A climber ascends the first half of a sport route, clipping draws on the way up. At this point the climber realizes that his spandex doesn’t match his quickdraws. The climber downclimbs, never weighing the rope, unties and goes to his car to put on his hot pink spandex to match the draws. After sticking a cucumber in his crotch to make his penis look bigger he returns to the climb, pulls the rope and sends it clean; clipping the pre-placed draws and placing above that point. Is it an onsight?
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.
Personally, if you told it to me it that way, I'd be fine with it. If you just said, "I onsighted it" and then later I found out the details I'd make a mental "spraylord" note. As you point out, at best it's a "tainted onsight" as is the example for the poll (although yours is more tainted).
Basically, if you have to ask, "is it an onsight if . . ." then you know there's something a bit off, so you'd better just describe what happened and let the tenuous glory of claiming an onsight be decided by those who choose to repeat your heroic deeds.
Of course, according to the poll, I'm in the minority (which doesn't mean much in a world where GB is president).
Take a look at the link I posted in the "Lame Redpoint Question" thread. This same question was discussed 10 years ago in rec.climbing. The majority then (most discussants were long-time trad climbers) was that angry's ascent was a clear, untainted on-sight. He didn't weight the rope; he didn't fall; he had no outside information of the route. One poster at made it clear, stating that a multi-day onsight is perfectly valid "even if it takes 15 years." Yuji Hirayama, Jim Erickson, and Steve Hong have all downclimbed to the ground and rested before completing routes, and claimed onsights without reservation.
Jay
Jay,
I openly admit that given the results of the current poll and your link, I'm in the minority. That said I wonder if there's a stylistic difference between trad onsights and sport onsights, old school and new school. Just a thought.
Also, I highlighted the "without reservation" bit because, if you know their tactics, then, in my mind, it is a bit of a reservation. In other words, at some level they felt obligated to describe their exact tactics rather than settling for a simple label. As I've stated several times in these threads, I'm more a fan of stating your tactics and letting others assign the label.
Again, I realize that my opinion is not the bible of climbing. But for me, it's a question of style and once people are jumping through all these definitional and esoteric hoops just to claim an onsight then they've thrown style out the window. They're chasing something that's a bit watered down and less interesting - a label and not a climb.
Not an onsite sorry. I don't care what those sorry bastards on rec.climbing said, even if I said it hahahaha.
Angry did not onsite either.
On-sight - one go. Cite anyone you wish, I don't care. You touch the ground the ascent is over. You come back you ain't on the same ascent ergo no on-sight.
If this shatters your world views? Good. If not? That's good too.
I don't care what those sorry bastards on rec.climbing said, even if I said it hahahaha.
Angry did not onsite either.
On-sight - one go. Cite anyone you wish, I don't care. You touch the ground the ascent is over.
OK. I'll cite you:
In 1997 on rec.climbing, Dingus wrote:
In the finest tradition of Jim Erikson (The Trad's Trad), downclimbing is fair game. The consideration is the weighting of pro, not whether upward progress was delayed. Touching the ground is no different than climbing down to the last no-hands rest. It's just a bigger ledge.
I don't care what those sorry bastards on rec.climbing said, even if I said it hahahaha.
Angry did not onsite either.
On-sight - one go. Cite anyone you wish, I don't care. You touch the ground the ascent is over.
OK. I'll cite you:
In 1997 on rec.climbing, Dingus wrote:
In the finest tradition of Jim Erikson (The Trad's Trad), downclimbing is fair game. The consideration is the weighting of pro, not whether upward progress was delayed. Touching the ground is no different than climbing down to the last no-hands rest. It's just a bigger ledge.
Of course, according to the poll, I'm in the minority (which doesn't mean much in a world where GB is president).
Take a look at the link I posted in the "Lame Redpoint Question" thread. This same question was discussed 10 years ago in rec.climbing. The majority then (most discussants were long-time trad climbers) was that angry's ascent was a clear, untainted on-sight.
Interestingly, in that rec.climbing thread you posted, the implications for bouldering are brought up by two people. One even flat suggests that bouldering simply has different rules, and downclimbing is not allowed during bouldering onsights/flashes! Either nearly all bouldering counts as "first try" ascents, or downclimbing to the ground invalidates an onsight. You can't have it both ways while still making coherent sense.
The whole discussion reminds me of discussions about the meaning of "redpoint". And the real answer is not an option in this poll: there are multiple, mutually-contradictory, and sometimes only partially-coherent senses of "onsight" in active use. Any other answer is simply a factual error.
Of course, according to the poll, I'm in the minority (which doesn't mean much in a world where GB is president).
Take a look at the link I posted in the "Lame Redpoint Question" thread. This same question was discussed 10 years ago in rec.climbing. The majority then (most discussants were long-time trad climbers) was that angry's ascent was a clear, untainted on-sight.
Interestingly, in that rec.climbing thread you posted, the implications for bouldering are brought up by two people. One even flat suggests that bouldering simply has different rules, and downclimbing is not allowed during bouldering onsights/flashes! Either nearly all bouldering counts as "first try" ascents, or downclimbing to the ground invalidates an onsight. You can't have it both ways while still making coherent sense.
Bouldering has different rules. Boulderers will tell you that there is no such thing as an onsight in bouldering, though I don't know why they say that.
In reply to:
The whole discussion reminds me of discussions about the meaning of "redpoint". And the real answer is not an option in this poll: there are multiple, mutually-contradictory, and sometimes only partially-coherent senses of "onsight" in active use. Any other answer is simply a factual error.
This line of yours is getting old, fracture. Everyone knows, and nobody but you cares, that different climbers use climbing terms differently. What is interesting to discuss is what definitions make the most sense -- what ascent styles should be considered onsights or redpoints: should downclimbing to the ground end an onsight attempt? should stick-clipping the 2nd bolt invalidate a redpoint attempt? etc.
...Bouldering has different rules. Boulderers will tell you that there is no such thing as an onsight in bouldering, though I don't know why they say that...
It's because that word derives from "sport" climbing and no such linguistic faggotry shall pass our lips.
...Bouldering has different rules. Boulderers will tell you that there is no such thing as an onsight in bouldering, though I don't know why they say that...
It's because that word derives from "sport" climbing and no such linguistic faggotry shall pass our lips.
Curt
Onsight? I don't think that word derived from sport climbing.
Interestingly, in that rec.climbing thread you posted, the implications for bouldering are brought up by two people. One even flat suggests that bouldering simply has different rules, and downclimbing is not allowed during bouldering onsights/flashes! Either nearly all bouldering counts as "first try" ascents, or downclimbing to the ground invalidates an onsight. You can't have it both ways while still making coherent sense.
Bouldering has different rules. Boulderers will tell you that there is no such thing as an onsight in bouldering, though I don't know why they say that.
i) Most of them that I've talked to don't actually say that. And this applies to "flash" ascents just as much, anyway.
ii) For me, the portion of bouldering I am interested in (and the way I play it) doesn't need different rules. Whether I have a rope tied to me or not is simply a matter of how I am preventing myself from getting injured when I fall---it has nothing to do with the game I'm playing. I refuse to play by different rules based on something as irrelevant as the system of protection.
iii) There is no fundamental difference between safe bouldering, sport climbing, and toproping. All of them (which should perhaps more accurately be called "modern gymnastic climbing") are about minimizing risk so you can focus on the movement.
You appear willing to countenance different rules for different aspects of the same sport, and you say this is (or should be) an argument about what makes "the most sense". So why does that make sense? Tradition?
In reply to:
In reply to:
The whole discussion reminds me of discussions about the meaning of "redpoint". And the real answer is not an option in this poll: there are multiple, mutually-contradictory, and sometimes only partially-coherent senses of "onsight" in active use. Any other answer is simply a factual error.
This line of yours is getting old, fracture. Everyone knows, and nobody but you cares, that different climbers use climbing terms differently. What is interesting to discuss is what definitions make the most sense -- what ascent styles should be considered onsights or redpoints: should downclimbing to the ground end an onsight attempt? should stick-clipping the 2nd bolt invalidate a redpoint attempt? etc.
I'd seriously love to hear why you think downclimbing to the ground shouldn't invalidate an onsight---from a purely logical perspective based on what "makes sense"---but so far, aside from the argument about mid-route ledges (which I have discussed the problems with), all I've heard from your camp is variations on "that's always been an acceptable tactic", and "everyone knows that that's the way it is". (And this is very similar to previous "arguments" we've had about the application of the term "redpoint" to toprope ascents.)
Also, I dispute the notion that "everybody knows" different climbers use terms differently. Cracklover, and before that, you, both have claimed that I (or "Texans" or "gumbies" or whatever it happened to be) am the only one who doesn't use the terms "style" and "ethics" in the way you guys prescribe. (Which is of course obviously false, and anyone with google can verify it in less than thirty seconds.).
As far as what I think "makes the most sense": to me, what's relevant in climbing is (i) did you do all the moves without falling, (ii) how many tries did it take you, and (iii) if it was first try, did you have beta. (And I barely give half a shit about the latter two.) From the first one's perspective, obviously downclimbing (and leaving as many draws as you want pre-clipped) is completely irrelevant. For the latter two, the question is whether systematic downclimbing is a "try".
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.
(This post was edited by fracture on Jan 31, 2007, 5:43 AM)
...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 doing using it, well, help yourself. Everyone else'll just send things faster: dogging on the rope is simply smarter tactics.
Of course, it's sometimes difficult to do that when the protection points are 50 or 60 feet apart... Downclimbing comes in real handy then.
Curt
(This post was edited by curt on Jan 31, 2007, 5:31 AM)
... Everyone else'll just send things faster: dogging on the rope is simply smarter tactics.
Of course, it's sometimes difficult to do that when the protection points are 50 or 60 feet apart...
I should've more explicitly stated that all my comments are restricted in scope to safe bouldering, sport climbing (including leading on pre-placed removable gear), and toproping.
(I don't have any interest whatsoever in any other types of climbing.)
(This post was edited by fracture on Jan 31, 2007, 5:38 AM)
The problem I have with allowing downclimbing is that it allows you an advantage that I believe should preclude an onsight...
In my (generally worthless, ignored and never asked for) opinion an onsight is a measure of a climber's absolute limit to everything; their ability, endurance, strength, skill and knowledge/experience...
An integral part of this is endurance and knowing when to rest and when to climblike hell because otherwise you'll blow out and fall...
Climbing part-way up a route to a point you consider the crux allows you to scope out the hard parts prior to this as well as the potential rests and gives you beta that then allows you to plan your next attempt on the route thus:
OK, so I climb quickly for the first few metres because it's pretty pumpy and then when I get to the big lay-back rest for a few minutes before setting off for the crux; the crucial hold for which I checked out on my last five climb/downclimbs.
Knowing when to go, when to rest and where the crux is likely to be are some of the largest obstacles that can stand in the way of claiming an onsight and so I believe that as soon as I pull on to a route that I have never climbed or received any beta about I am on my one and only chance of onsighting it... even if I pull onto the first move and then step back to the ground because I got my hands wrong/needed to chalk/someone made me laugh/whatever, as far as I am concerned it's not an onsight.
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.
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. [..]
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?
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.
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.
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. [..]
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. I know why we both have poor onsight skills.
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.
I don't care what those sorry bastards on rec.climbing said, even if I said it hahahaha.
Angry did not onsite either.
On-sight - one go. Cite anyone you wish, I don't care. You touch the ground the ascent is over.
OK. I'll cite you:
In 1997 on rec.climbing, Dingus wrote:
In the finest tradition of Jim Erikson (The Trad's Trad), downclimbing is fair game. The consideration is the weighting of pro, not whether upward progress was delayed. Touching the ground is no different than climbing down to the last no-hands rest. It's just a bigger ledge.
31 /
39%
