UKC

In this editorial, experienced gritstone climber Graham Hoey lays down the law on top-roping, bouldering mats and ground-up falls.

Top Roping: "...Many even extended the head point approach to routes which are well protected!"

Bouldering Mats: "I read recently that 'the E8, Angel's Share had been climbed ground up'. No it hasn't, not as an E8... ...only a car mat, beer towel or ¼” thick karrimat are considered fair sport..."

Ground Up:"While ground-up leading has its place... ...why not jack it in after a few attempts and return when you are better? It used to be called giving the rock a chance..."

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=1642

In reply to UKC Articles:

YEP...close to the bone that.
Slippery slope of "Ethics".
A similar debate as regards to winter "ethics" ended up with both party more entrenched in their positions: on the one ends they were "elitist authoritarians" on the other "ego-rubbing philistines".

Good luck to youse in the debate. I enjoyed the article and grabbed my own spade to make my trenches deeper (as I know fair well I'm right ).

In reply to UKC Articles: like it,makes alot of sense.surprised you didnt mention nick dixons fireman blanket .when i repeated that route i didnt use any mats or spotters,had him taking pics instead.you definatly feel its a bigger achievment than padding it out.which i have done on other routes.i have looked down at mats sometimes and have thought tho its there to make me feel a bit better.not to do anything if i fell.
me and andi often mention the likes of nadin falling off on to beer towels when we are climbing on the local crags

In reply to UKC Articles:
Very interesting article - makes some very interesting points about whether Ground-Up is actually better than Headpoint if you end up taking lots of falls

In reply to UKC Articles:

Graham, lots of sense spoken in the first half of your article, a drum I've been banging for a long time. However with style finally moving forward in the past few months - for example Johnny's ascents of Gaia and End of the Affair have finally been convincingly improved upon - I'm not sure you might be a little late!

With your ground-up comments I think you're contradicting yourself a little. Is style worth improving on or isn't it? If it is then routes like Parthian are going to take a bit of effort. No, its not perfect, but it is an improvement in style, no question. The crux is a precise, awkward slap, something easily worked from above but highly likely to spit off the ground-up leader, and a great example of why ground-upping is so much harder than headpointing. Hopefully these initial ascents will be a springboard for others in even better style.

Whilst on the subject of Partian, reports of the flake being 'levered apart' are greatly exaggerated, I was there. Tapping a nut key with a hex is not levering the flake off - if you placed a small wire and it held several long falls would you expect it to come out easily? On the same lines it seems myths of the flake's fragility continue to be preferred to the truth - as far back as Hard Grit Seb is on film dismissing it as something said by those who'd never actually been up there, the latest reports concur.

Using potential route damage as an argument against ground-up seems plausable but goes totally against what I've seen actually happen - in my experience a climber putting style first is far more likely to treat the rock with respect. I've seen topropers kicking pebbles to check they aren't about to snap, testing poor gear with rucsacs full of rocks. Someone climbing ground-up is more likely to be treading lightly on the holds for their own good. Plus the time actually spent on the route is far less - even the ground-up sieges of Parthian you question actually saw only a few - less than ten - attempts on the crux moves, each lasting a couple of seconds. Compare this to Seb's second ascent - two years of toproping, perhaps twenty sessions, plus a similar number of falls. I don't remember him getting much stick for erosion.

Finally Bouldering mats. Your article is generally as well informed as I'd expect from a gritstone legend, but I get the impression this is written from more of the perspective of the armchair critic? The majority of folk on UKC seem to continually overstate the safety given by pads. Get yourself high above a few and I suspect they won't look as reassuring as you assume. The gang spot certainly isn't anything new either - what about Johnny 'barely touching the ground in the squeeze' after falling off what became Unfamiliar?

Angel's Share was never E8 (though Johnny still claims E9 7b on his site - I wonder the stick JP might get if he did this without pads and claimed THAT grade!) Bare ground, a pile of sticks (Johnny denies this incidentally) or mats can all injure. Or not - your assertion that I'd have been off to hospital without pads is nonsense. Pre-mats I fell of the top of Velvet Silence when it turned out to be covered in snow - an identical fall - and then had to land astride my camera bag. I got away without injury, and I've taken a good few similar falls. Pads might allow me to take more such falls in a day, but on the other hand I've seen shorter falls onto piles of pads result in broken ankles.

Of course I'm not claiming pads don't make things safer, they do, but its not as cut and dried as folk claim. Personally I find skill in falling well and picking a landing is just as important as a pad stack. Recently the biggest stack I've ever seen was under Ulysses - probably 12 pads. Lots of suitors, only one ascent. Why? They were all f*ckin terrified. No one actually fell off the crux move, because even with the pads it was too damn intimidating. The pads were then moved under White wand and the first attempt resulted in a broken ankle. Not quite the 'may as well toprope' situation we're led to believe?

This is new gear, simple as that, and the game chnges a little. trying to ignore or eliminate it is daft. I'm not old enough, but did we have these debates when cams appeared? I know we did with chalk - how many clean-hand gang members are still going, 2?

The great thing about pads is they encourage an approach in more authentic style - from the bottom to the top. Without the sanctuary of a top-rope fear still ensures the rock gets the respect its deserves. At the same time they protect the ground, get rid of the old faff with muddy boots balancing on beer towels, and hopefully will save me from any more knee operations.

In reply to UKC Articles:

Very good article and more thoughtful than its 'advertising literature' would suggest.

The key points to me are honesty about the style of ascent and doing our best not to unneccesarily damage the rock (where repeat falls on small placements are just as bad as overbrushing on headpoints).

I think Graham is a little optimistic about getting much more from climbing history .... often a very murky place just where you need the most clarity.

In reply to UKC Articles:
A really good article, cheers Graham. You raise some interesting points here. Especially on the point of taking repeated falls onto delicate gear placements in the name of headpointing, a case in point being the promise where the runner size has allready changed. Is the idea of climbing not to experience the route and leaving behind as little trace of your presence as possible. Although toproping is normally the worse offender in this case, just because an ascent is ground up does not make it better.

The use of pads undeniably helps on grit routes, i myself am a keen onsiter, however i regularly place a pad or two below a route; usually because i've been doing some bouldering the same day. i climb for enjoyment not to purposefully scare myself. Fear is an indirect effect of some of the routes i attempt. Fear does not evaporate above mats, however i agree that there is not the same level of commitment. I feel pads should be encouraged if they alow an onsite ascent which damages the rock less than toproping.

You ask whether we are witnessing the evolution of grit climbing or weather pad use is a dead end. I believe this is the future, the pad free first ascents of the 70's and 80's are gone and i don't think this will change. Fortunately/ unfortunately i think alot of gritstone climbing is becoming a highball bouldering venue. The mountains and seacliff routes are unaffected by mats, so people should head to these if they want to do some proper trad routes.

If people try and climb routes in a style which least impacts the rock, improves their enjoyment (for me this is undeniably onsiting), and is straight about how they climb then there will be no problems.

Luke.

In reply to Adam L:
Hi Adam,
Thanks for contributing to the piece. I think the main point regarding pads that you have missed in your reply is that they are failing to accept the full challenge of the route, simple as that. And I repeat I am not against using them. As for a lack of safety, I agree that they don't guarantee it, but I'm not thinking of pads below Great Arete! Ryan Pasquill fell off 4 times from the crux of Gerty Berwick and James Pearson once without injury! As for your own indestrucability on Velvet Silence, I think that's wishful thinking, I too used to believe in my own for many years until I ended up in hospital on two occasions where just a single mat would have made the jump almost certainly safe. Anyway, if you were so confident that the chance of ending up in hospital after repeated falls was 'nonsense' (think what non sense means btw, 100% positive of a safe outcome) what was the point of the mats?
And you've totally missed the point about cams, cams are only available on a route where placements exist. They are part of the route. A mat is totally independent of the route, i.e. mats are non-discriminatory!
All the best.
Off climbing - back later!
Graham

In reply to Graham Hoey:

Liked your article Graham, but I'm inclined to agree with Adam on the mat side of things. Of course they change the game but you can't uninvent them. You have a choice of whether to use them or not.

In reply to Graham Hoey: Interesting article Graham, thanks.

Super photos.

I have to disagree with you about pads though:


Surely pads only make a difference on very short routes, with no gear? And this rare circumstance is dictated by the route? Ie. it is actually completely 'discriminatory'.

They won't make any difference on Right Unconquerable because of the other gear available - right? Even a hundred pads won't make a difference, because you won't hit the floor if you fall, you'll be caught by your cam placement.

Jack

In reply to UKC Articles:

Real good article Graham, and fwiw I totally agree with your sentiments.

I've seen dobbers putting mats under the bottom of VS routes! IMO mats and routes are not part of the same game.

Use them if you wish, but don't claim any form of trad grade.

In reply to UKC Articles:
Very enjoyable article - thanks very much. Food for thought, and I'm sure the 'debate' will rage on. For what it's worth, I agree pretty much completely with the article, which came across as being written from a common sense point of view rather than being pedantic.

In reply to 220bpm:

If you happen to have a mat with you it provides a dry spot to put your shoes on and clean them.... might have been this you have seen.

In reply to 220bpm:

I can think of lots of VS's with nasty starts, absolutely no reason why someone shouldn't use them if they want to. And environmental reasons why they should. Grade or "Dobberdom" don't come into it


Let them claim what they like, they aren't seeking your approval

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

Absolutely right, pads are discriminatory. They only make a difference when the route is very short or the crux is low and unprotected.

In reply to Graham Hoey: Interesting article. And a good response from Adam!

I have to say I'm of a similar opinion to Adam, so I'm not going to cover the same points he has already highlighted.

However, the point you make about Cams and pads being similar technological advances is a valid one, as technology changes it should be utilised. If this changes the subsequent grade or challenge of the route, then so be it, but it is ultimately down to the climber to decide in what style they would like to climb the route.

For example, if Miles Gibson had climbed what become 'The Promise' years before James Pearson, as a solo, would future ascents using new technologically advanced protection such as ball nuts be frowned upon? Of course they shouldn't be, but it is similar scenario.

The recent highball frenzy hasn't once (as far as I am aware) been publicised by people claiming E grades, with Font grades being offered due to the style they have been climbed, from bottom to top, ground-up, above a stack of pads. This in my eyes is an improvement in style (minus the prior TR practice), and also respects the style in which the route was originally climbed.....(by acknowledging the physical difficulty and not claiming the E grade)

The physical challenge of climbing the routes is still the same, and in many cases the danger element isn't greatly reduced.....

Top roping is far more destructive to routes than climbing in a ground up style, one prime example - Beau Geste!

If pads had of been widley availble in the 80's, do you think people would have used them? I think I know what my answer would be.

In reply to UKC Articles: Very interesting article, some real food for thought (great photos too).

In reply to 220bpm:

I'm a dobber who often uses mats for mid and low grade routes. Sometimes to keep my shoes clean and dry (including protecting the vegetation at the base and the rock at the start from sand/mud polishing), sometimes to pad out a hard start. I also have bunions, and landing from any real height on hard ground hurts and curtails my climbing. I've climbed above mats because I choose to, I do not claim the grade if that would be affected by that (if say the hard/highball start gave the grade). However, most mid and low grade trad routes are not graded by their starts and in those you can think what you want but most will recognise 'claimbing the grade' is fine (even if unimportant).

In reply to north country boy

I get a bit depressed with hard and fast rules on what style is better than what. Most climbers know that things like excess brushing, climbing on soft wet sandstones, climbing with dirty boots on smears and small holds, flailing on delicate rock, taking repeat falls on marginal gear, repeated dogging etc are bad and that style is often not the real issue (other than in a different style it might not be possible). The style that is most destructive changes from route to route and ground up is not always better than headpoint in this conservation respect (albeit I do think it is a better climbing style).

One point Graham doesn't really stress is the wider improvements in gear (esp shoes) and in 'knowing what is possible' give a big help to todays climbers and further close the gap in the real commitment changes that have occured over time, irrespective of the gap in hardest grades climbed over that same period.

In reply to Offwidth:

Just couldn't help wandering about this whole "claiming the grade" business that many people seem to be discussing. Assuming we're not talking about new routes or particularly significant repeats, then where do people make these grade claims? Where and to whom are they filed? Is it very, very bad if someone claims the grade of VS when by their horrible nefarious new school tactics they may only actually have managed a HS experience?

I have now come to the conclusion that virtually everything about modern rockclimbing is completely unenjoyable and is simply a thinly disguised masquerade whereby we all go around "claiming grades" when we have actually merely "destroyed a challenge". I'm not sure how far back to regress though in order to rekindle the magic of old. Where can I buy a hemp rope and start weedling in pebbles to put a sling around (and what are the current ethics on this)?

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

Hi Jack
I thought I made it quite obvious in the text the types of route I am referring to are relatiovely short unprotected ones with poor landings!!!
Cheers
Graham

In reply to north country boy:
If Miles Gibson had climbed what become 'The Promise' years before James Pearson, as a solo, would future ascents using new technologically advanced protection such as ball nuts be frowned upon? Of course they shouldn't be, but it is similar scenario.

Hi ncb,
I'm afraid you've not understood what I've said. The slot on The Promise is a feature of the route. Technology has provided a runner that protects it. Thus if Miles had done it without the gear and then it gets led with new technology-based gear there is nothing wrong with this ascent. The grade would be lowered. Perhaps I haven't made my views clear? I am not frowning on ascents using modern technology to protect a route. But protection is waht is available on the route, not under it. Also, at the risk of repeating myself, I have no problem with pads, they are great but their use doesn't need justifying. Nor do I frown on ascents with them or criticise those who use them. If people are making this interpretation, then perhaps they need to consider why they climb? As long as people don't damage the rock they can do what they want. All I'm saying is that an ascent of certain types of routes using pads is not the best style of ascent. Is there a problem with this view?
Cheers
Graham

In reply to Hugh Cottam:

Difficult to answer something like that...maybe you need to climb more and read Rocktalk less. I enjoy my climbing as much as I ever did and occasionally this becomes almost magical. I have my preferences which includes a lot of onsights near onsights and solos of unlisted or uncertainly graded climbs (is it for guidebook work or was that an excuse to climb such things) but would heve been badly hurt long ago if I failed to treat such climbs with respect. Others seem to get plenty of enjoyment with more conventional tastes.

At the top end, young friends who have headpointed, onsighted and highballed high E grades seem to me to have the same enthusiasm and anarchistic spirit that the established names fill their slide shows with and the equivalent pensioners describe with wistful smiles.

In reply to UKC Articles:
An interesting article.
James

In reply to UKC Articles:
Thanks for writing that Graham. A broader perspective from an evergreen legend! Fashions change, and in the world of grey that the UK scene is becoming, the 'full challenge of the route' seems to me to be the only permanent absolute.

Just because something has been invented doesn't mean we *have* to use it. The Czechs positively shun the use of chalk and metal protection, and they've been around for plenty of years. I would argue, therefore, that they have a stronger sense of where their ethical boundaries lie than we do here in the UK.

In reply to Graham Hoey:

Graham, thanks for a well-written and interesting article.

I agree with most of what you say but I do think you may be underestimating the effect that crash pads are inevitably having on gritstone routes.

The problem as I see it is not that the fact that there's lots of mats around and people are using them to make climbs feel safer. I have no issue with that at all, even though quite clearly it changes the level of commitment required on a great many short routes. The real problem is that there are lots of mats around and so deliberately not using one or two at the start of many routes is beginning to feel increasingly contrived.

I don't really get your distinction between gear on a route and gear below it - I understand it of course but the distinction seems artificial when only some routes can be easily padded out and others will always still be risky - using pads if they will be useful is just fitting the gear to the route.

My view is that we just have to accept (embrace?) the change, not get hung up about the grade or the experience, and climb routes in whatever style feels right for us at the time. If it feels like the right way to be doing it, it most likely will give the best experience.

In reply to Offwidth:

It was actually kind of meant as a joke. Such are the dangers of being misinterpreted on internet forums. I suspect if anything I've climbed too much and not read Rocktalk enough. The main point is that I find it rather bizarre that people talk about "claiming a grade" or "destroying the challenge" when we're really just talking about people having a day out on the crag and enjoying whatever it is they decide to do there. Short of trashing the crag or spoiling anyone else's day, then I can't really see the problem.

In reply to Hugh Cottam:

Fair enough. You need to use clearer clues, heavier satire or the very obvious new fangled smiley things

Was that a five minute argument? Yes??

In reply to john arran:

Hi John,
thanks for the feedback. I agree with you sentiments expressed above. I only get a bit hung up when people say that matting routes makes no difference, or seem to want to justify padding routes (which isn't needed). I also think that highball on-sighting above pads is an exciting development, but one which is a separate 'sport' from what has been done before.
Cheers and good luck with your latest venture.
Graham

In reply to Graham Hoey:


I think this is a false distiction Graham. On Gritstone the landing absolutely is part of the route, some are horrendous even without pads, others are, as Steve Bancroft put it, 'a lush green pasture'. Where ground falls are likely the quality of the landing is reflected in the grade of the route, and routes with particularly bad landings (eg Nosferatu) will remain dangerous with pads.

>All I'm saying is that an ascent of certain types of routes using pads is not the best style of ascent. Is there a problem with this view?

No. But I think this distinction will increasingly become ignored as it has with chalk and sticky rubber, and soloing being superior to leading, especially when naked. Don't get me wrong, there are routes, eg Ulysses, where I chose not to use pads because of the historical aspect, but having returned to some of these routes with pads I've found the character of the route is retained more than you might expect. If Andi Turner believes “taking multiple falls from Ulysses above pads to claim a ground-up is barely different to a head point” I would invite him to come over, put his money where his mouth is, and try it out ground-up. He's headpointed far harder, and I'll even provide the pads as I know they are hard to come by in oatcake land.

One thing I forgot above was to query this paragraph:

>We must therefore distinguish carefully and recognise when ascents have been truly significant (inspirational), for example Neil Gresham on Meshuga, Toby Benham on Soul Doubt (and others), Jordan Buys, Nick Sellers and Pete Whittaker on lots and James Pearson's on-sight of End of the Affair. Where will some of the recent impressive (ultra) highball ground-ups by Ben Bransby, Ryan Pasquill, Pete Robins, and James McHaffie et al fit into the development of gritstone climbing?

All of them have made great ascents, but I really can't see why you've elevated the first bunch particularly?

Along similar lines, I think we have to be very careful with the pedantic notion of onsight that has evolved on the UKC forum. For many routes its not really attainable, and to me factors such as chalk already on the route can be far more important than whether you've seen Hard Grit. Its a grey area for sure, but to me you know when you've climbed something onsight whether or not it fits 'the definition'. I've frequently been shouted 'beta' which has been nothing but a hindrance.

In reply to Adam L:


Wasn't Andi recently in the mags (photo and little write up?) for making a 'ground up' ascent of Northen Comfort at the Roaches after 30+ falls? I think the distinction between ground up and redpointing on safe routes is a bit blurred but I'd say that a stack of mats would be of little comfort to me from the top of Ulysses.

In reply to Adam L:
In reply to Adam L:

Hi Adam, thinking about it, I agree with you that the landing is a part of the route, but I feel that changing that element changes the route in such a way that the ascent becomes a noticeably different experience, whereas placing available protection in slots doesn't. I think an interesting consideration comes when you consider on-sight solo ascents of hard protected routes (particularly as you say naked and without chalk!)

(Adam "Don't get me wrong, there are routes, eg Ulysses, where I chose not to use pads because of the historical aspect, but having returned to some of these routes with pads I've found the character of the route is retained more than you might expect"

I agree that highballs still feel exciting with pads, and its all dependent on one's confidence with pads and the number of pads and ultimately your mental control, but if people are getting gripped up above 12 pads I suggest they take up fishing!
>
No reason, really, i just grouped them as non padded more trad style ascents and padded highballs, with no priority of importance. I find both styles of ascent impressive and uplifting. I may be wrong, but I get the impression that there aren't many people pushing the envelope.
You flatteringly referred to me as a gritstone legend, and one thing I didn't expand on in my article is how I feel about my own role in gritstone climbing. Trust me,and I'm not trying any false modesty crap, but I never considered myself as an A list cutting edge climber and have always felt that there were many climbers better than myself at the time. Consequently I felt that if I could onsight routes of a hardish (but not top)standard then a lot of people could do if they gave it a go rather than top-roping/ pre-placing gear. This is why I'm so surprised (and I guess disappointed) that general on-sight standards haven't risen that much in over 20 years.


I agree, it was much easier and clearer to me as to what an on-sight was in the 80s and early 90s, and the absence of chalk on aroute often ups the anty a bit (although too many chalk marks often confuse rather than help). I suppose thats why I particularly enjoy climbing the more esoteric routes on sea cliffs where you can still have the on-sight expereience.
Thanks again
Graham

In reply to Adam L:


I agree, it seemed a wierd list to me.

In reply to Keeg:
Hi Keeg,
See my reply to Adam.
Graham

In reply to Graham Hoey:


My own feelings exactly! I do think though that in the last year we're finally seeing that change, with Team USA really bringing it into the media focus. The list of decent route projects on grit really is so short now that style improvements are becoming the main way to make a mark on the grit.


Until maybe three or four years ago maybe, but since there has been a real explosion of talent. Until recently, when something hard got done then you could safely assume it was one of a short list responsible, now its usually yet another new face to add to the wad list. If I had to pick a few names from recent times who have been out thee pushing style over numbers, they'd be Ryan Pasquill, Ross Cowie and (whilst he was here) Ben Cossey. Most of which has been done off the media radar.


Interesting, the impression I had was that ethics were rather muddier back then, as much due to the lack of clear definitions as anything.

>and the absence of chalk on aroute often ups the anty a bit (although too many chalk marks often confuse rather than help). I suppose thats why I particularly enjoy climbing the more esoteric routes on sea cliffs where you can still have the on-sight expereience.

Quite agree, its getting hard to achieve on grit though! A wider ground-up ethic will help though, as its on top-rope that the most excessive chalking occurs.

In reply to Graham Hoey:


Nice article Graham - the sentiments & passion came through nicely.


>Grit E4s were being on-sighted in the 1970s. E5s in the early 1980s (most quality bold E5s had been on-sighted well before the mid-1980s) and E6 by the mid-to-late 80s. They were often done mid-week, alone, on deserted edges (without shit out ropes, pads and mobile phones) and were committing experiences. I mention this because there seems to be among many younger climbers (and those new to the sport) a general lack of awareness of the style of ascents over the last 20 years.



While times have changed for the better / worse depending on your point of view - I agree that it is very important that the heritage of gritstone climbing is kept alive and that new & younger climbers take the time to understand this.

However, speaking to some climbers - they just ain't bothered and want to climb for the sake of climbing. Which, I suppose is fair enough, but what are they missing as a result? The history and community of climbing has always been to me as important as the route you are attempting and the two (three) should go hand in hand.

I think a little respect these days goes a long way and when instructors are showing their students the nuts and bolts of racks etc etc - maybe they should be pointing them to the bookshelves as well?

cheers

Si

In reply to Graham Hoey:
Graham
Sorry, I should have explained myself a bit more than merely describing the list as weird.
It seems that you were suggesting that Neil Gresham, Toby Benham, Jordan Buys, Nick Sellers, Pete Whittaker and James Pearson were in the "pure" group as mattless on-sighters/ground-uppers and Ben Bransby, Ryan Pasquill, Pete Robins, and James McHaffie were in the "tainted" group as exponents of the mat protected ascent.
I use the terms "pure" and "tainted" not to ascribe value but merely as convenient markers, I could just of easily have used the letters "A" and "B". The reason the lists seem weird to me is I don't think that chosen individuals sit very well in their given groupings.
Going through them as individuals:
Neil Gresham - has headpointed extensively, not sure of his on-sighting/ground up credentials but nothing really springs to mind. Anyone?
Toby Benham - I know he did some stuff but I have no facts so can't really comment on him.
Jordan Buys - recently climbed French Duke with a mat at its base, has made some impressive ground-ups/onsights/flashes and has also headpointed
Nic Sellars - has done some impressive ground-up/onsights. Don't know whether he has headpointed? but I'm fairly sure he highballed Renegade Master with Tom Briggs.
Pete Whitacker - don't know a lot about him other than he seems to be very good at climbing and can (seemingly) put his foot in his ear.
James Pearson - has headpointed and onsighted and recently repeated Ryans new route at Ilkley with a padded landing.
Ben Bransby - to dismiss Ben as some nu-wave highballing pad monkey seems rude in the extreme. He is one of the best all round trad climbers this country has ever seen and has been at or around the top of the pile for years.
Ryan Pasquil - the same Ryan who flashed End of the Affair and Countdown to Disaster?
Pete Robbins - has also been around climbing lots of things in lots of different styles for years, Pete and Ben haven't only done the Promise.
James McHaffie - again I don't know a lot about this person but I was under the impression he was something of an on-sighting/ground-upping wizard in Wales?

I can see the difference you were hoping to highlight in your lists but I think the trouble is things aren't that clear cut. I'm struggling to think of people who readily sit in either camp. I suppose Dan and Ned appear to be pure big mat highballers, but most people occupy a crossover dependant on route, state of mind, circumstance, wind direction and what they had for breakfast that morning.

None of the above is meant as a criticism of any of the climbers.They are all very good and accomplished climbers and I don't put forward any criticism for any of their ascents. Just pointing out how the division that you tried to highlight in your listing just doesn't exist. Or if it does you're going to need to produce a different list.
Otherwise I thought the article was an interesting read. I'd disagree that onsighting standards haven't moved on in the last 20 years and we could debate various minor points until the cows come home but the list was the thing that stood out as inacurate. Which is a shame as I'd guess it was not considered a major part of the article when you wrote it.
Anyway I hope I've elaborated on "weird" enough (too much) that you can see my point.
Cheers
Nik

In reply to UKC Articles:

A really super article. Very wise, the voice of huge experience and understanding. (God, that sounds patronising, but I really mean it.)

In reply to Keeg:

Aye, thats what I took was being implied too. For me, I'd seperate the 'truly inspirational' as those with the smallest gap between their hardest headpointed and onsighted grade. There have been a good few big news, big grades headpointers in the last few years who's onsight cv's are non existent.

In reply to Adam L:
Or those who don't headpoint at all (even if they do use pads on some ascents), a rare breed indeed.

In reply to Keeg:
Hi Nic,
Thanks for elaborating on your point. I wasn't trying to distinguish critically between the achievements of the two groups and I was certinly aware of the amount of crossover between them and of the large number of good style ascents on grit of climbers in the second list, particularly Ben Bransby. I'm sorry if I left a misleading impression - not enough thought went into that bit I guess. I particularly included Neil and Toby in the first list because of their padless ethic to hard grit routes. The second list was meant to include those who more recently have been developing the highball approach on gritstone (I think caff came conjoined with Pete!). Ben for one has recently talked about his move towards (relatively)'safer' grit with the resposibilities that a family brings along (something which hit me one day as I set off to try and on-sight Benign Lives with my one year old asleep in a back-pack next to the path; I looked across and realised the sheer stupidity of what i was about to do and thus ended my 'hard' grit on-sighting).

All the best
Graham
p.s. if you are Nic Jennings then apologies for not mentioning your efforts, Doug was a stunning achievemnt.

In reply to Graham Hoey:
It would seem being a parent is turning us all responsible. As the proud owner of a 2 year old bouldering is now my pass-time of choice. I still harbour secret desires and goals for grit routes but realistically...


...well lets just say not this season.

Anyway thanks for clearing up the reasoning of the list, the point has been clarified.

No apology needed.

In reply to UKC Articles:
Thanks to everyone who has commented today. There have been some really good points made by people who I respect and who know what they are talking about. I've enjoyed questioning my own feelings about climbing on grit and how it is developing.
Cheers
Graham

In reply to Graham Hoey:

Great article.

E6 - on sight - on all types of rock.

That would be the ultimate climbing goal for me if I climbed for the next 150 years.
You have the T shirt Graham and I'd rather have your T shirt than one that said half a dozen E8 headpoints.

Ciao

Enty

In reply to Enty: Good article and good replies all, thanks Graham, Nic, Adam etc.

Oh, one thing Tyler, Andi T doing Northern Comfort ground up with whatever it was, 50 falls or something, was a big improvement on headpointing it. There's a long 6c section that takesa a lot of working out, but then you go straight into 5c, absolutely miles from the gear which, if you've practiced it is okay, but pumped and on-sight is a different matter (abnd by on sight I mean the top 5c section).

In reply to Offwidth:

Jolly good, as long as your having fun

However....

clean shoes/polishing - I find a tea towel sufficient

hard starts - part of the game, to me it would be deeply unsatisfying to pad out. Akin to TR'ing!

bunions - !!

claiming the grade - it doesn't matter if its graded for a hard start or not, its psychologically easier with a pad at the bottom. Theres no way a trad grade can be claimed under any circumstances.

pads are for bouldering, or sitting about on having lunch, not for the bottom of trad routes, tis cheating.

all imo of course

In reply to 220bpm:

Where do you do this "claiming the grade"? Who do you make these claims to?

In reply to Hugh Cottam:

Are you being obtuse?. Offwidth/220bpm are saying you can't claim to have climbed a E3 if it was short protectionless one if you highball it with mats and mates but you can claim to have climbed an E3 if you did it onsight above a beer towel and you can declaim that to anyone you want.

In reply to Simon Lee:

You may see it as obtuse Simon. To me it is claiming an E3 that appears obtuse. Who on earth goes around claiming E3s? It's ridiculous. You know what you've climbed and how you've climbed it. All this pedantic absolutist rule making is just weird. Of course a mat for a highball changes the game, but then so did padding out the bottom with sacks. So did taking a sneaky peek at the holds from an adjacent route. Then again some of these routes had better landings when they were first graded. Who cares if someone claims an E3 and they haven't done it in optimum style. I don't. If I feel like climbing an E3 with a mat then I will. If I feel like doing it without then that's fine too. The likely factor for me would be simply be whether I could be arsed to carry a mat to the crag that day. At the end of the day though I can't imagine who I would go around making claims to about such E3s.

In reply to Hugh Cottam:

Have you never heard anybody described as an E3 climber ? Or say I climbed a couple of E3's today ?. How would you answer the question what is the hardest route you have climbed ? You can't make these statements without claiming to have climbed a route at that grade. I appreciate your sentiments but I think you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Of course this is a problem with E grades per se as they are in part graded to incorprate risk and based on an onsight style and so are less flexible/appropriate if the style is diffrent or the risk somehow reduced.

In reply to Hugh Cottam:
here here. at bloody last someone talking sense

In reply to Simon Lee:

No I can't really say I've heard people describe someone as "an E3 climber". What percentage of E3s would you say you needed to be able to onsight in order to be classified as "an E3 climber"? Personally I haven't got a clue. If you were capable of onsighting 90% of E3s around the country then you would also definitely be capable of onsighting a handful of E5s. And before you start to blame the E grade again, you could say the same about sport grades. Anyone capable of onsighting 90% of 6Cs around the country would also definitely be capable of onsighting a handful of 7As. What grade climber do you want to call them. Personally I feel that attempting to arrange everything in such neat little boxes is just doomed to failure.

In reply to Hugh Cottam:

I wasn't thinking imaginary %'s of capability but more actual trackrecord. If you had onsighted a dozen or so E3's of different types you could be reasonably described as an E3 climber even if you had ground-upped, rested on or backed off half a dozen more when you were unfit or a bit fearful. Same goes for sport climbing.

Descriptions that are approximate still have meaning - sorry if that isnt neat enough for you...

ps Graham - Well done on a good and interesting article and sticking your head well above the parapet.

In reply to Simon Lee:


Actually some approximate descriptions have meaning. Some are so woolly and are interpreted so differently by various people they are in effect meaningless. "An E3 climber" is so ambiguous and vague as to be basically meaningless. You choose a definition of that as 2/3 onsight success rate. Others might choose 1/3 (and not onsight). Others might say they're "An E3 climber" when they've managed to get up 1.

And what if they meet your criteria, but they've done them all on slate?

It's you who is on a quest for increased neatness. I don't think that it's really achievable.

In reply to Simon Lee:

I tend to agree with you and Graham on pads - while also using them to a limited degree.

A mat makes a difference and a pile makes, potentially, a big difference. Their use won't be confined to really hard routes and highballs; indeed it isn't already.

From reading about it on here it sounds like the team using them on Ulysses before switching to White Wand aimed too high in every sense for any amount of mats to make a big difference for most of them. White Wand was probably a better bet, and it sounds like the problem was that they didn't arrange them very well given that Peak DJ broke his foot falling onto a single mat - an extra mat and he'd have been fine he said on here. I'm sure in time they'd get better at it.

But perhaps it is Archangel that using piles of mats might make the biggest difference to. An iconic and bold route that many (you included if I remember right) took many years to work up to doing. I know a few people who have done it recently, after escaping unscathed from falling off from 2/3 height... onto a pile of mats.

I'm not blaming the individuals doing it - it's still a fairly bold thing to fall from 2/3 height on Archangel, and I quite like the idea myself (compared with doing it without). But it does make you think. Or consider another nearby route: after managing the start and hearing about it from friends I've recently developed the idea of turning Silk into a slightly nervy highball problem (hey, I can climb V6, so why not give it a go? http://www.thebmc.co.uk/Feature.aspx?id=2532). I've fallen off it once onto a double layer of mats. It was fine; I could get used to it... But should I? Am I cheating? It's worth thinking about (even if I've got a very good idea about what my own answer is going to be!).

In reply to Hugh Cottam:

You've gone and extrapolated again with your %'s and I did say a variety of routes. Undoubtedly there is a fuzziness on who is or isnt an E3 climber in the same way that somebody is described as a good builder or county level runner.

Whilst I feel intersted enough to comment on a forum about grades that hardly makes it a quest and has nothing to do with neatness. It does have something to do with meaning and a slightly diffrent way of thinking about routes. At the risk of repeating myself I believe seperating and better quantifying physical difficulty from risk and/or style makes a grade more useful in selecting routes that you are capable and up for - for me at least.

In reply to Simon Lee:

And here we have the problem, people trying to take a system designed to do one thing - give a vague indication of the difficulty of the route - and use it as an indicator of their own performance. Works in athletics (e.g. sub-4 minute miler) but not so easily in climbing

An E3 may not be an E3 if you do it above pads, but may be a more enjoyable experience, and above all, you've still climbed the route.

(Way off-topic - but can you claim an E3 if you've done it DWS style rather than led it on gear...6a+ does sound anything like as good

In reply to John Gillott:

Good points. Im not sure Ive commented on pads as I'm still in flux about what I think about them. Ive enjoyed using my Ronin pad the last couple of weeks - and there is a definite buzz when it feels a bit airy round your ankles. Ironically I think there will be overall more breakages from as a result of mats because people are going to tempted slightly harder moves that bit higher though as people get cleverer with mats and jumping this might change.

Clearly this is all a bit of a watershed at the moment which makes it intersting but I think it comes down to personal choice - how you feel about a route in general, what style the route dictates as appropriate, your abilities and aspirations. But wasnt that always so ? You could always toprope something rarther than leave it for the onsight. Giving something an E grade is by implication in a sense dictating or pressurising a certain style that can seem silly when you are out with a gang of spotters and pads are available. Perhaps highball some routes for the practice and fun of it and leave the inspirational classic routes that are worth a broken ankle for a classic style of ascent ? Dilemmas, dilemmas...

In reply to Chris the Tall: (Way off-topic - but can you claim an E3 if you've done it DWS style rather than led it on gear...6a+ does sound anything like as good


At 6a+ it must be overgraded at E3 unless it is graded for the difficulty of placing gear in which case you dont get E3 by soloing it. So either way you are out of luck unless it is was undergraded at 6a+.

In reply to UKC Articles:
Appologies if I repeat anything already said above but this is my point of view on the subject.

Climbing, as with most things, changes and evolves over time. Graham your view point is taken from a particular point in that evolution where the tatics and methods that we in place when you discovered climbing were what you used and they were acceptable to you. However before you started climbing things were different, for example chalk was not even heard of. A close relation of mine used to climb significant bold new gritstone routes of the day without chalk or even a complete (by today's standards) rack of gear (in fact many were solo ascents). He still however goes on and on to me about me using chalk and how it doesn't make me a better climber and ruins the crag etc. But to the generation before he was cheating as he had fancy new rubber boots. In fact grades were so unimportant then that these routes and other were graded VS or sometimes HVS. Considering some are now E5 it shows that grades and comparisons were not so important.

Therefore he 'could' argue that your style of ascent on the routes described in your article was not the same and less dangerous due to the advances in technology you used and therefore the grades should be reconsidered (I am making the assumption you have used chalk of course and other 'new' technology)? However he actually wouldn't because the whole point about climbing is going out there and having fun and challenging yourself, and perhaps even more important not hurting yourself in the process as it isn't worth it. If you want to put a mat down, use loads of gear, cover the rock in chalk etc then it's up to you as long as you are happy and not fibbing about what you've done. If someone takes issue with this then surely it is their problem? I have personally made the first ascent of something high which I practiced on a rope first and had a mat under me on the sucessful solo ascent. If someone wants to take issue then that's up to them, I don't really care as I enjoyed it and most importantly I don't have a broken back which I might otherwise have had. Said relative was with me for the ascent and encouraged me to use the mat as he didn't want to see me putting myself at risk which I could avoid. If someone repeates it without the use of such technology then full respect to them, and if they want to change the name and grade then that's up to them, it is after all only a peice of rock.

Safety and what risk you choose to put yourself at is up to you and I don't care what situation you put yourself in as long as your are aware of the consequences and don't put others in danger. I feel you article is almost glorifying injury and trips to the hospital which would be a little stupid if it was.

As for your comments about preserving the rock, you only seem to interested in this when referring to more difficult climbs and I find this slightly elitist. Everyone should have the opportunity to be able to try anything they want, the rock is there for everyone. I don't hear a call for restrictions on numbers of people allowed to attempt classic VD's, VS's etc. The sustainability of rock and rock climbing is something completely different.

In reply to Graham Hoey:

Hi Graham

Am I correct to assume, therefore, that you are of the opinion that the "best" style of ascent for something like Ulysses is the one with the highest risk of injury attached? (i.e. solo, onsight, no pads)

I am genuinely curious...

Had mats been so routinely available back in the day, they'd have most likely been used.

I'm genuinely intrigued by the opinions of those who climbed in pre-mat days - they climbed these routes with the risk of snapped ankles/legs because (apart from top-roping) there was no readily available way to mitigate the risk. I'm not sure that in my view this means "better" style. It's "different" style, but what makes it better?


Cheers
Dave

In reply to 1234None:

You have to put all this in its historical context... I've seen re-runs of The Sweeny, men were tougher in those days, but they could also expect their dinner on the table when they got home, whenever they got home.

In reply to 1234None: It's "different" style, but what makes it better?


Purity, minimalism, mental pressure and raised stakes.

In reply to Simon Lee:

That's just barbaric.

In reply to Simon Lee:

OK, so an ascent without pads gives more of the above, but again - is that "better" style, or just "different" style. I agree that an ascent of Ulysses without pads is probably a totally different experience to an ascent with a stack of pads, but which ascent is in "better" style is surely a matter of opinion.

I respect Graham's opinion, but don't really agree with it. For me personally, the best style isn't necesarrily the one with the most risk attached.

Graham - incidentally I think we were chatting at the Climbing Works the other day. I'm the one with the shattered heel bone and a foot full of metal after a fall onto a mat! Great article and definitely food for thought...

In reply to Papillon: That's just barbaric

Like this you mean: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v359/boganlux/p038.jpg

In reply to James Kitson:
Hi James,
i think you need to read the article and other comments I've made on this forum more carefully. You look for diasagreement when there isn't any and you misinterpret the text to infer things I haven't said.
I did not advocate that everybody should rush out and injure themselves. I have clearly said that I think pads are a great idea because they enable climbers to ....etc etc read the article. The point about me ending up in hospital can be interpreted a number of ways, e.g. wasn't I a prat and wouldn't it have been far better to have had a mat?
As for the complete fabrication about only caring about damage to placements on hard routes, this is purely in your own mind. Just because my article was referring to the upper end of grit climbing doesn't mean I have different views about easier routes. I also didn't give my views on bolting gritstone, perhaps you'd like to make them up for me?
graham

In reply to 1234None: OK, so an ascent without pads gives more of the above, but again - is that "better" style, or just "different" style. I agree that an ascent of Ulysses without pads is probably a totally different experience to an ascent with a stack of pads, but which ascent is in "better" style is surely a matter of opinion.



Its a matter of opinion for example that Shakespeare was a better playwright than Ben Johnson but is so widely held that it might as well be fact rather than opinion. I think we can agree that onsight leading is better than dogged on top-roped with rests. Well hopefully you can see where I am going..

If its any consolation I think you can claim a retrospective E5 failed onsight on account of your injury.

In reply to 1234None:
Hi again,
I hope I was careful in not trying to dictate the way in which people climb, which is a very personal thing. As long as the rock isn't damaged I have no concern (although bullshitters can be hard to ignore!). As regards to style, for myself I try to do routes in as good a style or better than previous ascents of the route. This may include for example, on-sighting, using less aid, orwithout mats (some may argue without chalk). Clearly this is a personal approach, and I am not always successful, but I also feel attempting to improve on what people have achieved before is important for the development of the sport. Not everyone wants to do that, which is fair enough.
See you at the works again, there's always pull-ups!
All the best
Graham

In reply to Simon Lee:


Probably correct, but I'd bet that Johnson was a lot faster over 100m than Shakespeare (even without the drugs).

In reply to Simon Lee:



I'll settle for VDiff - after all I did have a stack of pads

In reply to John Gillott:


We had about 7 mats if I recall correctly, and they were used to flatten the landing, with the mats only "stacked" 2 deep directly below the crux. I didn't, however, fall from the crux, and instead fell from the upper arete - barndooring slightly in the proces, so landing slightly left of the "2-deep" staclk, on a single mat.

The answer, of course, would have been more mats

In reply to 1234None:

Plus the landing for White wand is considerably worse than Ulysses, and the fall less predictable. Not an easy one to pad out at all.

It's hard to disassociate what you enjoyed from what is best. I am guessing that graham has got some of his best climbing experiences when he embraced and travelled through the risk and committment that he is advocating, two factors that he is implicitly lionising when he suggests that a matless onsight ascent is better than a padded / headpoint ascent. Does this make it better? Certainly, in graham's eyes it seems to.

I did White wand many years ago, on a snowy day, midweek, with a bunch of great friends. Long before mats. I had tried it the week before, bottled the crux and managed to jump off without hurting myself. I worried about it for a week. On the day. the sun shone and we threw snowballs. I had to hang on the top arete and sweep snow off the ledge before I could get on it.

I felt i really had to move myself on to do it. It was without doubt my best ever experience on gritstone, and one of the best of my life. I must admit, when I see or hear of people doing it above mats, what I think of is their loss at not having to quite go through that same experience that i did. For me, White Wand witout mats was better. I'm glad they weren't invented at the time.

Some years later I did Chip Shop Brawl at Stanage End. This was a John Allen E5 that at the time had a mystical nature about it. It looked undoable, and the landing was terrifying. Over two visits I did it, above a couple of mats. I thought it was a phenomonal route, and one I would never have done without mats. Guides might now give it a bouldering grade, and that's col, but for me that experience was so much better than a boulder problem, as there was a lot more to it. I was glad bouldering mats were invented.

In reply to Niall Grimes:

Nice one Niall.
Cheers
Graham

In reply to UKC Articles:
I think you are unduly harsh on James Kitson whose ‘reading’ of your article seems both fair and accurate. You say –‘ In the vast majority of cases, the top routes of the eighties were being (and are still being) ascended in worse style than when they were first done.’ You then ask - ‘When in the history of climbing has this ever happened, and why has this been viewed by many in the media as progress; with some of these ascents being reported as significant.’ James is merely pointing out that there are, in fact, many good, historical examples of routes being ascended in a style ‘worse' than that adopted by the first ascentionists – as the story of his close relative is but one personal example. For me, the picture of a teenage Joe Brown approaching the top of the Right Unconquerable with a hemp rope tied around his waist running runnerless to the ground springs to mind – how many subsequent ascentionists have climbed this route in such a pure style, sporting nothing more than a pair of cheap pumps and a disturbing quiff? James’s point is that each generation tends to look upon the antics of the younger generation with a mixture of incredulity and disbelief (it wasn’t like that in my day) tempered with a hint of fondness and a desire to be young again themselves. In essence, he was agreeing with you that today’s young pioneers would have a rounder, fuller experience of climbing, if they had a deeper sense of the history our sport and its traditions. Where James differs from you is in his laissez-faire attitude to the joy and spirit of climbing – this stands in marked contrast to the rather controlling and censorious tone of your own editorial, with its lists of those who climb in a good style and those who climb in a bad style (a view you have since modified following a number of subsequent posts); and your carping about what is and isn’t reported in the climbing media. For my part, I value a free press, one with its own news values and sense of newsworthiness, rather than one which is governed by a centrally imposed ‘line’ of what constitutes a valid ascent (doubtless laid out in a prescriptive set of protocols, drawn up by a committee, for the editor to follow). The prominence given to so many images of Mr Hoey, each captioned with the emphatic words ‘on-sighting’ suggests that this is a role he might crave for himself? I am sure that this is not intended and that all Mr Hoey desires is for today’s rock stars to pay due homage to the old guys who’ve blazed the trail before them. As for the climbing media – the advent of the internet has changed utterly the nature of first ascents and the (climbing) public’s perception of them. When Hillary made the first ascent of Everest it took some considerable time for the news to reach London. Nowadays, a new route has barely been climbed than the net is peppered with comments from the ‘community’ ( a euphemism for a large group of sad individuals whose life is spent grubbing around the back streets of the information superhighway) – rarely has the style of an ascent been subject to so much, and so close, a public scrutiny. The old boys had it so much easier – how many of the pioneers of the 70s and 80s would emerge from this kind of instant forensic analysis without a substantial charge sheet from the style police? As James says, and you so rudely dismiss, the main game is to have fun while trying not to harm yourself or others in the process – not always an easy balancing act, but mats and friends do help.

In reply to John Yates, Try Pat Littlejohn, Mick Fowler, and Simon Nadin.

In reply to john yates:
Hi John,
I think Niall Grimes expressed rather nicely one of the points I was trying to make when he described his ascent of White Wand.
I have stated a number of times that I don't wish to dictate how people climb, but I don't have to be impressed when ascents are done in what I view as poor style. I feel the reporting of such ascents does not encourage or educate others in climbing aspirationally. Some people want to be accurately informed.
Regarding the two lists of climbers, you are completely wrong in assuming that I have changed my intentions of the list. I have nothing but admiration for the young lads who are pushing back boundaries on grit in different styles. If they did it without mats I'd be even more impressed! These same climbers have made, and continue to make, impressive ascents outside of the Peak in brilliant style. They were simply listed as recent movers in a newly developing style of gritstone climbing. I didn't explain this clearly in the article, for which I apologise, but please don't suggest I had other reasons for the distinction it is just not true.
I nearly apologised in the articles for the number of pictures of me. Unfortunately, I am not a photographer and have only images of myself covering the time span I was referring to. The on-sighting tag was clearly intended to clarify the style of ascent which was imporatant in the context of the article.
Having spent 20 years on the BMC guidebook committe I have no desire to be on any committess thankyou!
I'm not sure where I rudely dismiss the idea that the main point of climbing is to have fun and not injure yourself. If you knew me you would know that one my main reasons for climbing is not only for my enjoyment but also for the enjoyment of those I climb with.
Not sure about the Mr, my name is Graham, but you can call me Dr if you prefer to use titles as I don't agree with gender titles!
Thanks for the points.
Graham

In reply to john yates:

UKC - "grubbing around the back streets of the information superhighway"

fantastic

In reply to UKC Articles:

Last Laugh?
I was highballing on Stanage today when the wind blew away my mat just as I got to the crux!
Graham

In reply to Graham Hoey:


The point that seems to be lost, or perhaps missed, though Graham is that climbing ground-up is always better style than headpointing. This still holds true even if the ground-upper uses pads and the headpointer doesn't. By far the biggest advantage you can have before leaving the ground is prior, personal knowledge of the moves ahead. There are many imperfections which can reduce the style of an ascent but this is by far the greatest. If we want to move style forward on gritstone that is what needs to be addressed, and in the current scene it is inevitable pads will be used to help make these advances.

In reply to UKC Articles: Hi Graham,

Best thing I've read for ages - has got me massively pysched to finally try to onsight Archangel in good style this year - a route I've been 'saving' until I feel bold enough to climb it properly.

Also, it's great to see that someone else thinks that the very, very long awaited onsight of End of The Affair is possibly the defining moment of recent gritstone climbing. We have now well and truely entered a new era where it is possible to argue that almost any route on grit (i.e. everything E8 and below) can (and should?) be left until you are good enough.

Finally one comment about mats - placing ever more gear when leading isn't possible, placing ever more mats is. I therefore agree with your comments about ill-defined experiences and grading. 'No mats', gives a well defined climbing experience that can be graded. 'Some mats' is completely ill-defined, is it 1 or 20?. Matted ascents are extremely 'grey' and therefore impossible to deal with in the relatively objective manner in which we have treated climbing routes for over one hundred years. This is not necessarily a problem, but we need to fullu recognise the shifting nature of experiences that they produce.

Thanks again for a great bit of writing.

Mark Stevenson (using Panda's laptop)

In reply to Adam L:
Hi Adam - you make a good point.

What bemuses me about this whole thing though is how willing alot of people are to "dis" other people's choice of style.

I think what is important is trying to make sure the rock isn't damaged. If I - or anyone else - choose to do a route above pads, or by headpointing, so long as I don't damage the rock I don't think it's anyone else's business, and I'm a little bemused as to why it's a topic of so much diuscussion and even a lenghty article. Why does it seem to be important to some people how others climb? I honestly don't see whay that should be the case even the highest level of climbing.

Whilst - having met and chatted to him on a couple of occasions - I am sure Graham's article isn't intended that way, it could be interpreted with an air of "we were just good and hard back in the day and didn't use pads so we were better than you guys". Sorry Graham, but a few mates I met up with today had read it and agreed. As I say above, I'm convinced that wasn't how it was intended, but it reads that way in some parts.

Sometimes I wonder if our obsession with style and ethics holds us back as climbers, which I guess brings us back to your point about progress on grit.

Pads redcue risk and don't damage the rock (they could in fact prevent/reduce erosion such as that observed at the base of Crescent Arete), so surely they should - overall - be encouraged.

For me, climbing has never been a numbers game. It's about inspiring lines and calculating risk. The only reasons not to use a pad to protect a bad landing would be either to claim the highest possible grade (i.e. playing the numbers game) or for the "experience" (as described very well by Grimer above). I can understand the "experience" element, but I still sh*t myself equally above a stack of pads, so I still get the full experience - it's just likely to hurt less if and when I fall off

In reply to Panda :


Good point Mark but in actuality rather hypothetical.

There are a few routes with perfect landings that can now be fallen off fairly safely with a good stack of mats (though perhaps they were never that dangerous to start with?) although the risk of injury still is there.

However for the majority, with classics like Gaia and End of the Affair being good examples, no amount of mats are ever going to make falling off the route 'safe'. The precaution of placing a few strategic mats at the base is analogous to wearing a helmet - if things go wrong your risk of serious injury is reduced. I haven't heard anyone suggesting James Pearsons' ascent of EOTA was marred by his wearing a helmet? No, its a sensible measure.

Adam,

You do talk nonsense at times. Your religious devotion to ground up climbing is to be applauded, but at times it is misplaced.

The words we use to describe style are overlapping segments of a continuous spectrum. Stating that “climbing ground-up is always better style than headpointing” is utterly ridiculous! Consider person X who onsights Requiem on a top rope and then headpoints it first try (thus completing a successful ascent without once weighting the rope). Compare that ascent to person Y’s who sieges the route ground up, working each move all the way to the very last (without ever topping out) vast numbers of times over a five year period before finally completing a valid ground up ascent. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that X’s ascent was in far greater style than Y’s. Surely your ideology can’t prevent you from seeing this?

To be clear, the excitement which you and some others share about ground up climbing in and of itself is misplaced. If you had said that “flashing a route is always better style than headpointing” or “onsighting a route is always better style than headpointing” there would be noone who would disagree with you. However, with respect to ground up climbing it entirely depends on the route in question. If the route is very dangerous and has very little gear (e.g The Indian Face), then I would be in agreement with you that any ground up ascent would be more impressive than any headpoint ascent.

But as was illustrated with the Requiem example, this is not necessarily the case with safe routes which have lots of gear. As for routes in between, it is obviously a matter of opinion. Was climbing Parthian Shot over 2 days and after taking loads of lobs an improvement in style? I think it probably was – and I’m sure you’d agree. But if someone had previously onsighted it on a top rope and then headpointed it first try, personally I’d have been more impressed – although I accept that in this case, it is a matter of opinion, not of fact.

Even on the stuff which you are most interested in – highballs such as Careless Torque – personally I’d have been more impressed if you’d onsighted it on a top rope and headpointed it first go – rather than if you finally get it ground up after a 10 year siege. (And if you’re head doesn’t agree with me, then perhaps your knees will?!)

At the end of the day, whether or not a ground up ascent of a particular route is an improvement in style on a previous headpoint ascent depends on the route in question, and the style of ascent within the “ground up” or “headpoint” category with which it was climbed…


However, with regards the pads issue, for once we find ourselves in agreement!

In reply to 1234None:
I'm a little bemused as to why it's a topic of so much diuscussion and even a lenghty article.


ah.. well that would be a paradox there fella as you are contributing to said discussion no?

;0)

Whilst I don't agree with everything that Graham said - I respect his view point. Grimer in his usual way summed it up - pads / no pads - differing experiences.

Just to bore you for a minute - my first E4 was Apple Arete direct (Gardoms) - that wank landing & tenuous moves - but I did it without a beer mat never mind a bouldering mat. I felt great.

CUD U Like - E1 - Froggatt Woods - again shite landing & did it with brain removed. I felt great.

If you asked me if I would like a pad or two either occasion - I would have said "hell yeah"!


I think this kind of debate is important, ethics are important - but we are all someones daughter, we are are all someones son, your the voice try and understand it...

;0)

In reply to Nemo:

Well Nemo it'd be interesting if you'd add a profile so I could use similarly personally directed arguments, but anyhow...

I agree that your standard of 'onsight on toprope, then headpoint first go' is impressive. It simply the best style that headpointing can attain. but 'impressive' and 'style' are not the same thing.

But anyone capable of doing a route in this style would clearly have been capable of onsighting it, so we see not so much an impressive ascent as a missed opportunity. And more so if it was a 'safe route with lots of gear' - impressive climbing perhaps but poor judgement indeed.

On two of the few occasions I've toproped a 'hard grit route' I onsighted them. Both times I felt deeply disappointed at my misjudgement of the route's difficulty. I may be strange, but the opportunity of making 'fastest headpoint' was not something that immediately sprang to mind and on both occasions I left the crag resolved to return and lead them when the memory of the moves had faded from my mind. Unfortunately my memory proved better than I hoped and when I did the first a full 13 years later it was a hollow experience; I knew what was coming and the route felt castrated as a result. But then I climb for the experience, not the 'quick tick' or the 'big grade', perhaps you're different Nemo?

So in that vein, yes I still have more respect for the climber who puts up and has a good go on the route ground-up, even if his success is more elusive. It is allowing doubt in that is crucial, to allow the unknown to play a part that makes for an improvement in style - not the stopwatch running for 'fastest ascent'.

All perfectly illustrated by Grimer's comments on Northern Comfort above.

In reply to Adam L:

well said Adam

In reply to Adam L:

For me a distinctive appeal of trad climbing is that it is an adventure and ground-up (usually!) or onsight style is more adventurous than headpointing because of the element of uncertainty of difficulties and how you tackle the problems as they arise. I am attracted to the idea of pads ground-up style because it still has an adventurous appeal whereas headpointing never did -even though I love redpointing.

In reply to Adam L:

Hi Adam, not sure about the helmet analogy, but I think climbing a route with the bouldering mats strapped to yourself front and back would be OK!
Cheers
Graham

In reply to 1234None:
Hi Dave,
thanks for your comments.
I was very aware when I wrote the article that it could be seen as an old fart doing the usual 'things were always harder in our day etc' and I guess it can be interpreted in that way. That wasn't intended to be the gist of the article. There's no way that top-end standards were higher in the 80s and 90s than they are now, and I certainly wasn't one of the top-end climbers. But I do feel (from observations at crags and conversations with others) that wrt climbers climbing below the top-end level or working their way through the grades, there has been a reduction in on-sighting of grit routes of E4 to E6. If I was expressing anything it was a sadness that more climbers capable of this standard didn't seem to be interested in exploring the experiences that these challenges represent. Indeed that they were missing out these grades and heading off onto harder grader routes and attempting them in what I personally feel gives a reduced level of experience. If anything it was a plea to drop the grade and have ago and see what you might be missing, to share these great experiences that I had (and Grimer describes so well about White Wand).
The pictures of more recent routes outside of the Peak were there to show that far from being an old fart sitting in an armchair going on about 'Glory Days' I'm still very active at a reasonable level enjoying myself, and that's what it's all about really. I'm sure you and your mates will go on enjoying yourselves and that you all know that you don't really have to care about what I think.
Hope you're soon back on the rock, although as we agreed its not the only thing in life!
All the best.
Graham

In reply to UKC Articles:

Graham

I appreciate thet your comments have been confined to grit.

As your photograph use to appear regularly on classic trad Peak limestone routes, what do you believe is the way forward to regenerate interest in this area which has sadly become neglected by mid grade climbers?

In reply to neilh: Put it all in a big field and bolt the bastards

In reply to neilh:
I think nowadays its down to the media. Some good, well-illustrated articles or perhaps if more limestone routes of that type featured in the videos it would help. It is amazing how quiet places like High Tor are at times, but at least last year a few good routes were done at Chee Tor. The routes also need a bit of a clean to encourage people. We cleaned off both pitches of Mortlock's and Apocalypse. The top pitch of the former was unclimable.
Cheers
Graham

In reply to Graham Hoey:


You are the media Graham.

At last! It's great to see a decent climber flagging up the mental assistance of pads, and that ground up is nothing new. I am just Mr average (maybe) who's been climbing for over 25 years now, and the crowd i climb with have always had the adage of 'giving the rock a chance, come back when you are stronger'. I have always set off to lead a route onsight, and hanging there dogging routes is so alien to me that I almost have a mental block on it, and therefore have never done so. My home rock however, is Southern Sandstone, and I think the rock down here is suffering horrendously under the weight of the new age climbing fraternity. I see regularly people dogging 6a's and 6b's, fresh off the climbing walls, and really they shouldn't be on these routes at all, but on something nearer their ability. As Graham says, the rock is a finite resource, and multiple routes down here are being trashed by these tactics - dogging down here is as bad as at Portland. I also get well annoyed when i see people taking tooth brushes to sandstone, as like grit it has that thin skin, which when gone is irreplaceable, just leaving soft rock underneath, which we then have to apply sealant to!
I am also a keen boulderer, and I have to say that since the advent of pads, the wear on the rock has just accelerated beyond belief - go and look at the Bridestones in North Yorkshire, or the Bald stones in Staffs to point out just a couple of examples. Or for that matter Fontainbleau! The pads make it safe, and more people will therefore take the risk (which isn't there any more). When I was in Targasonne last year, I regularly witnessed crap climbers with about 6 pads at the bottom of a problem leaping around like salmon, repeatedly brushing holds with wire brushes blah blah blah - it appalled me really.
It is a sign of the times where every one has to be able to say they can climb Font 7a and up, regardless of the style of ascent, even if they can't. Still, in my mind your real ability is your on sight ability, and very few, even today, can on sight a hard English 6b.
Keep up the good work, ethics are worthwhile, and you don't get the full experience of a route by battering it into submission.
end of rant...................

In reply to Androgenous:
The Kebs was showing significant erosion 20yrs ago, well before the advent of pads. The nature of the rock there and locals using it as a regular evening training venue meant it was always going to end up like this.


No risk??? I've seen a number of broken bones over the last few years, pads just mean that people are prepared to push bouldering into territory that was previously considered too high to boulder.


Loads of people today can onsight 'hard English 6b' also hard English 6c.

In reply to Androgenous:

Pads have helped bouldering's surge in popularity but they certainly aren't the root cause of it. Like erosion, they are more of a product of that popularity. In fact, without pads I think the problem would be worse - most erosion I see (especially at the venues you mention) seems to be on starting footholds which is accelerated by dirty footwear. Pads help reduce this as well as reduce ground erosion.

In reply to Adam L:

The only research I've ever seen (Bishop - BLM) suggests otherwise. Here's one of the recommendations :-

Use bouldering pads only when necessary. Avoid laying your pad on vegetation and if a rock(s) is removed underneath a boulder problem, replace it after your done.

In reply to Kipper:

Kipper

You are talking high chapparal/high desert vegetation around Bishop - singular plants in a dry environment. Pads do kill them. And the research, if you can call it that, was mine. I worked with the BLM for 8 years.

It's a different kettle of fish in the UK where pads, as Adam says, actually protect the vegetation.

Ask Simon Panton, the UK's bouldering expert, he corrected me when I made the same assumption you did ; o )

Mick

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

I was going to add your name to my post, but thought it irrelevant. I didn't (don't) know that the research was yours.

In reply to Kipper:

Dead simple, before and after photos and anecdotal evidence.

This might be a bit late in the day, but I just read this v. interesting article and the thread which followed.

I'm a bit puzzled why you think that Angel's Share was never E8, when you were quoted at the time as saying it was highball Font 7c. From the video it appears that you are tall enough to reach through the crux for anyone less than 5' 11 (which is a reach left for a tiny pebble in a position of head-exploding body tension to then get the very slopey top). If it had 2 bolts it would be F8a and is noticeably harder than L'Homme Programme at Buoux (a benchmark easy Buoux 8a). So E8 for a risky but not certain death fall seems reasonable don't you think?

As to the main argument about pads, I have yet to see anyone who advocates their use for ground-upping actually accept that apart from the nuisance of putting up the top-rope, they are a form of scary top-roping. The danger associated with a padded ascent can easily be replicated by using a grigri, a dynamic rope, and not taking in when the climber is about 5 feet up. Quite why anyone would want to draw attention to this as a style of ascent is still baffling me.

An alternative way of looking at padded out ascents of short gritstone would be to see them as a way of bringing the danger down to a level equivalent to e.g. Acme Wall, or Crescent Arete, both of which can be jumped off without injury (wiithout pads). But both have on occasion caused broken bones and serious injury.

Either way, I do wish people would stop talking down short hard gritstone after making padded ascents of these routes. Gritstone E7s were given the same grade as Masters Wall and Raped by Affection by people who had actually made ascents of both, and for good reason.

In reply to gallam1:


Well I'm 5'8".

I can't say I found any body tension, after all there aren't really any handholds. The only pebble I used was with my right hand. The crux for me was simply not lifting my heels on the smears. James, being quite a bit taller, could reach the top from almost a move earlier, the subsequent summit fever always saw his heels lift and pop.

I think the height of Angel's Share (as with the other routes on this block) will always make it difficult to grade, as I said above I've fallen off the top of Velvet Silence in pre-pad days without incident, and a friend of mine took about 20 falls from varying heights for his ascent. Yes you could injure yourself, but as you point out, so could you on Crescent arete. The Block is higher, but the height is mitigated slightly by the slab which allows a fall to be controlled before the lip. My view is if you can cope with moves 4 grades harder you should be able to cope with bigger falls too. But then I did start grit climbing before pads. Having said that, the landing of Crescent arete is poor, sans pads I'd probably rather fall off the top of Angels'.

>If it had 2 bolts it would be F8a and is noticeably harder than L'Homme Programme at Buoux (a benchmark easy Buoux 8a). So E8 for a risky but not certain death fall seems reasonable don't you think?

Well I've yet to climb an 8a, (and not for want of trying) so I might disagree. Perhaps they're easier in France? I don't find bolted limestone a particularly useful reference point for this route, hence why I offered a font grade. There are several hard, high friction slabs in font.


Remember Johnny's grade for Angel's is E9 7b. Harder than The Indian Face! Potentially harder than Walk of Life! I did it ground-up, I must be the greatest! No, he's wrong.

Perhaps the technical difficulty of grit routes was a bigger barrier than it is now with the popularity of bouldering? And you seem to assume that the current 'downgraders' have never climbed a welsh E7?


Utter, utter b8ll8cks. Comments like this are by far the most annoying thing to me about this whole debate. You've obviously never tried it; people don't routinely break bones top-roping. A slack top-rope can be taken in when you're done scaring yourself. As I said above, I invite anyone with such views to try Ulysses above a pads. Its not safe, nor does it feel safe. Don't come crying when you end up in hospital.

In reply to Serpico:

>Loads of people today can onsight 'hard English 6b' also hard English 6c.

I meant that seen in context against the vast number of people climbing now there is only a small percentage that can do it....

In reply to UKC Articles:

Interesting article with some thought provoking points. I don't climb at the kind of level where serious falls are all that likely and the majority of my routes are done onsight, so I'm not sure how qualified I am to comment. But I would say that I think the idea of having the same "experience" as the first ascensionist as being the priority when doing a route is pretty much nonsense.

Quite apart from the fact that you may well be using gear that was not available (or that the FA just didn't use), there is no way that you will have the same body shape, strengths, weaknesses and mindset as the FA. Fifty different climbers climbing the same route will have fifty different experiences, even if they all place the same gear in the same places. Certainly we should aspire to do routes in good style, but climbing is at the end of the day very much a personal experience.

I for one would rather enjoy a route in my own way than feel somehow obliged to replicate the efforts of the person who first climbed it thirty years earlier. They certainly weren't concerned with doing the same thing others had before them; why should I be?

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Hi Mick,
Yes, I know, I knew last night driving home that I hadn't finished the sentenece. i.e the limestone trad routes being in the media was what I meant. However, how about commissioning some articles about trad limestone?
Graham

If you saw the size/weight difference between me and the 2 people I used to climb with regularly you would understand that top-roping as described would be far more dangerous than using pads! The point I'm trying to make is that it is a contrived form of ascent. Why did you find this suggestion so much more annoying than the alternative I put forward of bringing the danger level down to that of Crescent Arete or Acme Wall without pads? This debate is starting to get a bit religious.

I can assure you that I have tried climbing gritstone above pads. I first did it in 1989 with 2 Judo mats that I 'borrowed', stuck in my clapped out car and visited Almscliff to make an ascent of Gypsy with. I deliberately went mid-week during the day to ensure that there was no-one else around because it was so embarrasing. This followed experiments at the climbing wall to see how far you could jump off onto 2 stacked judo mats - the answer was the top of the wall (about 25-30 ft) if you were careful. The implications of this for an onsight attempt at Narcissus were obvious, but at that stage everyone would have thought it was cheating, even more than headpointing was seen as cheating.

Don't get me wrong - I think that the your ascent of Angel's Share was ace. But the real justification for using pads for high-balling grit is so that people can get sufficiently comfortable with ground-up solos of technically difficult routes that they can attempt ground breaking ascents without pads. Or perhaps the justification is just like that for top-roping grit, namely that it is about as much gentle fun as you can have in climbing.

Incidentally Buoux is packed with slabs (some bolted, some on the Face Ouest which are decaying and require top-roping) which are reminiscent of hard gritstone. Comparisons with the Buoux grades for these routes are largely where the French grades in the gritlist came from.

In reply to gallam1:

Not any more. Carrying judo pads to the crag might be contrived, not using pads that are already there is equally contrived. Normal crag gear has changed.

>Why did you find this suggestion so much more annoying than the alternative I put forward of bringing the danger level down to that of Crescent Arete or Acme Wall without pads?

Beacuse saying its on a par with a top-rope is nonsense - top ropes are completely safe and feel that way. Any punter can get on a route too hard for them and 'top-rope' it. The same character attempting to ground-up above pads will stay where they belong - on the pads. The 'danger level' of Crescent arete or Acme wall is a reasonable comparison - they are at the bottom end of what is considered highballing. Both of these can and have injured folk and, if at your limit, are scary as a result.

From what I gather a lot of people who are comfortable soloing grit E2/E3 are attempting to on-sight grit E5s above big stacks of pads. Basically if you can climb Technical Master above no pads, an awful lot of gritstone is waiting for you with a big stack, which shows that climbing with pads is a "technical" ascent, just as climbing with bolts or top-roping are. Clearly climbing with pads is at the dangerous end of these technical ascents, but then so is sport climbing with a bad belayer, or top-roping with 30 feet of slack.

In reply to gallam1:

If you want to onsight an E5 them getting comfortable soloing E3 sounds like perfect training - its what I did before pads.

>Basically if you can climb Technical Master above no pads, an awful lot of gritstone is waiting for you with a big stack,

Yes, as it is always was, with or without pads.

>which shows that climbing with pads is a "technical" ascent,

I fail to follow your logic there. All it shows me is things are as they always were.

>just as climbing with bolts or top-roping are. Clearly climbing with pads is at the dangerous end of these technical ascents, but then so is sport climbing with a bad belayer, or top-roping with 30 feet of slack.

No. Your examples are contrived - doing something which is perfectly safe badly, so making it dangerous. Using pads is doing something which is inherently dangerous, using your normal equipment to sway the balance in your favour. It really is analogous to wearing a helmet.

I think your Judo mats experience has given you a false impression of the safety offered by bouldering pads. Two judo mats must equal something like 15-20 bouldering mats, and with a more uniform surface to boot. I've never had more than 5 or 6. On some routes, Narcissus is a fair example, 5 or so will comfortably take a grade off, 10 might take two grades off. But it pretty much stops there - adding more doesn't give much more. You can argue these people haven't climbed an E6 and they'd agree with you. But they've had a far more authentic experience than if they'd headpointed it - they still have to try unknown moves above a fall that might injure them.

In reply to gallam1:

So what exactly is your point? Climbing without pads is presumably that little but further down "the dangerous end of these technical ascents". It's part of a spectrum of styles of ascent.

No Pads (more dangerous) ------------------------------ Lots of Pads (less dangerous)

---------------------------------- Top Rope (Much less dangerous)

-----------------------------------Top Roping above lots of Pads (Quite safe probably)

In reply to Adam L:

OK, so here's a thought. What if I go and buy 25 judo mats and leave them at Froggatt. Should Narcissus be downgraded? Would this really be any different to bolting it?

In reply to UKC Articles:

I wonder what this debate will be like when everyone starts to use inflatable mats???

In reply to UKC Articles:

Climbing above mats for me is not about bringing anything down to my level or ticking grades, it's about climbing for fun while doing what I can to preserve my health in the long term. I'd much rather be able to walk on my own knees at 50 than have the misguided admiration of strangers for taking unnecessary risks. Personally I couldn't give a toss if people want to sneer at me for not accepting some imagined challenge or not being tough enough or for somehow weakening 'climbing'. I climb for fun in a way I enjoy, I expect others to do the same and would never dream of sneering at them for doing it their way. Nor would I be the least bit put out were someone to pre-practice or use mats on a route I'd done without. It takes nothing away from me or my experience so why would I care? Maybe I'm missing something?

jk

In reply to Graham Hoey:

Clearly an interesting debate, I am more interested in why you wrote the article?

Of little importance, but I think head pointing and mats are great enablers to trying things you wouldn't otherwise do - nobody kids themselves they are doing anything in perfect style.

I have only headpointed one route, the "trashed" KK (as well as slinging a mat underneath it) probably can't even count it as V5 due to using a rope.

Funnily enough I only wore my helmet when going for the lead and my belayer Mr Camateras got the ropes caught under the mat during the crux sequence - the video footage is comical... as wearing my helmet I couldn't get my face flat to the rock for the final moves, skipping my feet I missed a foothold and came flying around the arete hanging on to one handhold, then out of position my improvised heelhook also came off... some intense and unfortgetable moments!

All this about piles of mats making ultra high balls an easy day out for a fat fisherman is nonsense!

In the big scheme of things no one is interested in how anyone climbs these routes - the question is did you go for it? Did you feel alive and fulfilled?

Surely all this ethical debate, as long as you are not deliverately trashing the rocks, is for the armchair critics.

The only advice I ever took to heart was a throw a way comment from Mike Lee on the Stanage Boulders - "Pull Harder!"

Enjoy,

In reply to jkarran:
No - you're not the one who is missing something.

Very well put.

In reply to 1234None:

What'd be wrong with suggesting that??

If they did highballs without mats that people do with mats today, then they were undoubtably harder and probably better and I don't see anything wrong with them suggesting so!

I think people are entitled to climb any piece of rock whichever way they want and shouldn't be criticised for using pads. But they really ought to accept the FACT that it's much harder without them.

You see, my ascent of Fear & Loathing for example..
a) I chose to climb it above mats and spotters, with beta and I don't care what other people think about that, but it's not my preference normally
b) I very strictly accept the fact that I experienced something easier than it's grade of E3 5c suggests
c) I hand it to anyone who climbs it without mats and spotters that they've climbed it in 'better' style than me and in that particular test of climbing skill they are 'better' and 'harder' than me!

Over to you Fiend....

8-)

p.s. Please don't interpret this as me suggesting people who use mats to protect climbs are wimps or have crap worthless morals... I'm not! (Despite a secret part of me deep down believing it to be true)

In reply to Cragrat Rich:



It isn't harder, it's more dangerous, or riskier. Why did you shout 'FACT'?

In reply to Papillon:

Because I think that whenever a climb is made riskier or more dangerous (as you rightly pointed out that removing mats achieves) it inevitably makes it harder.

Wouldn't you agree like?

(and I didn't shout FACT, i just capitalised it)

In reply to simon cox:
Hi Simon,
Sorry, don't see the logic there. I would rather people who actually climb debate ethics etc rather than those who don't (i.e. armchair critics).


Graham

In reply to UKC Articles:

This could be a very poor generalisation based on superficial observation, but vis-a-vis the use of mats dare I make the surely obvious suggestion that a key factor in play here is the aging of the gritstone-based generation that rebelled against its headpointing elders? As they get older the thought of falling all that way onto hard ground seems less and less appealing. Something in between what they did 10 years ago and toproping is needed....

As the mats were being placed under Narcissus one day four or five years ago I remember saying to my younger friends, "Why not just get the toprope out?" Well, it was still a bit dicey with a matt they responded, and one of them did jar his back a bit as he fell from just below the crux. But since then the single mat has become two or more as a matter of routine and maybe jarring is less likely. Except that we're all getting older...

I'm not blaming them. As someone whose back and knees and everything else is 10 or more years older than theirs, the thought of jumping off or worse falling off onto mats never mind hard ground from a good height is definitely unappealing. When I was a little kid I used to jump out of my upstairs bedroom window onto my mum and dad's lawn and think nothing of it. I wouldn't do it now, maybe even not with a mat or two down. Make it three of four though... I like the sound of those Judo mats I must say.

Of course at the top end some young climbers continue to do very risky things like young climber always have. But as we get older we tend to seek out ways of minimising risk of injury, while perhaps giving ourselves a bit of a scare. I know I do anyway.

In reply to Cragrat Rich:

Not really....but it comes down do semantics, in a limited number of cases it might make it more challenging.

I liked Graham's article in an historical sense, but I find much of the talk of mats or not ridiculous. What if you do a short route roped up but your belayer spots you initially, how does that compare to doing it alone with a mat, in terms of risk?

What I will say is anyone who happens to have a mat with them and neglects to cover a potentially very dangerous rock with it, after reading something on here, is a 'ticking' idiot.

In reply to Papillon:

I think it just boils down to what you want to do.
I only want to climb Great Slab for example as a route given E3 (and without mats). This doesn't affect what anyone else chooses or my judgement of them. So there's no need for anyone to be threatened by that principle of mine either and start harping on about the mats not making any difference to difficulty. Of course they do! Anyone knows that within themselves and they should make their choice and own it.
Calling someone a ticking idiot is just a very frightened response to a persons ethics you clearly feel threatened by

In reply to Cragrat Rich: I must say I don't feel frightened or threatened, I feel quite relaxed actually. Sorry I did not know I was reffering to you with that hypothetical scenario.

Would spotters make any difference to the grade of Great Slab (with no mat)?

In reply to John Gillott: When I was a little kid I used to jump out of my upstairs bedroom window onto my mum and dad's lawn and think nothing of it.

Who was that climber who practiced jumping from heights in the 1940's or 50's ? Did that mean he couldnt claim the grade when soloing Hargereaves ?

Its not just the mats either its the attitude and state of mind - like Dave Thomas soloing Caveman but Mike Robertson deep water soloing it ! They did the same thing but the mindset was very different.

Deep Mat Soloing ? Another branch of our sport that needs developing to gain a life and character of its own rather than comparing and artificially restricting it within the confines of bouldering and climbing ?

Random thoughts...

In reply to Papillon:
>

Yes they would, for a full old skool gritstone tick everyone must be stood around with their arms folded, and under no circumstances must encouragement be offered....

In reply to Simon Lee:

Alf Bridge?

In reply to John Gillott:

My recollection of jumping off from high up is that it was absolutely imperative that your jaw did not connect with either of your knees, because the forces involved made it feel like you would end up with no teeth.

I was wondering if anyone had actually experienced this?

In reply to Papillon:

Twenty years back I remember talking to an older climber from one of the Sheffield clubs. He said that in the past they would all go to Froggatt as a mob and solo Great Slab one at a time, with the rest of the team 'spotting'. Must have made a Hell of a difference. Mind he did say that on his turn he slipped off and the mass of bodies stepped aside. He broke his leg!


Chris

In reply to Cragrat Rich:

I wanted to do it to experience the moves and because of the history of the route -the grade didn't matter. Incidentally, I had one mat and one spotter. If that means it was only "worth" VS then fine, I'm happy with that.

If you want to not use pads to "climb an E3" that's fine with me.

As you say - the style in which one climbs is indeed a matter of personal choice.

I've had some fun days out doing things above pads, and some fun days out soloing/highballing without pads. I've done short, bold routes in both ways and I can see the merits of both. My initial point was that nobody should try to dictate how others climb, and it seemed to me that the article could potentially be seen to do just that.

In reply to Graham Hoey:

Hi Graham

There are no armchair critics who contribute to threads like this, all are climbers.

Mick

In reply to gallam1:

Yes. Not sure how high up but teeth were OK but had four stitches under my chin.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Hi Mick,
I can't decipher your comment re this! Is it tongue in cheek, or a misunderstanding of what I said?
Simon Cox said that ONLY armchair critcs should debate ethics, whereas I thought that I'd prefer not to have armchair critics debate ethics, but active climbers (which is exactly what has been happening on this debate).
Graham

In reply to Graham Hoey:

I suspect Mick is playing the popularist card and overstating the importance of punter commentators from the masses (as ever). I'm happy with the idea that such punters influence ethics but I think this is more of a mass effect of their climbing than than through individual 'Rocktalk critics' posts (however wise their words may be). Some punters have more of an influence of course...the committee types...argumentative site editors.... Elitist I may be but I think we really need help if VS leaders on internet forums are determining the ethics of the leading edge of our climbing talent.

(An Offwidth punter)

Ok, here's another discussion point, if anyone cares to follow it. Mats enourage sloppy ethics, as to fall off isn't seen as failure any more (ie, you can still claim a ground-up, oh and you incure little penelty for falling). What ever happened to getting up things first go? If you accept you shouldn't fall off, then get rid of them and do it properly*, eh? Bring back "the leader must not fall"!


* like Graham said, accepting the full challenge that nature has given you? Ok other technologies make things easier: sticky rubber, chalk, etc., but perhaps we should consider getting rid of them too. No half-way measures. Are you ethical or not?

In reply to Jon Read:

I think falling off is seen as failure Jon, and if its a route will be amply discouraged by the hight and resultant fear. First go is always the ideal. Unlike headpointing of course, where you are accepting you aren't up to the route before even touching it. Now that's what I see as failure to meet the challenge.

In reply to Jon Read:

I'm not sure I understand completely. I thought that "ground-up" meant a successful attempt in one push after previous failed attempts but without inspection. Getting it first time would be a flash/onsight.

Are you saying that falling onto mats is somehow more of a failure than following onto a lead rope? Or is this a call to do away with safety gear altogether; everything must be soloed onsight or it's unethical?

In reply to UKC Articles: Gritstone is, nomatter how you talk it or photograph it, is no more than high balling. "Real" onsight is a FA ground up no matter how small or big the crag.

In reply to UKC Articles: As long as your honest about the style of ascent, who bloody cares! Good article though

In reply to DWilliamson:
Yes, I agree with your definitions. I have a very bimodel view of ethical ascents it seems. To me if you don't get a first try/no practise or insepction ascent, then everything else is just a grey scale of taintedness. From where I am at the mo', being somewhat out of climbing for a little while, I see little distinction between headpoints and seiged highball ground-ups in comparison to an onsight.

It also depends on whether you see mats as essential and standard safety gear: I don't. I see them as a luxurious extra mostly, especially having more than one available at a crag.

In reply to UKC Articles:

the future!!!

http://www.airteksafety.com/downloads/Airmat.pdf

In reply to UKC Articles: i think that if we can make routes safer then that is better. pads are very good! as long as we are honest about how we climb a route, we enjoy are selves and push our limits we all deserve a pat on the back. even if its just by yourself.

In reply to UKC Articles:

Who cares!


Climbing is about having fun, it dosent matter how anyone gets to the top, as long as they are having fun, enjoying the fresh air and having a good time with there mates!

In reply to scottreid:

Uhhhh, many would disagree. The style you use to get to the top influences the amount of fun you have - if you define fun as that afterglow of statisfaction you get on completing a climb.

For example: Climbing a route onsight, without any knowledge of the moves or the gear, is considered the pinnacle of style and hence the psychic rewards are higher than if you practised the route on a top rope before leading and knew what to expect and already had the moves wired.

It's OK, it is a common mistake to make.

Mick

In reply to UKC Articles:

I am an average climber who leads hvs on a good day, therefore all my routes are on sight, all i am saying is that to the average climber, i think that all this onsighting, crash pad, or no crash pad is of little concern.

To me, all the debate about when is an E8 an E8, that fills the climbing press is starting to get boring, id rather they fill the pages with guides to crags, or new shiny gear etc.....

I dont want to offend all the top end climbers who climb at a level where this is important as they are inspirational!