UKC

Right. I know this is a very common topic for debate but I am still a bit lost. Also I am well aware that really as long as I'm honest to myself then ascent style isn't that much of an issue but I like nice categories and defined terminology so just wanted to see what the general consensus is.

What specifically counts as a headpoint? I see this term often thrown around as a trad climb trained on toprope for a clean lead. Can I use it to describe a trad climb I led after previously doing a clean second of it? (As I have done for Christmas Crack), or say I dog a route and later lead it after stripped gear. Is this different to a ground up?

Futhermore, say I lead a route, and then later cleanly free solo it. Is this a redpoint, headpoint, ground up or just a solo ascent?

Like I said. I know it doesn't really matter and some terminology is just outdated and not really important (like a sport pinkpoint) nowadays, just wanted to see some community discussion and debate on it.

Redpoint (sport) and its equivalent Headpoint (trad) are catchall terms for any continuous, successful ascent that doesn't 'qualify' for one of the 'better' styles, such as onsight or ground up. There's no real call for separate terms for subtle distinctions between red/headpoint ascents so it's largely left to people to describe the circumstances rather than use a predefined label.

On your other points, ground-up doesn't include dogging moves, so after dogging you'd be left with red/headpoint as the final lead label. And a solo ascent after having been on a route before is, you've guessed it, a solo ascent! I suppose technically it could also be classed as a red/headpoint but it would be a bit odd to call it that.

You've missed out yo - young,  or has that been replaced within the ground up family? 

On your last point I’d argue differently. By your reasoning you should say that a lead ascent is a lead ascent and it would be odd to distinguish between flash/onsight/headpoint. If you see what I mean? You can headpoint, flash or onsight a solo in my opinion.

Completely agree. But in this case he'd already been on it.

Headpoint/redpoint: pre-practiced, that could include having previously seconded it but generally implies a more deliberate approach.

Ground-up is what it says on the tin: eventually lead in one push from the ground up usually after falls or retreats, gear in or out, rope pulled or not. It's a bit of a catch-all that can easily blur into headpointing/redpointing.

Onsight: climbed without rests on the rope, pulls on the gear or falls from the ground up with no more information than is widely available (book description etc). Arguments will abound about minor details.

Flash: Basically the same but with some extra information.

For the grey area stuff where you've been on it before and failed or a while back I just used 'lead' without a style attached to indicate it wasn't one of the other categories.

Ultimately it's all a bit trainspottery and there are lots of grey areas, just climb the way you like, be honest if asked, try not to do too much harm and have fun.

Solo-repeat, headpoint, redpoint... if it was fun and in control who really cares.

jk

Does grade count?

eg Pre-practised E9 = headpoint; pre-practised VS = frigged it to death?

That's just elitist 

But probably pretty accurate to be fair 

Start at the bottom and climb to the top with no prior knowledge of the holds or the protection potential. Everything else is a compromise and just fancy words to make it sound grander than it is

Al

Technically it could either be a headpoint or a repeat. For me it often comes down to whether I felt as though my second ascent benefited from the first. Also the time between the ascents. If I regularly climb E1 for example but seconded someone on a Vdiff in 2010 it seems a bit silly to call it a headpoint were I to lead it tomorrow, so I tend to call it a repeat. Obviously if it was an E3 and I went back next day then that would be a headpoint. There's going to be a grey area between these to extremes but I just tend use whatever feels right and just add stuff the logbook description. 

Onsight - climbing from ground to top without weighting a rope, falling off or jumping.  climbing down then back up is fine.  No prior knowledge of moves/gear although anything written in a guidebook is generally considered fair game.

Red/headpoint - Practicing all or part of a route on a top rope prior to lead/solo. red for sport, head for trad.  In the past Pink Point was used to describe pre-practised trad routes with the gear pre-placed but its rare to see now.

Ground up - lowering to the floor everytime you fall off, Pull the ropes each time, some debate on whether you should strip the gear out too although its rarely practical to do this.  Often done as a solo on micro routes above pads (some might call this a highball but that's another debate!).  'Yoyo' if you leave the ropes clipped.

Flash - Like an onsight but you've prior knowledge of moves or gear (e.g. watching a video).  Could ab the line to check out the gear or a feel of the holds but if you pull on that's practicing and its a head/red point.

Repeat - I use this for when I do a route I've done before but in better style but I guess strictly you could call this a headpoint.

Your first example is a Repeat (albeit as a lead) and your second example is a Repeat (albeit as a solo).

Interesting questions. The styles and ethics of climbing have evolved over time. Soloing has been around much longer than headpointing. Before headpointing solo ascents were distinguished between a straight solo where the climber had perhaps done the route previously and onsight solos where they had not.

Headpointing was initially used to do new routes that were too hard and too dangerous to be done safely without practice. Repeat ascents of these routes were then done using the same methods. Because headpointing is so different to trad climbing some have even suggested a different grading system be used. The H-grades would replace the E-grade.

Normal trad routes are climbed ground up. If you happen to have seconded the route before well you certainly can't claim an onsight and if it's a serious route then the ascent is pretty marred. Many climbers avoid seconding certain classic routes they really want lead. I think the normal way to record a lead you've seconded before is simply as a repeat ascent. Headpointing is something usually reserved for specific, very hard and dangerous, routes.

Hope that helps.

Well almost. I think what counts is the generally accepted style in which a route is usually climbed. There aren't any VS's that are pre-practiced first. So frigged is a reasonable description.

Although climbs can sometimes end up as headpoints simply as a result of failure to do them in better style, the term headpointing seems to me to be in the main down to intention. If you get on a top rope or shunt with the specific intention of later leading the route then this is headpointing, irrespective of the grade. It's a specific strategy for climbing a route which you don't fancy trying ground-up.

Unless the word 'frigged' has assumed a new meaning in recent decades, I wouldn't associate it with any successful ascent at all. To my mind, if you say " he frigged his way up it", you mean he ended up hanging and probably pulling on gear just to get to the top. Of course, you could later say "he went back and led it clean after having frigged his way up it the first time".

I thought the term pink point was initially used to refer to sport climbs that had been climbed with the gear in, as opposed to the first redpoints that were climbed placing gear on lead.   If a trad route had been climbed in this style then they'd probably have been claimed as being climbed with pre-placed gear rather than as pink pointed.  The term redpoint was initially used to describe the ascent of sport routes so you'd imagine that the evolution of the terminology would pertain to the same type of routes.  I doubt anyone has ever claimed a pink point of a trad route, or that many bothered claiming pink points of sport routes. 

That sounds logical, maybe I've got that one wrong then.

So wouldn’t it be a headpointed solo? 

There’s also a debate on the E grade which is and always was graded for on sight. So if you on sight E3s you could legitimately claim to be an E3 climber. An E2 or E1 climber employing lots of top rope practice before successfully leading the E3 is not really an E3 climber. Nowadays this seems to break down on the harder grades as many (not all) E6,7,8 etc ascents involve head pointing. It’s simpler for sport as most climbers will happily differentiate between their on sight and redpoint grade

I always thought headpointing was abbing a route to look for gear and holds, but not pulling on to try the moves. As soon as you do, it becomes a redpoint. It would work in theory for both sport and trad but obviously nobody is abseiling sport routes to pre-practise them so it generally refers to trad ascents. 

No. Headpointing is practicing poorly protected routes on a top rope, particularly those with insecure moves to get them certain before a lead. Redpointing is more to do with practicing the physicality whilst safely leading “bolt to bolt” and repeatedly falling on the bolts

So what about a hard trad route that is well protected, and not insecure, but still pre-practised? The only difference between red and head pointing is how well the route is protected?

That would be pre practiced, some may call it red pointing. But often placing gear on lead is a key part of the difficulty of the route so practicing moves by themselves without placing gear is less help. Also a lot more faff in stripping gear after practice so the practice is less common. This is why the distinction between pink pointing and red pointing has become less relevant. The definition of head pointing is all about “head “ ie conquering the mind games as much as or more than the difficulty 

So whether a route is climbed headpoint or redpoint style depends entirely on ones own perspective of how dangerous or bold the route is. Im not convinced, but it does highlight the need for honesty in how a route was climbed!

Technically yes. But the point is that the word headpoint isn't adding anything here so is redundant. It's just a catchall and doesn't add any real value. Solo is the defining characteristic so would be the usual term used by itself, as long as the free-climbing and unroped context was clear. If it was onsight too it would probably be referred to as an onsight solo, since both terms are notable.

Redpoint was the original term and has a very well defined meaning, it being a successful lead of a route regardless of the amount of inspection or pre-practice that went before. It was introduced to refer to ascents of new and very hard routes, so isn't often used on much easier lines. It was introduced to describe sport climbs so is rarely used when referring to trad ascents, perhaps with occasional exceptions when the trad route is so well protected - maybe even with fixed gear - that it can be climbed with a similar mental approach as a sport route.

Headpoint is a much more recent term that adopted a similar definition for trad routes, notably to describe bold routes for which pre-practice was necessary. It has since become used more widely as a definition of any trad ascent made after practice, but most people still use the even more generic word 'led' for most successful ascents that aren't in a notably better style as long as there's no ambiguity. The exception, where 'headpoint' is most often used in practice, is the class of routes for which it was first coined, i.e. hard, bold trad.

Thanks John, thats helped to clear up a bit of misunderstanding on my part. Seems like I need to refer to some of my trad leads as headpoints, as opposed to redpoints. 

Don't forget Ballpointing - claiming routes you didn't actually climb

Or headpointed snowballing, etc...

When I think of solos, I tend to think of them being onsight as that's usually what they would be. Repeating stuff I know I can do is far less memorable. So to my mind "solo" means a real solo (i.e. onsight) and otherwise it's a repeat or "solo after practice".

Great discussion but slightly confused haha..

Can I get an onsight ascent of a trad line if I boulder/solo it with lots and lots of pads? 

So I climbed this E4 without any prior knowledge/description of the route, but as some people are saying, no prior knowledge of gear classifies as an onsight. So would using 11 pads forfeit it from being an onsight, and therefore just be a flash?

Cheers, Cam

Depending on the route, you may have turned it into a boulder problem with over-use of pads. Therefore the E4 tag would no longer apply. And if taking falls onto the pads, neither would the onsight or flash be open to you. You could still say you bouldered out the problem, unless of course you used so many pads that you missed out moves. In which case, you've climbed a bit of rock.

Headpointing formally known as cheating 

An ascent above pads with falls but no prior inspection or beta is still ground-up. Pads may or may not change adjectival grades but as long as you are honest the label still applies. Eg someone can onsight solo, ground up solo, flashed solo  an E whatever above mats.

Since prepracticing is as old as single pitch rock climbing and modern onsighting has many forms of assistance allowed (ropes, gear, chalk, sticky rubber)  it would be a bit strange  to regard it as cheating. It's just a different game.

It's normally an onsight solo above 11 mats. People will laugh at you claiming a trad grade that way on a UK 4m 'highball' but on a 20m boulder problem in the Buttermilks, that doesn't even get a trad grade, people will be very impressed.

I think regular trad ethics have become confused with the adoption redpointing for sport climbs and headpointing for pre-practiced routes. The ethics regarding hard trad ascents used to be clear. But now I think it's bit more of anything goes on routes that aren't onsighted or flashed.

That's true when talking about a route or even highball where some could in theory use pre-practice as an alternative. For a boulder problem which isn't usually thought of as a highball the ground-up tag would seem meaningless since it's the only way anyone will ever attempt it. It would simply be an ascent.

Haha love this one!

It's actually called NoPoint... you read the moves so kind of no point in climbing it anymore...

How possible is a true onsight these days? For instance, I've seen many claims from good athletes like Ondra about onsighting routes but when you see a pic of the 'onsight' the line of holds has been chalked up from the bottom to the top. Can this really be called an onsight?

I'd call that a flash but I guess it's hard to have option A and option B when there is a blurry spectrum in between. How much chalk before it becomes a flash? I don't think you'll ever get a definitive answer.

By that logic no climbs on orange limestone can possibly be onsighted as the holds, alongside the non-holds that have also been chalked, stand out for miles. I

That's why its a bit of a blurry spectrum.  There is a bit of difference between some chalky holds and a sea of tick marks that highlight cheeky thumb sprags and hidden pockets.

Yup.

Very possible. Plenty routes aren't chalked up if that's what you're worried about.

Precisely. & a lot of gritstone bouldering. Chalk has definitely reduced the onsight potential...it's an interesting thing to consider.

Again for example, here Ondra goes for an 'onsight' of To bolt..  youtube.com/watch?v=35Kry149M44&. Around 1 min in you can see the rock looking like its caught chalk measles, marking a path he is clearly following. The oracle that is UKC defines 'onsight' here - https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/features/a_glossary_of_climbing_terms_f... - as : "To climb a route free with no beta, without falls, without prior inspection, from bottom to top. The "purest" way to do a route. (The ultra-pure onsight is done nude, possibly at night.) [Adam Palmer.] Any route which is led first time, with no falls. To be a true onsight the climber must not have seen anyone else perform the moves. [Wil Treasure]" ...so Ondra said onsight but meant flash, or has the term changed?