This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Does it still count as an onsite lead if you have rests on the rope? I mean your not falling or watching someone else but I'm not sure if it really counts as an onsite?
Thoughts..?
Thoughts..?
16
4
17
In reply to edhawk21:
Seriously? No this used to be called "failing to climb the route" but I'm calling troll.
Al
Seriously? No this used to be called "failing to climb the route" but I'm calling troll.
Al
Post edited at 15:14
20
1
In reply to GridNorth:
well does it still count if you rest on a ledge? and what is the difference between onsite and onsite ground up? sorry I may seem I'm being simple here but it seems like climbing terms have a world of ambiguity around them
well does it still count if you rest on a ledge? and what is the difference between onsite and onsite ground up? sorry I may seem I'm being simple here but it seems like climbing terms have a world of ambiguity around them
2
7
In reply to edhawk21:
I'm not the right person to ask. In my book if you climb a route without pulling on any gear and without prior knowledge that is the purest form of ascent. Everything else is tarnished but this will just kick off the old "wearing shoes is cheating" arguments which do have some merit but only if you want to get silly about it.
Al
I'm not the right person to ask. In my book if you climb a route without pulling on any gear and without prior knowledge that is the purest form of ascent. Everything else is tarnished but this will just kick off the old "wearing shoes is cheating" arguments which do have some merit but only if you want to get silly about it.
Al
Post edited at 15:29
4
1
In reply to edhawk21:
Climbing should be an enjoyable pointlessly dangerous pass time. If you're worrying about this you are misunderstanding it
Climbing should be an enjoyable pointlessly dangerous pass time. If you're worrying about this you are misunderstanding it
Post edited at 16:08
6
2
1
In reply to edhawk21:
A ledge or similar, which is a feature encountered on a route may provide an opportunity for a rest, that's fine. Resting by sitting on the rope which in turn is clipped into a bolt is making use of 'aid' or artificial means and thus can't be considered part of the route. Think of it this way, if you climb the route and don't actually make use of your gear beyond psychological benefit (other than the lower off), then the route has been climbed - if you've rested, pulled or stood on any of your or other gear then its not been climbed, it may have been 'dogged' or 'aided' though.
In terms of the wording, I think that on-site usually means lead-climbing the route at the first attempt. On-site ground up usually means climbing the route at the first attempt without any knowledge of what you might encounter, i.e. no top-rope inspection, lowering down to try certain moves etc.
A ledge or similar, which is a feature encountered on a route may provide an opportunity for a rest, that's fine. Resting by sitting on the rope which in turn is clipped into a bolt is making use of 'aid' or artificial means and thus can't be considered part of the route. Think of it this way, if you climb the route and don't actually make use of your gear beyond psychological benefit (other than the lower off), then the route has been climbed - if you've rested, pulled or stood on any of your or other gear then its not been climbed, it may have been 'dogged' or 'aided' though.
In terms of the wording, I think that on-site usually means lead-climbing the route at the first attempt. On-site ground up usually means climbing the route at the first attempt without any knowledge of what you might encounter, i.e. no top-rope inspection, lowering down to try certain moves etc.
4
3
In reply to edhawk21:
In bygone days 'onsight' just meant that you turned up, saw it and did it, i.e. on sight! I don't think in the past there was such an emphasis on whether you did it totally clean or not, but nowadays the term has a strict definition, part of which is that rests aren't allowed. It's not aid in the sense of gaining height, but the fact you are resting still means this is aiding your ascent, i.e. letting you recover between moves.
In bygone days 'onsight' just meant that you turned up, saw it and did it, i.e. on sight! I don't think in the past there was such an emphasis on whether you did it totally clean or not, but nowadays the term has a strict definition, part of which is that rests aren't allowed. It's not aid in the sense of gaining height, but the fact you are resting still means this is aiding your ascent, i.e. letting you recover between moves.
3
In reply to Route Adjuster:
Well it has still been climbed, just not cleanly!
> Think of it this way, if you climb the route and don't actually make use of your gear beyond psychological benefit (other than the lower off), then the route has been climbed - if you've rested, pulled or stood on any of your or other gear then its not been climbed, it may have been 'dogged' or 'aided' though.
>Well it has still been climbed, just not cleanly!
1
In reply to edhawk21:
It's an on sight attempt... but a failed one.
An successful onsight is a ground-up ascent by definition ie. no toproping or pre inspection from above. But the actual phrase "ground up" is mainly used in trad climbing to denote an ascent where you fell off and lowered down to try again, but all your attempts were on lead.
On a sport route, once you've fallen off the first time, for most people it's just a redpoint from then on.
> Does it still count as an onsite lead if you have rests on the rope?
It's an on sight attempt... but a failed one.
> what is the difference between onsite and onsite ground up?
An successful onsight is a ground-up ascent by definition ie. no toproping or pre inspection from above. But the actual phrase "ground up" is mainly used in trad climbing to denote an ascent where you fell off and lowered down to try again, but all your attempts were on lead.
On a sport route, once you've fallen off the first time, for most people it's just a redpoint from then on.
2
6
In reply to Michael Gordon:
I don't know what you are referring to as the past, but in the 1970's you turned up saw it and did it but if you rested on gear or pulled on any that wasn't supposed to be used for aid. It would have been classed as cheating.
> In bygone days 'onsight' just meant that you turned up, saw it and did it, i.e. on sight! I don't think in the past there was such an emphasis on whether you did it totally clean or not, but nowadays the term has a strict definition, part of which is that rests aren't allowed. It's not aid in the sense of gaining height, but the fact you are resting still means this is aiding your ascent, i.e. letting you recover between moves.
I don't know what you are referring to as the past, but in the 1970's you turned up saw it and did it but if you rested on gear or pulled on any that wasn't supposed to be used for aid. It would have been classed as cheating.
5
In reply to AlanLittle:
Only on UKC would I get marked as a troll for asking what in my book is a valid question haha
Only on UKC would I get marked as a troll for asking what in my book is a valid question haha
3
2
In reply to Michael Gordon:
You're right that onsight now has a stricter meaning. For example Moffat as a youth did Strawberries with a rest or rests
and thought that 'counted'.
You're right that onsight now has a stricter meaning. For example Moffat as a youth did Strawberries with a rest or rests
and thought that 'counted'.
In reply to Misha:
Moffatt wasn't claiming to have onsighted it though. In his own words he was 17 and thought it was a valid ascent despite rests on the rope, and didn't realise until later that it didn't count. He was mistaken rather than any definitions changing.
> For example Moffat as a youth did Strawberries with a rest or rests
Moffatt wasn't claiming to have onsighted it though. In his own words he was 17 and thought it was a valid ascent despite rests on the rope, and didn't realise until later that it didn't count. He was mistaken rather than any definitions changing.
6
In reply to edhawk21:
Fair enough, but then it's a legitimate but very naive question given that "not weighting the gear" has been the generally accepted definition of a valid free ascent for thirty years.
Fair enough, but then it's a legitimate but very naive question given that "not weighting the gear" has been the generally accepted definition of a valid free ascent for thirty years.
5
In reply to ian caton:
Or dogging, which now seems to be the name for an equally morally dubious pastime.
> In bygone days the term didn't exist
>
> Then it was called cheating.
Or dogging, which now seems to be the name for an equally morally dubious pastime.
4
In reply to cragtyke:
Are you talking about redpointing or having sex in public?
> Or dogging, which now seems to be the name for an equally morally dubious pastime.
Are you talking about redpointing or having sex in public?
5
2
2
In reply to Michael Gordon:
>.... but nowadays the term has a strict definition, part of which is that rests aren't allowed. It's not aid in the sense of gaining height, but the fact you are resting still means this is aiding your ascent, i.e. letting you recover between moves.
Eh? Not true.
Feel free to use any natural places u like, ledge, arm bar, knee bar, head bar, that is part of the route. No hands rests included. Resting like this is absolutely fine, but on the super hard routes where stuff like knee bars rests might just make it possible to complete the route, someone who subsequently does it without the rest, made it harder for themselves, and that is to be considered a better style, u might note it in yr log, or it might be reported that way if 9 something/ newsworthy these days.
A no hands rest on a ledge... Everyone takes it for as long as they personally want to / need to.
You are climbing the route in way that you could have solo'd it in theory, where no gear or ropes could be pulled / sat on, only you have the gear to protect you if you fail to on - SIGHT it and fall.
Traversing to a ledge on another route is not allowed.
I need to do a cleaner ascent of Chepito, for this reason, a no hands rest ledge is sort of en-route, + i took it, but i also see it as off the pure line of the route + i can + will do it without.
>.... but nowadays the term has a strict definition, part of which is that rests aren't allowed. It's not aid in the sense of gaining height, but the fact you are resting still means this is aiding your ascent, i.e. letting you recover between moves.
Eh? Not true.
Feel free to use any natural places u like, ledge, arm bar, knee bar, head bar, that is part of the route. No hands rests included. Resting like this is absolutely fine, but on the super hard routes where stuff like knee bars rests might just make it possible to complete the route, someone who subsequently does it without the rest, made it harder for themselves, and that is to be considered a better style, u might note it in yr log, or it might be reported that way if 9 something/ newsworthy these days.
A no hands rest on a ledge... Everyone takes it for as long as they personally want to / need to.
You are climbing the route in way that you could have solo'd it in theory, where no gear or ropes could be pulled / sat on, only you have the gear to protect you if you fail to on - SIGHT it and fall.
Traversing to a ledge on another route is not allowed.
I need to do a cleaner ascent of Chepito, for this reason, a no hands rest ledge is sort of en-route, + i took it, but i also see it as off the pure line of the route + i can + will do it without.
2
In reply to AlanLittle:
or any definition! there is so much climbing specific language surely you must understand that sometimes some of us need some clarification?
or any definition! there is so much climbing specific language surely you must understand that sometimes some of us need some clarification?
3
In reply to elliptic:
Each ground up ascent is then less on-sight, as you are slightly familiar with the climb to the point where you fell, which may be the crux too, but nevertheless if you pass through that point it continues to be onsight, and their msy still be a 2nd or 3rd etc crux, or it could just be an unrelenting stamina fest where you fell because too pumped, but this time, you have the slight advantage of not having to hang around placing the gear up to your previous high point, + so arrive there fresher, or it might not be hard to the crux, but the crux is itself desperate, + the lower section takes little out of you.
You do pull the ropes for each subsequent ground up attempt though, i think, don't you?
Applies to trad routes mainly, but some people like to use the same ethic when onsighting sports routes, personal choice.
Kind of belongs on the starting out page, so u get less dislikes from suspicious troll spotters.
Each ground up ascent is then less on-sight, as you are slightly familiar with the climb to the point where you fell, which may be the crux too, but nevertheless if you pass through that point it continues to be onsight, and their msy still be a 2nd or 3rd etc crux, or it could just be an unrelenting stamina fest where you fell because too pumped, but this time, you have the slight advantage of not having to hang around placing the gear up to your previous high point, + so arrive there fresher, or it might not be hard to the crux, but the crux is itself desperate, + the lower section takes little out of you.
You do pull the ropes for each subsequent ground up attempt though, i think, don't you?
Applies to trad routes mainly, but some people like to use the same ethic when onsighting sports routes, personal choice.
Kind of belongs on the starting out page, so u get less dislikes from suspicious troll spotters.
Post edited at 14:24
In reply to Rock to Fakey:
Seems to me it's pretty common at Pinnacle now to claim you've led something when you've sat on the rope. Shocks me every time I hear it. Along with claiming a flash, when it's been practiced on top rope. Even pulling on draws seems acceptable to some...
Fair play for coming on here and asking, I doubt very much you're a troll and I'd honestly take with a pinch of salt current Pinnacle 'rules' for onsight, flash or even a plain old fashioned lead.
Seems to me it's pretty common at Pinnacle now to claim you've led something when you've sat on the rope. Shocks me every time I hear it. Along with claiming a flash, when it's been practiced on top rope. Even pulling on draws seems acceptable to some...
Fair play for coming on here and asking, I doubt very much you're a troll and I'd honestly take with a pinch of salt current Pinnacle 'rules' for onsight, flash or even a plain old fashioned lead.
Post edited at 14:52
1
In reply to drysori:
You're right, it won't have been an onsight anyway as presumable he headpointed it.
Wonder when the term onsight first got used.
You're right, it won't have been an onsight anyway as presumable he headpointed it.
Wonder when the term onsight first got used.
In reply to edhawk21:
The way I define it is in a hierarchy like this:
Onsight: climb the route bottom to top with no falls and no previous knowledge of it other than having read the guidebook description. That includes watching people on the route or videos or asking people for information on how to do the moves or where the holds are or what protection you need.
Flash: next purest ascent style after onsight. Climbing route bottom to top with no falls but with information on the route - for example, a mate shouting out the location of the key holds and what you have to do. Or if you've watched a person or video of a person climbing the route so you have a fairly clear idea of what to do.
Ground up: you've tried to onsight and fallen off. So you try again, from the bottom - the ground. The bit you've climbed before is pre-practiced like a redpoint, but the bit after you fell is onsight. Ground up is usually more relevant to boulder problems or deep water solos than routes. Usually if you 'ground up' a route it means you did it second go as it was within your onsight ability but you fluffed it. Spending ages to get a ground up ascent of a route seems pointless.
Redpoint: You've picked a route that you can't onsight - either you've tried and fallen or you deliberately picked something too hard. So you spend time hanging around on the rope, learning where the holds are and how to do the moves. Generally falling off quite a bit. Sometimes this is a protracted process as you aren't strong enough to do the moves or fit enough to keep going. So you have to go away and train and come back and try again.
For trad climbing redpointing is sometimes called 'headpointing'.
Anything else is an unsuccessful attempt - either 'dogged' where you fell or weighted the rope then carried on to the top (with or without additional falls/rests) or 'did not finish' where you fell and then were lowered off.
The way I define it is in a hierarchy like this:
Onsight: climb the route bottom to top with no falls and no previous knowledge of it other than having read the guidebook description. That includes watching people on the route or videos or asking people for information on how to do the moves or where the holds are or what protection you need.
Flash: next purest ascent style after onsight. Climbing route bottom to top with no falls but with information on the route - for example, a mate shouting out the location of the key holds and what you have to do. Or if you've watched a person or video of a person climbing the route so you have a fairly clear idea of what to do.
Ground up: you've tried to onsight and fallen off. So you try again, from the bottom - the ground. The bit you've climbed before is pre-practiced like a redpoint, but the bit after you fell is onsight. Ground up is usually more relevant to boulder problems or deep water solos than routes. Usually if you 'ground up' a route it means you did it second go as it was within your onsight ability but you fluffed it. Spending ages to get a ground up ascent of a route seems pointless.
Redpoint: You've picked a route that you can't onsight - either you've tried and fallen or you deliberately picked something too hard. So you spend time hanging around on the rope, learning where the holds are and how to do the moves. Generally falling off quite a bit. Sometimes this is a protracted process as you aren't strong enough to do the moves or fit enough to keep going. So you have to go away and train and come back and try again.
For trad climbing redpointing is sometimes called 'headpointing'.
Anything else is an unsuccessful attempt - either 'dogged' where you fell or weighted the rope then carried on to the top (with or without additional falls/rests) or 'did not finish' where you fell and then were lowered off.
8
In reply to Rock to Fakey:
RockSteady just nailed it.
These days most people would.
History lesson: back in the day though (1970s / 80s) it was normal to leave the rope clipped through the top runners (yoyo-ing). All the gear was supposed to be placed on actual lead attempts but practising the moves where you'd fallen off (dogging) before lowering back down was okay-ish, so long as you didn't place any higher runners while "on the dog".
Of course there were shenanigans eg. secret pre inspections, Jerry's "ascent" of Strawberries but also Ron's two-day FA during which the runners and ropes were replaced back at the first days highpoint. And other routes with "team ascents" eg. Incantations in the Lakeland Rock video where Dave Armstrong goes up first to clip a fixed peg that Whillance can't reach(!)
Then sport climbing happened in the mid 80s and redpointing became a thing, along with the distinction between "onsight flash" and "beta flash" (first try but with knowledge). Those cleaner ethics got back-ported to trad climbing, and then redpointing applied to bold trad routes became "headpointing" in the mid 90s Hard Grit era. And finally to complete the circle "ground up" was repopularised as people got bored of toproping things to death before actually leading them...
RockSteady just nailed it.
> You do pull the ropes for each subsequent ground up attempt though, i think, don't you?
These days most people would.
History lesson: back in the day though (1970s / 80s) it was normal to leave the rope clipped through the top runners (yoyo-ing). All the gear was supposed to be placed on actual lead attempts but practising the moves where you'd fallen off (dogging) before lowering back down was okay-ish, so long as you didn't place any higher runners while "on the dog".
Of course there were shenanigans eg. secret pre inspections, Jerry's "ascent" of Strawberries but also Ron's two-day FA during which the runners and ropes were replaced back at the first days highpoint. And other routes with "team ascents" eg. Incantations in the Lakeland Rock video where Dave Armstrong goes up first to clip a fixed peg that Whillance can't reach(!)
Then sport climbing happened in the mid 80s and redpointing became a thing, along with the distinction between "onsight flash" and "beta flash" (first try but with knowledge). Those cleaner ethics got back-ported to trad climbing, and then redpointing applied to bold trad routes became "headpointing" in the mid 90s Hard Grit era. And finally to complete the circle "ground up" was repopularised as people got bored of toproping things to death before actually leading them...
1
In reply to edhawk21:
Definitly 'dogged' when resting on gear. You can see on the UKC route logging that onsight and dogged are mutually exclusive. Sport or trad.
It is quite common on sport routes though to practice routes - resting or whatever on first attempts till eventually you can do a clean ascent (with quick draws left in?). Then it is a redpoint - but not onsight obviously.
Definitly 'dogged' when resting on gear. You can see on the UKC route logging that onsight and dogged are mutually exclusive. Sport or trad.
It is quite common on sport routes though to practice routes - resting or whatever on first attempts till eventually you can do a clean ascent (with quick draws left in?). Then it is a redpoint - but not onsight obviously.
In reply to elliptic:
In days of yoyoing. As soon as you weighted the gear down you went, you didn't even check the holds out never mind practice the moves.
> RockSteady just nailed it.
> These days most people would.
> History lesson: back in the day though (1970s / 80s) it was normal to leave the rope clipped through the top runners (yoyo-ing). All the gear was supposed to be placed on actual lead attempts but practising the moves where you'd fallen off (dogging) before lowering back down was okay-ish, so long as you didn't place any higher runners while "on the dog".
> Of course there were shenanigans eg. secret pre inspections, Jerry's "ascent" of Strawberries but also Ron's two-day FA during which the runners and ropes were replaced back at the first days highpoint. And other routes with "team ascents" eg. Incantations in the Lakeland Rock video where Dave Armstrong goes up first to clip a fixed peg that Whillance can't reach(!)
> Then sport climbing happened in the mid 80s and redpointing became a thing, along with the distinction between "onsight flash" and "beta flash" (first try but with knowledge). Those cleaner ethics got back-ported to trad climbing, and then redpointing applied to bold trad routes became "headpointing" in the mid 90s Hard Grit era. And finally to complete the circle "ground up" was repopularised as people got bored of toproping things to death before actually leading them...
In days of yoyoing. As soon as you weighted the gear down you went, you didn't even check the holds out never mind practice the moves.
In reply to webbo:
That was the theory ...
> In days of yoyoing. As soon as you weighted the gear down you went, you didn't even check the holds out never mind practice the moves.
That was the theory ...
1
In reply to webbo:
I'm sure you're right. I also believe that at some time folk used to talk about turning up to a route 'on sight'. Otherwise how did the term come about? The phrase would suggest no messing about, just turning up at the crag and going for it. And did folk use the phrase back when using a couple of points of aid on a route was less of a no-no? Couldn't tell you, but it has only been with time that rigorous definitions of "Onsight", "Ground-up" etc have come about. The definitions aren't inherently clear just from the terms alone. 'Ground-up' obviously infers the ground is new to you as you go up the route i.e. no abbing in to try out moves, but it's only through being told or looking up the definition that climbers know it means you failed to climb the route cleanly first time.
> I don't know what you are referring to as the past, but in the 1970's you turned up saw it and did it but if you rested on gear or pulled on any that wasn't supposed to be used for aid. It would have been classed as cheating.
I'm sure you're right. I also believe that at some time folk used to talk about turning up to a route 'on sight'. Otherwise how did the term come about? The phrase would suggest no messing about, just turning up at the crag and going for it. And did folk use the phrase back when using a couple of points of aid on a route was less of a no-no? Couldn't tell you, but it has only been with time that rigorous definitions of "Onsight", "Ground-up" etc have come about. The definitions aren't inherently clear just from the terms alone. 'Ground-up' obviously infers the ground is new to you as you go up the route i.e. no abbing in to try out moves, but it's only through being told or looking up the definition that climbers know it means you failed to climb the route cleanly first time.
1
In reply to Rock to Fakey:
Sorry, which bit isn't true?
> >.... but nowadays the term has a strict definition, part of which is that rests aren't allowed. It's not aid in the sense of gaining height, but the fact you are resting still means this is aiding your ascent, i.e. letting you recover between moves.
> Eh? Not true.
>
>
Sorry, which bit isn't true?
In reply to RockSteady:
I think that's a matter of opinion. To my mind leading a route involves two things, (1) working out what to do, (2) execution. Working out a tricky sequence above gear, having already taken a fair fall there, seems often more impressive to me than doing it first time with the help of someone shouting the numbers up to you.
>
> Flash: next purest ascent style after onsight.
> Flash: next purest ascent style after onsight.
I think that's a matter of opinion. To my mind leading a route involves two things, (1) working out what to do, (2) execution. Working out a tricky sequence above gear, having already taken a fair fall there, seems often more impressive to me than doing it first time with the help of someone shouting the numbers up to you.
In reply to Michael Gordon:
I think he was misreading you as saying you can't rest, when you meant you can't rest *on gear*.
I think he was misreading you as saying you can't rest, when you meant you can't rest *on gear*.
1
In reply to drysori:
+ MG
>... part if which is that rests aren't allowed...
Yep, wasn't specified that using natural rests such as a ledge are ok,.... I suppose it's obvious it is ok + probably Michael didn't mean that, but somehow it read to me like no resting at all is Ok! so I just picked up on it to add clarity for the OP.
Maybe pedantic + not necessary, except for OP?
+ MG
>... part if which is that rests aren't allowed...
Yep, wasn't specified that using natural rests such as a ledge are ok,.... I suppose it's obvious it is ok + probably Michael didn't mean that, but somehow it read to me like no resting at all is Ok! so I just picked up on it to add clarity for the OP.
Maybe pedantic + not necessary, except for OP?
In reply to edhawk21:
Onsight is a very pure form of a free ascent (doing it first try, no falls without prior knowledge). If you rest on gear then it doesn't even qualify as a free ascent so can't possibly be an onsight. Those rest points are artificial aid points and you've aid climbed the route not free climbed it (even if you've done all the moves free).
The ledge is of course not artificial, it's part of the rock face, so thus not aid.
Hope that helps.
Onsight is a very pure form of a free ascent (doing it first try, no falls without prior knowledge). If you rest on gear then it doesn't even qualify as a free ascent so can't possibly be an onsight. Those rest points are artificial aid points and you've aid climbed the route not free climbed it (even if you've done all the moves free).
The ledge is of course not artificial, it's part of the rock face, so thus not aid.
Hope that helps.
In reply to edhawk21:
No, onsight must be clean first time, assume as if you climbed it without a rope (apart from the lower off).
If you count this as a success or a failure is purely personal, if I dog a F5a I'd count it as a personal failure but if I dog a F6c and still reach the top I would could it as a success (for me).
No, onsight must be clean first time, assume as if you climbed it without a rope (apart from the lower off).
If you count this as a success or a failure is purely personal, if I dog a F5a I'd count it as a personal failure but if I dog a F6c and still reach the top I would could it as a success (for me).
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...