[reeve]

I've become a tad worried whilst reading this thread. I went for a walk up a hill the other day, and although it was lovely, I made a minor navigational error and had to reverse a short way down the path to take a different path. Tris, can you clarify, does this invalidate my hike?

[shark]

does this invalidate my hike?

Had you claimed it as an onsight ?

[reeve]

does this invalidate my hike?

Had you claimed it as an onsight ?

I thought so. Although I did reverse, it was only to a large plateau, not to the bottom. Do I need to bring out the tippex in my walking guide?

[dave]

I've become a tad worried whilst reading this thread. I went for a walk up a hill the other day, and although it was lovely, I made a minor navigational error and had to reverse a short way down the path to take a different path. Tris, can you clarify, does this invalidate my hike?

not if you didn't go right back to the car.

[Stubbs]

Was it a completely new walk, or an extension to a walk you'd already done in the past?

[lagerstarfish]

We're not talking eliminates at minus 10 or pinches wall here - there's a time and a place for arbitrary rules, and it aint' trad onsighting.

I've been unsettled by the (mis)use of the word arbitrary on this thread. All climbing ethics are arbitrary. I think. I've suddenly become confused between ethics and rules. Help.

Lagers ?

You are right.

One should be confused about the difference between ethics and rules in climbing.


A maths/climbing analogy... (possibly a direct route to a month on Burbage ward)...

Climbing rules are like axioms - starting points that everyone agrees on

Claimed ascents are like theorems (proof is needed/sought of the style claimed)

Ethics are like conjectures - the main essence of which is that they make one's climbing life somehow more satisfying - no logical proof of this is available usually, but much anecdotal evidence may be found in the pub or on the internet.

As to the difficulty posed by Reeve, all that matters is whether anyone has challenged his claimed walk on 8a.nu - if not, then just take the points.
Simples

[reeve]

Was it a completely new walk, or an extension to a walk you'd already done in the past?

It's true that I had pre-practiced the walk numerous times, but not for a few weeks at least. I was claiming the new-boot-retro-day-onsight. Now don't tell me that isn't allowed too!

[lagerstarfish]

Straying off topic a little again...

My maths/climbing analogy as regards ethics and that was inspired by Keats' Ode On A Gritstone Problem which finishes

O Attic shape!  Fair attitude! with brede
    Of smears and slopers overwrought,
With forest branches and the trodden weed;
    Thou, silent form, dost tease us out of thought
As doth eternity: Cold Pastoral!
    When old age shall this generation waste,
        Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
    Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say'st,
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty," - that is all
        Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

I've underlined the important bit. The beauty of finding a clean proof in maths or logic is comparable with the beauty of climbing a route in good style (as it is experienced by the climber/prover). Which brings us nicely back to downclimbing.

1. climbing goes up mostly
  1.1 climbing that goes across is acceptable because it is not-down
2. it is the not-downness of climbing that is important
  2.1 downclimbing is anti-climbing
3. when climbing is achieved by enough downclimbing as to be worth mentioning, then it is no longer proper climbing.

Now, I've successfully put 8a.nu into bed with Keats and Wittgenstein. All that remains is to get Simon Cowell a job as a route setter and the apocalypse can begin as planned.

[shark]

However, beautiful your hypotheisis it is not the truth despite what Keats says and we know he was speaking of poetic truth rather than logic which has a different beauty.

The best way I can think of illustrating the flaws is to replace  'downclimbing' for movement and non-movement or to use the vernacular - 'shaking-out'. 

1. climbing involves movement mostly
  1.1 climbing that goes slowly is acceptable because it is not non-movement
2. it is the not non-movement of climbing that is important
  2.1 non-movement is anti-climbing
3. when climbing is achieved by enough non-movement (shaking-out) as to be worth mentioning, then it is no longer proper climbing.

[Jaspersharpe]

Or, put another way, stamina routes are shit. 

[shark]

Or, put another way, stamina routes are shit. 

1. climbing is good
    1.1. more climbing is more good
2. long climbs have more climbing
    2.1 quantity has a quality of its own
3. stamina routes ain't shit

[account_inactive]

4. Stamina is justified by the weak 

[lagerstarfish]

1. climbing is good
 1.1 finishing a climb is the best bit
 1.2 more of a good thing is better
2. stamina routes take longer to finish
 2.1 some people can't do more than 3 moves in a row anyway
3. stamina routes involve more climbing if they are completed
4. some people will get more enjoyment from stamina routes
5. VAT is due to go back up
 5.1 there is no VAT on routes of whatever length
 5.2 you will save more by getting more routes done unless youare going to pass on the cost to your customers
6. it's nice that weak people can feel that they are having a good time too

Of course if we look at Montchausse's theorem that climbing is about moving between points of balance we might start to value the more satisfying stages between movement more than the movement itself. This teleological interpretation of movement being only worth as much as the stability of the point at its end makes stamina routes look more appealing.
Only a fool would think that standing/hanging still to place gear is a good use of ones time. This is the ultimate non-movement of the type mentioned by S.Lee (10/11/09)

[lagerstarfish]

despite what Keats says and we know he was speaking of poetic truth rather than logic which has a different beauty.

I would argue that the feeling that a person experiences on comprehending either type of truth is very similar and that is what is important - and, indeed, what I was on about to start with; hence the maths/climbing analogy.

Next week's discussion will focus on the balance between personal relationships, climbing goals and spiritual fulfilment. Substance use will be discussed in a separate module.

I note with some satisfaction that everyone has submitted their first essay in way ahead of schedule. Marking will begin in march 2012 as detailed on page 57 of the course handbook. Anybody being offered a job on the basis of their UKB Ba hons will be given a priority appointment with Job Centre Plus within three weeks.

[Duma]

god I love you guys

[slackline]

despite what Keats says and we know he was speaking of poetic truth rather than logic which has a different beauty.

I would argue that the feeling that a person experiences on comprehending either type of truth is very similar and that is what is important - and, indeed, what I was on about to start with; hence the maths/climbing analogy.

Next week's discussion will focus on the balance between personal relationships, climbing goals and spiritual fulfilment. Substance use will be discussed in a separate module.

I note with some satisfaction that everyone has submitted their first essay in way ahead of schedule. Marking will begin in march 2012 as detailed on page 57 of the course handbook. Anybody being offered a job on the basis of their UKB Ba hons will be given a priority appointment with Job Centre Plus within three weeks.

Looking forward to the substance use module, does it include a practical component?

[TobyD]

I've become a tad worried whilst reading this thread. I went for a walk up a hill the other day, and although it was lovely, I made a minor navigational error and had to reverse a short way down the path to take a different path. Tris, can you clarify, does this invalidate my hike?

that's dynamite Reeve.
I think you still get the beta-pinkpoint-prairiedog-retro-flash though, so it's all ok.

To briefly return to the thread's tawdry beginnings, i think if Tris doesn't want to downclimb when onsighting then he shouldn't. I fortunately, signed up for rock climbing and not cricket, don't much care about what anyone else else thinks of my efforts, and will continue to do what the hell i like. As should everyone else, as long as they are honest.

[SA Chris]

god I love you guys

Word. It's shit like this that gets me through the day.

[the_loz]

I hope it is allowed,  other wise I have never onsighted a hard trad route.

[Sloper]

Has anyone quoted Heraclitus yet?

You can't climb the same moves twice because neither you nor the moves are the same.

PS, can you claim an os wank if you use a stuffed marigold on a stick? (C) Stalloni

[robertostallioni]

Has anyone quoted Heraclitus yet?

You can't climb the same moves twice because neither you nor the moves are the same.

PS, can you claim an os wank if you use a stuffed marigold on a stick? (C) Stalloni

Only if you have no proir knowledge of the recipient.

And has this thread been resurrected to inform of some hard trad route onsight/s?
I thought not.

[SA Chris]

Has anyone quoted Heraclitus yet?

I just like the clit in his name.

[Lund]

Has anyone quoted Heraclitus yet?

You can't climb the same moves twice because neither you nor the moves are the same.

PS, can you claim an os wank if you use a stuffed marigold on a stick? (C) Stalloni

Only if you have no proir knowledge of the recipient.

And has this thread been resurrected to inform of some hard trad route onsight/s?
I thought not.

http://davemacleod.blogspot.com/2010/03/tempest-in-teacup.html

Dave does Tempest, "on-sight".  Specifically notes that he downclimbed on first go from 6m below the top because he'd run out gear, and wanted to keep the onsight alive.

Obviously, downclimbing a route given X,9 deserves a lot of kudos...

(P.S. I'm cool with his definition.  Who am I to argue with Dave's definition of onsight?  Only brought it up because I saw this thread right after reading the blog entry... please don't punter me...)

[mrjonathanr]

Has anyone quoted Heraclitus yet?

You can't climb the same moves twice because neither you nor the moves are the same.

 No need to as he was superseded by Zeno and his 'dynamics of onsight' theory viz that you can know either which move is being attempted onsight or its theoretical font grade but not both at the same time.
This is not to be confused with the 'sit down start' paradox which states that before reaching the original standing start point you must first cover half the distance from the ground, prior to which you must first have covered a quarter of the distance, and so on ad infinitum thus rendering the sit down start a logical impossibility, a theorem proved many times over at Minus Ten by myself and others.
For discussion  of this and many other conundrums  of the early Greek pioneers a good starting place is Jacky Godoffe's 'Nicomachean Ethics'.

[Sloper]

I take your Zeno and raise you Kuhn and the new onsite paradigm which infers that if you've seen the route on the internet it doesn't blow the onsight.