....
So the crux lies in recognizing the choices available. From the perspective of a hard route and my first time or two on it, I'm dogging up a route to wire it into submission, and there's usually no benefit to taking the plunge.

From Another Thread (tm):
[A few possible views:

[*:734d2770ae]You need to link as much as possible (climb till you fall), but then you can cheat as necessary to get to your high point (or past it if you want to spend energy working a later section). But each time you start climbing, you don't stop till you fall or reach the anchors.

[*:734d2770ae]You should never grab gear or take, because it gives you that option in the back of your mind, and taking the plunge will reinforce your comfort with the risk. Additionally, one may decide they're going to "work" the route after the first fall, when if one had just kept climbing one would have one-fell it, potentially reducing the number of tries needed to redpoint.

[*:734d2770ae]You can grab gear as much as you want, as long as you are honest with yourself about what you are doing, and make your best estimation of chances for linking more of the route.

I am torn between the first and second options. I think in general I do not do well estimating what I can do (my best redpoint occured when I did a last run on my project "just to clean it"), and if I don't climb till I fall, I probably won't send as often or as quickly.

From Another Thread (tm):


First comment is that the first time on the route is one of the most important times to force yourself to take the plunge, because otherwise no flash/onsight is possible. :)

If you haven't fallen yet on this particular run on the route, there's no excuse for grabbing a draw or taking. Once you've fallen, however, it becomes a bit more debatable.

As UB said, I think we're talking about projects -- routes that are way above our best onsights. On my current project, for instance, it took me three days to figure out what I wanted to do at the crux, which is not to say that once I figured out what I wanted to do, that I could do it. Onsighting was not even a remote possibility.

I think we should avoid using judgmental language. Grabbing draws vs. falling is not an "ethical" issue. It's not "cheating" to grab a draw or pull up on the rope to your high point after a fall, and let's talk about reasons for grabbing draws, not "excuses."

I'm also wondering what the solution is for me. I think I'm going to have to practice some of the falls on the 12d. Yipes, those are going to be some whippers. I'm going to have to work up to them. I've never taken a 40-footer intentionally! Come to think of it, I've never taken a 40-foot fall at all.

I should clarify. I'm talking about a hard project: routes that are about 5 letter grades above my onsight. Onsighting is not an option. That's reality. Linking as high as possible isn't furthering my goal, because getting wildly pumped trying to link 5 bolts means I've wasted energy that could be used figuring out hard moves, plus I might onsight moves using less efficient techniques if I get too pumped. And that kind of overload pump is difficult to recover from.

Taking IS an option. Its neither given nor taken away. I choose to do it, or not. My comfort level with risk of falling is not at issue here. If it is then other excersices to overcome it are in order. I don't really know what your second sentence means. Clarify, please.

See, one of my tactics may be to minimize the "overload" pump that is detrimental to efficient dogging. Another tactic is that sometimes grabbing the draw is too much of a pain in the ass to bother with, its easier to take a short fall.

Mainly I use this tactic for hard projects is to get the draws on the route efficiently. Hanging on to clip the draw, then clip the rope may help create that overload pump. If you're on a ten bolt route with 50 hand moves, you add 20% more moves by clipping the rope. If it's from bad holds, hello pump. Grab the draw, pop the rope in, often its very efficient. For future burns the draw is there so you aren't on the bad holds so long.

Goals and values determine your strategy. "Situational" ethics insinuates that one changes ethics for a particular situation. Ethics are determined by values. If your values are consistant, so will be your ethics, and what seems like an inconsistancy will often be resolved by deeper investigation.

I disagree---I think getting wildly pumped trying to link up to 5 bolts on the first try is useful, because it lets you know that those 5 bolts were "easy" enough for you to get there on attempt #1.

Why are you worried about wasting energy?

If the route truly is that hard for you, you aren't going to send it today.

Are you trying to minimize the number of days working the route?

I would argue that linking as much as possible on the first run could help to that end, by making it clear where to focus your time working (anything you linked on the first try doesn't really need any more practice

The second sentence makes the point that if you keep going you might link a significant portion of the route. If you 1-fall a route on your first try, you know you're going to send it damn soon. If you do every move on the route except one, you know it's just a matter of learning that boulder problem. And so on.

I think a better way to avoid the "overload" pump is to warm up properly, and then after a run holding your arms up in the air can help.

Sure, you can expect it to be very hard, and it probably will be. But why yell `take' instead of continuing to climb till you fall (even if the fall is off the starting holds :))?

You only get one first try...

...and if the route really is going to be that hard for you, you don't need to save energy for a send on that particular day.

Maybe you'll be able to link everything to the crux, and then after dogging the crux, link everything after it---that's not an onsight, but it can give you confidence for future attempts.

For me, at least, things are invariably easier than I expect.

My view is to wait to decide that it's a project until you fall at least once.

Are the 40-footers because you want to skip draws for energy? Or is the route bolted that way?

I don't think that "situational ethics" insinuates anything negative.

You're not listening. We are talking about routes that we cannot onsight. My current project is two letter grades above my hardest redpoint. The route has seen only one on-sight that I know of, by Chris Lindner, who is essentially a professional climber. I ain't no Chris Lindner (dammit!).

No, but I need to save energy to work the crux, so I'll hangdog to get up to the crux. If I were to climb till I fell, I would be too tired by the time I got to the crux to work the moves out. In case you haven't realized it yet, it is more efficient to work out higher sections of a route before working out lower sections.

I don't plan to skip any bolts. The route is sparingly bolted, with a sadistic runout to the anchors.

Grabbing draws is never an ethical issue. Ethical issues are issues of right and wrong, or good and bad, by definition. Saying that grabbing draws is "situationally ethical" means that in some situations it is right and in some situations it is wrong. This is judgmental thinking, which we should avoid. There is no good or bad, or right and wrong, involved in grabbing draws. There is only the question of learning.

-Jay

I'm not talking about onsighting it. Both you and unib are harping on this in the last two posts, so I'm guessing I was unclear.

What I'm suggesting definitely includes getting all the beta you can, watching some people cruise it, etc. Then getting on it and climbing till you fall for your first go (which if you have the beta shouldn't be till you get to a hard move (whether it's the crux or not)). It's a flash attempt, though you are probably unlikely to succeed.

I understand your argument: you know it's going to be a project anyway, so your time spent projecting will be lessened if you start out with working.

But I dispute that it's necessarily more efficient, because of the mental aspect---when you do a section on the first try without problems, you know you're never going to fall there, unless as a result of pump (and for the first section off the ground, that doesn't exist). Whether it is more efficient probably depends on how long you will be projecting the route (for the ratio of how much energy is "wasted" on that first run compared to total energy spent) and on how much you feel you benefit from that in your mental game.

It is possibly more efficient to give it a good flash attempt, and then start working it from the top down.

Sounds like the route is quite mentally challenging :D.

And in response to Unibonger's story: when you send on the second try, I'd have to suggest may have had a better chance at a flash than you think.

(that's of course assuming that your first "try" didn't include 20+ attempts at the crux move, and such ). The description of the route is an excellent one where I would want to try to get to the first boulder problem without hanging on the rope.

Nope; not on a route this far above my onsight ability and of such consistantly hard climbing. This gets to the crux of the point I'm trying to make: The very efficient tactics I used on this route were the REASON I was able to do it on my "second" try. If I had tried onsighting up to the crux at the 6th clip, I might have made it, with a heroic struggle, but I wouldn't have known about any number of efficient movements and stances that I discovered by working the route as I did.

Well, not 20+, probably about 4 or 5--I think I hit the move on my 2nd or 3rd attempt and then wired it in by linking from below another couple of times. Remember getting to the crux problem was protected by strenouos clips and 12- climbing, which is manageble for me, but making even one small mistake on such climbing means the clock starts ticking very quickly.

All this has gotten away from the initial question somewhat. As it should: because the decision of whether to grab a draw in a given situation has to considered in a context of your own values. Any tactical decision should be tested for its "ego factor" (pg 20). Are you handicapping progress by following an ego based rule that can inhibit growth or power?