|
|
|
|
angry
Mar 14, 2010, 2:20 PM
Post #126 of 168
(2527 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
dingus wrote: 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
It makes sense to me.
Question for you. Back when I was first breaking into 5.11, I got on an 11b in Vedauwoo. I got about 4 feet up, my worn out shoes flubbed the edges, and I fell off. I hadn't got any pro in and I made a nice landing. I changed shoes to a less worn out pair and proceeded to climb the entire route with no taints.
So I never weighted the rope, climbed it the same day, and had not seen the route prior to that day. Did I onsight it? The part I fell off was not the crux, would it matter if it was?
Similar situation to ponder. You're on a route, you hike it to a ledge, 60 feet up. The top is another 50 feet further. You shake out on the ledge, start up, and immediately fall off the moves right back onto the ledge. You never weight the rope and you didn't roll off the ledge. You brush your ego off and fire the rest of the route. You fell but never weighted the rope. Did you onsight it? Did you even send?
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Mar 14, 2010, 3:11 PM
Post #127 of 168
(2518 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
angry wrote: Similar situation to ponder. You're on a route, you hike it to a ledge, 60 feet up. The top is another 50 feet further. You shake out on the ledge, start up, and immediately fall off the moves right back onto the ledge. You never weight the rope and you didn't roll off the ledge. You brush your ego off and fire the rest of the route. You fell but never weighted the rope. Did you onsight it? Did you even send?
I did this exact thing a few years ago, and I consider it to be an onsight. My reasoning is that the ledge is part of the route.
As for McLeod, what he did might actually be more impressive that an onsight, but regardless, it wasn't an onsight. (Maybe we need a new term?  )
Now ask me if I care what he calls it. 
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Mar 14, 2010, 3:19 PM
Post #128 of 168
(2514 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
dingus wrote: 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
I propose a definition of an "attempt": an attempt on a single-pitch route ends when the climber unties from the rope.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Mar 14, 2010, 3:27 PM
Post #129 of 168
(2511 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
lena_chita wrote: dingus wrote: 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 I propose a definition of an "attempt": an attempt on a single-pitch route ends when the climber unties from the rope.
I think that, sometimes, things will remain undefined except in our own minds, and that this is okay. 
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Mar 14, 2010, 3:38 PM
Post #130 of 168
(2504 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
j_ung wrote: lena_chita wrote: dingus wrote: 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 I propose a definition of an "attempt": an attempt on a single-pitch route ends when the climber unties from the rope. I think that, sometimes, things will remain undefined except in our own minds, and that this is okay.
In case it wasn't clear, I was trying to make a joke. 
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Mar 14, 2010, 3:51 PM
Post #131 of 168
(2496 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
lena_chita wrote: j_ung wrote: lena_chita wrote: dingus wrote: 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 I propose a definition of an "attempt": an attempt on a single-pitch route ends when the climber unties from the rope. I think that, sometimes, things will remain undefined except in our own minds, and that this is okay. In case it wasn't clear, I was trying to make a joke.
Ah, my bad. Damned words.
|
|
|
|
|
JAB
Mar 14, 2010, 5:33 PM
Post #132 of 168
(2474 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 26, 2007
Posts: 373
|
Dave MacLeod has actually defined the onsight rules he is using in his e-book "How to climb hard trad". This is his take on downclimbing:
DaveMacLeod wrote: * Downclimbing is allowed, even to the ground. The onsight isn't lost until you weight the rope. So you can place strenous gear and work out moves before downclimbing to rests or as far as the ground if you can to recover. This tactic is crucial at your physical limit.
So going by his book, it is clearly an onsight.
(This post was edited by JAB on Mar 14, 2010, 5:34 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
yanqui
Mar 14, 2010, 6:19 PM
Post #133 of 168
(2464 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 24, 2004
Posts: 1559
|
j_ung wrote: lena_chita wrote: j_ung wrote: lena_chita wrote: dingus wrote: 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 I propose a definition of an "attempt": an attempt on a single-pitch route ends when the climber unties from the rope. I think that, sometimes, things will remain undefined except in our own minds, and that this is okay. In case it wasn't clear, I was trying to make a joke. Ah, my bad. Damned words.
There's this hilarious monologue in the video "Onsight" where Jerry Moffat tells about when he first heard the French using the term "onsighting". Moffat says he got in a massive argument by insisting to the French "I WILL onsight your routes". And the French come back with "No, you cannot onsight these routes". Moffat comes right back with "Yes I can." And the French reply in turn: "Impossible. You cannot on sight these routes" Then Jerry comes back with: "I CAN onsight your routes. I WILL go there and onsight all of your routes". And so on.
Then Moffat laughs in the monologue and says it was only years latter that he realized they were talking about two completely different things.
(This post was edited by yanqui on Mar 14, 2010, 6:21 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Mar 14, 2010, 8:17 PM
Post #134 of 168
(2440 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
6 pages on this topic? Damn, I guess...
|
|
|
|
|
davidnn5
Mar 14, 2010, 8:20 PM
Post #135 of 168
(2438 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 8, 2009
Posts: 348
|
People can argue all they like about onsight, but the literal definition of send (contraction of "ascend") is to get to the top.
If you got to the top, you (a)s(c)end(ed) it. You may have been lifted by a forklift, but by gum if you got to the top having previously been at the bottom, you "sent" it.
Whether or not you'd tell people you did is another thing. The argument on another thread in the beginner's forum that hangdogging does not constitute an ascent is bunk. It's not a lovely style, but it's an ascent.
|
|
|
|
|
mojomonkey
Mar 14, 2010, 10:53 PM
Post #136 of 168
(2420 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Posts: 869
|
davidnn5 wrote: People can argue all they like about onsight, but the literal definition of send (contraction of "ascend") is to get to the top. If you got to the top, you (a)s(c)end(ed) it. You may have been lifted by a forklift, but by gum if you got to the top having previously been at the bottom, you "sent" it. Whether or not you'd tell people you did is another thing. The argument on another thread in the beginner's forum that hangdogging does not constitute an ascent is bunk. It's not a lovely style, but it's an ascent.
Thanks for clearing up an argument nobody here was having?
|
|
|
|
|
davidnn5
Mar 15, 2010, 12:30 AM
Post #137 of 168
(2393 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 8, 2009
Posts: 348
|
mojomonkey wrote: davidnn5 wrote: People can argue all they like about onsight, but the literal definition of send (contraction of "ascend") is to get to the top. If you got to the top, you (a)s(c)end(ed) it. You may have been lifted by a forklift, but by gum if you got to the top having previously been at the bottom, you "sent" it. Whether or not you'd tell people you did is another thing. The argument on another thread in the beginner's forum that hangdogging does not constitute an ascent is bunk. It's not a lovely style, but it's an ascent. Thanks for clearing up an argument nobody here was having?
angry wrote: Similar situation to ponder. You're on a route, you hike it to a ledge, 60 feet up. The top is another 50 feet further. You shake out on the ledge, start up, and immediately fall off the moves right back onto the ledge. You never weight the rope and you didn't roll off the ledge. You brush your ego off and fire the rest of the route. You fell but never weighted the rope. Did you onsight it? Did you even send?
Do you not bother to read things, or simply not comprehend? I've quoted this so you don't have to trouble yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
davidnn5
Mar 15, 2010, 12:31 AM
Post #138 of 168
(2391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 8, 2009
Posts: 348
|
You want to claim the haircut made you better looking?
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Mar 15, 2010, 3:43 AM
Post #139 of 168
(2357 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
mojomonkey wrote: davidnn5 wrote: People can argue all they like about onsight, but the literal definition of send (contraction of "ascend") is to get to the top. If you got to the top, you (a)s(c)end(ed) it. You may have been lifted by a forklift, but by gum if you got to the top having previously been at the bottom, you "sent" it. Whether or not you'd tell people you did is another thing. The argument on another thread in the beginner's forum that hangdogging does not constitute an ascent is bunk. It's not a lovely style, but it's an ascent. Thanks for clearing up an argument nobody here was having?
Once again, you make no sense. Are you new to English or new to climbing? Just curious. Knowing this would help me understand your statements more.
I have to say, in climbing, style is an important part of the ascent. Aiding a crack is different from free climbing it.
Soloing is different from leading.
Onsighting is different from red-pointing
In this case, we're looking at a climbing word and working on a definition. in the case of this climber, he gave his definition of on-sight in a book he is writing, so we have a good idea what on-sight means to him.
Unfortunately, or perhaps not, as climbers, we have different views of what constitutes a "legit" on-sight.
By my definition of on-sight, he definitely did. Again, I am impressed that he was honest and said, I came back down and returned the next day. I am still more impressed by his ability to down climb something that took him 2.5 hours to lead.
(This post was edited by guangzhou on Mar 15, 2010, 5:51 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 15, 2010, 5:43 AM
Post #140 of 168
(2342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
davidnn5 wrote: ...the literal definition of send (contraction of "ascend") is to get to the top.
Before this gets quoted all over the intardnet as fact, please prove that the climbing term "send" was derived from the word "ascend."
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
davidnn5
Mar 15, 2010, 8:26 AM
Post #141 of 168
(2325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 8, 2009
Posts: 348
|
Before you presume anything I do will result in the intardnet quoting me, google send in conjunction with climbing, glossary, or any number of other words.
The burden of proof lies upon you, as the accuser. I wouldn't want to spoil the hours of fun you will have putting together a powerpoint with pictures and music on how I am wrong 
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 15, 2010, 8:33 AM
Post #142 of 168
(2322 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
davidnn5 wrote: Before you presume anything I do will result in the intardnet quoting me, google send in conjunction with climbing, glossary, or any number of other words. The burden of proof lies upon you, as the accuser. I wouldn't want to spoil the hours of fun you will have putting together a powerpoint with pictures and music on how I am wrong
No, Davidn(in)n(y)5, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
Arrogant_Bastard
Mar 15, 2010, 4:00 PM
Post #143 of 168
(2283 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
davidnn5 wrote: People can argue all they like about onsight, but the literal definition of send (contraction of "ascend") is to get to the top. If you got to the top, you (a)s(c)end(ed) it. You may have been lifted by a forklift, but by gum if you got to the top having previously been at the bottom, you "sent" it. Whether or not you'd tell people you did is another thing. The argument on another thread in the beginner's forum that hangdogging does not constitute an ascent is bunk. It's not a lovely style, but it's an ascent.
There's been a lot of opinions in this thread, not all of which I agree with, but at least up until this point I could understand what the hell they were trying to say.
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Mar 15, 2010, 4:04 PM
Post #144 of 168
(2277 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
davidnn5 wrote: People can argue all they like about onsight, but the literal definition of send (contraction of "ascend") is to get to the top. If you got to the top, you (a)s(c)end(ed) it. You may have been lifted by a forklift, but by gum if you got to the top having previously been at the bottom, you "sent" it. Whether or not you'd tell people you did is another thing. The argument on another thread in the beginner's forum that hangdogging does not constitute an ascent is bunk. It's not a lovely style, but it's an ascent.
So, are we to believe that the 5.1's listed in your log could have been hangdogged?  Because to you, that would be a send, non?
BTW, I wonder if Dave M. cares that some people do not consider his onsight legitimate.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
ken21il
Mar 15, 2010, 4:55 PM
Post #145 of 168
(2257 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 27, 2006
Posts: 137
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: Answer to your question: Yes. What grays the subject is the day between attempts. Personally, I say "fine, record the onsight", and I also agree that downclimbing that rig is more impressive. Climbers utilize downclimbing ALL the time to preserve an onsight. Like I said the only thing that makes me question it is leaving and then coming back. On the other hand, what if a climber is going for an onsight and there is a ledge half way up. The climber sits on the ledge until he feels fully rested. How is that different than going home, resting up and returning to send. You might say that is harder, because now you have to do the entire climb. All that matters to me is that people don't misrepresent themselves. Dave explains exactly how it went down. That is fine with me. I say call it an onsight. Josh
By def.. the onsight is to approach the climb without prior knowledge, bata... to complete the climb with no pre-placed gear or falls... So exactly how does this work. It is impressive that he was able to do such things as downclimbing that route but the fact that he came back to the climb with knowledge of it and with bata from his previous attempt i dont consider this an onsight.
|
|
|
|
|
davidnn5
Mar 15, 2010, 7:18 PM
Post #146 of 168
(2233 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 8, 2009
Posts: 348
|
A hangdog would be a send/ascent, but it would not be an onsight. Surely you know this already!
The real question is whether it's a yellow/brown/pink/red/deadpoint, a stick or rodeo-clip, a yoyo or a hangdog, a vue or an onsight! Or just... a bunch of really odd terms for climbin' shit (my opinion's not going to change on that).
|
|
|
|
|
snoopy138
Mar 15, 2010, 7:26 PM
Post #147 of 168
(2229 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2004
Posts: 28992
|
davidnn5 wrote: A hangdog would be a send, but it would not be an onsight.
You have no idea how much more awesome I now think I am. Thank you.
davidnn5 wrote: Surely you know this already!
No, not really.
|
|
|
|
|
davidnn5
Mar 15, 2010, 7:41 PM
Post #148 of 168
(2216 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 8, 2009
Posts: 348
|
snoopy138 wrote: davidnn5 wrote: A hangdog would be a send, but it would not be an onsight. You have no idea how much more awesome I now think I am. Thank you. davidnn5 wrote: Surely you know this already! No, not really.
All this said, I'm a firm believer in words meaning whatever their most common usage says they mean. Perhaps in the US sportos like JT have bastardised the term "send" to the point where it's purely about style, rather than the literal fact of ascending or not
I guess there remains the catch-all term "climb" !! Not that it's "cool" to just "climb" things...
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Mar 16, 2010, 1:04 AM
Post #149 of 168
(2160 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
Dude, you need to stop this.
You're wrong. The "common usage" as you say is that send = redpoint.
Got it?
No matter how many times you say it, there is no such thing as a non redpoint send. Stop trying to force it, you are the ONLY ONE who thinks this way and you are WRONG.
Pull on a draw, not a send
Take, not a send
Fall, not a send
Weight the rope or your gear, not a send
Stand on a bolt, not a send
Jug a fixed fucking line, not a send
Use your god damned hands and feet (and sometimes knees) to get up a route where the rope is only there to keep you alive, without falling, on lead, = send.
Stop being a tard.
|
|
|
|
|
snoopy138
Mar 16, 2010, 1:07 AM
Post #150 of 168
(2156 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2004
Posts: 28992
|
angry wrote: Pull on a draw, not a send Take, not a send Fall, not a send Weight the rope or your gear, not a send Stand on a bolt, not a send Jug a fixed fucking line, not a send
goddamnit angry, you're invalidating all my sends.
|
|
|
|
|
|
