|
jt512
Mar 10, 2010, 9:49 PM
Post #51 of 168
(2269 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Arrogant_Bastard wrote: What about people that always place gear above their heads, essentially always on TR.
Fall while clipping the piece; then let's talk again.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
edge
Mar 10, 2010, 9:52 PM
Post #52 of 168
(2265 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120
|
jt512 wrote: Arrogant_Bastard wrote: What about people that always place gear above their heads, essentially always on TR. Fall while clipping the piece; then let's talk again. Jay
That seems to be a common sport climber shortcoming. Experienced trad and ice climbers try to clip at their waist, but like everything climbing related, everything is situational.
|
|
|
|
|
I_do
Mar 10, 2010, 11:41 PM
Post #53 of 168
(2228 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 2, 2008
Posts: 1232
|
edge wrote: jt512 wrote: Arrogant_Bastard wrote: What about people that always place gear above their heads, essentially always on TR. Fall while clipping the piece; then let's talk again. Jay That seems to be a common sport climber shortcoming. Experienced trad and ice climbers try to clip at their waist, but like everything climbing related, everything is situational.
Experienced sports climbers also clip at their waist, what's your point?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 10, 2010, 11:53 PM
Post #54 of 168
(2225 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
I_do wrote: edge wrote: jt512 wrote: Arrogant_Bastard wrote: What about people that always place gear above their heads, essentially always on TR. Fall while clipping the piece; then let's talk again. Jay That seems to be a common sport climber shortcoming. Experienced trad and ice climbers try to clip at their waist, but like everything climbing related, everything is situational. Experienced sports climbers also clip at their waist, what's your point?
Experienced sport climbers clip from the best hold.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Mar 11, 2010, 12:00 AM
Post #55 of 168
(2219 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
edge wrote: caughtinside wrote: Well Dave Macleod just did some gnarly M9 in Scotland. After a 2.5 hour lead, he found himself 6 meters from the top with no gear that would work. He downclimbed the entire route, removing his gear as he went down, came back the next day to top out and claim the onsight. Here it is in his own words: http://davemacleod.blogspot.com/...mpest-in-teacup.html personally, I am more impressed by the ability to downclimb M9 after a 2.5 hour lead than the actual onsight!  Macleod never once mentioned the term onsight in reference to his final climb, did he?
well, sort of? This is what he says:
After 2.5 hours, I was 6 metres from the top, but had run out of gear. I’d managed to take plenty of gear I didn’t need and not nearly enough of what I did. I didn’t fancy a major peel from the final moves without gear but was desperate not to lose the onsight either. Solution? Downclimb the whole thing taking the gear back out and come back after a rest.
To me that implies he did the downclimb (as opposed to lowering) to preserve his onsight. Ie, by downclimbing, removing gear, then starting from the ground again it is still a valid onsight attempt.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Mar 11, 2010, 12:02 AM
Post #56 of 168
(2216 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
I_do wrote: cracklover wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: jt512 wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: 2. Like I said in my first post, it is a gray area leaving and then coming back. That's only a gray area to you. Most everyone else who thinks there is a gray area thinks it's whether you can touch the ground again after you've started. Once you've decided it's ok to touch the ground, what difference does an intervening night make. According to you, if I try a climb at 7 a.m., down climb, rest for eight hours and try again before dinner, and succeed, it's an onsight; but if I make my first attempt before dinner, down climb, and succeed the next morning, with the exact same amount of time between attempts, it's not. There is no gray area there. Those are exactly the same conditions, just shifted by 12 hours. Clearly, either both must be onsights or neither. Jay I am not looking for an argument here. Apparently at least one pro climber feels it's an onsight. I was clear in my post that I don't care whether he calls it an onsight or not. Whether it's a gray area or not, I also don't care. If it was me, I would NOT call it an onsight, then again, I could never see myself doing what he did (meaning down climb, just to preserve an "onsight"), so I never really thought about it before. And btw you are putting words in my mouth. In your examples, whether there was a day in between was irrelevant. The gray area for me was leaving and then coming back. It had nothing to do with doing it the same day or the next. My example used a route with a large rest on it, that you could rest as long as you wanted and go when you are ready as opposed to leaving, resting, then coming back. My use of the terminology is used only for MY record keeping, not to spray to others. Some of my terminology may be used loosely. I am ok with that. I am not trying to get published in a magazine. Josh Okay, so what you're saying is that the first time you see it, you must send, or it's not an onsight? Let's say you're scoping out a new potential line. It looks like it'll be a few pitches, and you use binoc's to check out the higher area. You come back several times over the course of hours, days, or weeks, to look at it in different light. Have you now blown the onsight before you even get on the climb? Or do you have to touch the rock to blow it? There's a route in Eldo called Blind Faith that was done onsight free solo. The FA up- and down-climbed the first 60 feet many times over a season before getting the courage to keep going to the ledge that ends the first pitch (and the serious difficulties of the climb). What he couldn't have foreseen (because it was an onsight, after all) was that the crux was not the bulge he'd been fearing, but the final move to surmount that bulge and mantle onto the ledge. A move quite a bit harder than anything he'd done on the climb thus far, and impossible to see from the ground. You saying that's not an onsight? GO To me a ''go" ends when you touch the ground, I don't care if you downclimbed or not. To me an onsight means sending it first go, no beta. If you climbed the first 60 foot repeatedly over a season it's not the first go, so I'd call it a redpoint. Obviously an onsight means different things to different people, and there are grey area's but this is not a ''grey area'' ascent to me. Maybe it's a Euro/USA thing. there's no definative authority on what climbing terms mean (that includes anyone and everyone on this site). Scouting it with binoculars is grey area to me.
Binocular scouting is a time honored way to look at routes. Yuji's onsight of White Zombie, .14, came after like 2 days of scoping with binos. And belaying another climber on the route without watching.
And Dave Macleod is scottish, so it's a euro/euro thing.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Mar 11, 2010, 12:03 AM
Post #57 of 168
(2210 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
lena_chita wrote: cracklover wrote: jt512 wrote: Most everyone else who thinks there is a gray area thinks it's whether you can touch the ground again after you've started. Yep. And while I used to think that was a gray area too, I no longer do. You don't weight the rope, don't preview it, don't get beta from anyone else... it's an onsight. He onsighted it. No question about it, in my book. GO But wouldn't you say that by climbing it almost to the top and down-climbing it he DID pre-view it? My personal bias would be this: if you climb partway up, come down because you didn't have enough/right kind of gear, and then climb it again, same day or another day, it is not a onsight. Sure, you didn't weight the rope, but you DID get beta by climbing partway up. You now know what gear you need that you didn't know before, you will be able to climb more efficiently through the section that you have already climbed before. I would call it a flash, personally, if it were my climbing log.
yes, you did get beta and knowledge of the route, but you got it from your own experience.
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Mar 11, 2010, 3:22 AM
Post #58 of 168
(2185 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
caughtinside wrote: lena_chita wrote: cracklover wrote: jt512 wrote: Most everyone else who thinks there is a gray area thinks it's whether you can touch the ground again after you've started. Yep. And while I used to think that was a gray area too, I no longer do. You don't weight the rope, don't preview it, don't get beta from anyone else... it's an onsight. He onsighted it. No question about it, in my book. GO But wouldn't you say that by climbing it almost to the top and down-climbing it he DID pre-view it? My personal bias would be this: if you climb partway up, come down because you didn't have enough/right kind of gear, and then climb it again, same day or another day, it is not a onsight. Sure, you didn't weight the rope, but you DID get beta by climbing partway up. You now know what gear you need that you didn't know before, you will be able to climb more efficiently through the section that you have already climbed before. I would call it a flash, personally, if it were my climbing log. yes, you did get beta and knowledge of the route, but you got it from your own experience.
True--but beta is beta...
Hypothetical scenario: the top of the climb is a walk-off, and it is easy to down-climb to just above the crux section. The crux section is otherwise not visible from the ground. Is it acceptable to down-climb to the crux (your buddy is belaying you, but you never weigh the rope), inspect it thoroughly, and then climb back up, still never weighing the rope, walk off, and climb the climb from bottom to top?
Hypothetical scenario number two: there is an easy 5.10 climb right next to this gnarly 5.15 project.Is it acceptable to climb this easy climb, thoroughly inspect the holds on the hard climb,and then call it an onsight?
How about rappell 5 feet away from the line you are trying to climb, and look at it... you are theoretically NOT rapelling this climb, you are rapelling just next to it... there simply happens to be this really easy crack running in parallel to this incredibly difficult seam that you want to project, and you just climbed the easy crack and are now rapelling...
I get that down-climbing is acceptable in an onsight attempt. And if it is acceptable to down-climb 5 ft to a ledge, then it is acceptable to down-climb 100 ft to the ground. And if it is acceptable to down-climb to the ledge and rest therefor 20 minutes, it is also acceptable to down-climb to the ground, sleep on it, and then climb again and call it onsight,and by further extension it is also acceptable to do this for 20 days in a row, as long as the rope is never weighted.
Acceptable-- but leaves a slight feeling of dissatisfaction.
I am impressed by the send all the same. But if someone comes along and climbs an equivalent line bottom-up with none of the down-climbing and coming back the next day, I would be MORE impressed. So somehow I want to have different terms applied to these two scenarios to reflect this...
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Mar 11, 2010, 3:33 AM
Post #59 of 168
(2183 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
lena_chita wrote: caughtinside wrote: lena_chita wrote: cracklover wrote: jt512 wrote: Most everyone else who thinks there is a gray area thinks it's whether you can touch the ground again after you've started. Yep. And while I used to think that was a gray area too, I no longer do. You don't weight the rope, don't preview it, don't get beta from anyone else... it's an onsight. He onsighted it. No question about it, in my book. GO But wouldn't you say that by climbing it almost to the top and down-climbing it he DID pre-view it? My personal bias would be this: if you climb partway up, come down because you didn't have enough/right kind of gear, and then climb it again, same day or another day, it is not a onsight. Sure, you didn't weight the rope, but you DID get beta by climbing partway up. You now know what gear you need that you didn't know before, you will be able to climb more efficiently through the section that you have already climbed before. I would call it a flash, personally, if it were my climbing log. yes, you did get beta and knowledge of the route, but you got it from your own experience. True--but beta is beta... Hypothetical scenario: the top of the climb is a walk-off, and it is easy to down-climb to just above the crux section. The crux section is otherwise not visible from the ground. Is it acceptable to down-climb to the crux (your buddy is belaying you, but you never weigh the rope), inspect it thoroughly, and then climb back up, still never weighing the rope, walk off, and climb the climb from bottom to top? Hypothetical scenario number two: there is an easy 5.10 climb right next to this gnarly 5.15 project.Is it acceptable to climb this easy climb, thoroughly inspect the holds on the hard climb,and then call it an onsight? How about rappell 5 feet away from the line you are trying to climb, and look at it... you are theoretically NOT rapelling this climb, you are rapelling just next to it... there simply happens to be this really easy crack running in parallel to this incredibly difficult seam that you want to project, and you just climbed the easy crack and are now rapelling... I get that down-climbing is acceptable in an onsight attempt. And if it is acceptable to down-climb 5 ft to a ledge, then it is acceptable to down-climb 100 ft to the ground. And if it is acceptable to down-climb to the ledge and rest therefor 20 minutes, it is also acceptable to down-climb to the ground, sleep on it, and then climb again and call it onsight,and by further extension it is also acceptable to do this for 20 days in a row, as long as the rope is never weighted. Acceptable-- but leaves a slight feeling of dissatisfaction. I am impressed by the send all the same. But if someone comes along and climbs an equivalent line bottom-up with none of the down-climbing and coming back the next day, I would be MORE impressed. So somehow I want to have different terms applied to these two scenarios to reflect this...
Those are all pretty silly.
1--you toproped the crux.
2--you inspected the holds from your lame squeeze job, not onsight.
3--if you rap down you rap down. If you rap and inspect (which I have done) not onsight.
And beta isn't always beta. Beta by definition is info gleaned from an outside source. The origin of the term is guys watching climbing vids on old beta maxs, to figure out crux moves. I think it started at Smith? The term has morphed over time to mean any info about a climb but I'd argue if you figure it out yourself it's Alpha.
|
|
|
|
|
olderic
Mar 11, 2010, 4:04 AM
Post #60 of 168
(2176 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1539
|
caughtinside wrote: And beta isn't always beta. Beta by definition is info gleaned from an outside source. The origin of the term is guys watching climbing vids on old beta maxs, to figure out crux moves. I think it started at Smith? The term has morphed over time to mean any info about a climb but I'd argue if you figure it out yourself it's Alpha.
Gunks Gunks Gunks.
|
|
|
|
|
davidnn5
Mar 11, 2010, 4:28 AM
Post #61 of 168
(2170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 8, 2009
Posts: 348
|
All these examples of yes/no/maybe just prove the main tenet: onsight is a term that can cover grey areas, and only the climber and anyone else around them really know what happened.
For the sake of illustrating, although I'm sure it's not the case, this guy could have ridden a chopper to the top of the climb and never upclimbed or downclimbed any part of it. As long as he had people willing to collude (and others who actually care whether some Joe onsighted it), he could get away with calling THAT an onsight.
|
|
|
|
|
I_do
Mar 11, 2010, 9:21 AM
Post #62 of 168
(2156 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 2, 2008
Posts: 1232
|
jt512 wrote: I_do wrote: edge wrote: jt512 wrote: Arrogant_Bastard wrote: What about people that always place gear above their heads, essentially always on TR. Fall while clipping the piece; then let's talk again. Jay That seems to be a common sport climber shortcoming. Experienced trad and ice climbers try to clip at their waist, but like everything climbing related, everything is situational. Experienced sports climbers also clip at their waist, what's your point? Experienced sport climbers clip from the best hold. Jay
I like you more when you're wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 11, 2010, 11:31 AM
Post #63 of 168
(2148 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
I_do wrote: jt512 wrote: I_do wrote: edge wrote: jt512 wrote: Arrogant_Bastard wrote: What about people that always place gear above their heads, essentially always on TR. Fall while clipping the piece; then let's talk again. Jay That seems to be a common sport climber shortcoming. Experienced trad and ice climbers try to clip at their waist, but like everything climbing related, everything is situational. Experienced sports climbers also clip at their waist, what's your point? Experienced sport climbers clip from the best hold. Jay I like you more when you're wrong.
Aww. Then you must not like me very often.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
hansundfritz
Mar 11, 2010, 2:29 PM
Post #64 of 168
(2121 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2008
Posts: 139
|
One thing that has not been mentioned so far is the short days in Scotland in the winter. He doesn't say how much daylight he had left, but I suspect probably not enough to finish the route after down-climbing.
As Dave M. says, it has been the winter of the century in Europe. He has climbed some great stuff this winter, including the first winter ascent of a summer E8 he put up on Ben Nevis. Converting to YDS is tricky, but that's in the 5.13-14 range. That report is one entry earlier in his blog.
|
|
|
|
|
Shroom
Mar 11, 2010, 2:58 PM
Post #65 of 168
(2108 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2009
Posts: 61
|
jt512 wrote: I_do wrote: jt512 wrote: I_do wrote: edge wrote: jt512 wrote: Arrogant_Bastard wrote: What about people that always place gear above their heads, essentially always on TR. Fall while clipping the piece; then let's talk again. Jay That seems to be a common sport climber shortcoming. Experienced trad and ice climbers try to clip at their waist, but like everything climbing related, everything is situational. Experienced sports climbers also clip at their waist, what's your point? Experienced sport climbers clip from the best hold. Jay I like you more when you're wrong. Aww. Then you must not like me very often. Jay
I am betting he loves you.
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Mar 11, 2010, 3:14 PM
Post #66 of 168
(2105 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
caughtinside wrote: lena_chita wrote: caughtinside wrote: lena_chita wrote: cracklover wrote: jt512 wrote: Most everyone else who thinks there is a gray area thinks it's whether you can touch the ground again after you've started. Yep. And while I used to think that was a gray area too, I no longer do. You don't weight the rope, don't preview it, don't get beta from anyone else... it's an onsight. He onsighted it. No question about it, in my book. GO But wouldn't you say that by climbing it almost to the top and down-climbing it he DID pre-view it? My personal bias would be this: if you climb partway up, come down because you didn't have enough/right kind of gear, and then climb it again, same day or another day, it is not a onsight. Sure, you didn't weight the rope, but you DID get beta by climbing partway up. You now know what gear you need that you didn't know before, you will be able to climb more efficiently through the section that you have already climbed before. I would call it a flash, personally, if it were my climbing log. yes, you did get beta and knowledge of the route, but you got it from your own experience. True--but beta is beta... Hypothetical scenario: the top of the climb is a walk-off, and it is easy to down-climb to just above the crux section. The crux section is otherwise not visible from the ground. Is it acceptable to down-climb to the crux (your buddy is belaying you, but you never weigh the rope), inspect it thoroughly, and then climb back up, still never weighing the rope, walk off, and climb the climb from bottom to top? Hypothetical scenario number two: there is an easy 5.10 climb right next to this gnarly 5.15 project.Is it acceptable to climb this easy climb, thoroughly inspect the holds on the hard climb,and then call it an onsight? How about rappell 5 feet away from the line you are trying to climb, and look at it... you are theoretically NOT rapelling this climb, you are rapelling just next to it... there simply happens to be this really easy crack running in parallel to this incredibly difficult seam that you want to project, and you just climbed the easy crack and are now rapelling... I get that down-climbing is acceptable in an onsight attempt. And if it is acceptable to down-climb 5 ft to a ledge, then it is acceptable to down-climb 100 ft to the ground. And if it is acceptable to down-climb to the ledge and rest therefor 20 minutes, it is also acceptable to down-climb to the ground, sleep on it, and then climb again and call it onsight,and by further extension it is also acceptable to do this for 20 days in a row, as long as the rope is never weighted. Acceptable-- but leaves a slight feeling of dissatisfaction. I am impressed by the send all the same. But if someone comes along and climbs an equivalent line bottom-up with none of the down-climbing and coming back the next day, I would be MORE impressed. So somehow I want to have different terms applied to these two scenarios to reflect this... Those are all pretty silly. 1--you toproped the crux.
No, in my example you DIDN'T toprope the crux. You down-climbed to just above the crux, looked at it, but didn't actually toprope the crux.
caughtinside wrote: 2--you inspected the holds from your lame squeeze job, not onsight. .
Why is it acceptable for an onsight to inspect the crux from binocular, or to cimb up to the crux and down-climb multiple times, but not inspect the crux from one climb over?
caughtinside wrote: 3--if you rap down you rap down. If you rap and inspect (which I have done) not onsight.
I agree with you that it isn't an onsight. but why is it then O.K. to climb up to the crux, look at it, and down-climb, leave, and come back later? Just because it is harder to look at the crux when you are climbing up to it? just becasue down-climbing the whole route is way more impressive than rapping? But if you can reverse the sequence, than it obviously isn't hard enough for you personally, so...
caughtinside wrote: And beta isn't always beta. Beta by definition is info gleaned from an outside source. The origin of the term is guys watching climbing vids on old beta maxs, to figure out crux moves. I think it started at Smith? The term has morphed over time to mean any info about a climb but I'd argue if you figure it out yourself it's Alpha.
Alpha-- I like that. :) One more climbing term to keep track of.
Continuing to play devil's advocate, do you think that if I am climbing something that a 6-ft dude just climbed right in front of me, and I end up figuring my own 5-foot-tall "alpha" through the crux, then it is an onsight, and not a flash? After all, I did not do what the other dude did, didn't use his beta, used completely different holds that he wasn't even aware of, he couldn't/didn't tell me about them, so... onsight, right?
Please say yes, I want to update my route log.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Mar 11, 2010, 3:54 PM
Post #67 of 168
(2092 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
Ok, I thought you were getting belayed form above when you came in from the top. Even so, I'd say not onsight because you didn't go ground up.
As for the shortie watching the tallie, I think you've touched on an area I like to call Sour Beta. Some climbers give a lot of it, like snoopy138. he is actually no help when trying to tell you what to do, and the sour beta he spews up at you makes cruxes and routes harder. Even so, it is still beta. sorry!
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Mar 11, 2010, 4:48 PM
Post #68 of 168
(2075 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
I'd call it an asterisked onsight. Onsight or no, the circumstances in which Macleod applies his standards are a little more impressive than those you would find on a rap bolted sport cliff.
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Mar 11, 2010, 5:13 PM
Post #69 of 168
(2059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
Shroom wrote: jt512 wrote: I_do wrote: jt512 wrote: I_do wrote: edge wrote: jt512 wrote: Arrogant_Bastard wrote: What about people that always place gear above their heads, essentially always on TR. Fall while clipping the piece; then let's talk again. Jay That seems to be a common sport climber shortcoming. Experienced trad and ice climbers try to clip at their waist, but like everything climbing related, everything is situational. Experienced sports climbers also clip at their waist, what's your point? Experienced sport climbers clip from the best hold. Jay I like you more when you're wrong. Aww. Then you must not like me very often. Jay I am betting he loves you.
Are we talking about whether he is right in his own mind or actually right. This is what I like to call a "gray area." 
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Mar 11, 2010, 5:16 PM
Post #70 of 168
(2055 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
lena_chita wrote: So somehow I want to have different terms applied to these two scenarios to reflect this...
Are you talking about Downsight? That, I could get behind. But, then again, you would have the internet wankers arguing about what constitutes a legitimate downsight.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
edge
Mar 11, 2010, 5:34 PM
Post #71 of 168
(2042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: lena_chita wrote: So somehow I want to have different terms applied to these two scenarios to reflect this... Are you talking about Downsight? That, I could get behind. But, then again, you would have the internet wankers arguing about what constitutes a legitimate downsight.
Josh
Maybe on other websites, but not this one.
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Mar 11, 2010, 5:35 PM
Post #72 of 168
(2039 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
So, say you have sex with a chick... you've done a few other chicks just prior and so you're not quite feelin' adequate enough... you therefore don't quite get to the crux... so you downclimb on her, admire the view for a bit, find her crux and then climb off.
Other than being a poor inadequate sack, can you claim the onsight? Nope! I think it's crux dependent!
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Mar 11, 2010, 5:39 PM
Post #73 of 168
(2035 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
I totally agree with CI here:
lena_chita wrote: caughtinside wrote: lena_chita wrote: caughtinside wrote: lena_chita wrote: cracklover wrote: jt512 wrote: Most everyone else who thinks there is a gray area thinks it's whether you can touch the ground again after you've started. Yep. And while I used to think that was a gray area too, I no longer do. You don't weight the rope, don't preview it, don't get beta from anyone else... it's an onsight. He onsighted it. No question about it, in my book. GO But wouldn't you say that by climbing it almost to the top and down-climbing it he DID pre-view it? My personal bias would be this: if you climb partway up, come down because you didn't have enough/right kind of gear, and then climb it again, same day or another day, it is not a onsight. Sure, you didn't weight the rope, but you DID get beta by climbing partway up. You now know what gear you need that you didn't know before, you will be able to climb more efficiently through the section that you have already climbed before. I would call it a flash, personally, if it were my climbing log. yes, you did get beta and knowledge of the route, but you got it from your own experience. True--but beta is beta... Hypothetical scenario: the top of the climb is a walk-off, and it is easy to down-climb to just above the crux section. The crux section is otherwise not visible from the ground. Is it acceptable to down-climb to the crux (your buddy is belaying you, but you never weigh the rope), inspect it thoroughly, and then climb back up, still never weighing the rope, walk off, and climb the climb from bottom to top? Hypothetical scenario number two: there is an easy 5.10 climb right next to this gnarly 5.15 project.Is it acceptable to climb this easy climb, thoroughly inspect the holds on the hard climb,and then call it an onsight? How about rappell 5 feet away from the line you are trying to climb, and look at it... you are theoretically NOT rapelling this climb, you are rapelling just next to it... there simply happens to be this really easy crack running in parallel to this incredibly difficult seam that you want to project, and you just climbed the easy crack and are now rapelling... I get that down-climbing is acceptable in an onsight attempt. And if it is acceptable to down-climb 5 ft to a ledge, then it is acceptable to down-climb 100 ft to the ground. And if it is acceptable to down-climb to the ledge and rest therefor 20 minutes, it is also acceptable to down-climb to the ground, sleep on it, and then climb again and call it onsight,and by further extension it is also acceptable to do this for 20 days in a row, as long as the rope is never weighted. Acceptable-- but leaves a slight feeling of dissatisfaction. I am impressed by the send all the same. But if someone comes along and climbs an equivalent line bottom-up with none of the down-climbing and coming back the next day, I would be MORE impressed. So somehow I want to have different terms applied to these two scenarios to reflect this... Those are all pretty silly. 1--you toproped the crux. No, in my example you DIDN'T toprope the crux. You down-climbed to just above the crux, looked at it, but didn't actually toprope the crux.
Whether or not you actually worked the moves of the crux is not the point. You toproped part of the climb, so how could you attempt an OS later?
In reply to: caughtinside wrote: 2--you inspected the holds from your lame squeeze job, not onsight. . Why is it acceptable for an onsight to inspect the crux from binocular, or to cimb up to the crux and down-climb multiple times, but not inspect the crux from one climb over?
If you're actually touching the holds on the hard climb before doing it, no way is it possibly an OS. If you don't touch them, it's a gray area, but personally I'd never call it an OS.
In reply to: caughtinside wrote: 3--if you rap down you rap down. If you rap and inspect (which I have done) not onsight. I agree with you that it isn't an onsight. but why is it then O.K. to climb up to the crux, look at it, and down-climb, leave, and come back later? Just because it is harder to look at the crux when you are climbing up to it? just becasue down-climbing the whole route is way more impressive than rapping? But if you can reverse the sequence, than it obviously isn't hard enough for you personally, so...
You're missing the point. If you climb the route from the bottom to the top without any aid, you've onsighted it. All the examples you've given are some kind of aid. In this case, the issue is that rapping down is using the rope directly (weighting it) to gain beta. On the other hand, climbing the route starting from the bottom (and going up, down, sideways, whatever) without using the rope is exactly what an OS attempt entails.
In reply to: caughtinside wrote: And beta isn't always beta. Beta by definition is info gleaned from an outside source. The origin of the term is guys watching climbing vids on old beta maxs, to figure out crux moves. I think it started at Smith? The term has morphed over time to mean any info about a climb but I'd argue if you figure it out yourself it's Alpha. Alpha-- I like that. :) One more climbing term to keep track of.
Excellent point.
In reply to: Continuing to play devil's advocate, do you think that if I am climbing something that a 6-ft dude just climbed right in front of me, and I end up figuring my own 5-foot-tall "alpha" through the crux, then it is an onsight, and not a flash? After all, I did not do what the other dude did, didn't use his beta, used completely different holds that he wasn't even aware of, he couldn't/didn't tell me about them, so... onsight, right? Please say yes, I want to update my route log.
Agreed again - beta is beta, whether it's good or bad. The point is figuring it out for yourself. Once you get beta from someone else, you've asked for aid. Whether it helps you or not isn't entirely the point - the point is that you've gotten someone else to help you lead the climb.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Mar 11, 2010, 5:41 PM
Post #74 of 168
(2031 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
Onsight - n/vb. a clean ascent with no falls, first try, with no prior knowledge of the route.
This is from the rc.com dictionary. Dave went up and then down and didn't finish. Does that not constitute a first try? Coming back, is that not a second try?
Once again, I think if he calls it an onsight, I don't really have a problem with it. But, if people are going to be sticklers for what an onsight truly is defined as, then I would think it isn't one.
Although the definition seems pretty clear, there will always be people arguing about what constitutes a try and what constitutes prior knowledge. The only way the definition can't be vague is if a try is "you leave the ground and finish the route", and no prior knowledge means "you walk up to the route and do it." No scoping, no guidebooks, no watching other people on it, no talking about it.
But, if an onsight truly is the best style of ascent, then everyone will want to record an onsight (myself included). So it has morphed into a personal definition for everyone. Some are closer to the actual definition and some are a little further away. So be it.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Mar 11, 2010, 5:43 PM
Post #75 of 168
(2030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
edge wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: lena_chita wrote: So somehow I want to have different terms applied to these two scenarios to reflect this... Are you talking about Downsight? That, I could get behind. But, then again, you would have the internet wankers arguing about what constitutes a legitimate downsight.
Josh Maybe on other websites, but not this one.
there's no way it's a legit downsight. those go top down and he didn't even get to the top.
|
|
|
|
|
|
