[andy popp]

1. It's not my attitude. It's a general ethical standpoint supporting good style and not supporting widespread adherence to challenge-avoiding style. I happen to be a vocal defender of that standpoint but there are others, vocal or otherwise.

Surely it's not ethics, but climbing style. Ethics would be not gardening rare plants or chipping, as examples.

No, its ethics.

[joel182]

1. It's not my attitude. It's a general ethical standpoint supporting good style and not supporting widespread adherence to challenge-avoiding style. I happen to be a vocal defender of that standpoint but there are others, vocal or otherwise.

Surely it's not ethics, but climbing style. Ethics would be not gardening rare plants or chipping, as examples.

No, its ethics.

Is it? I really struggle to understand where ethics come into it. Aesthetics would seem a more appropriate term. Rules might be better too.

[ashtond6]

1. It's not my attitude. It's a general ethical standpoint supporting good style and not supporting widespread adherence to challenge-avoiding style. I happen to be a vocal defender of that standpoint but there are others, vocal or otherwise.

Surely it's not ethics, but climbing style. Ethics would be not gardening rare plants or chipping, as examples.

No, its ethics.

No, it's style.

[mr chaz]

Ethics:

‘Moral principles that govern a person’s behaviour or the conducting of an activity’

I’d suggest that fits pretty well to what I understand to be ‘ethics’ in the context of climbing.

[tomtom]

One persons style could be another’s ethic.

[shark]

Ethics is the thinking; Style is the doing

[Offwidth]

That could be the basis of an Orbital style track with old voice samples from Ken and co.

[IanP]

Ethics:

‘Moral principles that govern a person’s behaviour or the conducting of an activity’

I’d suggest that fits pretty well to what I understand to be ‘ethics’ in the context of climbing.

The removal of 'moral' is a pretty big change to the meaning there e.g. your dietry principles might involve a well balanced diet including plenty of fruit and vegetables and preparing food from scratch but thats hardly ethics.

My ethics involve generally trying not to criticise people's approach to life and activities unless it direcly has a detrimental effect on other people etc , would I be breaching those ethics to say I find Fiends approach to this subject a bit sanctimoneous and overbearing 

[DAVETHOMAS90]

A few points.

In very simple terms, most of us know when we're cheating.

If you don't, then you probably don't have great ethics anywhere else either.

So, you've seen a friend step up and solo Archangel at Stanage, climbing above nothing but his boot rag, and a few boulders.

Now, Ashton66, if you then decide to emulate your friend, but worried about the landing, you throw down two pads before setting off up the route, you're cheating - if you want to claim you both soloed the route.

That's not the same thing as saying you "should not" put down pads to protect your ascent.

Another part of your ethical stance might be that it's irresponsible to risk having to claim on depleted NHS resources (getting your ankles fixed) just because you want to experience/claim a purer style of ascent. As Shark very simply implies, ethics inform your choice of style.

These days, there is less acknowledgement of cheating - and with that, less impetus to improve style. It seems that increasingly, the emphasis is on claiming an ascent, rather than to question how it's done.

I feel irritated about the comments about Prof Whittaker (JB) and The Scoop (T_B) above. Why not emphasise the approach, and not the numbers? On The Scoop, there are a couple of pitches below the top pitch IIRC 

There are too many put down merchants in climbing. Re Prof W, maybe it was easier than Dawes felt it was on the FA, but there's a massive difference between setting off knowing the route's been climbed before at x grade, vs setting off without prior knowledge.

I've always felt that how you engage with the activity is far more important than the numbers.

In that respect, the first thing to acknowledge is Franco's enthusiasm and commitment  I really don't think you need to justify your tactics on the harder lines.

Re Lazarus above. I can't remember what Pat's style was on the FA, but there's a peg in it. Snapped a hold off on the second ascent, otherwise I doubt I'd have fallen off. Not especially hard.

Pat's contribution to SW climbing is of course immense!

[jwi]

1. It's not my attitude. It's a general ethical standpoint supporting good style and not supporting widespread adherence to challenge-avoiding style. I happen to be a vocal defender of that standpoint but there are others, vocal or otherwise.

Surely it's not ethics, but climbing style. Ethics would be not gardening rare plants or chipping, as examples.

No, its ethics.

Quite. Ethics has a well specified and clear meaning as a concept in sport in general. See e.g. https://www.amazon.com/Ethics-Sport-Essential-Readings/dp/0190210990 for a recent overview on ethical issues in sports (very NA-centric though...)

Marc Le Menestrel, who has a permanent position as a Professor in corporate governance and sustainability and has published several papers on ethics in Business Journals has written the following on ethics in climbing:
http://climbing-ethics.galactron.org/Charte-d-ethique-de-l-escalade.html

[A Jooser]

Re Lazarus above. I can't remember what Pat's style was on the FA, but there's a peg in it. Snapped a hold off on the second ascent, otherwise I doubt I'd have fallen off. Not especially hard.

Pat's contribution to SW climbing is of course immense!

Thanks Dave. After posting I remembered hearing him talking about the ascent and saying he had abseiled down to put the peg in, so no on-sight. Couldn't have counted it anyway as it's now given E6. An on-sight first ascent of a genuine E7 route must be very rare indeed.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Re Lazarus above. I can't remember what Pat's style was on the FA, but there's a peg in it. Snapped a hold off on the second ascent, otherwise I doubt I'd have fallen off. Not especially hard.

Pat's contribution to SW climbing is of course immense!

Thanks Dave. After posting I remembered hearing him talking about the ascent and saying he had abseiled down to put the peg in, so no on-sight. Couldn't have counted it anyway as it's now given E6. An on-sight first ascent of a genuine E7 route must be very rare indeed.

Some good climbing at Bass Point.

I was trying to say that what "counts" is the (for me) tremendously inspiring boldness of Pat's climbs, and not the number attached to one harder single pitch.

I remember reading the account of Pat's ascent of Painted Bird at Taff's Well quarry in South Wales.

"The fall, when it came, was quickly followed by a resounding crack, as the two high runners ripped .. incredibly, one of the friends held".

I used to love that stuff, and I always replay the opening lines when a "friend" is setting off up a bold pitch 

[andy popp]

"Prof W, maybe it was easier than Dawes felt it was on the FA, but there's a massive difference between setting off knowing the route's been climbed before at x grade, vs setting off without prior knowledge.

I've always felt that how you engage with the activity is far more important than the numbers."

Exactly, its the mode of engagement that really matters, which is also why this is about ethics, which are much more than simply right/wrong, good/bad.

Edit: fucked up the quoting.

[andy popp]

Pat's contribution to SW climbing is of course immense!

Off topic, but I think Pat has to be the single most competitive climber I've ever met; that's not a criticism, just an observation.

[nik at work]

"Prof W, maybe it was easier than Dawes felt it was on the FA, but there's a massive difference between setting off knowing the route's been climbed before at x grade, vs setting off without prior knowledge.

I've always felt that how you engage with the activity is far more important than the numbers."

Exactly, its the mode of engagement that really matters, which is also why this is about ethics, which are much more than simply right/wrong, good/bad.

Edit: fucked up the quoting.

I'd agree with this.

[kingholmesy]

Pat's contribution to SW climbing is of course immense!

If I could only climb one person’s routes for the rest of my life, there is no shadow of a doubt it would be Pat’s.

[Fiend]

I tend to use "ethics" and "style" pretty interchangeably, although I admit "style" can be easily confused with the climber's actual personal physical / mental style - grace, composure, elegance, etc (or the lack thereof).

Ethics would cover a broad range of stuff from chipping and retro-bolting to lying about ascents to height of side-runners used etc. The current topic seems to be "style of ascent ethics", it's usually pretty obvious what we're all talking about.

I also think etiquette is a useful distinction, covering crag behaviour, interaction with other climbers and non-climbers, tickmarks to toiletting and what-have-you, etc.

[Fiend]

"Prof W, maybe it was easier than Dawes felt it was on the FA, but there's a massive difference between setting off knowing the route's been climbed before at x grade, vs setting off without prior knowledge.

I've always felt that how you engage with the activity is far more important than the numbers."

Exactly, its the mode of engagement that really matters, which is also why this is about ethics, which are much more than simply right/wrong, good/bad.

This is the whole approach I very much agree with. I think there's something very special about being faced with a personal challenge, ideally having some burning curiosity about what will happens ("Doubt is an essential part of any meaningful endeavour"), and stepping off the ground and committing to that journey of discovery, whether it's terror-teetering up Birdie or terror-teetering along Sunset Slab or wondering whether the pump clock is ticking faster than you're climbing upwards on The Screamer or discovering all those positive crimps on The Golden Slipper....

Ethics OR STYLE are a way of quantifying that qualitative experience, giving some sort of guidelines as to how that will be normally and optimally and universally experienced.

This is always why I often espouse spirit of the law rather than letter of the law. All these UKC debates about "is it an onsight if you climb to the ground instead of a 2m wide ledge just above the ground?", "but my mate did it and said the good cam slot the guide mentions is actually bomber, surely I've blown it?", FFS will you be up there, above your gear, discovering the holds for the first time, working out the moves, will you be having that journey?? Of course you fucking will, it will still be a magical experience.

Conversely, some small things can make a big difference. I once happened to abseil down an E6 while stripping gear from a route I did right next to it (shares the same start), and knowing I'd never do it, just looked visually at the holds and the crucial mid-crux gear, fuck me that made such a massive difference to the whole concept of getting on it, it suddenly seemed so possible (as a completely undesirable headpoint) with that knowledge. Since then I've been extra-careful abbing near harder routes (6 times down Necromancer @ Earnsheugh with my eyes closed or swivelling chameleon like out to see, and bloody hell was it worth it, what an experience that was committing to that (and guessing the crucial cam first go!!)).

[mrjonathanr]

Ethic references a set of principles governing the acceptable conduct of an activity which implies value judgment about what is ‘correct’. It’s often but not always interpersonal. It’s the motive.

So dietary conduct is potentially an ethical matter, it depends on what you are talking about. Avoiding too much salt and fat? Not in itself ethical. Doing it so you don’t die early and leave your kids without your support? Ethical. Eating broccoli not steak because you don’t like the taste? Not ethical. Vegetarianism because you are motivated by animal welfare? Ethical.

There’s nothing moral about pulling on a peg or not, but it is an ethical matter as to whether you feel that is an acceptable action. That is a fundamentally aesthetic ethic, but it’s not style, because that’s a manner of performance, not the underpinning ethos which determines it.

Also ethical is whether you place one in the first place since it alters the environment; that’s a different sort of ethic, deciding what action we will permit based on its impact on others.

To think that ethic - like any word- has just a single simple meaning is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word implies.

So no Ashton, it’s not style, it’s ethic.

[reeve]

Ethic references a set of principles governing the acceptable conduct of an activity which implies value judgment about what is ‘correct’. It’s often but not always interpersonal. It’s the motive.

...

So no Ashton, it’s not style, it’s ethic.

Although you give a good explanation of why you favour the term ethics rather than style, I think that you've shown exactly what the problem is with using it. I actually prefer using the term style to differentiate between onsight / headpoint, GU etc, because ethics implies an interpersonal judgement - just like in your definition. I'm totally opposed to anyone judging someone else for how they are using their recreational time. I get it, that ethics might be personal ethics, but to me the word has too much baggage about moral judgement, and that is, for me, what gets my back up when people try to suggest that there's too much headpointing going on. I guess as long as someone is clear that their use of the term ethics is in "these are my personal ethics for how I prefer to approach climbing a rock" then fair enough - that clears up the ambiguity.

Where I would use the term ethics is in terms of not damaging the rock (overtly, like chipping, or subtly, like scrabbling around in the damp, or trying something GU which is going to require lots of falls onto fragile gear placements), not hogging popular routes with a top rope, etc. Obviously these are ethics, because I think it is fair to judge someone for doing these things and politely suggest to them that they think about their impact.

I have a sense - and I would be really interested in what anyone makes of this - that the 'anti-headpoint camp' aren't actually that judgemental of people who choose to headpoint (except you Fiend, I know you are), but instead would like to see a greater appreciation of the nuance of the style that someone climbed in. For example, the way that in magazines online news reports big numbers sell stories, so smaller numbers in a harder style seem to be under-reported. To my mind, wishing for a greater appreciation of the experience is still compatible with saying "people can climb how they want". Or, put another way, saying "people can climb how they want" ≠ "I can't see the aesthetic and stylistic difference, and the resulting difference in experience". On a tangent, I think any implication that someone headpointing inherently has a less personally valuable experience than someone onsighting is an arrogant judgement.

[A Jooser]

[Offwidth]

I think the two key ethics are honesty and minimising damage to the rock and any rare insitu flora and fauna . After that I'd much prefer climbers 'give the rock a chance' but I've always been uneasy about pushing rules for the wads about headpoints, that differ from punters, up to a level with honesty and avoiding damage (it's completely impractical anyhow as some punters will watch the elite and ape them). I'm also worried that negative obsessions about headpointing can overlook its advantages on new (unknown rock ) or especially on dirty routes or routes reliant on probable dodgy pegs  A lot of single pitch routes need traffic that low extreme headpointing would greatly benefit. I'd certainly like to see a practical pro-onsight ethic that is not disparaging  to headpointing in such circumstances and so helps to avoid putting off adventurous exploratory aspirants early in their climbing careers.

I'm well below punter standard but still set my own rules when headpointing: once the route is clean and I know things like bold moves are not subject to scrittle, I'll go early. Some of my headpoints have only prepracticed the feel of a crux and then just the once. I can't think of a route I headpointed with practice more than twice. I also decided never to headpoint above my best onsight grade (I know from seconding them that several bold E3s and E4s suited me more than some E1 and E2 headpoints I'd done, but didn't need what felt like a cheat number tick to me). I've always actively encouraged the onsight game, partly as its given so much to me, but I don't want people hurting themselves when trying out-of-condition lines; or face so much fear from dirty routes they just get put off. I found guidebook work on dirty crags was sometimes too mentally gruelling just seconding onsights, despite climbing with some handy leaders.

So where is the damage... certainly on some delicate classic routes in the mid to high extremes that need less top-rope practice... especially from those clearly not up to it... but only a minority and so thats more route specific than style specific. It's also on Birchen classics below E1 when obsessions about unrealisticly 'going for it'  onsight and not enough warnings about the problems of hanging around and moving after falling on placements (the worst type of dogging), that have led to severe cam damage in breaks... similar problems are starting to be visible in breaks near cruxy moves on Stanage VSs. There are routes of all grades where inappropriate cam use has cost us flakes. However in scale on Peak grit this all pales compared to the damage on classic lower grade peak boulder problems from climbing when wet or with dirty boots or overbrushing. Way too many problems have lost the hard surface layer. It would be good to hear even more support from the wads and punters on these issues, compared to worrying about how many angelic headpoints you can make to the tip of a needle.

Honesty is too often sadly lacking (especially in historic terms.. cheating has always happened but some would look to airbrush that out, to suit their 'golden age' views on ethics and style)  but even when being honest, numbers can give the wrong signals. I've found some HS onsights much more of a challenge than my rare E2 headpoints. The comparative  numbers being way off in the equivalent significance of onsights to headpoits means I welcome UKC raising the bar on what counts as a significant headpoint. Even for onsights, numbers can give the wrong impression: compare  KK (for all but the short) versus TCH and this perfectly illustrates a problem in what counts as most significant .... I know where my greater respect for an onsight would be. I wish we had sorted more grade inconsistencies in the latest guides. I certainly see all the mid and lower grade changes we made as important to help keep the onsight 'game' healthy across the grades. I think the YMC hollow star system is brilliant as it signals where an inspection and likely clean (by a pal for the purist) is probably needed to obtain the best quality climbing.

[user deactivated]

I always assumed the headpoint cut off was e6, unless it’s e6 6c / 7a then it’s a ground up affair, unless you don’t do it in a session or two or it’s filthy / unknown quantity then abseil becomes acceptable. Them’s the rules of fair play, surely?

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Ethic references a set of principles governing the acceptable conduct of an activity which implies value judgment about what is ‘correct’. It’s often but not always interpersonal. It’s the motive.

...

So no Ashton, it’s not style, it’s ethic.

On a tangent, I think any implication that someone headpointing inherently has a less personally valuable experience than someone onsighting is an arrogant judgement.

I'd like to think you'd find quite a few people here in agreement with you, including me.

However that's not really what is being suggested.

Dan, great to see your own inspiring ascents recently 

But I disagree with any idea of imposing rules on what "counts" or is valid - with ref to a "cut-off" grade.

[reeve]

Hi Dave. I'd like to think taht you're right that most people would agree that they have no right to judge what others do (so long as it isn't damaging the rock or anything similarly antisocial). But these quotes, all from this thread, do make me doubt that. Maybe I've misunderstood.

The more I think about it, the more I dislike the whole thing, especially promoting the exact opposite direction to how climbing progression should be going

The article had no discussion of standards and thus tacitly argues that headpointing can be appropriate at any grade.

Headpointing isn’t the devil’s work, but it’s an inferior ethic and I’m not enthusiastic about its wholesale adoption when onsighting has so much reward.

I always assumed the headpoint cut off was e6, unless it’s e6 6c / 7a then it’s a ground up affair, unless you don’t do it in a session or two or it’s filthy / unknown quantity then abseil becomes acceptable. Them’s the rules of fair play, surely?

Isn't it all a bit absurd that on Himalayan giants there is a drive towards improving style, yet on 6m gritstone slabs, anything goes - including the right to question, out the window?

Although to be fair to you Dave, you did also say "This has been turned into a polarized argument of "Them against us" etc, "How dare they tell us what we should/shouldn't do" etc, which it isn't." - although I think it has been!

For what it's worth, I think conversations such as what Fiend said about how minor things can change your experience - such as abseiling down an adjacent route and noticing that you have a jug to aim for, can make a massive difference to an experience. Things like this aren't well accounted for by blanket terms such as OS, flash etc.. I think conversations about these kind of aesthetics / stylistic (whatever I can call them) details, which encompasses whether you throw a rope down or not, is a better way of helping people to value the intricasies of their experiences rather than trying to promote supposed improvements in style.

This is on the money for me, but is distinct from the above quotes because it is about the personal importance, not about judging what others do. (even though I've quoted you saying two totally different things Dan - I'm confused)

I do agree that an improvement in style is important though, but again a very personal affair. Can’t really stand being told what to do in climbing by anyone taking a morally / ethically superior vantage point ppppffffttt