|
epoch
Moderator
Oct 26, 2006, 12:44 AM
Post #26 of 50
(4679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2005
Posts: 32163
|
In reply to: In absolute fairness, I TR'd it :roll: The only TR the whole weekend. :( So, it's not a TRUE redpoint, no. I have no idea why I'm hooked on the redpoint thing... I guess I get it from Jeff, wherever he is on this forum. Hey Jeff, you out there?! It's all your fault, and I'm gonna come down there to Southern Illinois and climb soon and... um... I'll get you and your little cat, too! Or something. ok, rant off, I promise. Jeff's cool. Don't mind me. Move along, move along...
Holy crap, This thread is useless.
|
|
|
|
|
daithi
Oct 26, 2006, 10:49 AM
Post #27 of 50
(4679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2005
Posts: 397
|
In reply to: In reply to: There is nothing as sacrosanct as terminology in any sport! Huh? Why? Terminology doesn't really matter at all, if you ask me.
I was being facetious! However, there must be some element of truth to it though. Look at the furore on this site whenever discussions on flash or onsight are had or more recently redpoint or top rope accents. It clearly does matter a great deal to some. It only matters to me for clarity of communication. Other than that I don't care what one chooses to call their accents. I think climbing is somewhat unique, especially compared to more "established" sports, in the fact that established (presumably) terminology can give rise to so much debate. Can you imagine two golfers arguing over what constitutes a birdie? Perhaps it is a reflection on the nature of the sport or even on those who are attracted to it in the first place.
In reply to: In absolute fairness, I TR'd it
I now call this a fracture-point in your honour.
|
|
|
|
|
daithi
Oct 26, 2006, 10:49 AM
Post #28 of 50
(4679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2005
Posts: 397
|
In reply to: In reply to: There is nothing as sacrosanct as terminology in any sport! Huh? Why? Terminology doesn't really matter at all, if you ask me.
I was being facetious! However, there must be some element of truth to it though. Look at the furore on this site whenever discussions on flash or onsight are had or more recently redpoint or top rope accents. It clearly does matter a great deal to some. It only matters to me for clarity of communication. Other than that I don't care what one chooses to call their accents. I think climbing is somewhat unique, especially compared to more "established" sports, in the fact that established (presumably) terminology can give rise to so much debate. Can you imagine two golfers arguing over what constitutes a birdie? Perhaps it is a reflection on the nature of the sport or even on those who are attracted to it in the first place.
In reply to: In absolute fairness, I TR'd it
I now call this a fracture-point in your honour.
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Oct 26, 2006, 12:26 PM
Post #29 of 50
(4679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
In reply to: I now call this a fracture-point in your honour.
No, no,no...that's definitely a whitepoint. (as in 'little white lie'point) :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Oct 26, 2006, 5:24 PM
Post #30 of 50
(4679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: There is nothing as sacrosanct as terminology in any sport! Huh? Why? Terminology doesn't really matter at all, if you ask me. I was being facetious! However, there must be some element of truth to it though. Look at the furore on this site whenever discussions on flash or onsight are had or more recently redpoint or top rope accents.
Or, perhaps more pointedly, on the issue of pre-hung draws.
In reply to: Can you imagine two golfers arguing over what constitutes a birdie? Perhaps it is a reflection on the nature of the sport or even on those who are attracted to it in the first place.
Can you imagine if you couldn't claim a birdie on a hole if you used a golf cart instead of walking?
Golfers don't argue about terminology like this because, unlike sport climbers, they've got their story straight about what matters in their sport, and the terms already reflect that.
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Oct 26, 2006, 5:39 PM
Post #31 of 50
(4679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: In reply to: I now call this a fracture-point in your honour. No, no,no...that's definitely a whitepoint. (as in 'little white lie'point) :lol:
Grade: 5.12a (7b-)
Level: Top Rope
Witnessed by: wonderwoman
Comments: This was probably the toughest 12a I have done. Very sustained at the top with a bouldery crux. I was going to lead it, but it was a little wet up top. Maybe next time.
I shouldn't really be surprised. Invariably I find that the most vocal proponents of the dogma that leading is better style than toproping in sport climbing are the kind of people who toprope-rehearse sport leads, climb timid and fearful on lead, or generally climb on toprope. If you ever get over that fear-of-falling stuff (which, as I said earlier, is absolutely essential if you ever want to climb at more than a pre-beginner level), you might understand what I'm talking about: leading is not better style, it's better tactics, because it's usually easier.
|
|
|
|
|
fluxus
Oct 26, 2006, 10:03 PM
Post #32 of 50
(4679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
In reply to: Invariably I find that the most vocal proponents of the dogma that leading is better style than toproping in sport climbing are the kind of people who toprope-rehearse sport leads, climb timid and fearful on lead, or generally climb on toprope.
Not so! Some of us only top rope when doing anerobic endurance training on routes or lapping down at the end of the day. The rest of the time we enjoy leading very much thank you. Even if every now and then our cages get a good shaking.
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Oct 26, 2006, 10:15 PM
Post #33 of 50
(4679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: In reply to: Invariably I find that the most vocal proponents of the dogma that leading is better style than toproping in sport climbing are the kind of people who toprope-rehearse sport leads, climb timid and fearful on lead, or generally climb on toprope. Not so!
I suppose instead of "invariably", I should have said "often". ;)
|
|
|
|
|
mikej
Oct 26, 2006, 11:42 PM
Post #34 of 50
(4679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 7, 2006
Posts: 210
|
i'm sorry, i think you are gettin sidetracked. I belive the topic was about throwing poo.
|
|
|
|
|
fixednut
Oct 27, 2006, 2:09 AM
Post #35 of 50
(4679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2004
Posts: 509
|
If I fall unroped from halfway up an unfamiliar climb on my first attempt and grab an especially springy tree limb 25 feet below the point from which I fell, do a front flip, and launch myself back on to the route at a point ten feet below where I fell from, and then proceed to send the route, does it still count as an on-sight free-solo?
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Oct 28, 2006, 12:48 AM
Post #36 of 50
(4679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: I now call this a fracture-point in your honour. No, no,no...that's definitely a whitepoint. (as in 'little white lie'point) :lol:
Level: Top Rope
Witnessed by: wonderwoman
Comments: This was probably the toughest 12a I have done. Very sustained at the top with a bouldery crux. I was going to lead it, but it was a little wet up top. Maybe next time. I shouldn't really be surprised. Invariably I find that the most vocal proponents of the dogma that leading is better style than toproping in sport climbing are the kind of people who toprope-rehearse sport leads, climb timid and fearful on lead, or generally climb on toprope. If you ever get over that fear-of-falling stuff (which, as I said earlier, is absolutely essential if you ever want to climb at more than a pre-beginner level), you might understand what I'm talking about: leading is not better style, it's better tactics, because it's usually easier.
I find it quite comical that you decided to pull out one of the few topropes in my profile. WHy don't you go back and quote all of them and you will see that almost all of them are leads. In that quote I noted it as what it was, a toprope ascent. I would have quoted one of your ascents, but wait, you don't have any :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Oct 28, 2006, 1:25 AM
Post #37 of 50
(4679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: In reply to: Grade: 5.12a (7b-)
Level: Top Rope
Witnessed by: wonderwoman
Comments: This was probably the toughest 12a I have done. Very sustained at the top with a bouldery crux. I was going to lead it, but it was a little wet up top. Maybe next time. I shouldn't really be surprised. Invariably I find that the most vocal proponents of the dogma that leading is better style than toproping in sport climbing are the kind of people who toprope-rehearse sport leads, climb timid and fearful on lead, or generally climb on toprope. If you ever get over that fear-of-falling stuff (which, as I said earlier, is absolutely essential if you ever want to climb at more than a pre-beginner level), you might understand what I'm talking about: leading is not better style, it's better tactics, because it's usually easier. I find it quite comical that you decided to pull out one of the few topropes in my profile.
Well, there were no leads in the ones I clicked on. But that's not the point anyway. The illustrative text there is that you toproped it because ... it was wet? And you're going to come back and use headpoint tactics on a sport route? Huh?
Don't get me wrong---I'm not trying to discourage you or anyone else from leading (quite the contrary). The point is, though, if you are still afraid of falling and/or climb noncommitally or statically on lead, you very likely over-estimate the relative difficulty of leading. This is not only probably part of why you dislike the idea of extending "redpoint" to toproping (I'm assuming you are nonetheless on board with the extension of the term to pinkpointing), but it is also going to prevent you from sport climbing anywhere near your actual potential.
My advice to all beginning sport climbers is to stop toproping as soon as possible. Desensitizing yourself to fear of normal lead falls is something you have to do before you can really even start sport climbing. It's kinda like how you have to spend hours on the driving range just learning how to connect with the ball before you can really play a serious game on a golf course.
In reply to: In that quote I noted it as what it was, a toprope ascent.
That wasn't the point---but it is quite interesting to note that your language indicates that you apparently consider a toprope ascent to be "doing" a route.
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Oct 28, 2006, 10:13 PM
Post #38 of 50
(4679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
In reply to: Well, there were no leads in the ones I clicked on. But that's not the point anyway. The illustrative text there is that you toproped it because ... it was wet? And you're going to come back and use headpoint tactics on a sport route? Huh? Don't get me wrong---I'm not trying to discourage you or anyone else from leading (quite the contrary). The point is, though, if you are still afraid of falling and/or climb noncommitally or statically on lead, you very likely over-estimate the relative difficulty of leading. This is not only probably part of why you dislike the idea of extending "redpoint" to toproping (I'm assuming you are nonetheless on board with the extension of the term to pinkpointing), but it is also going to prevent you from sport climbing anywhere near your actual potential. My advice to all beginning sport climbers is to stop toproping as soon as possible. Desensitizing yourself to fear of normal lead falls is something you have to do before you can really even start sport climbing. It's kinda like how you have to spend hours on the driving range just learning how to connect with the ball before you can really play a serious game on a golf course. In reply to: In that quote I noted it as what it was, a toprope ascent. That wasn't the point---but it is quite interesting to note that your language indicates that you apparently consider a toprope ascent to be "doing" a route.
I find it interesting that you seem to know all about me by one little blurb in my profile. I am not even going to respond to the fact that you think I am a timid toproper. Or that i am a sport climber. Come up to the northeast and put your money where your mouth is. Heck, you may even enjoy climbing with me. I was responding to the fact that calling an ascent a redpoint is implying that you led it. In all circles that I climb in, that is true. Me personally, I do not put a lot of emphasis on terms, I was merely answering a question.
For the record, I do not toprope very often, it was merely conveniently set up by someone I was with so I toproped it. You are pretty pathetic if you look down on people for their style of ascents. If you truly looked at my ascents like you said you did, then you would not find to many trs.
While we are judging people by their profiles, what do you know, your just a boulderer :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
daithi
Oct 28, 2006, 10:23 PM
Post #39 of 50
(4679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2005
Posts: 397
|
In reply to: You are pretty pathetic if you look down on people for their style of ascents. If you truly looked at my ascents like you said you did, then you would not find to many trs.
You have spectacularly missed the point he was trying to make!
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Oct 28, 2006, 10:34 PM
Post #40 of 50
(4679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
In reply to: In reply to: You are pretty pathetic if you look down on people for their style of ascents. If you truly looked at my ascents like you said you did, then you would not find to many trs. You have spectacularly missed the point he was trying to make!
No, i don't think I did, whether I articulated it or not. It really doesn't matter anyway. I just took offense at the way he was generalizing about me by something that I wrote down in a few seconds. I know exactly what he was saying, and the offer to climb is there.
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Oct 28, 2006, 10:45 PM
Post #41 of 50
(4679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: You are pretty pathetic if you look down on people for their style of ascents. If you truly looked at my ascents like you said you did, then you would not find to many trs. You have spectacularly missed the point he was trying to make! No, i don't think I did, whether I articulated it or not. It really doesn't matter anyway. I just took offense [..]
If you took offense, you did miss the point (although it may be partially my fault for making it personal).
Anyway: believe me, from my perspective, that TR ascent is every bit as valid as any other style of ascent. It may or may not have been optimal tactics (I don't know the route)---but if you're sport climbing, a TR is a legit send. Anyone who tells you otherwise is just a sport clipper.
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Oct 28, 2006, 10:55 PM
Post #42 of 50
(4679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: You are pretty pathetic if you look down on people for their style of ascents. If you truly looked at my ascents like you said you did, then you would not find to many trs. You have spectacularly missed the point he was trying to make! No, i don't think I did, whether I articulated it or not. It really doesn't matter anyway. I just took offense [..] If you took offense, you did miss the point (although it may be partially my fault for making it personal). Anyway: believe me, from my perspective, that TR ascent is every bit as valid as any other style of ascent. It may or may not have been optimal tactics (I don't know the route)---but if you're sport climbing, a TR is a legit send. Anyone who tells you otherwise is just a sport clipper.
Apology accepted! I may have taken offense at the fact you were calling me a sport climber :lol: (a timid one for that matter). Wet route or not, I would have led it anyways, if it was not already set up. As for TR being a legit send, Absolutley, but it is a toprope ascent. IF you want to extend the term redpoint to toprope, then go ahead. BUT, I think there should be some common language that holds it all together.
It's funny how the internet brings out the fight in us dogs. I am having a halloween party tonight and if you were in this neck of the woods, you could come over and we would settle this the old fashioned way. A drink-off? or perhaps a push-up contest?
Anyways, HAPPY HALLOWEEN!!! :twisted:
JOSH
|
|
|
|
|
jaybro
Oct 29, 2006, 1:40 AM
Post #43 of 50
(4679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2005
Posts: 441
|
If you weight the rope(leading) on the ascent or are on top rope, it is NOT an anything-point. However, if you climb from bottom to top without help from the rope, no matter how many times you have attempted it, and regardless of whether you are leading or toproping, you are freeing it.
|
|
|
|
|
lhwang
Oct 29, 2006, 4:28 AM
Post #44 of 50
(4679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 4, 2005
Posts: 582
|
You know what bothers me about these terminology discussions? Who cares if it's a pinkpoint, redpoint, flash, send, onsight or whatever... unless you're a sponsored climber, I think it's only of importance to you if you're wanting to spray.
Climb in a style that meets your personal standards. If you're proud of it at the end of the day, good for you.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 30, 2006, 5:15 AM
Post #45 of 50
(4679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: You know what bothers me about these terminology discussions? Who cares if it's a pinkpoint, redpoint, flash, send, onsight or whatever... unless you're a sponsored climber, I think it's only of importance to you if you're wanting to spray.
Bullshit. Onsighting is an order of magnitude harder than redpointing. You can't even remotely consider them equivalent.
In reply to: Climb in a style that meets your personal standards. If you're proud of it at the end of the day, good for you.
Most of us consider both rp's and onsights to meet our "personal standards," but they are clearly different levels of accomplishment.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Oct 30, 2006, 6:43 AM
Post #46 of 50
(4679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: You know what bothers me about these terminology discussions? Who cares if it's a pinkpoint, redpoint, flash, send, onsight or whatever... unless you're a sponsored climber, I think it's only of importance to you if you're wanting to spray. Bullshit. Onsighting is an order of magnitude harder than redpointing. You can't even remotely consider them equivalent...
Still, those are both sportard terms that matter little to real climbers.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
bill413
Oct 30, 2006, 12:58 PM
Post #47 of 50
(4679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674
|
In reply to: You know what bothers me about these terminology discussions? Who cares if it's a pinkpoint, redpoint, flash, send, onsight or whatever... unless you're a sponsored climber, I think it's only of importance to you if you're wanting to spray.
only?????
|
|
|
|
|
chossmonkey
Oct 30, 2006, 1:13 PM
Post #48 of 50
(4679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: You know what bothers me about these terminology discussions? Who cares if it's a pinkpoint, redpoint, flash, send, onsight or whatever... unless you're a sponsored climber, I think it's only of importance to you if you're wanting to spray. s---. Onsighting is an order of magnitude harder than redpointing. You can't even remotely consider them equivalent... Still, those are both sportard terms that matter little to real climbers. Curt
Curt still Yo-Yos everything. :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
mowz
Oct 30, 2006, 3:17 PM
Post #49 of 50
(4679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 1495
|
I gave you, the OP, a poo for the last post you made on the first page; you left out key information when you started the thread. I gave you a poo.
I GAVE YOU A POO!!!!!!!
Now you know who GAVE YOU A POO!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Oct 30, 2006, 4:29 PM
Post #50 of 50
(4679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: In reply to: You know what bothers me about these terminology discussions? Who cares if it's a pinkpoint, redpoint, flash, send, onsight or whatever... unless you're a sponsored climber, I think it's only of importance to you if you're wanting to spray. s---. Onsighting is an order of magnitude harder than redpointing. You can't even remotely consider them equivalent.
Right.
Unless of course you onsight something on toprope, in which case it's often considered something ranging from cheating and invalid to just worse style than even a heavily-rehearsed pinkpoint. (Despite the fact that it's still an onsight in any way that matters.)
I probably won't agree with Curt much in these discussions, but he's got it right here. Sportard terminology isn't really that important, and if you ask me it doesn't really make sense. It's still evolving rapidly, though---maybe some day it'll be less of a mess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
