[Doylo]

As a non-big walling observer I'd say staying on the wall is pretty significant. Descending to the ground at random intervals would surely be a bigger gripe than any of the tactics that they are currently employing and surely detrimental to the whole ethos of the thing. 

[bendavison]

  If coming down is OK then you could argue that they've done it already.

[IanP]

Agreed as well.  Despite the impressive logistics setup I don't think sleeping/recovering on the wall is the same as coming down and spending a couple of nights in a hotel. 

Anyway, if they do it (looking more and more likely) IMO this really is one of the most impressive climbing feats in recent years irrespective of the discussion s around tactics.

[Danny]

I dunno Dave, not returning to the ground seems like a fairly big deal to me. They mention that not being able to walk about is one of the hardest things to deal with during such a protracted siege. This is obviously an abstraction, but on a climb this big, complex and consistently demanding any 'ascent' in any style is going to be an abstraction. I mean, Tommy spent a couple of years messing about on an ab line trying to find a way through the blankness. This is essentially a giant redpoint, and I don't imagine it'll ever be anything but that, unless 9c is the norm in 30 years. Maybe they said the same when the nose was first sieged, but the difference today is that we're seeing some definite saturation of physical standards (I think anyway).

As such, any comparisons to the idealised alpine style rock up and have-at-it approach are meaningless, imo.   

EDIT: 

[DAVETHOMAS90]

It's an interesting one though isn't it? And more so, because of some difference of opinion.

There are aspects of the style of ascent which I find disappointing - the fact that it isn't sponsored by a cider company being one! - but I think that's a good thing.

Not coming down will add pressure, so, yes, maybe chosen for that reason. Otherwise, in theory, you could leave it two years between attempts at the crux pitch. As you could of course, if you were equipped with a site hut, bar, jacuzzi.. (what I'd want) I'm not sure if it makes a critical difference, valid/not valid.

How did Leo approach the prophet? I'll have a look anyway. I'm presuming the harder aid routes were established "ground up" irrespective of return to ground?

[DAVETHOMAS90]

If coming down is OK then you could argue that they've done it already.

Aha! Yes, that's my question.

Was each part worked, solved in sequence?

If so, then I'd argue too, that something valid has possibly been established already. In that context, we can see that what they are doing is an improvement, though with inherent contrivance.

I've spent a lot of time thinking about abstraction, whether in climbing,  mathematics say, or our conception of words and things. I think we can find ourselves thinking that we're talking about one thing, and find that there's less of substance there than we think.

Where do we really find the critical difference? I suppose I'm asking this, because I'm likely to ask "what can I get away with?" - to push the boundaries as far as possible (don't we all?), and remain within defined limits of what is still valid.

Interesting stuff. By the way, I'm in favour of yo-yo-ing, and not pulling ropes on trad routes. And better porta-ledges 

[andy popp]

For what it's worth, I think that staying on the wall does make a very big difference. They cannot be up there forever (especially in winter, even if well supplied) - all the time they are getting more tired, stiffer, mentally pressured and, perhaps critically, their skin is getting trashed - and despite all the prep over the years and the logistics now they are doing what we all try and do: an ascent that starts at the bottom and goes to the top in a single sustained push. Sure, all the pitches have been previously freed but what they are doing now is so, so much more demanding - not an abstraction of little substance. Imagine red pointing a 9a 14 pitches up knowing that you have another to do the next day and that if you don't do it everything that has gone before counts for nothing?

[Falling Down]

I agree... I've not been following closely, but, at the end of the day, they are two climbers at the top of their game climbing the hardest set of pitches ever in one go on the most iconic wall in the world and making everything very transparent and as ethical as can be under the circumstances. 

[AJM]

Was each part worked, solved in sequence?

If by worked and solved you ultimately mean redpointed then presumably not, given that the last pitch to be redpointed (in November sometime?) was one of the crux 9a pitches right in the middle of the route.

[lagerstarfish]

I've spent a lot of time thinking about abstraction, whether in climbing,  mathematics say, or our conception of words and things. I think we can find ourselves thinking that we're talking about one thing, and find that there's less of substance there than we think.

Where do we really find the critical difference? I suppose I'm asking this, because I'm likely to ask "what can I get away with?" - to push the boundaries as far as possible (don't we all?), and remain within defined limits of what is still valid.

I'm thinking about the dialectical necessity of morality (and climbing ethics) providing some guidance here

[Johnny Brown]

What FD said.

Dave, what Leo wanted to do with the Prophet was establish a free big wall ground up. It didn't work out in the end, but they gave it a damn good go. I suspect it was at least partly in response to the quirks of Yosemite free-wall ethics.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Quite some misinterpretation of my post here I think.

I'm trying to look behind some of the "gosh, look at that, isn't it amazing!". Though admittedly it's bloody hard.

I remember watching Ben on the FA of Zeke years ago, and thinking, yeah, OK, really, really good effort, but it doesn't really seem that hard to me - imagining where things could go in the future.

Sometimes, when we really break things down, they're found to be somehow a little less outrageous, or just perhaps a little different to what we thought.

What do we call it? No one is saying that what KJ and TC are doing isn't bloody difficult! I find it important to try to understand what we can call something, and what we can't, if anything, so that we can better know where we go from here.

If Sharma subsequently tried the route ground up, but periodically returned to the ground, would he have a claim to a repeat? How would it stack up?

This is the sort of thing I'm thinking about.

I'd say he does. What do other people think? What impact does the current style have on future claims? ..

[Jim]

what are you trying to say tho Dave, that this isn't as impressive as most people think or that you don't think it'll be that impressive in the future?
I would say the current style is probably as good as you can get while still been able to get to the top

[a dense loner]

This thread has confused me a lot about big walls. I knew nothing but expected someone to start at the bottom and do each pitch in logical order to the top, sleeping in a portaledge along the way. Ie if you stop at pitch 19 you sleep at pitch 19. I now know I know less than nothing.

[Durbs]

I'm mightily impressed, some of the footage off Progression (I think?) of the slab pitch was immense.

Surprised and a bit let down they've skipped the dyno pitch as this was surely one of the coolest (and hardest at 9a?) pitches and the bit everyone watching from the media loved.

For clarity, as I don't think I fully understand it, in this attempt is at least one of them - or indeed both of them except Kevin on pitch 15 - doing each pitch in one go cleanly?  Or is it one massive link of redpoints?

Give it another year and I imagine Ondra will piss up it in a day, Ueili Steck will run up it on 17 minutes and Honnald will solo it including the dyno.

[jwi]

Since they are not hauling the food and water themselves, insisting on staying on the wall is surely just for media interest, no?

[kelvin]

I'm a bit confused as to whether they're doing it as individuals or as a team - it's sorta difficult trying to work it out from twitter.  Will KJ still have to get the pitch were his finger tape got a flapper? It'll all get written up after no doubt but one thing's for sure... it can be done in a better style at some point in the future.

That's maybe a good thing.

[abarro81]

They're both trying to free every pitch. Thus far TC has done so up to and including no. 15, KJ not done 15 yet. If one of them does every pitch it will count, but obviously it's nicer if they both do every pitch. Sounds like they both lead on the harder pitch, but just swing leads on the easier ones.

Since they are not hauling the food and water themselves, insisting on staying on the wall is surely just for media interest, no?

I doubt it. I can't imagine that being on the wall is the same as recovering on the floor, in the same way that an awkward no-hander isn't the same as sitting on the floor on a sport route - notionally you recover to zero but in reality you don't. I think the big deal with staying on the wall is that it realistically rules out 'single push' ascents that are in fact multi-month or multi-season affairs, as even with 'porters' you're going to be limited in some ways.

For clarity, as I don't think I fully understand it, in this attempt is at least one of them - or indeed both of them except Kevin on pitch 15 - doing each pitch in one go cleanly?  Or is it one massive link of redpoints?

I don't understand the question - They're both trying to free every pitch, but it's a big link of redpoints i.e. if they fall on pitch 15, they just start from the belay again, they don't have to go down and do a full single-push-with-no-falls ascent, which would be hardcore as hell.
(What's the hardest big wall to have a single-push-no-falls ascent? Has the nose been done like that?)

[kelvin]

They're both trying to free every pitch. Thus far TC has done so up to and including no. 15, KJ not done 15 yet. If one of them does every pitch it will count, but obviously it's nicer if they both do every pitch. Sounds like they both lead on the harder pitch, but just swing leads on the easier ones.

Thanks Alex.

(What's the hardest big wall to have a single-push-no-falls ascent? Has the nose been done like that?)

In my naivety, that's what I originally thought they were going to attempt to do - hence all the years of pre-practice 

[jwi]

Sure it is harder to sleep on the wall, but then again so is sleeping in a tent rather then in a hotel.

[slackline]

They're both trying to free every pitch. Thus far TC has done so up to and including no. 15, KJ not done 15 yet. If one of them does every pitch it will count, but obviously it's nicer if they both do every pitch. Sounds like they both lead on the harder pitch, but just swing leads on the easier ones.

 

[Fultonius]

At first the main aspect that I felt was a bit off was them being supplied by people from the ground - this got me thinking...

If, say, they had a team of four, two leaders (KJ and TC) and two helpers who did all the logistics, hauling, cooking, filming, massage etc ;-) and no-one went to the ground. I would not even question this style. Everyone has helped the team effort, no-one has gone to the ground.

Then I started thinking more about it and realised that these two helpers, while getting bored, would not get over fatigued by this. Their involvement wouldn't affect the efforts of the climbers much, whether they were there every minute, or zipping down to the ground. Either way they would be there to keep the climbers stocked, fed, watered. So, does it really change the ascent much if they don't stay up there? It's a grey area.

Another area I am not totally convinced about is "camping above". However, in the spirit of maximising safety and minimising unnecessary 5 to 8 bolt bivvy spots, it does make sense to keep the number of sleeping spots to a minimum. It must reduce the overall effort required, but I would posit that thsi "effort" would mainly have been carried out by the two hypothetical helpers anyway...



Does anyone know if the the fixed lines were still in-situ from previous sessions on the route?

[ghisino]

Since they are not hauling the food and water themselves, insisting on staying on the wall is surely just for media interest, no?

returning to the ground is not considered too well in terms of el capitan free climbing ethics, as far as i understand.

A clear example: a few years back, Cedric Lachat flashed the bottom third of Freerider, aka Freeblast, and abbed to the ground. A few days later he jugged up permanently fixed lines to his previous highpoint (heart ledges) and flashed the rest of the route. This is not commonly considered as the first flash ascent of Freerider, but it would be if going back to the ground was considered valid.

Interestingly though, moving up or down the wall using aid and/or fixed lines to get to your bivy spot at night and then back to your freeclimbing highpoint in the morning is considered OK, there are countless small and big examples, the most famous maybe being Steph Davis spending several nights on a ledge above the pitch she had trouble redpointing on Salathe.

finally, porters and "slaves": they are considered ok, will obviously make the difference between freeclimbing something well below your "climbing only" limit and getting quite close to it, and should be acknowledged more than they usually do.
Last october i've seen a polish "climber+slave" team on Freerider and although the climber was pushing it hard, it was nothing in comparison to the suffering and dedication his slave was showing.
Their help is psychological as well: i could and would have attempted the same route if i an equally dedicated and driven "slave" was available, but as i had a "regular" partner instead (supportive within realistic limitations, having his own objectives as well, etc) it suddenly felt as very close to impossible and not a funny route to "just try, and we'll see".

all in all this attempt does not seem to break any established rthics, but it seems to take full advantage of any loopholes in them.
Makes me think of when Yuji made the technically valid world's first 8c onsight after days of binoculars inspection, on a well-tickmarcked roof route that has been described to me as "never further form the ground than 10 meters".
I don't blame them, it is in the nature of things that such ascents happen and i guess that any dedicated and performance driven climber has had at least a couple of similar experiences...

[Durbs]

(What's the hardest big wall to have a single-push-no-falls ascent? Has the nose been done like that?)

In my naivety, that's what I originally thought they were going to attempt to do - hence all the years of pre-practice 
[/quote]

Likewise - thought TC had already freed the pitches individually, and assumed most Nose ascents were "no falls/rope-rests" too.
But then I don't really follow big-walling that much...

[abarro81]

I said free slackline, not lead free. I for one don't care whether they both lead a 5.12 or if one of them seconds it.
Whilst they have a help team, it also sounds like they spend a bunch of time rigging ropes for the media crew, so hardly lounging around.