whateveryouwanttocallit up) nearly in a session and then finishing it on the second session I think is a flipping good effort. it sounds nails. Well impressive. Heroes!

In reply to Andrew Popp:
Sitting on pegs, you punter!

In reply to Ed Booth:



Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.

Good post, Ed. I'm actually quite comforted to learn that ground up ethics are more liberal than I thought they were. The two hard (for me) things that I've done in a ground up fashion have each been tainted by some compromise or other. I didn't put the wire in on Strapadictomy and I think the eventual lead was a yo-yo. I abbed down Flame Arête first to give it a brush (turned out it didn't need it) and so saw what the top gear was and where there were holds. These things irked me at the time as I thought they would not stand up to scrutiny (I only climb for other people, you see), but they were definitely the most fun and practical way to climb the routes which is what really matters.

In reply to Ramon Marin:

Can we just go back to the good ole yo-yo?

In reply to Will Hunt:

You abbed down something you did 'ground-up'? Hilarious, especially in the light of your previous posts!

In this thread your definition went from ' I always took ground-up to mean' to 'what I understand to be the absolute undeniable definition of "ground up"' in about ten minutes. I'm fine with the first but have to wonder how you arrived at the second?

Bottom line is these are the best ascents of the line to date.

In reply to Adam Long:

Well, it looked like it needed brushing, and although the main holds were clean I did have to take some moss off the finishing flutings.

My opinion has changed as I went down the thread because I read the opinions of other people and realised that my view on what "ground up" meant wasn't necessarily correct. In light of the considered views of other people I changed my mind. Debate doesn't just have to be about picking a side at the start and arguing for it till you're blue in the face, regardless of any counter arguments.

Don't think Dunne had the exact definition of 'Ground Up' in mind when he named this route!

In reply to Will Hunt:

>... Debate doesn't just have to be about picking a side at the start and arguing for it till you're blue in the face, regardless of any counter arguments.

Huh?

In reply to Will Hunt:


Best post for a long time.

In reply to Will Hunt:

Commendable, although in the posts I was referring to you rather did the opposite.

But what I was getting at was where you'd got that idea from? The way you wrote 'absolute undeniable' 'true' etc suggested you'd read it defined somewhere, I was wondering where.

In reply to Will Hunt:


Nope, not with you here at all.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Big John of course.

In reply to UKC News:

I have not read all the posts but have always thought the only true ground up on sight with no inspection at all from above is done on climb by a first ascent . Its all right saying ground up but if the holds are marked (chalked ) there is little difference to being on a climbing wall as far as the grade is concerned and its certainly not on sight. . On the experience of top roping a climb before a lead I found it reduces the difficulty by at least two grades. Little if any thought goes into wondering if a hold above is good or not ... This is seen by the smooth movements of climbers doing the "First Ascents" after top rope practice or on chalk marked holds.

In reply to Adam Long:

To be honest, I don't know. Probably from a wasted youth spent idly browsing the UKC forums, or looking at @sheffieldrumours or scrolling down Matt Thompson's Facebook wall or something.

In reply to Adam Long:


OK it sounds silly, particularly in the context of rigid definitions. But say you ab a new line but then decide it looks like it would be worth a try without pre-practice. You come back with a partner and on your lead attempts you manage it second go. Yes it's not a ground-up but could well feel much like one, or at least more similar to that than a headpoint. Just another example of blurred lines.

In reply to Ed Booth:

>

Totally agree, particularly if the route is done yo-yo with a top rope most of the way up on later attempts (probably the reason this style feel out of favour). In contrast, a route with big runouts between the odd bit of gear becomes much harder ground-up.

In reply to John Stainforth:

What on earth, or on the ground, or from the ground up is there to dislike about the expression "on-sight lead"?!

Yours truly baffled!

In reply to Removed User:


Not just Sheffield. To quote Neil Carson: "Has it been done? or John Dunne?"

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:

I always thought it odd that despite being called The Big Issue the video did not show him climbing the route in a single push.

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:

All good interesting stuff...

Said "Hi" to Caff after he did it...

Watched Ryan, Maddy and Emma all making pretty impressive attempts after that...

I had watched Caff trying to on-sight an E7 at Bosigran a couple of years back - didn't do it first go put hung on for ever trying to work it out...

I think "La Benya" you totally miss the point - operating at E2 you have no idea how hard it is to work out complex cruxes on overhanging rock, and have got lost in the symantics of words... the long and the short of it is that Caff, Ryan, Maddy and Emma are making fantastic ascents of desperate routes in pursuit of perfection...

And lets not slip into the Sheffield John Dunne thing - he was brilliant.

Was grateful to make my way up Mysteries yesterday... glad to be still climbing.

S

In reply to simon cox:

Eh? I perfectly capable of appreciating how hard it is. I've said as much. I've pointed out that the reporting is wrong, caff said exactly what he did and then the article put the wrong label on it.

But thanks for trying to belittle me while you try to shoehorn in a boast or two

In reply to La benya:

Sorry La Benya - my post was badly phrased and unhelpful.

I do think Caff is a great ambassador of good stlye - I was a bit of an a**hole in how I tried to make that point at your expense.

I think a lot of traditionalist would like to see less top rope practice and pre-placement of gear on trad routes - and I like to see hard trad routes being done in progressively better style but I think that abseil inspections should be encouraged on serious routes particularly with in-situ protection exposed to salty water - in terms of publicity I would like to see safety valued more than bravery.

Reading your profile I am impressed by your ability to throw laps on Deliverance - a problem I tried quite a lot with no success.

Sincerely,

Simon