UKC

James Pearson has made an ascent of Robbie Phillips' What we do in the Shadows (E10 7a) at Duntelchaig, Scotland.

Read more

Interesting definition of ground up 

The words ground up (since removed!) in the title and article (to be removed.....?) are surely gonna send this forum into meltdown.

Fine effort whatever the style but I think we now need to debate the merits bringing the day flash into our lexicon.

Very impressive …good write up as well.

Fiddling pro in asses? 😛

You what?

So what constitutes "ground up"? Is it necessary to lower straight to the ground after a fall? Obviously the rope needs to be pulled (otherwise it would be a yo-yo, a style that was popular in my youth) but can the gear remain in-situ for the next attempt?

Sorry. Forgot to say, a very fine effort.

I'd always assumed if you didn't ab down/top rope to practice and climbed it all from the ground (I.e. this ascent) it was ground up? Is the consensus if you fall or rest and don't immediately go back to the ground and pull the ropes its not ground up and bassically some form of redpoint?

I googled "ground up ascent" and the first result is a ukc thread from 2014 discussing James Pearson's definition of ground up ascent lol

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/rock_talk/what_does_ground_up_mean_to_you...

Nice climbing!

Yes, my initial thought was if he wants to get technical about it it's either a beta yo-yo ascent (but that would assume he lowered to a ledge), or it's a headpoint by default (though a very good one!). 

Anyway, great to see it getting a repeat.

(Edited for style clarification)

And there was me logging that as “dogged” and a subsequent ascent as a redpoint. Silly old me.

V impressive climbing from James. I'm a big fan of the way he tries to go for the flash on hard trad routes.

Surely this is a redpoint though. I don't think there's any reason redpointing has to be limited to just sport climbing.

I wonder if he deliberately makes contentious statements about the style he did routes just to wind people up. I enjoy it anyway. I'd be disappointed if I'd read the article and there wasn't any style related controversy!

I'm confused by James' motives for these styles of ascent on hard routes. The way he seems to describe the enjoyment in the article, it's like it's for him but then EVERY SINGLE OTHER ELEMENT suggests it is for the headlines. 

To be fair, he is a pro climber so fundamentally that’s his job - making headlines.

By any measure, rocking up to a hard climb hoping to flash it but having to settle for second go, is still very impressive, no matter what you call it.

A quick ascent for sure, which is impressive. Perhaps call it a day send? Headpoint doesn’t quite do it justice as it implies toproping and practising the moves.

For me, ground up is climbing to a high point, resting or falling, lowering to the ground, pulling the ropes and trying again. If it’s easy climbing to the first gear, leaving the ropes in is ok in my view, especially if it’s a pain to pull them (eg if you’re on a hanging stance on a sea cliff with the tide in). Purists will strip the gear, if it’s feasible to do so (or even get their partner to strip it) but generally I’d leave the gear in. That does make subsequent attempts easier of course but they’d be easier anyway as you won’t be onsighting and will know what the gear is. At everyday grades, I think ground up shouldn’t have any extra knowledge about the section of the route you’ve not done yet. If there’s various beta involved, I’d call it ground up with beta.

And if that beta is having dogged up it previously, I'd call it a redpoint.

So a UK climber makes yet another top level ascent, gives a detailed account of the style of his ascent for anyone who is interested, and what does the community of UK Climbing do? Begin bickering over technicalities of language in a bid to add another "gotcha" moment to James's career. Pedants first and climbers second, eh?

Congratulations James. Great to see that Robbie's route has had another ascent, in a fast and impressive manner. I really thought the article gives a great impression of what it means to attempt to flash a hard route like this- it explains some of the rationale when climbing at a standard of difficulty most people won't experience for themselves. I'm also enjoying reading about the additional challenges and strategies of Caro and James's elite climbing while looking after wee ones. 

When a route is particularly bold, there's a massive difference between trying it from the ground, working it as you go and dogging it on top-rope. Unfortunately "ground up" has evolved to mean something different to this and an appropriate term, meaning never top-roped, has yet to evolve. 

I definitely consider this to be ground up. To me that just means you didn't top rope the route in order to be able to work the moves in comfort/safety, you worked it all out while on the sharp end (which is much more difficult), and you eventually did the route properly on lead from the ground. It makes no difference at all to me what you choose to do after falling off on one of your failed attempts, ie lowering immediately or doing a few more moves. It's a ground up ascent after one fall.

Agreed, it's a good, natural style of ascent, and a pretty hard and good way to end up with a headpoint ascent.

Flash attempt, climbed from the ground up, with a fall/rest, then climbed cleaned.

How about we call it the Pearson Ground Up in his honour, which goes nicely with the Pearson Flash!

'dogged then led' innit.

The issue here, as with all quibblings over reporting of style, is the disconnect between the field of variables in how something is climbed and the fact that climbing media has robotised everyone's thinking into a sorting machine where all ascents must be packaged into one of four categories. 

Presumably JP is over letting this sort of thing get to him now, as he continues to live by the sword, while also performing unprecedented waddage on UK trad at the top level. The joke's on anyone who gets annoyed, really.

Wow, as a non-UK climber this thread is wild! James explained exactly what he did, in minute detail. He literally didn't obfuscate anything. And everyone still has a go as if he misrepresented something. I'd also go live in another country. Give the man a break already.

What a great ascent, in excellent style. I love reading these detailed accounts of climbing hard routes. Lots of take-aways to apply to my own, mediocre climbing. And to get it all done with young kids at the crag - hats off to both parents. That was the real crux.

Most of us are fine with what we've read from the thumbs up on the positive comments. There are always going to be some questions about this kind of stuff.

I compiled a pile of info from vids and friends on a HVS I'd turned into a scary monster the other week but I'm quite happy to call my climb an onsight from the ground up. Whilst I'm not in the headlines for my unspecial ascent, I wouldn't particularly mind reading that somebody of this level used similar tactics to smash through a route like that on a second go. Regardless of opinion, I'm sure we can all agree that this is a very impressive performance. Great read and inspiring.

For as long as I can remember 'we' (i.e. climbers) have used broad terms such as onsight, flash, ground-up and headpoint/redpoint. Is this because the climbing media has robotised everyone's thinking, or is it just because - by and large, for the vast majority of us - those four terms adequately describe what it is that we've done.

Understandably there's nuance within each of these styles and this is a good example of that. Even within something as straightforward as an onsight there's wiggle-room, as it's one thing to climb a route with a description/topo compared to a new route where you don't have any information at all. Both are onsight, but they're far from the same.

Either way, in this case and in the example outlined above, greater clarity comes from what's described and I think James has adequately described exactly what he did. Whether or not that fits neatly within the aforementioned boxes is another matter altogether, but it's pretty clear what he did - and what he did was really impressive (again, as it always is).

It’s only by having this conversation will we come to agree what “ground up” means. Clearly it still means different things to different people.

It’s not clearly stated whether or how the gear was stripped from the route for the second go which leaves ambiguity around the precise style.

Same as it has done for the last 25 years plus. Nothing new there. It's what fuels pub debates and forum discussions. And long may it continue.

This could also be the reason why the UK has such strong climbing ethics and why Uk climbers are so obsessed with climbing in good style. It's easy to look at it as a pile on but it's also important to keep people honest. 

He was honest. He spelled out exactly what he did in layman's terms.  His  interpretation of a specific climbing jargon may not have matched yours, but he was completely honest

Yes James was honest, I used 'keep honest' as a figure of speech. 

Yeah, terminology aside, it feels like trying the hard bits for the first time on lead is an improvement in style on trying the hard bits for the first time on a top rope, for trad at least. It's also arguably a fairly natural challenge - a marginally closer to "pure mountaineering" or whatever - insofar as it's something that you could in principle do on a previously unclimbed peak without the benefit of a handy path round to set up a belay at the top.

And back the real matter at hand, E10 in a couple of goes seems pretty impressive either way.

I've been climbing so long I'm no longer sure what any of these terms mean.  And sport climbing is basically the same as trad climbing, apparently.

Having lived abroad for a while I'm more and more convinced that the whole 'uk ethic so pure' is just a lot of patting ourselves on our own backs. Most non brit climbers I know see these things as pointless self imposed rules. People appreciate the discipline and tradition of having climbing areas without fixed protection, especially in the mountains, but all the quibbling, policing and nit picking over exactly what people do on those cliffs is really not viewed from the outside as being on some sort of higher frequency of purity and higher standards. Do whatever you want, however you want.

Amazing performance from JP (yet another one), and I'm sure the commentariat here are drawing heavily on their many experiences of leading E10 second go when they offer critique and advice to him about matters of 'style'. Keep it up team, all those E10 climbers are really anxious to get a consensus about whether their climbs 'count' or not.

I just read it as James had done a hard route near me. Robbie seemed chuffed he had done the repeat.

Pleased he is taking an interest in making the trip here and repeating some hard trad. Arguing over the style just seems ridiculous.

"Do not go gentle into that on-sight,
Old rage should burn and rave at close of play;
Rage, rage against the dying of the on-sight.

Though wise men at their end know dark peak is right,
Because their words had forked no on-sighting they
Do not go gentle into that ground-up on-sight.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their flail deeds might have danced on a grit day,
Rage, rage against the dying of the on-sight.

Wild moves caught and swung high in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that ground-up on-sight.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding non-sight
Blind moves could blaze like meteors and stay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the on-sight.

And you, my climber, there on the rad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce moves, and play.
Do not go gentle into that ground-up on-sight.
Rage, rage against the dying of the on-sight."

This is not a discussion about style. It’s a discussion about terminology. These are different things. I don’t think anyone disagrees that James did it in a good style.

One of the reasons the terminology is attracting attention is that ‘dogged then led’, in Deacon’s words, is something a lot of climbers are familiar with. As a friend put it, “if this is ground up then a lot more of my ascents would be ground up!”

I enjoy putting unfinished business to bed - doing routes clean after failing to onsight them, often years later. I would log that as a repeat ascent. Perhaps it should be ground up?

We agree Rob, the only point of difference being whether climbing media has anything to answer for in embedding the idea that ascents must fit into style boxes, which as you say yourself do not always meaningfully capture the breadth of variation in how things are done. 

I think it does, because media (and by this I don't just mean UKC or other contemporary online sources) is how information is presented and digested, and which therefore must take at least some responsibility for how that information is framed. You may cry egg to my chicken, that it is only a reflection of pre-existing concepts and terminology, to which I would point out that exactly the kind of disagreement that has shown up here (which is hardly uncommon) shows that these terms have never been stable enough to merit the precedence they are given.

Anyway, godknows why I'm arguing about this, I'm sure we all have better things to do

And yet the Germans felt so strongly about the importance of the ascent style that they got their paint brushes out and daubed the rock once it had been ascended in a style of a certain purity

Me too! 

By UK trad ethics that'd be a lack of purity 😁

As a middle aged punter who gets increasingly confused about the use and nuances of modern climbing terminology, please can UKC hive mind explain what the definitive definition of ‘ground up’ is because I’m none the wiser from your collective efforts on this thread?

Or is there no definitive definition hence some of the posts above? 

This UKH link from 2010, found via Google, suggests that the question about what constitutes ‘ground up’ is not recent.

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/rock_talk/ground-up_versus_headpoint-4...

And that thread includes a link to a 2008 UKC article which starts as follows:

“Ground-up means climbing a route without top-rope or abseil inspection (you climb from the ground up). It usually means the route was attempted onsight/flash and then a fall (or a few falls) were taken.”

Isn’t that what James has done (which isn’t a redpoint as it’s not a sports route and isn’t a headpoint as it wasn’t too-roped to practice first before leading in a oner)?

Regardless as to what ‘ground up’ is, it’s yet another amazing effort by James, particularly after reading what Robbie said about the route. 

Think how “ground up” would work while bouldering. The instant you fall, you are back on the ground. You don’t get to fondle the next hold without first climbing from the ground. Translated into rope climbing, once you fall, you lower, pull the rope and start again from the ground never having touched the hold after the one you fell from. For practical reasons most people would leave the gear in place. Zealots might prefer to have the gear stripped from the route by a friend but such zealots tend not to have friends willing to do that. 
 

Other people are happy to define “ground up” as without top-rope practice or abseil inspection, which doesn’t sound too unreasonable a thing to do either. In practice though, it’s probably the easier to hang on the rope, let the pump subside and have another go at figuring the move with better arms.

So “ground up” - two slightly different styles with the same name.

In this particular case, it all seems a bit academic as James appears to have been so close to a flash that doing the climb second go was just a formality and hardly warrants analysis. 

It’s not the media, it’s what options the UKC logbooks have 😉

An excellent summary.

I can't see it catching on, but I liked the term you came up with once, Ledpoint

OK. To take the above interpretation of Ground-Up to its logical conclusion, consider a well protected crack route which a climber ascends by means of resting on each piece of gear as they go, every metre or so, but they get to the top. On subsequent attempts they cut the rests down until eventually they do it clean from bottom to top. 

This is what sport climbers do all the time; it's called redpointing.

Well indeed, but that is a kind of media.

I'm not suggesting anyone in particular is to blame, it's reflective of a broader culture beyond climbing, a positivist overreach where emphasis is always on what is quantifiable, reducible to data and preferably doesn't require too much chewing.

The difference being that on a sport route you have bolts placed at convenient intervals designed to facilitate this. Whereas on trad you don't,  and many trad routes are run out. It is way harder to do what James has done than a headpoint.

You could take the opposite extreme. If he had climbed all the way up to the top move and fallen off it, but then pulled back on and topped out before stripping the route and doing it from the ground,  would you really value that route less than if he had fallen off at the top move and immediately lowered off before doing it? To me that's just completely ridiculous.

Personally if we were being picky, I think getting your wife to go up and give really detailed gear and hold beta for you is much more significant a difference vs the average ground up ascent than whether you lower off or not on failed attempts. But it's still ground up.  You start at the ground and you go up. It's a broad church.

Head pointing is what trad climbers call a Redpoint, right, and if I fell off a flash go of a sport route, went to the top and did it second go we'd all know it was a second go Redpoint. 

That doesn't mean it's the same as a 6-session or a six year Redpoint, and in the same way doing something as a head point second go is far more impressive than doing something as a head point after 6 sessions of top roping. And falling off right at the top and doing it second go is missing out on a flash by a whisker and way more impressive than falling off lower down. 

But you don't get to pull back on half way up and call it ground up, and also expect people not to look at you slightly sideways. The church isn't that broad!

Absolutely. But I gave the example at one extreme end of the scale to illustrate the logical conclusion of your definition.

One can make an analogy with sitting a test. There are minimum requirements to be met for each ascent style. Onsight - no weighting of gear, no prior knowledge. Ground-Up - lower off and pull the ropes after each attempt. Headpoint - a clean ascent, usually placing the gear on lead.

Say one sits a test and, like James, they put in a brilliant effort and massively exceed the minimum requirements required to attain a grade B, but don't quite meet those needed for an A. This means they get a B - it doesn't tell the whole story, but that's just the way it goes.  

It's also been worked ground up. And then climbed ground up. 

We went thro' all this stuff in the 80's. You don't need to lower off every time to climb something ground up 

Agreed, to me ground up means that all the climbing you do on the route has started at the bottom. So no getting back on. Lower off and start again from the ground. There are at least 5 gear variations of ground up:

1. Leave ropes in to last piece of gear - yo-yo
2. Pull ropes but leave gear in - normal 
3. Leave rope in first piece of gear because it's easy up to there - pragmatist 
4. Strip gear - purist
5. Get someone else to strip gear - ultra purist 

What James did is mightily impressive (*) but it's not ground up in my book.

(*) - especially since it sounds like he came off on a not particularly hard move (for him) - more that the move was weird and awkward so just had to be done spot on.

But you do IMO need to lower off every time to LEAD something ground up.

What about lowering off as far as a genuine no hands rest on a ledge? Imo thats acceptable for a yo-yo style ascent and saves a fair bit of time and faff 

Yet another James Pearson pile on, by people who will never climb at this level. Forums becoming as bad as social media. Embarrassing.

Well, I don't agree. Ground up is ground up. I don't think analogies with sport have any relevance because of the different context. A headpoint is probably the closest thing on trad to a redpoint but I have never heard of it being done by working the route on lead. It is always done by working the moves on a top rope.

I think you need to read the thread through. In my mind a report on a very impressive ascent has been recognised in the comments. The comments thread has then gone on to discuss climbing terminology with no 'pile on' of James evident anywhere. 

Tedious maybe but not a pile on. “That” route back in the day was a pile on.

In this thread even the most pedantic have shown appreciation to how impressive this ascent is.

Agreed, the nuance of style...I'm led to wonder how many people on this forum have taken the 'onsight' in their UKC logbook even though they had read all the extensive log book entries from previous ascents detailing gear, etc (not in the guidebook) before getting on the route?!

Honesty and openness always wins and as you say James was clear on what he did, which of course was ridiculously impressive and should be celebrated for what exactly that. 

 

I guess the question that I'd ask is how common are routes where you could get them clean after dogging them but you'd never be able to do them properly ground up? It feels like a lot of the time it might take a bit longer to lower off after every fall, but not shift the limits of what you can do that far. Whereas practicing on a top rope really changes the game, because you get to check whether the moves are physically doable for you before you come to them in a position where not being able to do them could get you hurt. But that might be me talking as someone who mostly shuffles up ledgey severes where resting is less significant.

Basically, I don't care much about what words people choose to use, but I can see how someone like James might feel that "worked on lead" is a relevant standard to aim for (once the flash is blown), and that just saying "it's not ground up so it's a headpoint" misses something important...

It's a 40 degree overhang; routes of that angle often lend themselves to being worked on lead rather than toprope. I imagine any significant sized trad roof (US style roof crack, say) would have to be worked on lead, just as a question of logistics. But the key is that it was practised, not how it was practised. There were no new moves encountered on the successful attempt. 

Bit hypocritical since you've just posted a knee-jerk reaction to a thread you clearly haven't read, as there's at least one response from someone who has climbed E10.

Equally you could argue that a deciding factor in a ground-up ascent could be that every move is first done on the sharp end rather than protected from above, therefore launching into the unknown. Any strict definition you can choose will seem arbitrary bordering on ridiculous for some types of route but will make perfect sense as a style goal for others.

I suspect much of the difficulty is in marrying ground-up and flash approaches. Knowing every last detail about moves and gear in advance makes a lot of sense for a flash attempt but much less so for ground-up. Indeed that seems to have been James's goal, with any ground-up description added later as a way to try to describe the outcome rather than the objective.

Though it isn't how many people would class it nowadays, a ground-up approach makes the most practical sense when tried onsight, so every move is encountered and must be solved on the sharp end, with whatever uncertainty and possible danger that brings with it. Insisting on lowering off immediately and trying again from the ground is uncomfortably reminiscent of the yoyo style that was frequently abused and thankfully fell out of favour when redpointing became accepted.

I would tend to agree with this. With sport climbing where prepractice is the norm and boldness is not a factor, I don't think anyone really cares **how** it was prepracticed.

It would be interesting to know how hard James thinks his ascent was compared to onsights he's done.  What does E10 with beta compare to onsight? What does E10 'second go redpoint' compare to onsight?  Chalked holds, gear knowledge and beta make a massive difference to the real-world difficulty of a climb.

'dogged then led' == redpoint innit

Go and dog up a nice bold route above some shit rp's and tell me it's the same as a redpoint 😅

That's certainly a subset, although on its own it's a weak requirement on certain types of route.

I agree with you in a sense that ground up pairs most naturally with the attempt having been on sight, and that almost every style is muddy around it's edges (Redpoint is probably the least vulnerable to this, because it has one of the "lowest" success criteria, in that it's just "a clean ascent eventually", although I'm sure there's muddiness around preclipping etc etc)

Imo is doing some heavy lifting there

If something is bolted ground up you think you lower to the ground each time?  Admittedly not a UK scenario...

EDIT - I recall the discussion here is whether the route has been climbed yo yo or dogged before being led clean.  Neither involve toproping, and are both ground up with varying levels of ethical outrage.

I'm feeling increasingly ground down by all  this...... 

It's just a scary redpoint isn't it. Doesn't mean it's not a redpoint. Dogged on lead, then lead clean on lead. Not saying it's the same experience as redpointing a sport route, but the E10 bit tells you that.

Obviously some trad routes are undoggable (one's that have no gear at all), but ones with gear can be dogged (maybe a scary dog) and therefore can be redpointed (maybe a scary redpoint).

”It's just a scary redpoint isn't it.”

I am no doubt way behind the times and modern terminology and practices.

But I thought redpointing only applied to sport (which is where it came from)? I’ve never heard it applied to trad until this thread.

Doesn’t redpointing involve a conscious acceptance of and intention to take and the reality of falls (often repeated falls) onto the gear, until all the moves on the route have been practised (dogged), are known and the climber eventually, successfully leads the route in a oner?

If so, isn’t that at odds with UK trad ethics? I was brought up to avoid repeated falls on trad for a number of reasons - the main one presumably being blowing previously good placements through repeated falls? (I can well imagine the howls of anger if UKCers - including many posters here - saw someone do that at their favourite trad crag) and also the potential uncertainty of the gear placements. Yes, there are trad routes where repeated falls seem more common (e.g. Rhapsody) but I’m not sure that Rhapsody aspirants will want to take too many of that fall onto that gear over such a long distance, and they go there with the mindset and intention that they are going to do that (even if they have accepted that possibility and perhaps likelihood of taking that fall at least once). 

Trad had/has headpointing - repeated top rope practice of hard, bold routes until the aspirant decides it is dialled in enough to try on the sharp end. But what James did here is not that and, for me, is far more impressive and a better style.

If what James did is not ground up for the majority or an awful ‘80s yo yo or a redpoint or a headpoint then what should he have called it? Led second go after one fall on the flash with beta attempt? 

Whatever you want to call it (assuming UKCers can agree what that is - which this thread suggests may be difficult) it’s another bloody impressive lead from James.

Fortunately I doubt James gives a tinker's cuss about what we think.

Nice one.

Maybe "worked on lead" needs its own term - how about "ledpoint" to indicate where before doing a complete clean lead, there has been no top-roping but the route has been led with a fall (or falls) and getting back on the rock without lowering off.

In style terms, a ledpoint would then be considered not as good/difficult as ground-up but better/easier than a headpoint.

It already exists.  Dogged then led.  

Ref. 1980's

I don't see why it should only apply to sport. It describes a process of working a route on lead (dogging basically) and then having lead goes until you climb it clean. Clearly this can be done on trad as well as sport, so there doesn't seem to be a reason why it shouldn't be used to describe the process on a trad route as well as on a sport route. The grade makes it obvious if the route is trad or sport, the redpoint/onsight/flash word doesn't need to make the distinction.

Would this be a good moment to point out that when Alex Huber free-climbed the Salathé Wall thirty years ago he subsequently wrote in his account of the ascent that his goal was ".... to redpoint every pitch...." - and I probably don't need to explain that the Salathé isn't a sport route! I suspect too that, coming from the country whence the term originated, Huber would have been fully aware of its normal usage. 

Only because he claimed a ground up ascent for something that wasn’t a ground up ascent. Reading this thread, it seems some people aren’t clear on the terminology either.

It’s not a question of opinion. The term ground up is generally accepted as lowering off after a fall/rest and pulling the ropes. It’s just that some people, including James, don’t seem to know what the term actually means. 

Yes, an excellent moment to point out that Alex Huber, the German (European) wad most famous for his hard sports climbs who took his sport climbing fitness to big walls referred to redpointing Salathe.

But do we have a longstanding history in the UK of referring to redpointing and pink pointing trad? 

For me personally, I’ve always associated redpointing (and the seemingly little used pinpointing) with sport, never trad. But I’m happy to stand corrected. 

What is wrong with this definition?

An onsight is where you do it first go without beta beforehand, other than the guidebook.

A flash is where you do it first go but with beta.

A ground up is where you don't manage it first go, but you haven't practice from above (ie, 'ground up').

A headpoint is where you work and practice a route meticulously before going for the lead, equivalent to a sport redpoint. Done on top rope because of the different nature of trad.

Everything pretty much fits in to one of these definitions, recognizing that each is a spectrum. I have never assumed anything beyond the above.

If someone worked something meticulously like a headpoint but on lead, that would perhaps be best called a redpoint, but it's almost unheard of afaik. It's definitely not what James did here.

But none of those fit what James did, falling off then carrying on leading to the top then doing the complete climb second go.

This is not as hard as ground up succeeding on second go because he first climbed the upper section after being able to rest - it's not clear if he did fully rest or got straight back on.

To be clear, nobody's criticising James's climbing, we're arguing about what that style of ascent should be called and whether it fits into any of the currently used nomenclature.

That's the thing... I'm not sure it's generally accepted.  

The lowering off everytime thing was quite the discussion in the 80's in the UK and  US . Tony Yaniro in the US for example was considered a very bad person for not lowering off everytime he fell off, but then he suddenly climbed stuff harder than anyone else and it didn't seems so terrible. 

Over here Ben and Jerry , and others went to France and realised that lowering off everytime was a bit of a UK thing, and when they just dogged/worked the route they made much more progress towards the redpoint.  I recall Andy Pollitt was a bit of a holdout and when he was working Chimes lowered off everytime

All the nomenclature exists and I don't know why people are insisting it doesn't - yo yo versus dogging

As the late, great Andy Nisbet wrote:

”’Ground-up’ is suitably vague and gets used by folk who've pulled every trick in the book except abseiling in. It makes their ascent sound good but it's just the same as red-point but often aiding up from the bottom to practise the moves rather than abseiling.”

(See https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/rock_talk/what_does_ground_up_mean-439073...)

To me, it fits bang smack in my definition of ground up that you just replied to. Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree.

To me, the question we should be asking is not what 'ground up' means but what styles we think should be well-defined and named.

Identifying the style of an ascent serves one or more of three purposes: descriptive, comparative and aspirational.

Descriptive allows us to easily report and discuss how an ascent was made, with as much conciseness and as little ambiguity as possible.

Comparative allows us to recognise when a climb may have been done in a 'better' style.

Aspirational will help determine the style in which we attempt a route. Getting the greatest enjoyment from a route (and perhaps also the most kudos!) can often mean attempting it in the purest or hardest style you're able, where success will be far from certain. If I often climb E2 then top-roping an E2 and then leading it is likely to feel less rewarding than trying it onsight. We therefore should be asking what it is about onsight, flash, ground up, etc. that feels 'right' as a challenge rather than working it on a top-rope before red/headpointing. I think that both onsight and flash both make intuitive sense as a style goal and it's right that we have labels for them. Ground up is less clear-cut. Do many climbers aspire to try routes from the bottom and lower immediately after each fall? Is it a style we think should be encouraged?

If there's little or no aspirational element to a climbing style, we're left mainly with descriptive. After a ground-up onsight or flash attempt ends in a fall or hang, I think far more climbs are later completed after some dogging en route to sort moves out, than are done by lowering immediately each time. So in terms of numbers at least, ground up as a term would be far more useful as a descriptor if it encompassed dogging on lead prior to a clean ascent.

Of course there are a great many routes for which there's little or no disadvantage in trying ground up. As long as there's plentiful gear you can work a route on lead almost as well as on top-rope. But the routes for which ground up is a useful descriptor are those with fall potential, such that working out sketchy moves above uncertain gear adds greatly to the challenge. I'd argue that taking on and succeeding in that challenge, whether from the floor each time or after resting on the rope (and of course later doing it in one), is what truly distinguishes a ground up ascent from one in which the moves have been practiced on a rope from above.

Bloody hell. E10 second go is a flipping good effort. Nice one James.

Damned fine effort. I couldn’t even do E10 with winch assistance.

So setting aside the choice of terminology, are there situations where someone could get a route done "dogged and then lead" or whatever but would basically not be able to do it "pulling the rope every go"? Or is it basically just a question of speed and efficiency (allowing that efficiency is kind of a big deal in the long run)?

Or to put it another way, is there a situation where someone says "climber X did route Y ground up" and you think "wow, that's cool and impressive" but then you find that the person reporting it got the terminology wrong and the climber actually "dogged and then lead" it and you think "oh, right, whatever then"?
 

What a sad thread this is. Great effort Mr. Pearson! 

My theory is that James knew exactly what would happen if he called the ascent "ground up", and did it on purpose to deflect people from haranguing him for leaving his kids watching cartoons while he jumped on an E10... 

What a thread this is. To an outsider it provides priceless insight into the strangeness of british climbing culture and its most fervent proponenets’ inability to understand difficult climbing and where extrapolations from their own HVS adventures stop working…

the kids at the cliff / partner sussing out the beta part of the story is super inspiring… well done James & Caro💪

regarding the “high ethics” of brits, i’ve never seen a brit outside of britain without a clipstick (except for maybe James 😂)… might be time to get off the high horse!

Dogged then led as pointed out above. Not at all unusual. It’s just that he did it on an E10 and didn’t do much doing. If I did this, I’d record it at RP in the logbook. Certainly wouldn’t be claiming G/U. 

I think ground up as I and other described it above is generally accepted. I’ve spoken to a few experienced trad climbers and they all agreed. 

I think it’s sad when top climbers distort terminology. It actually takes away from the achievement. 

People can understand the terminology regardless of the grade they climb. Or not. 

What an amazing achievement, climbing this incredibly difficult route, well done James.

I totally agree with everything you say here.

I however disagree with the term "Newsflash" as it clearly wasn't a flash.