|
antigrav
Oct 20, 2003, 9:22 PM
Post #26 of 82
(4794 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2003
Posts: 215
|
In reply to: antigrav yes but i am saying what if he did it on purpose, what would we consider that to be :lol:
Ok, John from Ohio, then I would have to go for the "Gravitational Dyno"! :lol: :D :o :idea:
|
|
|
|
|
antigrav
Oct 20, 2003, 9:24 PM
Post #27 of 82
(4794 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2003
Posts: 215
|
I.e., an onsight. A really hardcore one. Made easier (??!!) by resting after a small "gravitational dyno" to that no-hands resting ledge...
:roll:
|
|
|
|
|
orseille
Oct 20, 2003, 9:33 PM
Post #28 of 82
(4794 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 8, 2003
Posts: 46
|
I say we need a vote!!!
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Oct 20, 2003, 9:43 PM
Post #29 of 82
(4794 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
In reply to: My question is, was my ascent an onsight? I mean, I never weighted the rope or anything, so it should have been. I need to know so I can plug it into "my ascents" correctly. Travis
Very funny! Let's see, so now we need one entry here on RC.COM for Dingus's "might-be-a-first-ascent-but-then-again-might-not-onsight," one for Watersprite's "on-sight-but-not-on-lead-onsight," and now yet another category for Travis' "I-fell-but-the-rope-didn't-catch-me-onsight". I'd like to add the "I-saw-someone-doing-the-route-but-I-didn't-know-it-was-that-route-and-anyway-I-wasn't-watching-when-they-pulled-the-crux-onsight"? Or how about the "I-climbed-it-on-my-partner's-gear-but-I-didn't-watch-him-place-it-onsight"? :lol:
GO
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Oct 20, 2003, 10:29 PM
Post #30 of 82
(4794 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: Last weekend I was trying to onsight a 5.10 trad climb. I climbed up about 35 feet, and got to an alcove under a roof. It was big enough to stand in totally no hands, and really was more of a ledge than anything. The roof moves were the supposed crux, so I climbed up, placed some pro, then climbed back down to the ledge so I could be rested for the moves. After a couple minutes rest, I climbed up, fired the roof, and pulled into the thin fingercrack above. About 5 feet higher, I placed a small cam, and while trying to clip the rope, I popped off, and the extra slack in the rope allowed me to deck on the ledge 10 feet below. Somehow I didn't fall off the ledge (I still don't know how) and miraculously escaped injury. After gathering my sences and resting, I went on to pull the crux again, and finish the last 30 feet of thin fingers after it. My question is, was my ascent an onsight? I mean, I never weighted the rope or anything, so it should have been. I need to know so I can plug it into "my ascents" correctly. Travis
Nope, No onsight. You fell. Had you down climbed you could certainly argue it (remember my post from a few months ago?) but a fall is a fall. What if you fell and hit the ground, got back on and completed the climb? No onsight.
|
|
|
|
|
climb_plastic
Oct 20, 2003, 10:40 PM
Post #31 of 82
(4794 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2003
Posts: 706
|
That's equivalent to you falling to the ground after the first few moves before the belayer takes up slack and you starting over again because you didn't weight the rope. NO ONSIGHT.
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Oct 20, 2003, 10:49 PM
Post #32 of 82
(4794 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: I ask for slack sometimes if there is a ledge below a hard move and I am trying to onsight something.
:shock: OMFLOL
|
|
|
|
|
johnfromohio
Oct 21, 2003, 2:02 AM
Post #33 of 82
(4794 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 287
|
i say
onsight,
why, did not weight the rope, yet stayed on teh climb,
you have to leave the rock and touch the ground to lose your onsight or weight the rope, whats the difference if he had sat on the ledge and took a 30 minute lunch break,
think it couldnt happen?
a climb i have done is a 5.10, to make a stupid point, i said that i could sit on the ledge and then proceed to get up and not fall off, i sat there and waved at climbers climbing on by. It was my first time on it, since i got a long break does it ruin my onsight?
|
|
|
|
|
mike_hunt
Oct 21, 2003, 2:39 AM
Post #34 of 82
(4794 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 42
|
Gentlemen and Ladies:
It has nothing to do with whether one weights the rope or not. It has everything to do with sending the route successfully, and in clean style, with no falls.
Anything else is not a successful onsight, but only an attempted onsight. Why is this so difficult to fathom?
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Oct 21, 2003, 2:47 AM
Post #35 of 82
(4794 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Nope.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
andypro
Oct 21, 2003, 3:45 AM
Post #36 of 82
(4794 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 23, 2003
Posts: 1077
|
In reply to: Gentlemen and Ladies: It has nothing to do with whether one weights the rope or not. It has everything to do with sending the route successfully, and in clean style, with no falls. Anything else is not a successful onsight, but only an attempted onsight. Why is this so difficult to fathom?
I'm just pushing it because it's funny :twisted: I could really care less about the absurd ethics crap that flys around this site as of late (and I'm sure long before I got here)
|
|
|
|
|
thinksinpictures
Oct 21, 2003, 3:51 AM
Post #37 of 82
(4794 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2003
Posts: 447
|
It's become painfully obvious that the real question is whether an onsite (or a redpoint, for that matter) requires not weighting the rope or not falling. My feeling is that if one is making a big fuss over it in the first place, then one is obviously concerned with style. Given this, I wouldn't claim an onsite in this case, but hey, it's all about what you feel.
I totally recognize that an onsite is considered "better" by far than a redpoint, but I'd say that having such a rad story about the route is better still than an undebatable onsite.
|
|
|
|
|
crux_clipper
Oct 21, 2003, 5:48 AM
Post #38 of 82
(4794 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 14, 2001
Posts: 531
|
how bout we look at this the other way. if he didn't onsight it because he fell, how did he send it? redpoint you say? but to successfully redpoint a climb, you must have fallen on your first try (or second, third, forth etc), lower back to the ground, and lead it cleanly. that is a redpoint. He never lowered to the ground. the climb was completed without weighting the rope or previous attempts. there is no argument that can say that "technically" it was a redpoint. he sent the climb without weighting the rope ,first shot!!!!so if he hasn't redpointed the route, the only other option for the send is either flash, or onsight. since he didn't have any beta prior, the only other possible way he sent it is by onsight.......or maybe it isn't considered a send? An onsight is completely legit if you climb up, reherse moves, then back down to a jug for a rest. Sharma got a 45 minute onsight of a climb, where he COMPLETLY fell from the dyno crux repeatedly, but caught holds lower down.
ITS A BLOODY ONSIGHT!!!!
however, it is a very "technically" onsight situation. but still, in the technical terms of how climbs are sent, its an onsight. noone can argue that. and if you can, i would take my hat off to you.......if i was wearing one......
|
|
|
|
|
legless
Oct 21, 2003, 5:51 AM
Post #39 of 82
(4794 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 16, 2002
Posts: 160
|
In reply to: It's become painfully obvious that the real question is whether an onsite (or a redpoint, for that matter) requires not weighting the rope or not falling. My feeling is that if one is making a big fuss over it in the first place, then one is obviously concerned with style.
well said.
i would just add that of course we would need to define "falling" (and it can't be in terms of "weighting the rope").
you might say "falling" is A. the loss of contact with rock resulting in either the (temporary) stopping of climbing (narrowly defined as the physical upward progression over a body of non-horizontal rock) or B. a loss of control during climbing which leads to an uncontrolled downward drop of any distance.
Then you say: A fall is "halted" and hence nullified when a drop which otherwise would continue is stopped directly by the climber's actions which result in the regaining contact with the rock. All other forms of non-climber "caused" halting will be considered a fall under one of the above definitions.
so, say it like that and tenn dawg's story is cool but there was a fall because the "halting" was not caused by the climber (he was halted, but he did not do the halting). no red point, no onsight.
oh yeah...another way to think about it: what if he falls and his harness gets snagged mid-fall on the rock and stops his fall. Is that a legitimate recovery? no way. i think the same principle makes this case a fall too.
finally, if the climber plans to jump down onto the ledge and does so with perfect control, on my analysis that would be a fall that was nullified by a caused regaining of contact with the rock.
|
|
|
|
|
desertclimber
Oct 21, 2003, 6:01 AM
Post #40 of 82
(4794 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 26, 2003
Posts: 61
|
So you landed on a ledge.... (I'm with climb_plastic on this one) WHAT IF... if you fell from that point, BUT continued all the way to the ground because your belayer was asleep and had 100ft of rope out- you did not get hurt, and climbed to the top after that, you think made an onsight? Be real. You fell.
Plus, who cares if you get the onsight or not? Have fun climbing! Do style points make you a better person in the end? I don't think so.
|
|
|
|
|
doktor_g
Oct 21, 2003, 6:24 AM
Post #41 of 82
(4794 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 14, 2003
Posts: 152
|
Who cares what it's called? If you felt it... If you were there... If you were climbing... what you call it doesn't matter. If it satisfied you, you're there for the right reasons. If you wait for your friends to be satisfied you'll sell yourself short.
Kudos for continuing in the face of adversity!
Grove
|
|
|
|
|
legless
Oct 21, 2003, 6:32 AM
Post #42 of 82
(4794 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 16, 2002
Posts: 160
|
In reply to: Who cares what it's called? If you felt it... If you were there... If you were climbing... what you call it doesn't matter.
true, BUT it's still an interesting case that requires rigorous analysis of the concepts to reach a satisfying conclusion.
you can not give a f*uck about grades and all of that and still be interested in how we answer this question.
|
|
|
|
|
nobody
Oct 21, 2003, 6:48 AM
Post #43 of 82
(4794 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 23, 2002
Posts: 44
|
T-7
|
|
|
|
|
legless
Oct 21, 2003, 7:02 AM
Post #44 of 82
(4794 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 16, 2002
Posts: 160
|
and if its a troll...i dont even care.
thats when you know uve got a good one
|
|
|
|
|
simianboy
Oct 21, 2003, 7:51 AM
Post #45 of 82
(4794 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2003
Posts: 85
|
You need to get your memory erased and climb it again.
And stop creating all these new categories and getting people so worked up in the forums (all these touchy if-you-had-fun-it-shouldnt-matter-what-you-call-it-really-but-dont-you-dare-call-it-an-onsight people).
:wink:
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Oct 21, 2003, 12:04 PM
Post #46 of 82
(4794 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
Since onsight flash is defined as an ascent in first try (no climbing to the ground), with no prior beta and NO FALLS, this is not an onsight. it is ok to rest on a ledge, but its not ok to fall.
|
|
|
|
|
solo
Oct 21, 2003, 12:42 PM
Post #47 of 82
(4794 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 100
|
Actually, the definition I know says, that to claim an onsight you must not weight your protection chain (i.e. rope or any point of protection) but you can rest on the natural resting places (ledges, etc. ). Not a word about falling. So, under this definition, it could technically be an osnight, however not in quite the best style.
It all comes down to what definition you choose to adhere to.
Or did the UIAA or some other organization publish an "authoritative definitions" of styles? :?:
|
|
|
|
|
thinksinpictures
Oct 21, 2003, 1:24 PM
Post #48 of 82
(4794 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2003
Posts: 447
|
In reply to: Since onsight flash is defined as an ascent in first try (no climbing to the ground), with no prior beta and NO FALLS, this is not an onsight. it is ok to rest on a ledge, but its not ok to fall.
In reply to: Actually, the definition I know says, that to claim an onsight you must not weight your protection chain (i.e. rope or any point of protection) but you can rest on the natural resting places (ledges, etc. ). Not a word about falling.
This conflict is exactly what I pointed out several posts ago, yet people are still making claims about what the definition "is" as if it were a hard and fast fact. Since this is such a point of contention, obviously the definition "is" not clear. Given that, I'd say it's up to the climber.
If, by the way, one is of the opinion that an onsite is without falls, check out Legless' inspired response to my initial post in which he considers possible definitions of a "fall".
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Oct 21, 2003, 2:14 PM
Post #49 of 82
(4794 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Given that, I'd say it's up to the climber.
But he asked us.
If you fall, sorry, no on sight.
Its really that simple.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
thinksinpictures
Oct 21, 2003, 2:26 PM
Post #50 of 82
(4794 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2003
Posts: 447
|
In reply to: But he asked us.
Alright, I'll grant that :wink:
In reply to: If you fall, sorry, no on sight. Its really that simple.
While I agree with you, I'm not so sure it is. As a lot of people have pointed out, many definitions of onsite (and redpoint) state that it's a question of whether or not the rope was weighted. People have also provided the valid example of slipping and catching a lower hold. Again, I agree with you that this is not "the best" style, and probably wouldn't call it an onsite if it happened to me, but I'm willing to acknowledge that depending on how you read and interpret the definition, some might call this a fair onsite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
