UKC

I just really like the term pinkpoint, especially if my partner has so kindly put the draws up for me. I don’t want to class it as an onsight but I don’t want to class it as a head/ redpoint.
Probably being pedantic at this stage, but would this be a good option to have when logging?

Francesca

In reply to Francescaparratt:

It's an onsight if the draws are in but you have no other beta, and climb it with no falls.

If you have beta from watching your partner climb it, then it's a flash ascent.

The term Pink-point is archaic - nobody cares anymore if the draws were in or not, although everyone acknowledges it may make it a touch harder.

Things have moved on - which is why you've got some dislikes...

In reply to Dan Arkle:

Couldn't have put it any better myself.

In reply to Francescaparratt:

Is there anything wrong with putting the draws in yourself? Or accepting that the onsight/flash you made was marginally easier on account of having pre-installed draws on the pre-installed bolts? It's pretty similar to having a few helpful tick-marks on key holds, and if we started using different names for every trivial variation in the condition the route was in when we tried it, we'd end up using the entire rainbow of points and we'd be so obsessed with the finer points of defined styles that we'd be missing out on most of the fun of just getting up a route using whatever advantages or otherwise happened to be there at the time.

In reply to Dan Arkle:

Thanks for your feedback.

I just find it significantly more difficult when climbing a route and putting the draws in, there’s that extra bit of pressure. I’ve been told several times even though the draws are in, it’s still classed as an onsight, but it makes me think I may not have been able to do that with putting the draws in so wouldn’t want to oversell. I’m possibly being over critical of myself, but having the option to know what you can do would perhaps be nice? I’ve probably also been overamericanised of late...

In reply to john arran:
It’s always fun, no matter what. I just like to have an honest account of what I’ve done. I guess I still don’t fully understand flashing and headpointing and many other snazzy words; onsight, red and pink were easier to understand

So... I got to the top and it was awesome!

In reply to Francescaparratt:

I'm with you on this one.
However, I feel we might be in the minority.
Some people have no respect for tradition.

In reply to Francescaparratt:

In essence, if you already know where best to put your hands or feet on a particular move, learned from listening to or watching someone else, then it's a flash rather than an onsight. Which side of the line it falls, if perhaps you've belayed someone else on a route before you tried it, is really up to you and your conscience, and the answer will most likely be different depending on the specifics of the route itself. The issue of gear in place is completely irrelevant in sport climbing, as the gear is ALWAYS in place - that's what makes it sport climbing! Yes, quickdraws in place as well as bolts in place are an added convenience and in many cases will mean you have to do marginally less work. But the difference is usually pretty marginal and may well be mainly in your head rather than in your arms.

In reply to john arran:

It’s definitely a head thing and not an arm thing, the thinking of a further fall or stumbling putting in the draw and the rope. It’s a complete head game, and for me, that’s what really halts any sort of progression.

I don’t generally pick up on much info of the route when belaying somebody, my brain seems to lack that ability, so I guess most routes to me would be an onsight, but I know, if the draws weren’t in, I would not mentally be able to climb it.

It’s crazy how much more challenging a route can become with the differences through leading and hanging the draws, just leading and then just top roping.

In reply to Francescaparratt:

All very understandable, and surprisingly common. My recommendation would be that you address the real issue that's holding you back, maybe by progressive fall practice in a safe environment, rather than relying on artificial style distinctions that will only justify continuing your reliance on the artificial and limiting crutch of having quickdraws in place.

Go try routes putting your own draws in, and keep an open mind about whether it really is harder, rather than presuming it necessarily will be. Remember, there's hardly ever any risk of falling further, because when you're actually putting the quickdraw in, there's no slack at all, and when you've successfully placed it, you're in exactly the same boat as if it had been there all along.

In reply to Francescaparratt:

Leading when placing draws can be more difficult, especially on badly bolted routes, but the pink / red point distinction has disappeared, mainly as it's such a pain to enforce. Imagine you are at a popular crag with steep routes: are you really going to insist on fully stripping a route after every try, a process that might take a substantial time, when you will be trying the route again in an hour?!

In reply to thebigfriendlymoose:

I always thought that the "pink point" was for a trad route with the gear in place rather than a "red point" of a bolted route?

In reply to Francescaparratt:

The sort of ascent that you appear to be describing - ie leading a route on your first attempt after belaying your partner on it and with the quickdraws still in place - isn't what is/was meant by the term "pinkpoint"; indeed I can't recall any particular term for what you describe [and which is very common] other than "onsighted/flashed* with the draws in" [*depending on how closely you were watching while belaying]. Pinkpointing was a subsection of redpointing whereby you didn't bother to remove the draws after initially working the route or between "redpoint" attempts, and it thus came lower in the climbing style pecking order than redpointing [with the draws removed]; the distinction has now become largely redundant and it's all now simply called redpointing. Because, as I understand it, you're not talking about the ascent of a route after previous acquaintance/practice, the term pinkpoint - or redpoint - simply doesn't apply; your ascent style is higher in the pecking order than either.

To reintroduce the term pinkpoint, but with a new meaning, would obviously cause endless confusion - and amusement!

I always had a pinkpoint down as: to lead a sport route for the first time with pre-placed quickdraws.

However in some of the responses, I can see the confusion and different meaning this can bring.

I’ll just have to be happy with whatever lead I have just done, or grow some balls and place the draws on the harder routes, it’s the only way to get better right!?

In reply to Francescaparratt:

I'd go even further and include greenpointing, admittedly rare in the Uk. Robbie Philips on something in Dunkeld being my only awareness in the UK.

But why not include all the styles that someone may want to use to define their ascent?

TR solo?
Rope solo?
etc

You don't have to use them in your log but why not include the option?

In reply to john arran:


Totally disagree. Takes a lot of energy to place draws; I can think of countless tricky clips with heart in mouth, others where I clip and backdown to recover.

To the OP: no - you can't expect revision of the norms - gets a bit complicated - but ammend your own notes. Most of the respondents in this thread are hard-nosed elitists

In reply to LeeWood:

You may wan to re-read John's post...



I agree with your OP comment. Noting in your logbook how you on-sighted the route is sufficient (draw's in / placing draws etc. if you care).

In reply to yodadave:

I like the idea of the option, plus in my opinion it would make keeping up with your progress easier.
For example; as there was no pinkpoint option I classed all my ‘pinkpoints’ as redpoints because it seemed the nearest option, however when looking at the graphy thing, it states those routes were done with practice which would not be the case. A very grey area maybe?

In reply to Francescaparratt:

No.

In reply to Francescaparratt:

Fact is - there are many divisions of success in arriving at the top of a climb and only you and your companions know what is/was involved. The hard categories which have evolved are a loose guide, so create your own notations, or use the given cats in a way which suits you best. Outside of your circle of friends your logbook entries are just data - statistics - they don't matter to anyone.

In reply to Francescaparratt:

Its not a grey area. You on-sighted the route.
Draws in / draws out, extra extension draws on crucial clips placed by your mate are all "finesse points", they don't change the on-sight. Only beta on how to do the moves changes it to a flash.

Redpoint is a successful assent after practice. Nothing more or less.

In reply to mal_meech:



Then we can begin to discuss beta cats: loose gossip from mates, reading detailed accounts ex Hard Rock), watching your mate climb, watching several climb (both short and tall) .....

In reply to Francescaparratt:

The logbook is for your own personal record surely, so you could always make a note in the comments calling it whatever you like .
I've often seen notes like 'draws in ' in the comments box.

In reply to LeeWood:

Agreed, Beta is the biggest grey area of them all, and nobody should care but yourself.

But the main tenets remain, On-sight (walk up and do it) flash (knew something) Red-point (got it eventually)

But saying you red-pointed a route without pre-practice is just nonsense...

Keep it simple. Then argue the semantics in the pub.

In reply to mal_meech:


Many occasions I give beta to partners (who invite it) - then they perform the moves in a completely different fashion !

In reply to psborland:

I’m going to go with you, it’s an onsight but I’ll put a little note by it. I’d prefer to say it was a pinkpoint, but that seems a mostly unpopular opinion.

It’s just some online logging systems do have it as a style option...

In reply to Francescaparratt:


Some forums allow a vast range of emoticons. Only 2 emotions are allowed here - happy, not happy ... period

In reply to LeeWood:

Aye, even good beta can be bad beta... Especially if there is a foot reach difference...

In reply to Francescaparratt:



It's unpopular because what you're describing is not what is commonly understood as a pinkpoint (as others have said above). What you're doing is an onsight or flash with draws in.

A pinkpoint was a successful practised ascent where the draws were left in on the successful go. Old skool purists made a distinction between this and a redpoint which (in those days) involved also placing the draws on lead. But now everyone leaves the draws in on a redpoint because it's a tiring and boring faff to keep stripping steep routes after each practice or failed go.

Ultimately unless you're operating at the cutting edge no-one cares what style you did a route in unless some sort of bragging match is going on!

If you want to use the term, maybe you should do some actual pinkpointing! Sounds like it might be good for your climbing and force you to tackle head issues etc.

In reply to Francescaparratt:


This is because it's still incorrect usage of the term.

You should log it as an onsight or flash, with a note that the quickdraws were in.

Pinkpoint implies that you have worked the moves, before a clean attempt, in a similar way to a redpoint- the only difference being that the draws were in.

In reply to Dan Arkle:

there seems to be an irony in that many are claiming it doesn't matter whilst simultaneously saying you can't have it.

surely if it doesn't matter then it doesn't matter if we have the option or not?

additionally I'd never come across the notion that if you flashed a route that was prehung it wasn't a pink point but it seems quite prevalent from a quick google. Whilst at the same time people seem to come down on either side of the issue.

I still think log it how you like, its for you anyway not for others.

In reply to yodadave:





It's not about saying someone can't 'have it' it's just wrong.

In reply to Francescaparratt:

The more significant discrepancy here is between the onsight and worked ascent. The grade is given for the red point (or should be but...) and obviously the onsight is usually harder, maybe even by a grade.

In reply to Francescaparratt:

I'm with you, Francesca: I think if the draws are in, it's not an onsight. I've not encountered this term "pinkpoint" before, though, and I would log it as a flash rather than an onsight. The defensive reaction and dislikes and dismissive retroactive rationalisations speak volumes ("Is anything wrong with...?!" "It's just wrong...", "Pedant...", "Why don't you just claim the onsight and instead of being such a misery...", etc.). But, you're clearly hanging around longer if you're plugging in quickdraws and, if you're climbing on pre-placed draws, you've probably just belayed your friend up... So... flash!

In reply to C Witter:

You're either trolling or you're completely out of sync with the convention that climbers the world over are using to describe ascents. Nobody is doubting that having the draws in can sometimes make a route significantly easier, but everybody is telling you that having draws in has nothing whatsoever to do with onsight/flash as it speaks not of whether you were successful on your first attempt, only of the different condition the route was in when you onsighted, flashed or redpointed it.

In reply to Francescaparratt:

How about a "greypoint" where you've discussed in such lengthy and tedious detail how you should climb, how many quickdraws are allowed in place, or top roped, shunted and generally frigged about, but not actually climbed the bloody route, that you've gotten too old to get up it.

In reply to LeeWood:


There's a period emoticon?

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Yes, but you can only get it once a month...

In reply to john arran:

A bit of both, John. I'm mostly a trad climber and rarely venture onto sport routes - and never anything hard. So, definitely out of touch, and slightly pulling people's strings - though not with malice.

But, I do find it an illogical and convenient convention - when you yourself are now writing that "nobody is doubting that having the draws in can sometimes make a route significantly easier", it seems odd to claim that as an onsight. I take your point that the convention of the majority is that no one gives a damn. But, the conventions are also relatively recent and fluid, so...

In reply to C Witter:
I wonder if Ondra had draws pre placed on his 9a onsights. What do you think?

Of course it’s easier to climb with the draws in. No one is denying it. How much easier depends on the route. However it’s still an onsight in that you climbed it on lead and had no prior knowledge of the moves or holds. Just add ‘draws in’ to the logbook comments box, that’s what it’s for.

If you belayed someone to get the draws in, technically it’s a flash unless you weren’t looking at the climber. In practice, it might not make much difference on routes which are easy to read, long routes where the hard climbing is high up so you can’t really see what’s going on or if you haven’t really paid attention and your partner hasn’t provided a running commentary on the climbing. Again, just put a comment in the logbook - put it as flashed but say that it was effectively an onsight and the draws were in or, if you think it really was pretty much an onsight, put it as onsight but say that technically it was a flash but effectively an onsight and the draws were in.

As long as you’re honest in the logbook comments or when telling your friends etc and above all honest with yourself, the precise distinction in marginal cases like that doesn’t really matter, unless you’re operating at a pretty high level where the ascent would be newsworthy etc. In which case you can give a whole interview about whether the draws were in, what make they were, what the humidity level was, what you had for breakfast and so on

However having the draws in put in by someone else or with a clipstick does not in itself turn an onsight into a flash.

In reply to C Witter:

What you seem to be missing is that just because something might be harder, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's better. Sport climbing, by definition, is climbing with protection in place. It's only those struggling with the separation of sport and trad that still get hung up on the idea that placing gear must still be part of the process. It simply isn't. In fact, having to place your own draws during a hard (for you) sport ascent is a bit like climbing it when it's still damp, or having to do a bit of cleaning as you go. It's harder, yes, but the added difficulty isn't fundamental to the route nor to the grade.

In reply to Francescaparratt:


More embarrassing is when they have to take them out for you too.

In reply to Francescaparratt:

If you'd just sport climb properly and climb at a level difficulty where onsight/flash is not possible then there would be no need to worry about what a "clips in" onsight/flash should be called.

In reply to john arran:

I didn't say it was better... The quality of the route, of the method and of the experience are not easy to quantify. I also didn't say that everyone needs to aim to climb routes without qds placed. I'm just saying, I don't think it's an onsight - seeing the qds flagging the way and ready to clip gives you as much of a boost as your friend saying "when you get to to the roof, there's a hidden jug just around the lip." That's not the same as saying you're worth less as a climber or will have a shit time as a consequence...

In reply to C Witter:


But you're fundamentally confounding knowledge with confidence. Onsight is all about knowledge - or rather the lack of it; It's irrelevant how many people reassure you that you can do it, or how many draws are in place, saying "clip me".

If the draws in place were to have little signs on them saying "there's a pocket out right you need your left hand in", then you would have a point - that's added knowledge rather than added confidence. I haven't seen any examples of that so far, but tick marks can often get pretty close to that level of usefulness, and definitely sometimes leave you feeling you didn't really onsight a route, even though technically you did.

In reply to C Witter:

By saying " I don't think its an onsight", you are saying " I am choosing to use a clearly established term in a way different to the convention".

This isn't helpful, it just adds confusion, like saying a cat is a dog.

In contrast, if you were to say:
"putting the clips in makes it harder",
or "I like to record that the clips were in, as it matters to me",
or even "I think it is better style to put the clips in as you go",
then this would be a perfectly reasonable opinion.

My only interest in this topic is that we have words to describe styles of ascent with established consensus meanings. Many people don't seem to know these, and then I'm happy to inform them. The consensus is often strong - 30:1 agree with my first reply.

How people actually choose to climb is completely up to them, and I make no judgement.

/rant

In reply to C Witter:

It's a bolted route the direction is already 'flagged' by those.

In reply to Dan Arkle:

I thought pinkpoint could still be useful for hard trad with pre-placed gear?

In reply to TheFasting:

I suppose it can still be used for that. However, in my opinion, it is better and clearer to add a note as to what actually happened, e.g.
"led on my mate's gear",
"I preplaced the wire in Profit of Doom"
" Some stuck wires were in place"

In reply to john arran:

Re sport grades, my understanding is sport routes are graded for the redpoint and these days it’s widely accepted that the grade is for a redpoint with the draws in (for a start, no one redpoints putting the draws in). So by extension you get the grade for an onsight with the draws in as well. It took me a while to get round to this idea - it only became apparent to me when I actually started doing some redpointing. So I can see that some people are similarly confused.

In reply to Francescaparratt:

I'd prefer a ballpoint option.

In reply to Misha:

The important part in all this is being honest with yourself!

In reply to Dan Arkle:

I really like your "contrast" perspectives.

I think style is an inherantly personal thing (unless of course you are making claims in front of the public eye)

to help in establishing a consensus of meaning, I reached for one of John Longs books....

Pinkpoint: to lead without falling a climb preprotected with anchors rigged with carabiners.

This is exactly what my thoughts were, which is why I brought up the topic, but there seems to be a lot of contrasting opinions/ variations and now it seems to have opened up a big bag of worms, and we all know worms are terrible climbers and even worse belayers...

In reply to yodadave:

Nobody disputes that definition, but using it is archaic.

We talk about Ondra redpointing his 9b+ 'Change' or onsighting Il Domini (9a).

They could both be described as Pink-points, but using that outdated term isn't relevant.

In reply to Dan Arkle:


To be fair, Dan, that's exactly what I was doing when I specifically linked the term to redpointing and ruled out its application in a successful first-try lead. I still maintain that position, and can similarly cite other reasonably authoritative references in support of it. Herewith a couple:
https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=33
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/beta-be-prepared-a-guide-to-climbing-terms
While I think it quite possible that, back in the 1970s, the term "redpoint/rotpunkt" started off with a broader meaning than it has today - essentially meaning "freeclimbing", with prior aided practice being acceptable but not an absolute part of the definition - my recollection is that by the time it came into common use in this country [mid-to-late 1980s?] it had narrowed to its modern definition of "free lead after aided hands-on inspection/practice]rehearsal"; and that the term "pinkpoint" came along a bit later as a further refinement of that modern term.

I'm starting to wonder, though, whether there might be any difference between its use on this side of the pond and on the other - partly in view of Long's definition, and partly from a definition of "redpoint" in a fairly recent American tome that is much the same as the original one outlined above: "lead climbing a route bottom to top in one push" with no mention of prior practice. Perhaps the OP's suggestion of being "overamericanised" was an astute one.

In reply to Dan Arkle:

I think there is a point at which fixed draws becomes acceptable and the term has no place being applied there.

I'm not sure I agree that the term is archaic and outdated so much as it is unused in the sport climbing backwater that is the UK.

I do find it interesting that in high level trad preplaced gear has been denounced but sport climbing has chosen to ignore the difference.

I think if you clip bolts at your limit you can certainly appreciate that if you were hauling 14 draws with you vs not, there is a difference. Wanting to record that difference doesn't seem irrelevant to me.

In reply to Ian Parsons:


Maybe it is a more American thing, for when I fill in my US ticklist, it gives the style option when leading to put it down as a pinkpoint which is then described as; ‘Pre-placed pro, no hangs or falls’.

In reply to Ian Parsons:

IIRC the term Redpoint/Potpunkt applied initially to the route rather than to the ascent, and meant 'this has been climbed in one push without pulling or resting on any gear'. Upon which a red spot was painted at the foot of the route. Whether that first clean ascent was first try or (no doubt far more commonly) after a lot of work was irrelevant. An analogy, albeit in reverse, may be drawn with the old Southern Sandstone NL (not led).
Only later did the term 'redpoint' evolve into a verb to describe an individual's ascent, in similar or better style, of a route that already had the 'redpoint' status.

In reply to yodadave:


There's a good reason for that. Hanging on to place fiddly wires on a trad route can make a massive difference compared to having them in-situ. It can also make it into more of a sport route, since placing gear is a key part of trad climbing. The fundamental difference is that the gear is already in place on all sport routes - it's called bolts!

In reply to john arran:

Yes - that's a rather better way of explaining it. In Saxony, for instance, it still appears not uncommon to give a route two grades: the traditional or "AF" grade [where AF stands for Alles Frei/All Free but in fact allows for resting/hanging belays on the "rings"] and a generally higher "RP" grade for the continuous free push from bottom to top - whether after practice or not.

I would clarify, though, that your phrase "in similar or better style" itself then evolved into "after prior gear-assisted practice or attempt" - "with "better style" [ie flash or onsight] becoming separate, exclusive categories. [I use the somewhat ponderous term "gear-assisted", or similar, to cover what I believe to be the widely held view that an attempt only stops being onsight or flashed when one is/has been supported by something other than the holds.]

In reply to C Witter:


Awarding an onsight only to a drawless ascent, just because it's slightly more difficult, seems completely arbitrary. Really a true onsight of a sport route should involve bolting on lead.

In reply to Ian Parsons:

Thanks Ian, thinking about it, I agree more with what you just said, than what I did! Pinkpointing is a form of redpointing.

John Longs definition is incomplete, because it doesn't mention pre-practice.

In reply to Dan Arkle:

Don't listen to me; I'm getting very confused. I just nearly spelled onsight "onsite".

In reply to yodadave:
The difference is due to trad being graded for the onsight and sport for the redpoint.

In reply to Francescaparratt:

Hah! This from our friends in the US:

http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum/3026204/La-Dura-Dura-Chris-Sharma-R...

Confusion reigns!

In reply to Dave Garnett:


For "periodpoint" accents, (I'll refrain.)