[user deactivated]

Definite waddage to you there Tom! Never mind the hash tag look at me bollocks. Nowt wrong with celebrating those amazing efforts.

Regards highballing above a sea of pads. It was a depressing day when I saw that photo of grand potato. It’s probably as much about  the circus surrounding it as the climbing itself. This in no way is an attempt to denigrate anyone else’s style of ascent. I’d just rather not bother currently, the same goes for ‘snowballing’ an ultimately vacuous experience

[Johnny Brown]

Narcissus is a good example why I got over it. I first did it without pads. Why? They were new, previous ascents hadn't used them, it felt like the right thing to do. I was young, vain, wanted another E6 on my CV.

I was there with Steve Bancroft around that time, mentioned something about that early onsight. He shrugged, said the ground was higher and softer then, 'verdant green pasture youth' and pointed out the line where the lichen stops 18" up as proof. I've since done it with a few pads, and with a load of pads. It's still scary, it's still a massive fall, a big bang landing that makes you think about trying again. I've helped several people to hospital after similar falls onto similar pad stacks (e.g. Mint 400) ended badly. Its a 'cheat' that feels much bigger pontificating from behind a keyboard than when you look down at a creeping smear from twenty foot up.

I've talked to enough old-timers to know that this 'the landing is part of the route' is bollocks. Read the history sections of the guides. Rucksacs, ropes, shoes, pine branches, car-seats, mattresses etc have all been used to lessen the chance of injury. My school climbing instructor's big beefs were chalk and guidebooks. He hated both, said they removed all the adventure, would confiscate any he saw. That french lad doesn't use boots. My point is the ethical lines are arbitrary, and personal. My own ethics have evolved. I no longer place much value in grades, a bit like fiat currency they don't bear much scrutiny. I also had the experience of showing 'team america' around and seeing their bemusement that we considered any of it more than highballing. My main guiding feeling nowadays is avoiding contrivance. Sticky rubber, better boot design, better chalk, internet beta have all come along too. It seems highly contrived to me to single out pads as the one objectionable change, to awkwardly try to stop others throwing their pads down for you.

I agree ten pads doesn't earn you E6. But it sure as hell earns you Narcissus. To suggest otherwise seems to me the height of arrogance.

[tomtom]

Surely time for the logpile...
(this thread is going around in circles)

[user deactivated]

No way man, I just learnt about Bancroft, team America and fiat currency, plus heard about Tom’s efforts and knowledge of strone ulladale, and JB has swayed me towards feeling ok about loads of pads..... (that last bit being a joke of course 😉)

Edit: actually it just struck me what the issue with pads is. It’s a projection of ones (my) personal desire to feel special in some way. Pads have made things much more accessible and climbing these routes common place. Therefore I feel less special QED   

[Will Hunt]

Good post, JB. Sums up my thoughts.

Dan and Dave can do as they please and create the experiences that they want, that's fine. Laughing at others as if not using pads has any logical imperative behind it is what gets me. If Dan/Dave (sorry, forgot who and cba to check) say that you should do a route in the style originally climbed, then they're undoubtedly a hypocrite, unless they scrupulously investigate FA records to see what gear was used. Are we supposed to ditch the cams to climb Hargreaves Original and any pre-70s routes?
I also don't get how Dan can be so dismissive of pads and at the same time employ a multitude of frigs to get up the routes he headpoints. I don't have a problem with it personally, but people in glass houses...
(i.e preplaced gear on a long extender. I don't know the route, but if that allows the gear to be clipped before doing a hard move which an onsighter would have to do without the gear, then it invalidates the ascent in my book).

As for the "circus" of a team of friends highballing something. What is it that makes a circus? A group of friends laughing at the crag, all trying the same thing? Heaven forfend!

[user deactivated]

Hey Will, Sorry I got your goat. See post above. It’s like being shit at footy all over again. Time for the log pile. Tom was right. I’m retiring from this ukb now anyway. Peace out ✌️

[ashtond6]

Still waiting for someone to tell me why on bolts it's normal and on wires it's bad...

 

Or is it just because that's how the old boys did it?

[Offwidth]

I've talked to enough old-timers to know that this 'the landing is part of the route' is bollocks. Read the history sections of the guides. Rucksacs, ropes, shoes, pine branches, car-seats, mattresses etc have all been used to lessen the chance of injury. My school climbing instructor's big beefs were chalk and guidebooks. He hated both, said they removed all the adventure, would confiscate any he saw. That french lad doesn't use boots. My point is the ethical lines are arbitrary, and personal. My own ethics have evolved. I no longer place much value in grades, a bit like fiat currency they don't bear much scrutiny. I also had the experience of showing 'team america' around and seeing their bemusement that we considered any of it more than highballing. My main guiding feeling nowadays is avoiding contrivance. Sticky rubber, better boot design, better chalk, internet beta have all come along too. It seems highly contrived to me to single out pads as the one objectionable change, to awkwardly try to stop others throwing their pads down for you.

I agree ten pads doesn't earn you E6. But it sure as hell earns you Narcissus. To suggest otherwise seems to me the height of arrogance.

Well said. Again, the real ethics are about honesty and rock damage. Ground up highballing above mats protects the climbers, the  landings and prevents the rock-damaging 'sketching about' that's very possible on a tr. Its not the tr that is the issue, its the bad style it can lead to, and hence damage. For shorter classic easier bouldering the mats are part of the problem... alongside the sketchy sieging and overbrushing and chalk abuses they encourage... if you are not good enough to make attempts in good style... go away and improve before you try again. The encouragement of pushing hard onsight on safe routes when transfered down the grade scale to the likes of Orpheus Wall (with  its now gouged out cam placements), is a similar ethical worry where style overtook real ethics.

Climbers making their own style rules for their own reasons is fine but pushing outlier positions as an serious ethical standard to others seems to me silly elitism, almost certainly doomed to failure (and contain risk of real ethical breaches) as ordinary climbers will just plain ignore unrealistic standards. We need pragmatic ethical advice, transferable to the climbing masses with a focus on honesty and avoiding rock damage.

[mrjonathanr]

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.

Hi Reeve, thank you for replying. Since you have addressed me directly about my use of English I’ll reply.

I did not define anything and quoting me saying that the term doesn’t always refer to interpersonal ethics, then using that to argue it does imply interpersonal morality - WTF? In breaking news, black is the new white? 

Secondly, I’d like to tell you a story - bear with me.

A long time ago Spanish had a synthetic grammar, where the role of a word was contained in its ending and it did not matter what order the words in a sentence came, the meaning would remain unchanged. Naturally enough, as originally Spanish was Latin.

Over time people lost clarity of understanding and reinforced it by various means - the word order, adding previously unnecessary details to clarify and so on. Consequently Spanish evolved into an analytic grammar which depended on the order of words in a sentence for meaning to be conveyed - just like modern English, although Spanish retains a greater degree of flexibility about word order to this day.

One curiosity this produced is ‘with me’, in current Spanish ‘conmigo’.

Originally this was ‘mecum’ me = me, cum = with, so mecum = with me. This became pronounced as ‘migo’. Losing sight of its compound meaning people started to add ‘con’ which means ‘with’ and so evolved modern ‘conmigo’ = with me.

Or more strictly, conmigo = with-me-with, a pretty unnecessary addition.

The word ‘ethic’ has a long established range of meaning. I haven’t, Humpty-Dumpty like, decided to use it in some obscure and specialised sense unique to me. Many writers, in climbing and elsewhere, have used ‘ethic’ to refer to the set of rules which people use to guide their behaviour in various contexts and for different purposes both off and on the crag. Sometimes moral, sometimes aesthetic.

The ambiguity is just in your head. Ethic does not only mean personal morality. Rather than come up with a circumlocution to remind you, just get to know the word’s meaning.

About the climbing, we broadly agree.

It makes no difference to the universe if you sling a cheeky toprope down a slab before launching up it.  We all do it at times. It’s because the route is too hard for us that we choose to.

I have no problem with that, environmental considerations aside, but we can’t kid ourselves that to rock up and onsight the thing isn’t the superior ethic. It clearly is.

In summary:
Do what you want, just don’t wreck the places you love. Take only photos, etc.

Edit- couldn’t find the shrug emoji.

[abarro81]

Reeve's posts and JB's most recent post seem by far the most sensible in this thread.

[Fiend]

Sorry this is all going to get a bit scrappy with reply orders. From the NQBVs thread:

Where's Ged and Ash?

All that moaning about headpointing and he's headpointed it! Class you couldn't make it up.

Perhaps fiend should put a ukc article together about how to ab a boulder problem?

Not sure what ethics/style this fits into?

Not that I give 2 shits but after all that on the other thread, really?

Imagining it the other way around....

So yeah here's a clip of me doing a cool little E4 prow at the very far end of Bamford. I thought it was new (nothing in the guides nor UKC nor local FB group) so I shunted it, scrubbed some green holds, pulled off a couple of scrittly pebbles. Turns out it was done ground up by The Dawes in the 80s, oh well.

Doh! Well good effort on your repeat, I hear Putrell had been scrambling over that bit a century ago anyway  . At least it's clean now.

...

Still if someone genuinely wants to say, without all the popcorn and worms, "Hey, that's shoddy, it's not that hard, you should have gone for a ground up 'FA', at least given it a proper try before inspecting it", fair enough (although in my defence I knew from a previous visit it was a mild drainage line, and that the middle sidepull slot was lichenous, and the top break had some plants in, and in an ideal world I'd have asked a mate to go down it in return for reciprocal cleaning, but despite asking several friends and posting on a few FB groups, no-one was around).

[Fiend]

Surely time for the logpile...
(this thread is going around in circles)

That reply should be logpiled and nothing else! Genuinely interesting exchange of views now it's settled down IMO.

Narcissus is a good example why I got over it. I first did it without pads. Why? They were new, previous ascents hadn't used them, it felt like the right thing to do. I was young, vain, wanted another E6 on my CV.

That, and you actually being good enough to do it....

It's still scary, it's still a massive fall, a big bang landing that makes you think about trying again. I've helped several people to hospital after similar falls onto similar pad stacks (e.g. Mint 400) ended badly. Its a 'cheat' that feels much bigger pontificating from behind a keyboard than when you look down at a creeping smear from twenty foot up.
....


I also had the experience of showing 'team america' around and seeing their bemusement that we considered any of it more than highballing.

A  bit of a contrast there. On the one hand it's "just highballing". On the other falls onto pad stacks can lead to hospital. Falls onto piles of rucksacs even more so.... I think grit-style highballing can be pretty sketchy, but also old skool soloing is a lot more sketchy, it's a definitely more than just highballing. Even if it is generally outdated.

Still waiting for someone to tell me why on bolts it's normal and on wires it's bad...

Or is it just because that's how the old boys did it?

A bit of that yes. Normal climbing (onsight) seems to have been historically the norm for centuries for repeating routes, but right from the start of sport climbing working routes seems to have been the norm. Plus the large difference in feel and adventure and journey for trad and sport - route-reading and gear-placing and pacing being a lot more inherent to the former (even an obvious crack you have to pace yourself and space your gear in a different way). Slightly different games in both their origins and their feel.

If you want to bring the two closer together, more sport flashing / onsighting could be pretty damn cool.

Hey Will, Sorry I got your goat. See post above. It’s like being shit at footy all over again. Time for the log pile. Tom was right. I’m retiring from this ukb now anyway. Peace out ✌️

Noooooo!

[metal arms]

But has Franco done Dangermouse yet?

[SA Chris]

Still waiting for someone to tell me why on bolts it's normal and on wires it's bad...

 

Or is it just because that's how the old boys did it?

Surely it's obvious that due to the safety of a row of bolts, and being able to push yourself to your physical limit, that the redpoint ethic has always been an intrinsic part of "sport climbing", whereas in naturally protected routes, an onsight ethic has generally prevailed.

That combined with the fact that the type of rock usually combined with outcrop sport climbing in the UK (limestone) is to a certain extent more resilient than the sandstone based outcrops and can tolerate thrashing and flailing on toprope a bit more.

[Johnny Brown]

I don't get the logpile comment, some really interesting input. It's only ten pages (and on UKB vs UKC) that you get genuine nitty-gritty introspection like this:

actually it just struck me what the issue with pads is. It’s a projection of ones (my) personal desire to feel special in some way.

My feelings on ethics have always arisen as feelings - gut instincts as to worth - and it's taken years to unpick and understand them. At least that's what I like to think I've done, from another perspective I'm sure it looks like a shonky tower of bullshit propping up my waffy emotions.

Generally I've got more respect for people who've given some thought to what they're doing, regardless of whether that aligns them with my own conclusions. It's a mark of respect for the rock and the activity more generally. So I don't have a problem with Dan doing neglected routes with limited practice. And I think a valid criticism of pad parties might be that some of the participants are just following the herd without any thought to the context. But that's always been the case - it was certainly so during the Hard Grit inspired headpointing era. In fact if pads hadn't come along I daresay Dan's approach might not offer the potential make you feel special.

I can't fathom the objection to snowballing though. In perhaps the most worked over and documented climbing area in the world we get a natural bounty that allows the slate to be temporarily wiped clean and ephemeral experiences to come and go. For a week or two guidebooks and grades cease to apply and you can go out and see what can be found for movement. The alternative being to grumpily sit indoors waiting for the snow to go away and restore the 'proper' routes and landings? Again, that's only a problem if you insist seeing as climbing up a rock as only having validity within a narrow set of parameters sort-of related to the first ascent and subsequent developments. I think I've stated my objections to that enough. But some of the snowballs - Snowblind mice/ Nine is Enough - climbed entirely new ground. What's the beef?

Still waiting for someone to tell me why on bolts it's normal and on wires it's bad...

Because there's is a pretty well agreed spectrum of style running from onsight naked solo to bolting an aid ladder on abseil. The game is generally that you aspire to the best style you can, and if you drop down the style ladder you compensate by upping the difficulty. So most people treat sport climbing as an opportunity to try to push their physical limit. This also works in tandem with the very real practical consideration that by dogging on gear you will damage the placements; in sport climbing you've pre-empted that by drilling holes.

[tomtom]

@JB Re Logpile - just felt like the thread was going round in circles with people stating their views (sometimes repeatedly).

Anyway / pls ignore me - though I thought your post was excellent.

Edit was due to dribbling rubbish.

[IanP]

I have no problem with that, environmental considerations aside, but we can’t kid ourselves that to rock up and onsight the thing isn’t the superior ethic. It clearly is.

Not wanted to go into the detail of everything you've said but I would say that it's pretty obvious that it isn't 'clear' at all.  The definition of 'ethics' in sport is not straightforward or agreed and to suggest that your position is some sort self-evident truth seems an enormous leap. 

See articles linked by JWI above, also this

http://philosophyofsport.org.uk/resources/ethics-sport/

What does seem clear is that that the definition of ethics in sport is not clear  .

[Johnny Brown]

Just to comment on some of the more meta stuff:

Hi Dave. I'd like to think that 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?

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

I see this as the same as free speech. You have the right to say/ do what you want, and the rest of us have the right to question/ ridicule the same.

So Dave, lest there's any confusion, while I totally disagree with your opinion that 'that isn't Art Nouveau', I totally support your right to raise the question.

Where that response to the question/ action becomes a consensus then I'm afraid you may feel you're being 'judged' or 'told what to do'. We all already submit to this as part of the climbing game. It's agreed that top-roping, or resting on lead does not 'count' as an ascent isn't it? Yet you remain free to do so. Or does anyone really think 'well ppppfffttt to 'the man' I'm ticking it'?

If you really feel that you're being 'told what to do' by an individual, I can only imagine you are projecting on that individual a lot more authority than they think they have. Has anyone actually got an example of this? I had a couple of robust conversations when I was younger but I don't feel any crossed any line beyond my 'right to question'. If you feel that being questioned is being judged then I'd suggest you weren't very sure of your position to start with.

[mrjonathanr]

Hi Ian, I read your article attempting to summarise the three current standpoints on sports ethics. It’s interesting, thanks. I don’t quite see its bearing though.

We can argue about how many angels can sit on the head of pin from deontological, teleological and Aristotelian perspectives for quite some time I suspect, although I’d have to learn more before I could  talk in any depth.

On a more pragmatic - or teleological- tip I’m unconvinced the waters are so philosophically muddied that completing a previously unseen challenge isn’t widely viewed as superior to the same challenge completed with prior knowledge and pre-practice.

The idea hasn’t yet reached Eton and Ofqual, at least:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/public-school-cheating-exams-questions-papers-ofqual-eton-college-winchester-radley-charterhouse-a7922976.html

Do let me know if they change their minds 

Edit: added the word ‘although’

[user deactivated]

Hi JB, thanks, yes I do recognise that I’m an insecure person with a desire to be liked and an inherent distaste of authority which can manifest as a pisstaking or apparent contradictory or ambivalent views / attitudes with a genuine discomfort triggered by larger social groups of climbers. Hense the esoteric pursuits. Welcome the the human condition, I guess ‘they fuck you up’.
However on the flip side I do have a genuine love of climbing which for me has always been a complex experience, and have used this forum to experiment with expressing some of that. Overall it’s been pretty enlightening.

Ps Will, I don’t really agree with your post. I never particularly attacked anyones individual choice  of climbing style, but do admit to attempting irony and humour. Pps: the gear you’re talking about was a tied off rusted to fuck old peg, bouldering height above the ground. I made the decision to clip it there as the hold had previously crumbled with the risk of depositing me on my friend and dog from 15 ft up. Go figure.

[andy_e]

As for the "circus" of a team of friends highballing something. What is it that makes a circus? A group of friends laughing at the crag, all trying the same thing? Heaven forfend!

You didn't mention the six pads we had under the lowball on Saturday Will? With you bunch of jesters it was definitely a circus.

[Will Hunt]

As for the "circus" of a team of friends highballing something. What is it that makes a circus? A group of friends laughing at the crag, all trying the same thing? Heaven forfend!

You didn't mention the six pads we had under the lowball on Saturday Will? With you bunch of jesters it was definitely a circus.

Now, to be fair, for Bojan and 36C Steve's Wall is a monolithic highball.

[Rocksteady]

I have no problem with that, environmental considerations aside, but we can’t kid ourselves that to rock up and onsight the thing isn’t the superior ethic. It clearly is.

Not wanted to go into the detail of everything you've said but I would say that it's pretty obvious that it isn't 'clear' at all.  The definition of 'ethics' in sport is not straightforward or agreed and to suggest that your position is some sort self-evident truth seems an enormous leap. 

See articles linked by JWI above, also this

http://philosophyofsport.org.uk/resources/ethics-sport/

What does seem clear is that that the definition of ethics in sport is not clear  .

Very interesting thread. I think the word 'ethics' used in climbing isn't as transparent as made out in some of the posts above. My take on it is that when we're talking 'ethics' in climbing are we actually just talking about which is the most courageous/bravest mode of ascent.

That's why there is confusion as the morality of bravery isn't necessarily clear. Eg. They Came to Cordura is an interesting exploration of this in fiction https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10308318-they-came-to-cordura

Taking JBs example upthread, in climbing the highest valued ascent would be a naked onsight free solo as it's the bravest. But you could take a view that in 'life' this is a deeply unethical ascent, putting your life needlessly at risk ignoring all elements that might have made it safer. What about your family etc? It reminds me of the (perhaps apocryphal) story of Alain Robert soloing an 8a with his baby in his rucksack as an example where soloing seems the opposite of what most people would think of when they consider the word 'ethical'.

Style seems to me a better word. Reserving ethics for treatment of the environment, and each other.

[IanP]

On a more pragmatic - or teleological- tip I’m unconvinced the waters are so philosophically muddied that completing a previously unseen challenge isn’t widely viewed as superior to the same challenge completed with prior knowledge and pre-practice.
Edit: added the word ‘although’

Obviously completing a previously unseen challenge is a more impressive accomplishment than a pre-practiced ascent of the same challenge, I've never argued that it isn't (and is pretty self evident to anyone who understands climbing).  It's just not necessarily 'ethically' superior.  Any more than running a marathon in 2 hours 2 minutes is ethically superior to running one in 3 (or 4) hours.  Or riding a bike up Mount Ventoux with out stopping is ethically better than having a drink and a rest half way up (maybe a better analogy since this relates to self imposed stylistic challenges).

I think where we disagree is that I view the use of word ethics in this context (as well as the general position of some posts) as identifying a specific type (let's call it 'moral') of superiority of one climbing approach over another as opposed to just accepting that obviously its harder to climb a specific route one way as compared to another but it's the climber's decision as to what approach they take.

BTW do you believe than an onsight of a sport route is ethically superior to a redpoint?   

 

[mrjonathanr]

On a more pragmatic - or teleological- tip I’m unconvinced the waters are so philosophically muddied that completing a previously unseen challenge isn’t widely viewed as superior to the same challenge completed with prior knowledge and pre-practice.
Edit: added the word ‘although’

Obviously completing a previously unseen challenge is a more impressive accomplishment than a pre-practiced ascent of the same challenge, I've never argued that it isn't (an is pretty self evident to anyone who understands climbing).  It's just not necessarily 'ethically' superior.  Any more than running a marathon in 2 hours 2 minutes is ethically superior to running ond in 3 (or 4) hours.  Or riding a bike up Mount Ventoux with out stopping is ethically better than having a drink and a rest half way up (maybe a better analogy since this relates to self imposed stylistic challenges).

I think where we disagree is that I view the use of word ethics in this context (as well as the general position of some posts) as identifying a specific type (let's call it 'moral') of superiority of one climbing approach over another as opposed to just accepting that obviously its harder to climb a specific route one way as compared to another but it's the climber's decision as to what approach he takes.

BTW do you believe than onsight on sport route is ethically superior to a redpoint?

Now I get why you posted that it was ' a big leap' to judge onsighting a superior ethic. You not seeing what the word 'ethic' means.

Okay:

'ethic' does NOT mean some necessarily moral standpoint, moral value judgment or any other nonsense based around morality. It means a code. The category 'ethics' in philosophy includes moral codes, sure, but that is another debate entirely.

There's nothing much particularly moral about climbing anyway, moral debates beyond environmental impact are mostly irrelevant. That is not what the word 'ethic' means.


Onsighting a route better than redpointing it? Of course it is ethically superior, it's the greater challenge with less support to accomplish it. That has nothing to do with feeding the world, coveting your neighbour's wife, holding false idols or any other moral issue. Because that is not what the word 'ethic' means.