|
jt512
Mar 11, 2010, 8:36 PM
Post #101 of 168
(4236 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
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.
Nowadays they do.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Mar 11, 2010, 8:38 PM
Post #102 of 168
(4229 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
dang.
|
|
|
|
|
Arrogant_Bastard
Mar 11, 2010, 8:38 PM
Post #103 of 168
(4223 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
Do you have somebody that follows you around and marks all of your posts 1 star?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 11, 2010, 8:39 PM
Post #104 of 168
(4219 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Arrogant_Bastard wrote: Do you have somebody that follows you around and marks all of your posts 1 star?
Apparently, yes, along with those of anyone who agrees with me. And he is abetted by the site's arithmetic, by which the average of 5, 1, and 1 is 1.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Mar 11, 2010, 8:42 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
Arrogant_Bastard
Mar 11, 2010, 8:41 PM
Post #105 of 168
(4214 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
jt512 wrote: Arrogant_Bastard wrote: Do you have somebody that follows you around and marks all of your posts 1 star? Apparently, yes, along with those of anyone who agrees with me. Jay
Hah! Perhaps you should write them a module for your firefox program thingy that will automatically search out your new posts and mark them a 1. It would really save them a lot of time.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Mar 11, 2010, 8:42 PM
Post #106 of 168
(4211 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
jt512 wrote: Arrogant_Bastard wrote: Do you have somebody that follows you around and marks all of your posts 1 star? Apparently, yes, along with those of anyone who agrees with me. Jay
hah, I saw that too. A leg humper. It's not as funny now that it's stars instead of turds though.
|
|
|
|
|
Arrogant_Bastard
Mar 11, 2010, 8:45 PM
Post #107 of 168
(4203 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
jt512 wrote: Arrogant_Bastard wrote: Do you have somebody that follows you around and marks all of your posts 1 star? Apparently, yes, along with those of anyone who agrees with me. And he is abetted by the site's arithmetic, by which the average of 5, 1, and 1 is 1. Jay
I find it hard to believe that you got a 5 in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
Mar 11, 2010, 8:49 PM
Post #108 of 168
(4196 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
jt512 wrote: Arrogant_Bastard wrote: Do you have somebody that follows you around and marks all of your posts 1 star? Apparently, yes, along with those of anyone who agrees with me. And he is abetted by the site's arithmetic, by which the average of 5, 1, and 1 is 1. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 11, 2010, 8:50 PM
Post #109 of 168
(4195 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Arrogant_Bastard wrote: jt512 wrote: Arrogant_Bastard wrote: Do you have somebody that follows you around and marks all of your posts 1 star? Apparently, yes, along with those of anyone who agrees with me. And he is abetted by the site's arithmetic, by which the average of 5, 1, and 1 is 1. Jay I find it hard to believe that you got a 5 in the first place.
Maybe the "5" guy just changed his mind.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Mar 11, 2010, 8:54 PM
Post #110 of 168
(4189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Arrogant_Bastard wrote: 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.
How am I amending an earlier definition of OS? The key reason why TRing the route blows the OS is because you are no longer going bottom to top. You've already walked to the top and built an anchor for your TR rehearsal. You've used the aid of an anchor at the top and a rehearsal using that anchor to make your eventual lead easier. Your case in which you keep placing gear above your head as you lead, does not share this fault, since the it does not involve any breach of the bottom-to-top with no assistance from the rope ethic.
In reply to: 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.
I think that ethic is commendable, but I don't think it's a common definition for OS. I think it's significantly more strict.
But it does bring up an interesting point. Most people do seem to think that some beta is allowed prior to an OS attempt. Here's what I allow:
1 - The grade of the climb
2 - Enough info to get to the base of the climb.
3 - Enough info to follow more or less the same path as the FA team (with any amendments to standard changes that have been accepted over the years).
4 - The difficulty of each pitch
5 - Some info about the size of the gear required.
Now that I put it down on (virtual) paper, that does seem like a lot of beta! Nevertheless, I think it's still commonly considered not to invalidate an OS attempt.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Mar 11, 2010, 9:13 PM
Post #111 of 168
(4171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
lena_chita wrote: 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.
Oh, most definitely. That's why I think it's controversial. But from a really traditional perspective, I think it's pretty clear. As JT has implied, the ethics of sport (and competition) climbing give you a different ruling in this gray area. But, again, as a trad climb, I think trad ethics should definitely be applied.
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.
Well, I pointed out one - Blind Faith in Eldo. I can't think of others off the top of my head.
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...
Maybe you didn't see my post about Blind Faith?
Anyway, yes you do - working the route means any number of tactics which are not ground up with no assistance from the rope. The FA of Blind Faith definitely qualifies as OS from this perspective, despite the "coming back 20 days in a row" thing which you are so stuck on.
In reply to: 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.
Yes. I think it would be an extraordinary effort to go through for an OS. I cannot think of any example where I would make that effort simply for a "passing" ethical grad on my ascent. But if someone else did a route in that style, I would have no problem saying they'd OSed the route. I might think they're loony, but hey, different people are motivated by different things.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Mar 13, 2010, 12:41 PM
Post #113 of 168
(3978 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
No sorry I am not going to allow sport climbers to downgrade YET ANOTHER climbing term.
The master Scottish climber does NOT get credit for the on sight. Sorry, on sight is on sight, not on sight, plux x days. that's fucking STUPID.
You have to be a real brown nose ass licker to want to give the man his onsight... hahahahaha!
Yes I called you asslickers!
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Mar 13, 2010, 1:02 PM
Post #114 of 168
(3971 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
jt512 wrote: Arrogant_Bastard wrote: Do you have somebody that follows you around and marks all of your posts 1 star? Apparently, yes, along with those of anyone who agrees with me. And he is abetted by the site's arithmetic, by which the average of 5, 1, and 1 is 1. Jay
And I thought I had it bad.
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Mar 13, 2010, 1:50 PM
Post #115 of 168
(3961 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
dingus wrote: No sorry I am not going to allow sport climbers to downgrade YET ANOTHER climbing term. The master Scottish climber does NOT get credit for the on sight. Sorry, on sight is on sight, not on sight, plux x days. that's fucking STUPID. You have to be a real brown nose ass licker to want to give the man his onsight... hahahahaha! Yes I called you asslickers! DMT
Well lets get a couple things straight here.
I've downclimbed to ledges, to the ground, and to rests and still claimed the onsight.
It's not a huge stretch to wait a day and call it the same. I see where both sides are coming from. Reardon claimed an onsight of Romantic Warrior after soloing the first 4 pitches prior to the ascent. This isn't unprecedented.
What Dave did was say exactly what he did. What else can you ask of him. If you've got issue with his terminology, fine. Don't act like he's trying to be covert about exactly the style he did it in.
Did he onsight it? I don't know. Did he show he's got more class than the rest of us again? Yep.
FWIW, the man has shits that are braver than anyone here, including me. I'd be honored to brown-nose him.
|
|
|
|
|
snoopy138
Mar 13, 2010, 3:19 PM
Post #116 of 168
(3947 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2004
Posts: 28992
|
caughtinside wrote: 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!
whoo! that's me!
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Mar 14, 2010, 1:01 AM
Post #117 of 168
(3913 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
dingus wrote: No sorry I am not going to allow sport climbers to downgrade YET ANOTHER climbing term. The master Scottish climber does NOT get credit for the on sight. Sorry, on sight is on sight, not on sight, plux x days. that's fucking STUPID. DMT
Wait, why did sport climbers get the blame? I thought it was the old-school trad climbers' definition that was brought up as the reason for why this is a legitimate onsight.
I think we went through all the points at least 3 times already...
... and if it weren't for this shitty rainy weather, this thread would be dead already!
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Mar 14, 2010, 1:04 AM
Post #118 of 168
(3912 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
lena_chita wrote: dingus wrote: No sorry I am not going to allow sport climbers to downgrade YET ANOTHER climbing term. The master Scottish climber does NOT get credit for the on sight. Sorry, on sight is on sight, not on sight, plux x days. that's fucking STUPID. DMT Wait, why did sport climbers get the blame? I thought it was the old-school trad climbers' definition that was brought up as the reason for why this is a legitimate onsight. I think we went through all the points at least 3 times already... ... and if it weren't for this shitty rainy weather, this thread would be dead already!
Don't forget that he's basically calling the best trad climber in the world a sport climber.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 14, 2010, 1:11 AM
Post #119 of 168
(3908 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
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.
This would be my opinion, too. If (as in this case) you are climbing most of the route for the second time--no way that you can call it "onsight." You have certainly learned something about the route from your first time up--and both the moves and gear placements will be at least somewhat easier.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Mar 14, 2010, 1:25 AM
Post #120 of 168
(3900 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
angry wrote: lena_chita wrote: dingus wrote: No sorry I am not going to allow sport climbers to downgrade YET ANOTHER climbing term. The master Scottish climber does NOT get credit for the on sight. Sorry, on sight is on sight, not on sight, plux x days. that's fucking STUPID. DMT Wait, why did sport climbers get the blame? I thought it was the old-school trad climbers' definition that was brought up as the reason for why this is a legitimate onsight. I think we went through all the points at least 3 times already... ... and if it weren't for this shitty rainy weather, this thread would be dead already! Don't forget that he's basically calling the best trad climber in the world a sport climber.
Well, I feel if someone has really pushed the limits of trad climbing, they deserve the honorary upgrade to 'sport climber'. Maybe someday, with enough effort, he'll reach boulderer class and onsights won't count for shit anymore anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Mar 14, 2010, 2:09 AM
Post #121 of 168
(3899 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
angry wrote: lena_chita wrote: dingus wrote: No sorry I am not going to allow sport climbers to downgrade YET ANOTHER climbing term. The master Scottish climber does NOT get credit for the on sight. Sorry, on sight is on sight, not on sight, plux x days. that's fucking STUPID. DMT Wait, why did sport climbers get the blame? I thought it was the old-school trad climbers' definition that was brought up as the reason for why this is a legitimate onsight. I think we went through all the points at least 3 times already... ... and if it weren't for this shitty rainy weather, this thread would be dead already! Don't forget that he's basically calling the best trad climber in the world a sport climber.
I dunno angry... is he really the best trad climber in the world? He's basically climbing a sport-like route and placing gear to protect it. Put him on one of your overhanging flared off-widths... you reckon he could onsight that stuff too?
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Mar 14, 2010, 2:04 PM
Post #123 of 168
(3863 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
angry wrote: lena_chita wrote: dingus wrote: No sorry I am not going to allow sport climbers to downgrade YET ANOTHER climbing term. The master Scottish climber does NOT get credit for the on sight. Sorry, on sight is on sight, not on sight, plux x days. that's fucking STUPID. DMT Wait, why did sport climbers get the blame? I thought it was the old-school trad climbers' definition that was brought up as the reason for why this is a legitimate onsight. I think we went through all the points at least 3 times already... ... and if it weren't for this shitty rainy weather, this thread would be dead already! Don't forget that he's basically calling the best trad climber in the world a sport climber.
Oooooo.
Do I get a demerit?
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Mar 14, 2010, 2:09 PM
Post #124 of 168
(3860 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
angry wrote: I've downclimbed to ledges, to the ground, and to rests and still claimed the onsight.
Cool.
In reply to: It's not a huge stretch to wait a day and call it the same.
I see now where you are going wrong. Let me break it down. You walk up to a cliff you have never seen before. You go up to that cliff, you climb it without preview, you climbed it 'on sight.'
Climb up part way, climb down, I can dig all that.
But when you climb all the way down to the ground, pack up your shit and leave? Go home to a nice warm bed and dreams of flying horses?
Then the cliff is no longer in sight.
So this leader tried, but failed to climb the cliff during his first sighting. He did not get the on sight.
Its very simple really.
DMT
(This post was edited by dingus on Mar 14, 2010, 2:10 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Mar 14, 2010, 2:11 PM
Post #125 of 168
(3857 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
dingus wrote: angry wrote: lena_chita wrote: dingus wrote: No sorry I am not going to allow sport climbers to downgrade YET ANOTHER climbing term. The master Scottish climber does NOT get credit for the on sight. Sorry, on sight is on sight, not on sight, plux x days. that's fucking STUPID. DMT Wait, why did sport climbers get the blame? I thought it was the old-school trad climbers' definition that was brought up as the reason for why this is a legitimate onsight. I think we went through all the points at least 3 times already... ... and if it weren't for this shitty rainy weather, this thread would be dead already! Don't forget that he's basically calling the best trad climber in the world a sport climber. Oooooo. Do I get a demerit? DMT
True story,
Kids here still get demerits. No pink slips, referrals, frowny faces, or whatever American school kids get. The public schools still give the kids spankings too. Even better, they're called licks or a cut ass. It's like living in a time machine (except for scooters with neon running lights).
And there's no Walmart for 700 miles.
Do you want a demerit? For the right price I'm sure we could find a teacher who loves to punish naughty students.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
