UKC

So here's one I don't think we've done before.

On a woody board, we all know drop knees are cheating, and matching without explicit instructions in the route description is grounds for expulsion, but what about toe hooks? Only on the footholds already included in the problem, obviously. But say there was a problem that went with a cheeky toe under one of the little resin blobs but was impossible without. Where do we stand on that? Innovative, good technique or inexcusable, cheating filth?

Asking for a friend, of course.

No drop knees, no turning in, no toe hooks, no Egyptians.

you know the rules…..

Obviously not all of them

Never heard the no toe hooks one. Is that a house rule or am I just too naive?

Technique makes you weak. 

You're only cheating yourself....

Sharing also makes you weak

And no heel hooks

Do you sing vocals with the Vapours?

Those rules look made for breaking. Where's the fun in following rules like that? Bollocks.

Boards are exclusively eliminates, so might as well eliminate techniques for weaklings too

You are a cheating scumbag and shall be forced to watch The Real Thing until you repent your sins 

Climb wrong, get strong 

so....what is a dropped knee

sounds awkward

Someone should tell Aidan Roberts, Will Bosi, Jim Pope, Alex Megos and Daniel Woods that they'll never get strong unless they stop cheating and using technique on the board

I thought the "no technique on the board" nonsense died out in the 90s when people realised that strength and technique were not mutually exclusive.

I saw the title of this thread with some trepidation, thinking, no we don't all love an ethics debate, thank you very much! Then I found you're talking about climbing "ethics", which have nothing whatever to do with ethics as such, but all to do with some rather arbitrary sporting rules that we in the world-wide climbing fraternity have made up and are more or less agreed on. [Obviously, there are aspects that relate to environmental ethics.]

Good work! Though the fridge sized block thread was better.

Been reading Beastmaking. In the brief history section, it says that originally boards were horizontal and people used only their arms, thinking that if they could do that, they could definitely climb using their feet. However eventually people realise that having your feet on is actually a good idea.

If you don't train with toe hooks, how do you train the toe hook muscle?

Or perhaps there is a specific exercise for that (bat hang from the finger board?)

This thread might, and I really mean might, be a bit more germane. If there was a hypothetical guy at the wall, let's call him.... Meano Meanysaur, who in principle thought this other guy's awesome techy problem (that might not have been sent yet) had a verboten move in it.... He'd be quite right to apply the "good friends always call dabs" rule, so thought I'd refer to the elders to find out if it's the right call

Consensus seems to be that he's right

I don't know a lot about boards but the obvious thing to me seems to be to climb the hardest problem you can using all the toe hooks, kneebars, egytians, arm bars, head jams, etc. that you can find and then start eliminating these extra bits of technique one at a time till you can climb it without any of them. Then climb it totally statically. Then campus it. Then campus it statically.

I mean, presumably the idea of "cheating" doesn't exist when you are just mucking about on a wooden board and there is no boast value about doing something or a line or problem to claim? (Or do all these things exist on a woodie and I'm just old and ill-informed?)

That’s a bold assertion! In all seriousness, eg the original School Room boards as they were set are now at the new School Room, and plenty of people travel to send specific named problems. At the moment, maximum 2 points of contact is the game at my home wall which may become permanent. 😣

They're where indoor climbers go to learn about all the things missing from the resin curriculum; principles, ethics, accurate grading, brushing, injury management and access issues. All taught non-verbally using only screams, grunts, frowns, fist bumps and nods.

Haha funny you should say that! 

https://www.instagram.com/p/B-NBVDujPlc/?utm_medium=copy_link

There seems to be the inevitable confusion between 'ethics' and 'morals', possibly in my head too. I've always taken the line that 'ethics' is about a social code of conduct whereas 'morals' is about a personal sense of right or wrong. Some sources agree with me, some seem to put it the other way round. So in my book - at least - climbing ethics *is* about that arbitrary unwritten set of rules/guidelines to what is deemed acceptable by the significant majority of climbers.

Yes, I think it is the other way round, 'morals' having a more social context whereas 'ethics' is a detached, academic study. When I read philosophy at university I always understood 'ethics' simply to mean 'moral philosophy'.

I like that idea.... but does it mean the OP's theme is around meta-moral philosophy?

No. In climbing the term 'ethics' seems to work somewhat differently, simply referring to some kind of generally agreed set of non-cheating rules that climbers try to abide by, which non-climbers wouldn't have the slightest interest in. Because it's nothing whatever to do with morals, or ethics, in the normal, dictionary sense.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but here are some non-authoritative definitions which seem to side with my view rather than yours...

https://www.dictionary.com/e/moral-vs-ethical/

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals

https://grammarist.com/usage/ethics-morals/

Of course it could simply be that the definitions depend on context, i.e., are we talking philosophy, business, law... 

Sure. I think your last sentence is the case. I love the way that, in climbing, 'ethics' has nothing to do with either morals or social conduct.

One of my links had the example that a lawyer defending a murderer is ethically obliged to provide the most effective defense while being morally obliged to tell his client to get stuffed.

Fascinating example. Two levels of morals as it were. One, the more superficial, the lawyer doing the job he's assigned to do within our legal system - properly and correctly, the other his real moral outrage at such a wicked act.

I think if it’s a techy problem, it’s bizarre to forbid techy moves. Anyway, toehooks on a board are pretty niche. 

Apparebtly there’s an app where you can upload a board and specific problems. On a more basic level, people take a photo, circle the holds and upload it to a Facebook group.

Gordon, I think it's more etiquette than ethics. "Climbing ethics" has always sounded too grandiose to me.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. I.e. 'ethics' in 'climbing ethics' is simply a misnomer, but may at first have been deliberate to aggrandise them.

I'm with the Stainforths.  Any serious concept of ethics is underpinned by moral considerations, and moral considerations depend, I think, on the impact of one's actions on others.  The idea that any set of arbitrary rules is somehow a code of ethics is absurd, and the fact that climbers speak of "ethics" is an attempt to invest our cherished games with an implied moral significance those games simply do not possess.

This is not to say there aren't issues in climbing with ethical overtones.  When a self-appointed "developer" modifies the environment, thereby changing how it will be experienced by others, I think ethical considerations arise, because now the actions have significant consequences for other people.

The present question about the ethical content of using good climbing technique while training is even more ridiculous.  At least ordinary (dare I say traditional?) climbing "ethics" provide a framework for understanding, evaluating, and certifying achievements.  But training protocols, important as they may be for individual progress, do not belong to the context of climbing accomplishment, and the loaded terminology of "cheating" refers not to any moral or ethical lapse, but rather a personal choice of how to work out.  It isn't a matter or ethics and it isn't even a matter of etiquette.

Well the immoral problem was sent immorally last night. Now sounds like someone needs to eliminate the immoral move.

Just to show how relative these so-called 'ethics' (rules) are we only have to look at our climbing history. In the 1930s and before, a shoulder for aid was regarded as legit. Then for a while, only pegs. Then in the Brown era, after the excesses of Harding, only 2 pegs for aid per pitch were allowed, which became tightened by the mid-60s to just one. Then in the mid 70s, no pegs at all. Meanwhile, bolts, which had always been regarded as totally taboo, were suddenly allowed on certain crags as the new fashion of sport climbing came in from the continent, and before long, places like Malham had been turned into pincushions. It really is all very arbitrary, and all done by consent. (I believe widespread use of bolts came in with R.A.Brown's - not Joe - first ascent of the Original Route on High Tor in about 1953).

I thought you were asking about not standing on it?