|
blueeyedclimber
Mar 11, 2010, 5:51 PM
Post #76 of 168
(2203 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: 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.
WHoa! I came up with the term. Who are you to go define it? 
 But, you're probably right.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Mar 11, 2010, 5:56 PM
Post #77 of 168
(2198 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: 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?
The rc.com dictionary? Well then, this whole discussion has been mute! Case closed!
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Mar 11, 2010, 5:56 PM
Post #78 of 168
(2196 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: 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
I actually think it's pretty straightforward. A try ends when you finish the route, weight the rope, or bail to another route.
I know some others won't agree, but so be it.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Mar 11, 2010, 6:07 PM
Post #79 of 168
(2183 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
caughtinside wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: 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? The rc.com dictionary? Well then, this whole discussion has been mute! Case closed!
Heh. I wonder if I can get that dictionary in hardbound. It would look better next to the Royal Robbins bust in my study.
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Mar 11, 2010, 6:09 PM
Post #80 of 168
(2181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
cracklover wrote: I actually think it's pretty straightforward. A try ends when you finish the route, weight the rope, or bail to another route. I know some others won't agree, but so be it. GO
That's part of the problem. Everyone has there own idea about what's straight forward. Couldn't a first try also mean the first time you are on the route?
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Mar 11, 2010, 6:09 PM
Post #81 of 168
(2185 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
caughtinside wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: 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? The rc.com dictionary? Well then, this whole discussion has been mute! Case closed!
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Mar 11, 2010, 6:13 PM
Post #82 of 168
(2180 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: 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. WHoa! I came up with the term. Who are you to go define it? But, you're probably right. Josh
there is no grey area in your statement.
|
|
|
|
|
jamincan
Mar 11, 2010, 6:22 PM
Post #83 of 168
(2167 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 1, 2007
Posts: 207
|
Wow. Am I the only one who feels sorry for his belayer?
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Mar 11, 2010, 6:28 PM
Post #84 of 168
(2160 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
jamincan wrote: Wow. Am I the only one who feels sorry for his belayer?
|
|
|
|
|
Arrogant_Bastard
Mar 11, 2010, 6:41 PM
Post #85 of 168
(2147 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
cracklover wrote: Arrogant_Bastard wrote: cracklover wrote: bigjonnyc 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 So what if he top-roped it, climbed 95%, downclimbed, grabbed his gear and then lead it clean? Onsight? Not in my book. No. As soon as you start top-roping it you've blown the onsight lead. GO I'll play Devil's Advocate. Why? By the definitions established to this point it seems to still be an onsight. What about stick-clipping a sport route? It's ok there because it's safe, but TRing safely doesn't count? What about people that always place gear above their heads, essentially always on TR. Why? Easy - because leading is bottom up, not top down. Sport climbing is a gray area, because someone already did it top down in a way that assists your ascent. But hey, we all know that sport weenies have their own "ethics". And whether you always place gear above your head, or never place any gear at all - bottom-up is leading, TR is not. GO
Fair enough, but now we're adding to the definition established earlier. And while we're talking semantics I would certainly argue the meaning of 'ground up'. Sport climbing aside, as I think we're in agreement with the (lack) of ethics there, ground up is showing up at a wall and heading straight up, no previous information, no printouts from Mountain Project, technically you shouldn't know the grade of even if it goes to the top. Ground up doesn't seem to include Going up a ways, coming back down, having tea, trimming your nails, and then climbing to the top. I would further argue that many of the definitions of "onsight" mention "first try", though now we're really in a semantic discussion based off of definitions made up on the internet.
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Mar 11, 2010, 6:41 PM
Post #86 of 168
(2145 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
cracklover wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: 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 I actually think it's pretty straightforward. A try ends when you finish the route, weight the rope, or bail to another route. I know some others won't agree, but so be it. GO
That's the LETTER of it. I understand that and I don't really dispute it.
But is it true to the spirit of onsight?
I think the whole reason people are talking about this is because it is a bit of a stretch.
How many other seminal onsights have been done in the same way, coming back the next day? I don't know enough of the climbing history to point out to others that have claimed onsight in similar circumstances.
But if it becomes accepted and commonplace practice, then it can be stretched further.
By further extension, which would still be true to the letter of the definition, it would be O.K. to down-climb and come back 20 days in a row, if needed... with a few rest days in between. Fits the definition of never weighing the rope, never finishing the route, and never bailing to another route, but if it isn't working the route, I don't know what is... after 20 times you would probably have the gear down pat, know exactly what piece to put where in which order, won't have to bring any extra pieces... no guesswork.
What if he decided, after climbing it once and down-climbing, as in current scenario, that in the section that he already climbed once up and down there was a spot that would be perfect for a knee bar, nice spot that he wasn't quite able to use b/c it was painful -- so he came back on the second day with a patch of rubber in the right place, to make it a bit more comfortable? Still acceptable, still onsight? Not any different from down-climbing because he didn't have the gear he needed, and coming back the next day? Both woud be information that he learned first-hand, but both would be information that made it easier to eventually climb the route clean, which is part of working the route and redpointing...
|
|
|
|
|
Arrogant_Bastard
Mar 11, 2010, 6:45 PM
Post #87 of 168
(2141 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
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
Nice change of the subject. Not really.
Most people I've seen utilize this technique have a piece or three at their waist (if not at their head), so the amount of rope out is one body length, and the point of fall is at their waist instead of below their feet, so it's a quite manageable-sized fall.
(This post was edited by Arrogant_Bastard on Mar 11, 2010, 6:47 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
Mar 11, 2010, 7:11 PM
Post #88 of 168
(2124 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
To me, 'onsight' is supposed to imply the best style possible for climbing a route. Somebody who climbs it straight without touching the ground has done it in better style and shouldn't need any further qualifiers (eg. Jim got the 2 day onsight, James got the one day onsight but Jamie beat them all with the one day onsight without touching the ground).
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 11, 2010, 7:17 PM
Post #89 of 168
(2122 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: 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.
The rc.com dictionary wasn't exactly written by Royal Robbins.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Mar 11, 2010, 7:18 PM
Post #90 of 168
(2118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
jt512 wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: 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. The rc.com dictionary wasn't exactly written by Royal Robbins. Jay
IT WASN"T?! 
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 11, 2010, 7:50 PM
Post #91 of 168
(2095 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
lena_chita wrote: In reply to: I actually think it's pretty straightforward. A try ends when you finish the route, weight the rope, or bail to another route. But is it true to the spirit of onsight?
Yes. Ask yourself why climbers value an onsight ascent in the first place. The answer is not because it is harder. There are lots of ways we could make an ascent harder, but none of them are valued the way on onsight is. The answer is that rock climbing inherited the concept from the early days of mountaineering when a fall basically meant death. Downclimb to a rest? Who cares. Downclimb to bascamp and try again in a day, a week, a month? If you eventually fell you probably died; if you eventually got to the top you were successful. So, in that light, downclimbing to the ground and trying again later in the day; or the next day; or the next season, after training for another year, is very much in the spirit of an onsight. That's why the central concept in onsighting is not weighting the rope. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, you can fall off the route before you've clipped your rope into pro, and if you can walk away from the fall, you still haven't blown your onsight.
In reply to: How many other seminal onsights have been done in the same way, coming back the next day? I don't know enough of the climbing history to point out to others that have claimed onsight in similar circumstances. But if it becomes accepted....
It's not becoming accepted. It always was accepted. It's the other way around: it's becoming rejected, as the origin of the sport fades from climbers' collective memory.
In reply to: By further extension, which would still be true to the letter of the definition, it would be O.K. to down-climb and come back 20 days in a row, if needed... with a few rest days in between. Fits the definition of never weighing the rope, never finishing the route, and never bailing to another route, but if it isn't working the route, I don't know what is... after 20 times you would probably have the gear down pat, know exactly what piece to put where in which order, won't have to bring any extra pieces... no guesswork.
Onsight.
In reply to: What if he decided, after climbing it once and down-climbing, as in current scenario, that in the section that he already climbed once up and down there was a spot that would be perfect for a knee bar, nice spot that he wasn't quite able to use b/c it was painful -- so he came back on the second day with a patch of rubber in the right place, to make it a bit more comfortable?
What if a nineteenth-century mountaineer decided he needed different tools, and he returned to base camp to get them?
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Mar 11, 2010, 7:53 PM
Post #92 of 168
(2091 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: jt512 wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: 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. The rc.com dictionary wasn't exactly written by Royal Robbins. Jay IT WASN"T?!
A quick perusal reveals several notable omissions from this so-called "compendium of climbing knowledge" (so-called because I just called it that): "Spray," invented by Hank Caylor in the 90's at Rifle, is entirely absent. As is the term "meatbomz," an instant classic invented by the "meatbonez crew" or "BET Jerks". And "tufa" is mispelled "tuffa," a term which apparently has significance in reggae culture.
I withdraw my request for hardcover, sir.
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Mar 11, 2010, 7:59 PM
Post #93 of 168
(2084 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
jt512 wrote: It's not becoming accepted. It always was accepted. It's the other way around: it's becoming rejected, as the origin of the sport fades from climbers' collective memory.
Yes, Jay's right.
(Thought I should get to write that sentence at least once, heh.)
The new model for climbing is comps. You're not allowed to climb back down in a comp. Increasingly, you aren't allowed to do that on real climbs, either. The new definition for onsight will take hold first on short sport climbs, then go to boulders, then probably to sport-trad at small roadside areas.
Trad routes on big rocks will be the last, just as they were the first.
And then darkness will cover the earth and all the debased posters at RC will count their numbers, shave their heads, and worship their demented Swedish God.
http://8a.nu/
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
Mar 11, 2010, 8:15 PM
Post #94 of 168
(2072 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
So if a route has a bouldery crux at the bottom someone should be allowed to work it with a stack of pads and spotters and still claim an onsight? That doesn't make any sense to me.
I don't know the history of the term but to me the spirit of onsight climbing is to find a piece of rock that you know nothing about and climb it to the top in a single push. Downclimbing to the ground means that you've backed off IMO. You weren't up for it, you turned tail and you gave up. If there's a no hands rest an inch off the ground that you go back to, sure claim the onsight. The moment you touch the ground you've given up and untieing from the rope is right out. You didn't have what it takes to make it to the top.
Training between attempts at an onsight really doesn't make any sense to me. That implies understanding what the crux involves. How is that onsight?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 11, 2010, 8:21 PM
Post #95 of 168
(2062 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
hafilax wrote: I don't know the history of the term but to me the spirit of onsight climbing is to find a piece of rock that you know nothing about and climb it to the top in a single push.
As I explained up-thread, the reason you think that that is the spirit of onsight climbing is because you don't know the history of the term.
In reply to: Training between attempts at an onsight really doesn't make any sense to me. That implies understanding what the crux involves. How is that onsight?
I just explained that.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
bigjonnyc
Mar 11, 2010, 8:23 PM
Post #96 of 168
(2057 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2004
Posts: 369
|
jt512 wrote: Yes. Ask yourself why climbers value an onsight ascent in the first place. The answer is not because it is harder. There are lots of ways we could make an ascent harder, but none of them are valued the way on onsight is. The answer is that rock climbing inherited the concept from the early days of mountaineering when a fall basically meant death. Downclimb to a rest? Who cares. Downclimb to bascamp and try again in a day, a week, a month? If you eventually fell you probably died; if you eventually got to the top you were successful. So, in that light, downclimbing to the ground and trying again later in the day; or the next day; or the next season, after training for another year, is very much in the spirit of an onsight. That's why the central concept in onsighting is not weighting the rope. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, you can fall off the route before you've clipped your rope into pro, and if you can walk away from the fall, you still haven't blown your onsight.
This is the best explanation of an onsight that I have ever heard, ever. The books are closed on this argument as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 11, 2010, 8:24 PM
Post #97 of 168
(2055 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
zeke_sf wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: jt512 wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: 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. The rc.com dictionary wasn't exactly written by Royal Robbins. Jay IT WASN"T?! A quick perusal reveals several notable omissions from this so-called "compendium of climbing knowledge" (so-called because I just called it that): "Spray," invented by Hank Caylor in the 90's at Rifle, is entirely absent. As is the term "meatbomz," an instant classic invented by the "meatbonez crew" or "BET Jerks". And "tufa" is mispelled "tuffa," a term which apparently has significance in reggae culture.
And "misspelled" is misspelled "mispelled." (I just wanted to write that sentence.)
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
Arrogant_Bastard
Mar 11, 2010, 8:28 PM
Post #98 of 168
(2051 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
jt512 wrote: In reply to: What if he decided, after climbing it once and down-climbing, as in current scenario, that in the section that he already climbed once up and down there was a spot that would be perfect for a knee bar, nice spot that he wasn't quite able to use b/c it was painful -- so he came back on the second day with a patch of rubber in the right place, to make it a bit more comfortable? What if a nineteenth-century mountaineer decided he needed different tools, and he returned to base camp to get them? Jay
If you're going to compare mountaineering to rock climbing then I'd point out that mountaineers also differentiate between alpine-style and expedition ascents. The latter being analogous to 'siege' tactics, which in turn seems analogous to this 'onsight'.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Mar 11, 2010, 8:34 PM
Post #99 of 168
(2040 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
Arrogant_Bastard wrote: jt512 wrote: In reply to: What if he decided, after climbing it once and down-climbing, as in current scenario, that in the section that he already climbed once up and down there was a spot that would be perfect for a knee bar, nice spot that he wasn't quite able to use b/c it was painful -- so he came back on the second day with a patch of rubber in the right place, to make it a bit more comfortable? What if a nineteenth-century mountaineer decided he needed different tools, and he returned to base camp to get them? Jay If you're going to compare mountaineering to rock climbing then I'd point out that mountaineers also differentiate between alpine-style and expedition ascents. The latter being analogous to 'siege' tactics, which in turn seems analogous to this 'onsight'.
True. Macleod's ascent was definitely not capsule style. I think we can agree on that.
|
|
|
|
|
Arrogant_Bastard
Mar 11, 2010, 8:36 PM
Post #100 of 168
(2032 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
caughtinside wrote: Arrogant_Bastard wrote: jt512 wrote: In reply to: What if he decided, after climbing it once and down-climbing, as in current scenario, that in the section that he already climbed once up and down there was a spot that would be perfect for a knee bar, nice spot that he wasn't quite able to use b/c it was painful -- so he came back on the second day with a patch of rubber in the right place, to make it a bit more comfortable? What if a nineteenth-century mountaineer decided he needed different tools, and he returned to base camp to get them? Jay If you're going to compare mountaineering to rock climbing then I'd point out that mountaineers also differentiate between alpine-style and expedition ascents. The latter being analogous to 'siege' tactics, which in turn seems analogous to this 'onsight'. True. Macleod's ascent was definitely not capsule style. I think we can agree on that.
Harding would be proud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
