UKH

Some thoughts arising from the James Pearson thread, which I though may be better in a thread of their own.

There are innumerable examples in sport of people 'playing to the rules', i.e. using tactics based more on what the rulebook does or doesn't say than on what might be a more natural or intuitive way to succeed. In motor racing you see drivers clearly inhibiting the overtaking of a faster car but doing so in a way that isn't strictly against any rules. In cricket you see bowlers shining one side of the ball, while being careful not to be seen to be damaging the other side. In football we see players holding the ball up by the corner flag to reduce the chance of a last minute equaliser. There's nothing strictly wrong with any of these and many other actions but at the same time they feel like they aren't really cricket (if you'll pardon the term!)

Climbing is no different. Once a certain 'style' has been defined, even unofficially, then people will push the boundaries of that definition. In terms of onsighting, that may mean using binoculars, viewing from above or from an adjacent route. In terms of flash ascents, having tick marks, watching others on the route, even abseiling nearby while they do so, may still be strictly within the bounds of the style definition. Climbing is a competitive game, even outside of the formal competition arena, and it's understandable that pro climbers will want to gain the best advantage possible while still remaining within the 'rules' that apply to the style they choose for an ascent.

You can't blame James or anyone else for doing whatever they can to improve their chances of an onsight, flash or whatever else ascent of a notably hard route. After all, their livelihood is to some extent reliant on their success, so maximising the chances or success makes total sense. It also may be more fulfilling, to succeed on a harder route with more effective tactics rather than failing without them.

On the other hand, it does rather highlight the inadequacies of our 'rules', our definitions of the various styles, as ultimately they end up departing from your typical climber's experience of trying routes in that style.

Honesty is very much the key here, and to some extent improvements in style actually lead to a change in the 'rules' or the definition of that style. At one time onsight (onsight flash) and flash (beta flash) were not clearly distinguished, and became so only when it became widely acknowledged that learning about the moves beforehand made a critical difference. At the moment we have heated discussions about whether a kneepad assisted ascent should be seen as a better style, or whether stepping down to the ground during an onsight attempt is good tactics or invalidates the style of the ascent. I happen to think that kneepads and the ground are both fair game but the discussions will go on. There are debates as to whether trees on the route are fair game to pull on (to me, definitely!) But all of these debates serve to show how important we think it is to have agreed rules and to be honest about sticking to them.

Ultimately, I think that styles of ascent evolve to reflect what feels intuitive and what is pragmatic. Nobody (I hope!) now thinks that having quickdraws in place invalidates an onsight, flash or even redpoint ascent, even though placing them as you go will definitely be harder. It simply feels ridiculous to have to make sure a route is stripped of draws before any attempt. Similarly, a lot of big wall free climbs have been done with falls on harder pitches, then leaving gear in place for subsequent attempts. Sure, the challenge hasn't been met in a perfect fashion, but as long as climbers are honest about it, nobody is going to discredit the validity of the ascent. At least I hope not.

Having said that, climbing is definitely getting ever more demanding, not only in the size of the holds and the angle of the rock, but also in the specific nature of the ascent. Multi-pitch ascents now often see both climbers leading all or all crux pitches, and increasingly all pitches are being required to be done in the same push. This increasing artificiality largely compensates for the ever decreasing difficulties that come with lightweight ropes and gear, reliable weather forecasts and better info about existing routes. We keep a balance between challenge and success, indeed a range of success metrics (styles) to suit our level or to be be improved upon. That, in itself, is unusual in sport and is something we should be pleased with.

The 'rules' we play by may be consensual rather than dictated from above, but they are still rules and they are still important. Certainly at the top levels, but I think also to more modest climbers wanting to rise to their own personal challenges without wanting to deceive either themselves or anyone else.

Whatever a particular 'good' style is defined as, climbers will want to achieve it, as much for their own ego as for bragging rights.

As far as I recall, when James' ascent of Lexicon brought up the issue of abbing a route invalidating a ground-up ascent (not everyone was agreed on this), Franco mentioned how he had a look on a rope and floated the idea to others at the time that he could perhaps give it a try ground-up. Steve McClure - "You can't; you've abbed it." Franco said how he found this disappointing, as it would still be good style.

I found this curious at the time, as it was almost as if the knowledge that a certain style couldn't be claimed meant it wouldn't be worth the bother. But the challenge of the actual ascent would be the same irrespective of the label one gave it.

If you ab down a route to inspect holds/gear/rests this makes a huge difference to the lead. The ground up on sight has gone and deep down you know it. The whole point is that you’re sort of leading into the unknown, obviously with the benefit of a guidebook description, grade and maybe some spurious beta from UKC! Even more satisfying if the route is chalk free. 

It's not 'ground-up' if you came in from above first. That's not what those words mean!

It's December, the weather is poor. We are either sick or have cabin fever so start huffing about rules.

The rules wouldn't be there if it weren't for the game unfortunately, the rules threaten the game.

Insisting on both climbers leading all pitches of a route to claim it is a clear example of this. The original game was to get from the bottom to the top, the rules make a mockery of this.

Very well said. I am so glad that I´m both old and untalented enough not to be able to have any say in this. I get my main pleasure from rolling up at the foot of a climb and trying to lead it onsight; if I don´t manage it, that´s also ok. That, to me, is the essence of climbing; my situation is however obviously worlds apart from the practices and worries of those who have to think about sponsorship and peer pressure as part of their livelihood. Climbing ethics are an ongoing thing, they tend to sort themselves out (what happened to the chalk debate of the 70s, etc. ?), and are then replaced by other equally pressing issues

Good post though, it should get people thinking again. Silly Arete (E3 5c) for instance has been on my wishlist for ages, but I´ve watched the film of Jimmy Jewel soloing it so many times that the onsight would definitely not be legit any more, and I´m thinking now that even claiming the flash would be ethically doubtful, should I ever succeed in actually leading it on the first attempt.

Whilst I agree with most of what you're saying surely "and increasingly all pitches are being required to be done in the same push" is not increasing artificiality since that's the "simple" way most of us would climb a multi-pitch climb.

I agree that a single push ascent is simpler and usually better. It's the requirement for it to be a single push that more 'artificial' in that it would no longer recognise the validity of an ascent not done in that purer style.

Who made the first ascent of Strawberries or of Little Plum?

My understanding was that an onsight is an ascent using only information one gains from literally walking up to the base of the crag, looking up and climbing the route “on sight”. Obviously this becomes harder as guidebook descriptions can give too much away and without them climbing a specific route can be hard, and you may have had to ab down to climb the route etc but I thought best practice was to try to look away whilst abbing down (impractical I know) and that binoculars/looking from above were nono’s. Obviously people want to maximise chances etc, but I feel like this is a pretty obvious and clear definition?

With a flash, any method of obtaining information (watching others climb, abbing, discussions, online descriptions etc) are all game, but the only limit is that you cannot actually touch any of the holds on the route, including having done a small part of the route whilst climbing another adjacent one another which shares a section.

In both cases, for sport draws in is fair game, but for trad all protection has to be placed on lead.

Would love to hear any different opinions. Obviously not shunning others for taking advantage of other methods-I’m sure there are many ascents I’ve taken where I break my own rules!

And all bets are off for bouldering…

Well, obviously the onsight has gone.

In terms of leading into the unknown, I quite agree but there's unknown and there's Unknown. When you attempt a route in the traditional way (turn up and go, no prior knowledge), take a fall and lose the onsight, I still generally tend to think of ground-up as the next best thing (above flash), as any knowledge you've gained has been from your own efforts, and every new section you come to is effectively onsight even if the whole pitch has eluded you on first attempt. Technically, however, you could grab a ground-up ascent with a lot of prior knowledge (beta), and in the Lexicon thread some even suggested the term could be extended to just mean "no practice". There's a huge amount of variation in what the term can encompass, more than any other ascent style I'd suggest.

In all the examples from lesser sports that you cite, there is some form of umpire (/referee/steward) and a f-off thick rule book.

Part of what sets (non-olympic) climbing apart is precisely the lack of officialdom (and rule book)

Having skimmed through the JP thread and article I'm thinking sport grades (maybe with a Font addition) is the only realistic way to grade routes that are essentially impossible to climb on sight.

Ok, I see what you're getting at.

Strawberries - not sure who would be considered to have done the first ascent by today's "rules" but certainly not Ron or Jerry (unless when Jerry went back and did it some time later in better style it was still "unclimbed")

Little Plum - has anyone yet done both pitches in a pure single push, Jerry's certainly wasn't 😁. But is this in its free state considered to be a single route or is it 2 routes that just happen to have nearly the same name and a common origin and just happen to be one above the other.

And it's a good job there are all these nuances to style, what the hell would we argue about (that's climbing related) otherwise 😁

Uh-oh

In round figures, how many routes of E9 and above have had on sight first ascents?

There is no game without rules.

It's up to you whether you 'play the game' or not. But as soon as you climb a route on a crag (rather than just 'walk round the back') you're into a game and games mean rules. You can of course chose a different set of rules, but then you're just arguing as to which set of purely artificial and arbitrary rules are 'best' (whatever than means).

None I wouldn't have thought. Doesn't mean it'll never happen though

I think the "rules" are a lot less fixed and more contingent that you make out here, whether that's because of chalked holds, fixed gear, or some other aspect of the nature of the climb.

To begin with, applying relative and moralising terms like "better" or "worse" to various styles produces some contradictions, because a lot of contingent factors are elided by them. To take the example of FAs, it's always going to be almost impossible for someone to OS a really cutting edge FA... So... once the knowledge exists that there is a clean line that definitely goes, with enough gear (because someone survived the fall), that several different people have managed, is the fourth or fifth ascensionist really more esteemable because they got an OS or Flash than the FA who actually established the climb? Which ascent is better style? Why does something as relative as "better" apply between two ascents that are so radically different due to the contingent factors at play?

I also think that there is a tendency to "move the goal posts". I've always considered "flash" to mean "1st go, but with beta"... now, suddenly, it has always apparently also meant ground up, too! And there was me thinking "ground up" was the term we used for a strictly ground up ascent... How many celebrated flashes do we need to revisit after that bombshell? How many more if downclimbing is said to invalidate an onsight? (Never heard that before! What BS...) What next? If you study a topo you can only flash? If you give your gear a tug, it's aid?

Increasingly, the norm for hard ascents is to work them into submission and that's likely to continue, I think. I don't think there is much competition for flash or onsight. Instead, it seems people are focusing more on using RP tactics to achieve their absolute hardest ascents - something which is perhaps understandable because it is more controllable and less risky, as well as being an achievement that side steps the agony of debates about ethics that younger generations are less and less invested in.

Consequently, if someone want to try for a flash... well, great! Even if they use various tactics to make this more achievable, it's a markedly different approach to refining every move over multiple sessions (or, even, multiple seasons), especially when you're talking about difficulties of 8b and higher... Certainly, the idea that this should be seen as in any way negative ("style chasing", even "cheating") is ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with a novel approach; the only thing being subverted are the overly dogmatic expectations imposed on the achievement by observers and commentators (people who usually have no experience of that level of climbing).

I think it's entirely normal that, to push at the limits of the sport, people have to resort to new strategic and tactical approaches, which also create new rationales or "ethics". If people can't OS E11 because it's just too hard and too dangerous, what can you do to get as close to that as possible? There is skill and dignity in trying to play that game, even if the rationale of that game has to be revised. If we want ascents that are surprising and inspiring, we shouldn't try to limit them within too rigid a set of expectations.


 

Good thread, John (and I’m glad that you started it outside of the JP thread – nice to separate the discussion). I feel a little late to the party by replying now, but I was ill for the last couple of days and lacked the energy to gather my thoughts together in a coherent way until now (well, fingers crossed what I’m about to write makes sense!)

Firstly, I can’t emphasise enough that I really don’t mind how people do their climbing – anything from a purist’s onsight to a flash which feels more akin to a headpoint – there’s no judgement from me to another individual. However I do think it’s important to hold and advocate for some values that underly what I see as the spirit of climbing, and (in my view) what you seem to be saying is incompatible with, or at least is inconsistent with, my view of this.

...

I think this is the essence of where we disagree – I mean, obviously people (JP as the example which started this discussion) push the boundaries of a definition of onsight, flash, and ground-up, but in my view this is the tail wagging the dog. I see these style-terms as clumsy ways of describing what I did when I’m talking to a friend at a later date, rather than a ‘rule’ or ‘game’ that I am playing to the rules of. I go climbing, have a fun time balancing what’s important to me (adventure, trying hard, looking good, staying safe [in that order, obvs]), then try to sum up one aspect of that experience (i.e. the broad style in which I attempted the climb) in a vague one-word term. That’s the way round I think it works best. It is only in the scenario where you see the words ‘onsight’ ‘flash’ and ‘ground up’ as games – having some kind of primacy – where you can push the rules within these games, that you get convoluted approaches to ‘flashing’ a route like abseiling down it whilst your partner top ropes it shouting height-specific beta at you and racks your harness with the right gear. Sure, within the letter of the rules, but the spirit?

In my eyes, this kind of approach (or rather, an over-emphasis on this approach) is a slippery slope to the commodification of climbing difficulty, i.e. focussing solely on big numbers at the expense of everything else that provides challenge and joy in climbing*.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting everyone should eschew all beta for some kind of soul-awakening on the rock. In fact, last time I was out climbing I had watched a mate top rope something, he then left the gear in for me to have a go with all the beta! I’m not saying this is ‘wrong’ or inferior, but the championing of such an approach risks us as a community not valuing all the other aspects of challenge.

So I suppose my point is that there is so much richness to the challenge of climbing – especially complex onsight / flash / ground-up trad climbing like much of the UK’s best climbing is – that it seems such a shame for ascents to be codefied in terms of their high E-number when ‘gaming the rules’ is seen as progressive, as this approach risks de-valuing that very richness. I mean, what’s cooler: an onsight of a slightly grubby E7 with hidden holds, no chalk on it, unobvious RPs, a booming sea pounding the base, and no one else at the crag; or a full beta-flash of an E8 with full support crew and easy to place gear racked in order on your harness with tickmarks on the edge of the crack to tell you where it goes? What’s harder? Which is more likely to be reported?

The reason I think this is important is because as a community I think we risk devaluing the whole spirit of trying routes in an adventurous style if we express admiration for approaches which try to reduce the adventure to a bare minimum whilst still calling themselves a ‘flash’. And that’s my point, I suppose, that I don’t think it is healthy for climbing for climbers to be asking themselves “what’s just within the rules” then trying to push that.

*This reminds me, actually, of when say a sport climber says that they’re going to get into bouldering, but all they do is find the long pumpy traverse problems to try. Or a boulderer gets into sport climbing and only tries 7m high bouldery routes. They’re missing out on the essence of the activity they’re supposedly trying by sticking to their comfort-zone rather than dropping a few grades and getting stuck in.

Good comments, Andy.

I suspect we disagree less than you might think. My point about recognising and working within the 'rules' was that it's human nature to do so. I fully agree that climbing in whatever style we choose for any route should be seen as ideal, but we are social creatures (most of us anyway!) and the styles get defined as much to aid communication as for any other reason. Once they're there though, it may be seen as a human failing but it's inevitable that many climbers will end up focusing more on conforming to the style than on doing what they otherwise might have done. It's just a refinement of grade chasing, but with the advantage of offering a range of socially recognised achievement levels, each with its own balance of the new and the hard, for the same route.

What rules, when, where? In the early days of rock climbing there were quite a few low level traverses (esp places like Wharncliffe around 1900) and in the evenings there is evidence of climbing games on bits of buildings some of which these days could be termed indoor boulding. We even have incredibly skilled controlled fall descents on film. These makes a mockery of your "original game".

The big wall trad style of both climbers leading all the hard pitches is the best fit for the time commitment for the challenge on offer, unless the second is being very kind and just on for the ride. Lynn and Simon tried to play this game from the 'trad start' on the most famous example out there, The Nose.

Your ideas seem to me to miss the fun of the pioneers and to be based on frozen UK ethics from some fixed point in time between then and now. I think John is spot on.

Thanks, and I too suspect that this is the case really. 

Maybe my aversion to this 'gaming' stems from what I see as increasing commodification of climbing. Although this (style-chasing) is only one manifestation of it, it does stick in my throat somewhat! To be fair, I'd probably give grade-chasing a similarly tough time!

Perhaps you're saying 'it's human nature so let's be accepting of it' and I'm saying 'is human nature but undesirable so we should celebrate the opposite to it'.

Some things that to me definitely appear to be not-cricket at best, and at worst, just lame:

- Downclimbing to the ground to rest, after you've passed halfway and you're in a safe fall zone.  Is that really a satisfying way to 'tick' something, Dave?

- Boulderers choosing their own start holds.

- Jumping off the ground to skip the first move of boulders.

- Pretending there's no difference between OS and Flash because for some reason you can't accept flashing is still impressive.

For most of us non-professionals who aren't climbing big enough numbers to impress people, the style we climb in is more to do with personal satisfaction.

Personally, I don't find it satisfying at all to pretend a flash was an onsight, so I'm all the more pleased when I genuinely onsight something, probably because it's so rare. 

Isn't it about time we stopped worrying too much about the ~6 men in Britain who think they're still relevant on the world stage because they're climbing 8b ish routes with large (but safe) runouts, especially if they have to make up weird technicalities around arbitrary rules to make them work.

On the satisfaction point. I've onsighted (though you may disagree on that style characterisation!) a handful of routes where I've downclimbed from quite high back to the ground, then done them after a rest. I've done that because I've been pumped enough that I thought I'd certainly fall off higher up. I've found those experiences extremely satisfying, really felt like I went very close to the limit of what I could do in the onsight style.

In my view it's just as good style as onsighting without downclimbing, though obviously less impressive. In the same way that someone onsighting the route easily in 5min is more impressive than someone dithering around a bit and taking 10min, same 'goodness' of style, but one more impressive than the other.

Intrigued what you mean by weird technicalities and arbitrary rules here? Just that most hard routes end up being somewhat eliminate?

And there’s me, after 66 year’s climbing, thinking it was all about a day out with mates having a laugh and getting to the top. 

So you've never given any consideration to the means by which you reach the top?

For me, this is more akin to red pointing than onsighting, but who cares what I think, as long as you're happy with it. It's still fast work!

Again I'm not that impressed by people onsighting routes easily. A 7a climber onsighting 7a, with a fight, is more impressive to me than an 8a climber doing the same route easily

At the end of the day, we're all playing our own game, with our own take on the 'rules'. Have fun everyone

Interesting, I could see someone saying it's more akin to ground up (with the return to the ground counting as a 'fall') than onsight, but wouldn't have thought about a similarity to redpoint. Totally agree that the main thing is having fun!

I mean that it's more impressive on an absolute performance scale, rather than a personal effort scale. Absolutely someone doing a route after a massive fight is very impressive on a personal level and on a how deep can people dig scale, but on an absolute performance scale it's lower than someone waltzing up the route. Much like it's well impressive if one of my mates runs a 2h30 marathon, but it is still less impressive on an absolute scale than Eliud Kipchoge jogging round in a relatively pedestrian for him 2h10.

Main point is really that I think performance level of the ascent is separate from style. So someone really making a meal of a route, going up and down, maybe back to the ground is the same style as someone going continuously up (as long as they're both operating in the same style 'category' e.g. onsight). And then personal performance/effort level is separate again.

Agreed

As a punter the only style I have is

1. Arrive at the crag with my guidebook and gear I’ve accumulated over the years and rack it the same way I always do.

2. If it’s a big mountain crag or I’ve abseiled into a sea cliff. Hope to dear god that I’m in the right place.

3. Try to get from bottom to top, placing gear as I go, following the guidebook description without pulling or resting on gear. For multi pitch we just alternate leads, no trying to lead all pitches.

4. If  do fall off, get back on where I end up dangling and try and complete the route.

5. if I’m really too pumped then lower to ground if single pitch then let anyone else in our party have a go if they like. They decide whether to pull the rope through or essentially be top roped up to my top bit of gear.  I may then try seconding it, as likely recovered from pump. If multi pitch then let my climbing partner take over the lead of the pitch if they can. If they can’t then whatever means necessary to stay safe on a big crag or sea cliff.

6. Walk safely off the mountain or wherever the top of the route leaves us.

7. Enjoy a beer or two with food afterwards in the glow of a good day out.

My style likely means I haven’t / don’t climb trad as hard as my potential. But that’s fine as the enjoyment I gain isn’t purely determined by the grade, there’s so much more to it, when it’s not your livelyhood.

If others aren’t actively damaging the rock then I’m happy.  God forbid I comment on how someone is tackling an adjacent route etc.

Well, I wouldn’t jumar but otherwise no. 

Totally agree although I must admit to once pulling on a runner rather than taking a fall. 
In my defence, some of my early runners were jammed knots. 

So you have a "rule"!

Well like you I’d rather break the style than break my body assuming that’s what a fall meant. Though as a climbing partner said, if you don’t let go, you can’t fall off 😂

Interesting comparison, and I think I agree despite what I said above! 

i would include 2A. Try and ensure my partner gets to lead the "interesting" pitch.

Ah yes the casual offering to either lead the first pitch or let them do the first lead having read the description of pitch 4 or 5 as thin, airy, and desperate…

That’s a good summary. As you say, honesty is key. The definitions of onsight, flash and ground up are somewhat blurry and the debate will go on forevermore, but as long as climbers are open and honest about what they did or didn’t do, everyone can make their own judgement. (Edit - forgot to include ground up.) 

I’d say any info in the guide book description is fair game for an onsight. It’s up to guide book authors and editors to decide whether there’s too much beta in the description and generally they do a pretty good job of this.

Looking away while abseiling straight down a route sounds silly and potentially unsafe. If the only option is to abseil down or very close to a route and you do it at normal abseiling speed and without pausing, I’d say it’s fair game. It’s not as pure an onsight as just rocking up at the bottom, but if this is the only option then fair enough.

Not looking at the route from the top is rather purist. It’s not often than you can do this but Huntsman’s Leap is a prime example. I doubt many people setting out to do a Huntsman’s route that’s challenging for them won’t have had a look at it from the top, not least to get a better idea of where it goes. That’s just a natural thing to do and I think in those situations the onsight definition (if there is such a thing) is modified for purely practical reasons. You can always log that you did Bloody Sunday or whatever without looking across to it, if that’s important for you (you’d have to approach the cliff backwards but don’t trip over the belay stakes!). With sea cliffs, it’s also sensible to check out the top out if you can, to see if it’s a pile or choss at the top where it would be sensible to drop a rope. 

Fair points and it would be great to see more people doing E7 and E8 onsights (and for this to be reported, if the climber wants it to be reported). However, in practice, people climb in whatever way they want to and the point of having terms like ‘flash’ is to distinguish the different styles (otherwise you’d just refer to everything as ‘climbed’). As soon as you have different terms, you’ve got to have some broad definitions (principles might be a better word) for the different styles, which most people agree with, albeit the definitions / principles may evolve over time. So I suspect we’re stuck with the terminology… 

That doesn’t work with dynamic moves or outright dynos 😉