The first time I tried it was in May, I got about 8 feet up and realized I didn't have the gear and it was getting dark so I downclimbed.
I came back in October and sent it easily.
So I never weighted the rope, but I did not send it the first time I tied in to try it.
Not like it really matters. I've got a dozen other tainted onsights, they don't hurt my feelings.
First, I love the taint! Taint her ass, taint her vag, it's the taint.
Second, onsight is a matter of memory, and has more to do with a personal perspective. It can be useful for spraying later though. If I can't remember a single thing about a route, then I consider it onsight. Most times I just climb. I will start counting my onsights by the 'socially accepted definition' when it actually matters to someone besides me and my ego. Like a sponsor or magazine...... and I don't see that happening too soon, if ever LMAO.
Now, if you're talking about downclimbing to the ground, sure, that's a debatable onsight tactic.
I was talking specifically about downclimbing to the ground systematically.
Yes, mid-route downclimbing is a necessary tactic for onsighting. Of course I do it. Hell, I've even downclimbed mid-route on redpoints before, when I didn't know the moves as well as I should have. That's not what I'm talking about.
If we're talking about downclimbing to the ground, at what point do you consider this a fall? If allowed, what's to stop someone from decking from 10 feet or so and saying "well, I downclimbed but thought I'd just skip a few moves"? That's just crazy logic. I think anytime your foot touches the ground, regardless of how it got there, your first attempt is over and it's no longer an onsight.
As for downclimbing in the middle of a route, I generally agree it's ok, but is there a limit? What if you're on a 5.12 and the only jug is the first hold on the climb and say you make it to the third clip or so and decide to downclimb and downclimb all the way to the start but don't take your feet off...still on your first attempt when you continue?
Your attitude probably explains why you are not very good at onsights; you don't understand that downclimbing is inherent to onsighting. [..]
Actually I do understand that. The above was not supposed to be about mid-route downclimbing. (I could've been clearer.)
And while I've admitted I am not a very good onsighter, I didn't do so for the purpose of getting slagged about it by people who probably aren't actually any better. So fair's fair: what's your best onsight, Jay?
I wasn't berating you. [..]
Got ya. I must be feeling overly sensitive. :P
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
Now, if you're talking about downclimbing to the ground, sure, that's a debatable onsight tactic.
I was talking specifically about downclimbing to the ground systematically.
Well, the logic is that if you can sample a high crux and downclimb to a ledge, you can sample a low crux and downclimb to the ground. In both cases, you have always been in control. You've done nothing inherently different. So, if one doesn't invalidate your onsight, neither should the other.
But when you go home for the season, you've undeniably done something different. For that matter, the ground is definitely not the same as a mid-route rest: even if you don't, you have the option of untying and coming back another day. This option doesn't exist on a mid-route ledge (under normal circumstances).
The other problem I keep bringing up is that your version requires different versions of terminology for bouldering. This may not trouble you, but to me the notion is unacceptable. Basically you'd have me believe that, for a given route X, if I tie a rope to my harness, climb 2 meters to the crux, and downclimb, I haven't invalidated my onsight, but if I do the same with no rope tied to me, it's invalidated.
I don't find that "logical" at all. Whether something is an "onsight" or not should not depend on the system of protection used.
Now, if you're talking about downclimbing to the ground, sure, that's a debatable onsight tactic.
I was talking specifically about downclimbing to the ground systematically.
Yes, mid-route downclimbing is a necessary tactic for onsighting. Of course I do it. Hell, I've even downclimbed mid-route on redpoints before, when I didn't know the moves as well as I should have. That's not what I'm talking about.
If we're talking about downclimbing to the ground, at what point do you consider this a fall? If allowed, what's to stop someone from decking from 10 feet or so and saying "well, I downclimbed but thought I'd just skip a few moves"? That's just crazy logic.
I don't think there is an objective way to distinguish between a fall and a jump. Down-jumping to mid-route ledges is uncontroversially allowed on an onsight. So if we buy the jt512/fluxus logic, jumping to the ground (and therefore falling to the ground) without weighting the rope has to be allowed.
The end conclusion (which I see as a reductio) is that all bouldering is either done "first try" (onsight or flash), or different rules are required. Other people appear to find this conclusion less unacceptable than me.
In reply to:
I think anytime your foot touches the ground, regardless of how it got there, your first attempt is over and it's no longer an onsight.
This is the rule used in onsight-format climbing competitions, and I think it is the only version that makes coherent sense at the edges. It's also the only version that adequately describes something I find more impressive than a rehearsed ascent---the version where downclimbing to the ground is allowed also includes some styles of ascent that I find less impressive than normal hangdogged redpoints.
In reply to:
As for downclimbing in the middle of a route, I generally agree it's ok, but is there a limit? What if you're on a 5.12 and the only jug is the first hold on the climb and say you make it to the third clip or so and decide to downclimb and downclimb all the way to the start but don't take your feet off...still on your first attempt when you continue?
I think what you do on the route is your business. The ground involves getting off the route, so it's different from a mid-route ledge, but if you feel like downclimbing all the way to the first hold on the climb, your attempt is still running.... (I don't think this is particularly controversial.)
(This post was edited by fracture on Jan 31, 2007, 5:50 PM)
Well, the logic is that if you can sample a high crux and downclimb to a ledge, you can sample a low crux and downclimb to the ground. In both cases, you have always been in control. You've done nothing inherently different. So, if one doesn't invalidate your onsight, neither should the other.
Jay
Note that my answer is specifically in relation to sport climbing - as I stated before, I think sport and trad have different rules on this one.
To your point, that if downclimbing to a ledge doesn't invalidate an onsight (which most of us agree on), then what's the difference in downclimbing to the ground?
The difference is simple - the ground is not part of the climb. Once you step down onto the ground, you've ended that attempt.
Now to the grey area - what about that ledge that's near the ground. I think that while there'll always be a fuzzy line, the solution to this one is within our grasp. To help accomplish where to draw the line, we need to determine where the climb begins.
For example, there are a number of climbs at Rumney that start off with a 5.easy scramble to a ledge 15 feet off the ground. On easy climbs, there's a bolt in the middle of it, while on harder climbs, there isn't. Point is, on the harder climbs, when you're standing on the top of that ledge, you have not yet begun the climb. All you've done is scramble to the beginning of the climb. The fact that your belayer is standing 15 feet below you is irrelevant - that's simply the best place to stand.
So let's take the case mentioned before where there is a big ledge 5mm off the ground which offers a no-hands rest. Clearly, by my definition, stepping up on this ledge has not begun the climb. So you downclimb to that ledge, and you've finished the attempt.
Of course, all this applies only if you agree with me that A - downclimbing to a rest does not void an onsight attempt. and B - resting on the ground or the rope does void an onsight attempt.
What my argument does is simply provide a viable way to reconcile the two positions that I think most climbers would agree with.
Fracture, whether you like it or not, different rules apply to different games. And yet the same terminology is used across those games. Therefore, the same terminology has different meaning across different games.
Fracture, whether you like it or not, different rules apply to different games. And yet the same terminology is used across those games. Therefore, the same terminology has different meaning across different games.
Safe bouldering, sport climbing (including leading on pre-placed removable protection), and toproping are not different games.
Fracture, whether you like it or not, different rules apply to different games. And yet the same terminology is used across those games. Therefore, the same terminology has different meaning across different games.
Safe bouldering, sport climbing (including leading on pre-placed removable protection), and toproping are not different games.
You may think so, but I think you'll recall from your earlier discussions here about TRing versus leading sport climbs, that many others do not agree. You are welcome to try to force the same meaning across different disciplines, but as those disciplines drift apart (think of the different meanings of redpoint in sport and trad) you will wind up with a completely isolated view.
The difference is simple - the ground is not part of the climb. Once you step down onto the ground, you've ended that attempt.
Do I get to call it a variation then and pronounce that the ground is now 'on'? Haha
Onsite: Any information that an attempting climber receives pertaining to the climb is gathered at the site during the climber's 1st visit.
Now what does site, visit, and gather mean? Haha. Pretty soon we will define that resting is considered a break in the climbing no matter where it occurs. How about a minimum rate of verticle progress as part of the defenition of climbing.
Fracture, whether you like it or not, different rules apply to different games. And yet the same terminology is used across those games. Therefore, the same terminology has different meaning across different games.
Period.
GO
I dunno, I think fracture has made the most logical and reasonable arguments so far. The rest of you seem to be putting too many 'ifs' and buts' in your definitions
Well, the logic is that if you can sample a high crux and downclimb to a ledge, you can sample a low crux and downclimb to the ground. In both cases, you have always been in control. You've done nothing inherently different. So, if one doesn't invalidate your onsight, neither should the other.
Jay
Note that my answer is specifically in relation to sport climbing - as I stated before, I think sport and trad have different rules on this one.
Not to my knowledge do they. The people I sport climb with agree that downclimbing to the ground is valid. I had really never heard anybody strongly voice any other opinion, except on this website.
I wasn't berating you. I know why we both have poor onsight skills.
Is it because of your lack of one-arm pullup training?
No. One-arm pull-up training is mainly for redpointing. I can't on-sight worth shit because I don't swim enough. In fact, I blew a dyno on my last on-sight attempt specifically because I have not done enough laps using the breast stroke.
Fracture, whether you like it or not, different rules apply to different games. And yet the same terminology is used across those games. Therefore, the same terminology has different meaning across different games.
Safe bouldering, sport climbing (including leading on pre-placed removable protection), and toproping are not different games.
You are in a small minority with that opinion. Curt? Curt?
I think anytime your foot touches the ground, regardless of how it got there, your first attempt is over and it's no longer an onsight.
This is the rule used in onsight-format climbing competitions, and I think it is the only version that makes coherent sense at the edges. It's also the only version that adequately describes something I find more impressive than a rehearsed ascent---the version where downclimbing to the ground is allowed also includes some styles of ascent that I find less impressive than normal hangdogged redpoints.
In reply to:
As for downclimbing in the middle of a route, I generally agree it's ok, but is there a limit? What if you're on a 5.12 and the only jug is the first hold on the climb and say you make it to the third clip or so and decide to downclimb and downclimb all the way to the start but don't take your feet off...still on your first attempt when you continue?
I think what you do on the route is your business. The ground involves getting off the route, so it's different from a mid-route ledge, but if you feel like downclimbing all the way to the first hold on the climb, your attempt is still running.... (I don't think this is particularly controversial.)
Agreed...
and I don't think that remarks about wanting to call something an onsight are about spraying either - it's a combination of personal information that I use to track my progress (i.e. last year I could onsight grade X but now I am onsighting grade X+ therefore I can see an improvement) and to converse with others about ascents and climbing in general...
Mentioning how you climbed something does not necessarily mean one is spraying, rather it is how you converse with others about your ascents... I love to hear about what others have climbed, whether they climb harder or softer than me.
Let's take the discussion one step further with the "as long as you don't fall" theory; If I top rope a route past the crux and then down climb it without weighting the rope at any stage, and do this over and over again until I am confident that I can lead it is this still an onsight?
I really think that onsight means first go without returning to the ground and with no prior knowledge of the route.
I don't think there is an objective way to distinguish between a fall and a jump.
Sure there is. A jump involves intentionally letting go. A fall doesn't.
In reply to:
Down-jumping to mid-route ledges is uncontroversially allowed on an onsight.
I'm not so sure about that. I'd say that it's a gray area, because a jump down to a ledge is not done under your own power. Should a jump down to avoid an inevitable fall be allowed? I think that this is questionable.
In reply to:
So if we buy the jt512/fluxus logic, jumping to the ground (and therefore falling to the ground) without weighting the rope has to be allowed.
I agree that if jumping down to a ledge is allowed, then jumping down to the ground is, too. Jim Erikson argued that any tactic that a free soloist would use is valid for a roped onsight; this includes jumping to the ground from a reasonable height.
Falling is another matter. Any fall and you're done. Falling is the very essence of failing on an attempt, and in fact is why downclimbing to the ground under your own power does not traditionally invalidate an onsight.
If I top rope a route past the crux and then down climb it without weighting the rope at any stage, and do this over and over again until I am confident that I can lead it is this still an onsight?
If you toprope even a single move on the climb, you have given up your chance onsight it. The best you can ever do is redpoint it.
I wasn't berating you. I know why we both have poor onsight skills.
Is it because of your lack of one-arm pullup training?
No. One-arm pull-up training is mainly for redpointing. I can't on-sight worth shit because I don't swim enough. In fact, I blew a dyno on my last on-sight attempt specifically because I have not done enough laps using the breast stroke.
Jay
See, you've got it all wrong, you should be doing the backstroke for dynos - there's tons of research on this.
Fracture, whether you like it or not, different rules apply to different games. And yet the same terminology is used across those games. Therefore, the same terminology has different meaning across different games.
Safe bouldering, sport climbing (including leading on pre-placed removable protection), and toproping are not different games.
You are in a small minority with that opinion. Curt? Curt?
Jay
Fracture - I follow a lot of your ideas (read: I think you do a great job articulating your arguments) and I agreed with some of your thoughts until I read the above. The same game? Not even close. That doesn't mean that I think the term "onsight" can't be used (or useful) for bouldering (as others have argued) but I don't see how toproping ends up in that list and the paranthetical after sportclimbing has me confused. In my mind, toproping is training for redpoints and never an end in itself. Bouldering and sport climbing have little in common unless we're comparing a crux to a problem or the cliff is really short or the boulder is really tall (and even in the latter case, it's more of a free solo which is a completely different semantic jungle - free solo or highball).
Sorry, Curt, would have been far more witty and shortwinded (curt? - bad pun).
Safe bouldering, sport climbing (including leading on pre-placed removable protection), and toproping are not different games.
You are in a small minority with that opinion. Curt? Curt?
Jay
Yes. I basically agree with fracture. In fact, I would think almost everyone would agree that those types of climbing emphasize the physical element of the sport while minimizing risk. I believe that you yourself have made that same comment about sport climbing.
Onsite: Any information that an attempting climber receives pertaining to the climb is gathered at the site during the climber's 1st visit.
I agree that that would be an onsite. But what's an onsight?
Jay
A diffrent spelling for the same concept that describes how a climber first becomes aware of the properties of a climb.
Thats's right you still beleive its about the numbers, so you prolly beleive their is a proper definition for this concept. It applies to more than just climbing. The climbing version is a subset of the bigger concept.
Now, "try" or not, to me, it's far less impressive to hear that someone worked something by systematically up and downclimbing it than to hear that they did it on their first try. For that matter, I think systematically up and downclimbing it is significantly less impressive than sending it on the second attempt (first redpoint attempt).
In fact, I am going to go out on a limb and say that, regardless of whether it is or should be an "onsight", systematically up and downclimbing a route is a total joke of a style. It is far too remenicent of the kind of psuedo-religious approach to rock climbing of the old days for me to take it seriously. I mean, what's the real difference (in terms of impact on future attempts) between downclimbing and just taking and lowering? It's just silly. If you (as in anyone; not you in particular) really believe that hanging on the rope is so evil that you have to work your rehearsed ascents (and that's unambiguously what they are) without using it, well, help yourself. Everyone else'll just send things faster: dogging on the rope is simply smarter tactics.
Your attitude probably explains why you are not very good at onsights; you don't understand that downclimbing is inherent to onsighting. If you refuse to reverse a sequence when you realize that you've done it wrong, and voluntary give up your onsight attempt in favor of hanging on the rope, you won't be able to onsight at a very high level. Now, your conclusion that by hanging, working out the sequence, lowering to the ground, resting, pulling the rope, and attempting the redpoint on your second try is "smarter tactics" that will result in "sending things faster" is the "total joke."
Now, if you're talking about downclimbing to the ground, sure, that's a debatable onsight tactic.
Jay
Do you really feel that working out the moves on your first go won't lead to a quicker redpoint? I agree that this strategy won't help you onsite any harder.
I have personally found that if I go for the onsite blow that, then for the redpoint without ever working the moves, then I will totally not remember any of the moves up to where I fell on the onsite.
I have gotten similar climbs 2 letter grades harder quicker where I worked out the moves on the first go (because I fell early) then easier route's that I never memorized any moves, but tried for the onsite then redpoint every time, climbing to where I fell, then continuing from there.
Last month I was climbing a new route and I taught I onsighted it, but now I have my reservation.
the route starts on a beach,the first move is stepping onto a ledge about 6 inches off the ground. The moce is simple, after thatt six rather hard 5.11 moves lead to the first bolt.
I climbed to the first bolt, clipped it, and then down climbed to the ledge six inches of the ground. I rest and went back up and finsihed the route without falling. Is it a red point.
That's why I say it is a theme, spirit, or direction. A 'pure' onsight is very limitng, so much so that if only 'pure' onsights were allowed to be refrenced to onsighting (or attempting to), the term would probably fall out of usage.
The fact that you know a route exsits negates any possible onsight attempt by you.