[andy popp]

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?

Its not about rules, but aspirations. To take E6 (I'm not sure, but am assuming you're saying this is the grade at which headpointing becomes ok?). I think its reasonable to hope people will aspire to attempt E6s os/gu, something that was achieved probably at least 40 years ago (even as we recognize that we sometimes fall short of that aspiration).

[Fiend]

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?

Now that's some proper nitty gritty How much filth are we talking??

Pffft, surely it should be E7 by now, haven't Caff and Jordan and McNair and El Mocho / JB / Nik / Nige / Michele add-as-applicable and others done enough yet??

Aspirations....I would hope they'd be pretty high these days. What on earth are people using beastmakers for??

[user deactivated]

Sorry Reeve, guys, it was meant in an ironical sense in that thems my rules. But literally meaningless to anyone else unless they give it meaning of course. I agree with everything being said, apart from Fiend of course and maybe JB and Franco. Can’t bring myself to agree with those fellahs

[Ged]

" I think its reasonable to hope people will aspire to attempt E6s os/gu"

Why? Why why why why why? Why do you think that? Again, I'm speaking as someone who attempts e6 ground up, and have attempted the odd e7 ground up, but why should I give a fuck if someone else  top ropes it? I'm talking from an ethics view here rather than rock damage, but why should there be a standard on this? I get the whole thing about being part of a bunch of mates who have their own standards of what gets kudos and what gets you ridiculed, but beyond that, why does anyone think they can suggest to others what's cool and what's not? Again, this is not about pushing the sport, this is about recreational climbers going out and having a laugh. For reasons that are personal to them and them only.

[joel182]

Sorry Reeve, guys, it was meant in an ironical sense in that thems my rules. But literally meaningless to anyone else unless they give it meaning of course. I agree with everything being said, apart from Fiend of course and maybe JB and Franco. Can’t bring myself to agree with those fellahs

A great example of Poe's law in action

Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a fundamentalist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article.

[user deactivated]

A very wise person that Poe

Edit: a wise person I once knew said ‘there’s not much fun in fundamentalism’

There’s certainly not much satire and humour around in climbing these days. A lot of self serious intellectualisation though.

[tomtom]

There’s certainly not much satire and humour around in climbing these days. A lot of self serious intellectualisation though.

That’s not my style...

[andy popp]

I'm worried about committing more intellectualizing if I answer Ged ...

[user deactivated]

I’m worried full stop but fuck it eh

[tomtom]

I'm worried about committing more intellectualising if I answer Ged ...

Intellectualise to the max!

[DAVETHOMAS90]

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

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.

Reeve, I'm not making that claim above. You're misquoting me there, and out of context. In fact I would say anyone has the right to judge, if they want to, although I don't think it's particularly helpful.

I find your other comments interesting, because they suggest a clear awareness of the nuance of action and experience in climbing - and presumably then, your own thoughts about what you might find rewarding? 

Isn't that the whole point of this dialogue?

Franco's article promotes a particular style of ascent, I would argue, with the emphasis on "getting up stuff". I'll make the claim that there is now perhaps more emphasis on getting to the top than the rewards of the experience.

I used the video of " Art Nouveau", because for me, that wasn't an ascent of Art Nouveau - although it climbs the same bit of rock. I like to consider climbs invitations of engagement and experience.

If you have considerations of style, then surely you also make choices about it. You decide. Why? What do you allow/disallow? What's your (personal) ethic? For you, what do you find more rewarding?

I think the important point you make above is exactly why there was such a reaction to Franco's article. As Andy P says above, it lacked balance; it didn't invite the question.

[mrjonathanr]

I'm worried about committing more intellectualizing if I answer Ged ...

That's ethics for you...

[user deactivated]

That’s a great point about it not being ‘art Nouveau’ Dave. Reminds me of the ‘can’t step in the same river twice’ philosophy. Sometimes particularly if a mate does a lesser ascent of something I’ll offer up a slight variation on the name, a couple from this year include ‘east woo’ traverse’ ‘and the stubbing’. Maybe that ascent could be called ‘fart Nouveau’?

[ashtond6]

Maybe that ascent could be called ‘fart Nouveau’?

I wanna climb that lovely feature
When I do, i will tie off 15 pads and bring 10 mates to spot 

Because I wanna climb that lovely feature, but my legs aren't worth it.

I'll send the vid if I ever do it 

[user deactivated]

Why not use pre placed micro wires as per the original ascent?

[ashtond6]

Why not use pre placed micro wires as per the original ascent?

I thought they were blown out?

[SA Chris]

Interesting and seasoned debate.

Surely "style" is just a subset of "ethics".

[Fiend]

I've always liked the option of looking at a climb and just saying:

"No, I'm not good enough....I'll train hard and try hard to improve, but if I never get that good I'll just accept I can't do it"

Having said that, pads and highballing are the new norm and do allow a good compromise and a good mini-adventure.

[Johnny Brown]

Ethics vs style: my take has always been style is how you climb, ethics is the thought process behind it.

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.

I don't think this is very fair Dave, particularly in the context of your comments on Art Nouveau which are about the only overt put-downs in this thread.

I wasn't trying to 'put Johnny down', I was just trying to add some context/ facts. There are few bigger Dawes fans than I. Professor Whittaker is a route that got a huge reputation from being selected for a special mention in a Paul Pritchard article. On Cilan (pre-Haston's and Bullock's recent exploits) ALL the routes were climbed onsight and in very adventurous style, and the passing of time has shown that PW did not deserve singling out. As I intimated, if you were to single one route on Cilan out Birdy should probably be the one, although some of Jack Street and Al Evans' exploits in the late sixties were perhaps even more impressive given the rudimentary equipment and knowledge of the time (cams are far more use on Cilan than wires).

Seriously then, if highballing Art Nouveau 'isn't an ascent' then what is? Headpointing on pre-placed wires presumably is? Have you done it? In what style? It's a bit of blind, knacky move at a height which is very ballsy ground-up, even with a lot of mats, but would be absolutely trivial after practice. It'd be interesting to know if anyone has managed it without either top-rope or mats - I haven't heard of any. I am absolutely convinced that the first time I did it, with maybe two or three mats, I took on a bigger challenge than headpointing it.

[andy popp]

Why? Why why why why why?

No, of course its nothing to me what this or that individual person does to get up a route. But I've not really been talking about that, but rather the overall framework within which climbing takes place, which has always been about trying to maintain the proper degree of challenge, particularly as equipment improves. Climbing, which hardly makes any sense at all anyway, makes even less without that kind of overall framework.

Besides, hoping people will aspire to a particular style/ethic hardly seems very dictatorial.

[T_B]

It'd be interesting to know if anyone has managed it without either top-rope or mats - I haven't heard of any. I am absolutely convinced that the first time I did it, with maybe two or three mats, I took on a bigger challenge than headpointing it.

I did it on my own above a pad that kept blowing away (#lookatme) 

DT: As to my comments about The Scoop. Having done the route twice (#lookatme) I think I'm right in saying that the top hard pitch is very blind (as well as exposed/intimidating). It's fair to say that as a matter of record it was pre-inspected. Obviously the whole escapade of freeing this route by Dawes/Pritchard 90% GU was amazing (the ingenuity of the flying groove pitch in particular).

But, I stand by my comment. It's important to me that things are recorded truthfully (and to Pritchard presumably, or he wouldn't have put the record straight later). I was rather put out when quizzed by a well-known-climber after my on-sight of the flying groove pitch, whether or not it was a "Welsh on-sight"!

[Johnny Brown]

The other thing is the tree in the woods question - I've done Art Nouveau a few times and never fallen off (#lookatmetoo). Obviously pads are a psychological crutch to some extent but if that's all they are surely it's hard to argue you've castrated it?

[DAVETHOMAS90]

I know that we disagree somewhat over pads.

As per my other post - about routes like the Scoop etc - I was trying to emphasise engagement.

So much of what occurs in debates reduces things to where they sit in league tables, and with it, what other people hold onto too - for reasons of their own benefit.

It's common that people want to Big up/put down, and yes I do imply that that's a significant part of what occurs in "debates".

Going back to the pads question, they make the difference.

I've never climbed Narcissus at Froggatt, because I've only wanted to do it when I'm ready to set off from the deck (ground) , when I'm willing and hopefully able.

I could stick three pads down, and then try it, but that wouldn't be Narcissus. (That would be Narccy Sis )

For me, the route is the encounter, and not just the piece of rock. Going back to Dan's reference to rivers above, it would be like crossing the Rubicon by building a bridge over it!

So what I was trying to emphasise above was the approach.

There will always be indiscretions, and yes of course, they need to be recorded - hopefully as a bearing for aspiration.

Edit. Tom, great effort on The Scoop, among others.

[36chambers]

I could stick three pads down, and then try it, but that wouldn't be Narcissus.

An easy solution for this would be to call the trad version "Narcissus E6 6b", the highball version "Narcissus 7A", and a headpoint ascent "Narcissus E-copout"

[Fiend]

I could stick three pads down, and then try it, but that wouldn't be Narcissus.

An easy solution for this would be to call the trad version "Narcissus E6 6b", the highball version "Narcissus 7A (!)"

It's all pretty old hat now thanks to the clarity of the BMC/YMC grit guides, but this is still just a really nice obvious way  (I've added in the NWB exclamation mark) of quantifying and describing what experience you're getting or indeed aspiring to, and highlights the choice available, even if everyone apart from Dave and sometimes I will go for the latter

Dave, great comments, I really respect that. Although you're going to end up as outdated and oddball as Keen Youth when he started .

I've done the same thing, depending entirely on when / how my inspiration for a route / problem started. I was inspired by a lot of grit micros before pads existed (when I was even shitter at bouldering), and that inspiration remained after I started using pads regularly - I went to The Plantation a few times with pads but never tried NTBTA until I felt ready to do it without - old inspiration as a solo. DIY I left the few mats we had beneath my mate on Sithee and spent 15 mins committing to the crux. Conversely, Isle Of Dreams at Scout Hut I'd never even heard of let alone had an inclination to solo, so was happy trying it with lots of pads down. I'm getting increasingly into highballing as the level of fear for me (scary sketchy falls rather than broken limbs (as per Charlie's Overhang pre-pads, ooops)) feels similar to boldish trad, and I like that feel. There's stuff I'll do with, and stuff I'll try without. And I'll be keen to congratulate you when you do Narcissus old skool style, if you feel it was a great experience.