[mrjonathanr]

Dan, I was a bit sorry to read your post above. Clearly you can do what you like so long as you don't trash the place. it didn't read like you were cocking a snook at any one.

I find your videos pretty inspirational so keep them coming. 

[Andy W]

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.

Why is on sighting a greater achievement? personally a redpoint means more to me, climbing at my limit outweighs the onsight. Why do you think with such certainty you are right?

I think you are entirely missing the point concerning ethics and morals, I would suggest that the starting point for a discussion of ethics is with the philosophical context and not your 'code of ethics' which is primarily something concieved by corporate companies to convince the lackeys that their decision making is somehow informed, rater than arbitrary and self serving.

I would suggest and it seems blindingly obvious to me that this all about context and rules. Climbing has changed and the reasons for people doing it have changed, there is nothing intrinsically better than any other way of climbing rocks. Even with the increasing homogeneity of the climbing scene, international and regional differences still exist, this shows that in different places different approaches or rules prevail. I've been climbing years and care about it a lot...as others have said, but to be honest this debate about Franco is dull... he wrote an article, he has aspirations on rock and in self promotion, some folk don't like it, some opinions represent a kind of romanticised trad fetishisation, celebrating a outmoded masculinity...embrace the change and accept the commodification and democratisation of the 'sport'. Personally I don't have much time for it so spend my time seeking out obscure boulders in forests.

[mrjonathanr]

your 'code of ethics' which is primarily something concieved by corporate companies to convince the lackeys that their decision making is somehow informed, rater than arbitrary and self serving.

Mate, that is the daftest thing I have read on this forum.

What this does illustrate is that conveying meaning on the internet can be really, really difficult and prey to all sorts of confusions and misunderstandings.

I also note that people tend to divide into oppositional camps pretty quickly, it's as if the debate is corralled into opposing channels whether you want it to be or not.  Generally people who would happily have huge amounts in common in the real world seem to become conflicted over minor  matters online. Bizarre, but there we are, I think it's something to do with the medium.

As to the meaning of a humble word like ethic - just read a dictionary. A proper one, not a 2 line approximation in google.


As they say 'peace, out'. Enjoy your boulders in the forest.

[Andy W]

Mate it's not as daft as what you said, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered replying.

I suggested you establish an understanding of ethics form the earliest philosophical use and work on from there, that way you avoid misunderstanding, or at least have common ground.

Are you suggesting I read a dictionary to understand the meaning of the word 'ethic'?

[Johnny Brown]

Why is on sighting a greater achievement? personally a redpoint means more to me, climbing at my limit outweighs the onsight. Why do you think with such certainty you are right?

Likewise this is spectacularly missing the point. No one is suggesting what you should like, or get satisfaction from. But the consensus is that an onsight of that same route that you redpointed at your limit is a more impressive achievement. That's all.

Likewise climbing a route without drilling holes in it is regarded as better.etc.

The overall principle of the sport is simple: doing more (more moves, harder moves) with less (practice/equipment/ aid). Which you prioritise is up to you. So redpointing at your limit is prioritising doing more harder moves.

[Andy W]

Why is on sighting a greater achievement? personally a redpoint means more to me, climbing at my limit outweighs the onsight. Why do you think with such certainty you are right?

Likewise this is spectacularly missing the point. No one is suggesting what you should like, or get satisfaction from. But the consensus is that an onsight of that same route that you redpointed at your limit is a more impressive achievement. That's all.

Likewise climbing a route without drilling holes in it is regarded as better.etc.

The overall principle of the sport is simple: doing more (more moves, harder moves) with less (practice/equipment/ aid). Which you prioritise is up to you. So redpointing at your limit is prioritising doing more harder moves.

An onsight of a route I have redpointed is only more important from the perspective of a sporting context, not from my perspective. But I do have a tendency to view bouldering as creative practice rather than 'sport'.

[IanP]

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.

Bloody hell, and my missus says I'm sometimes patronising 

I admire your complete certainty on a subject where there's obviously room for significant debate and while the definition of what ethics means in sport (and climbing in particular) has the potential to be interesting subject for discussion I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here.  I would however suggest that your definition of ethics, which appears to be pretty much synonymous with style, would be at one end of continium of views, and would be interested to see examples in sport where the term is used in this way.

 
 

[lagerstarfish]

I have been imagining Fiend as the leader of a death-risk cult desperately trying to recruit more followers while the nearby happy-clappy, smiling, low risk, consumer cult  slurps up the majority of climbers as they emerge, vulnerable and malleable, out of the indoor walls and onto the rock.

Now I am waiting for someone to offer up the climbing ethics version of Crowley's The Book of The Law (with similar claims of its source) just to complete my daydream.

[mrjonathanr]

Bloody hell, and my missus says I'm sometimes patronising 
 

Mine frequently goes nuts at me for it.  I can't see why 

Do what thou wilt, Lagers 

[reeve]

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? 

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.

I'm pretty put out with how arrogant you came across to me, jonathanr, not least because being so closed to other perspectives risks stifling what is otherwise an engaging and enlightening debate (DT & JB, your comments in particular have got me thinking - so thanks).

For what it's worth, when I quoted you saying ethics does not always imply interpersonal ethics, I think that does make my point that the term 'ethics' introduces ambiguity. If it can mean more than one thing (i.e. it'll sometimes mean something different), then there is ambiguity.

About the climbing, we broadly agree.

Well, I'll admit to being surprised!

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.

As IanP (I think - losing track - there have been a lot of posts since this morning) said, there isn't anything clear to me about how it is superior. Harder, yes. Aesthetically simpler, yes, to my thinking it is. But I disagree that it is somehow inherently more worthwhile, stylistically/ethically or otherwise.

[webbo]

I have been imagining Fiend as the leader of a death-risk cult desperately trying to recruit more followers while the nearby happy-clappy, smiling, low risk, consumer cult  slurps up the majority of climbers as they emerge, vulnerable and malleable, out of the indoor walls and onto the rock.

Now I am waiting for someone to offer up the climbing ethics version of Crowley's The Book of The Law (with similar claims of its source) just to complete my daydream.

I think this thread needs to be come a poll on these lines.
1. Would you rather die than compromising  your personal climbing ethics.
2. If you cannot insight something is a quick hug ok before top roping it to death.
3. Are you so far up your own arse not to care.
4. Almond croissant.

[reeve]

Some thought provoking ideas for me here JB.

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.

Indeed. I feel somewhat conflicted because I intellectually agree with people being able to say what they want (even if it's "well you headpointed it so it doesn't count") but I really dislike anyone making a value judgement on the style in which someone climbed a bit of rock. I've been thinking about this on and off since you posted it, and I think, for me, it's about treading the line between exploring some interesting ideas about how subtle changes in style move the experience along a spectrum from adventure to performance, but making concrete judgements on worth (i.e. a certain style being superior to another) shuts down the conversation, because it invites a rebuttal.

For example, when ab'ing down something at High Tor I looked across and saw some holds up the middle of the shield. It turned out to be Reproduction. I had never thought of trying it, but seeing the holds and imagining what it would be like to climb on them really got me excited. I climbed it some a few weeks later, but not so much later that I had forgotten what the holds were like. This is definitely an easier style than if I had been completely onsight, but I actually think this was more satisfying, for me on that day at least. I loved the feeling of being on those holds after the anticipation, but enough of the adventure and unknown was preserved that it felt satisfying from that perspective. Conversely, I have ab'd things in the past to check gear, or just because I happened to be ab'ing down that way, and then been disappointed that the route had lost it's excitement. In either case, had someone judged my ascent for me it would have closed off my willingness to reflect on my approach (both the pros and the cons). For example, if, on topping out, I was met by someone (lets call him Mott Phantoms) who told me that it was ethically inferior, I would be like "yeah whatevs trevs" - defensively - and miss the chance for a more nuanced conversation about what makes for a satisfying adventure which also balances pragmatism.

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'?

Actually, yes, I've seen people claiming to have "done" routes in Squamish when they frigged their way up it. Not a tick in my book - but they were having more fun on their trip than I was on mine   

[ashtond6]

Another interesting piece of information, we maybe have 20-30 contributors in this thread but almost 10,000 views 

Do you think the yanks differentiate between headpoint and redpoint? I dont think they do, a RP is a RP and I agree with that stance.

Maybe it is a big thing here because of our necky routes?

Why at Stanage is it a headpoint but in Indian creek or on the boulder problem it's a redpoint?

[lagerstarfish]

almost 10,000 views

that's mainly due to mardy teenagers googling about different ways to hurt themselves





(no I don't think it's a subject to joke about on it's own, but I do think it puts risk choice into perspective)

[tomtom]

almost 10,000 views

Shark will be gutted.

The one week he’s away from the UKB mission control bunker (think cross between a presidential war room, mission control at Houston and the cave at the Tor) in Albaracin - and a viral* thread emerges that’s not even about the Oak!

*coughs - its all relative - coughs

[mrjonathanr]

I'm pretty put out with how arrogant you came across to me, jonathanr, not least because being so closed to other perspectives risks stifling what is otherwise an engaging and enlightening debate (DT & JB, your comments in particular have got me thinking - so thanks).

You have a right to be, reeve, I am sorry,  that wasn’t nicely put. I apologise for offending you, I hope you can accept it. Apologies  to Ian too as he clearly felt he was being condescended to.

I find it frustrating to repeatedly have to defend an ordinary, unremarkable usage. Ethic is synonymous with ethos, philosophy, style/approach/manner of ascent.
Here’s Andy Cave reviewing Nanga Patbat Pilgrimage for the Guardian for example :

(Buhl’s).. tale of determination and commitment to the lightweight climbing ethic is stirring.

The word’s usage is well established and to be told that repeatedly it’s inappropriate I find frustrating - doubly so on a climbing thread which thoroughly deserves debate.

Exaspasperation is no excuse for coming across as an arrogant dick however and if that’s how you found it, I’m sorry.

[abarro81]

As far as I can tell the entire last few pages is basically mrjonathanr being pissy about the fact that a great many people consider "ethic" to mean a narrower scope than its true dictionary definition.

It's basically arbitrary. Divide it into "ethics"/"style" or "moral ethics"/"stylistic ethics" or just "a"/"b" - it doesn't matter as far as I can tell. It looks to me like almost everyone (possible exception of Fiend) agrees that chipping/fucking shit up for others falls under the first category and doing something harder and more badass falls under the second   

[Johnny Brown]

An onsight of a route I have redpointed is only more important from the perspective of a sporting context, not from my perspective.

Ah right, I see where you're coming from now, guessing the 'W' is for Whall? Apologies if I was patronising above, I'm very interested in your approach but I think it is at significant tangent to this thread (and will throw most without some introduction).

In recent years I've realised my own climbing is driven by elements of ritual and psychogeography as much as sporting. But that doesn't mean I'm operating outside the sporting context. Clearly you are sticking with established concepts of success, styles and grades too.   So you're saying you value a protracted struggle more than a flash of inspiration, you're looking for a long term relationship rather than a quick fling? I don't see any problem with that within or without the sporting context. But that doesn't mean a quicker ascent, whether by you or someone else, on the same route/problem isn't a better display of climbing? If not surely you'd end up in a place where you'd be purposely failing to prolong the relationship? Have I finally understood what Shark is up to?

[Nails]

Although the term "Ethic" is clearly used in climbing for behaviours that have no moral component, I'm struggling to find any other contexts where "Ethics" aren't essentially moral. Interesting that climbers have embraced a word that the rest of the world uses to mean a moral code, and applied it to mean the style in which you get up something.

[SA Chris]

Why at Stanage is it a headpoint but in Indian creek or on the boulder problem it's a redpoint?

I've never heard of anyone saying they redpointed a boulder problem?

[Fiend]

It's basically arbitrary. Divide it into "ethics"/"style" or "moral ethics"/"stylistic ethics" or just "a"/"b" - it doesn't matter as far as I can tell. It looks to me like almost everyone (possible exception of Fiend) agrees that chipping/fucking shit up for others falls under the first category and doing something harder and more badass falls under the second

I already described it as "style of ascent ethics" a few pages back. Terminology strikes me as less important than spirit / principles.

Lagers: death-risk lol. It's not about that, if the risk is too much it's about accepting that and walking away, choosing a less risky route, or working up to that route so the risk is well within limits. Or sticking 30 pads down.

[macca7]

Or throwing a rope down it and giving it a good clean check out the holds then throw two pads underneath it?

[Fiend]

https://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,29823.msg578404.html#msg578404 to save me answering a 3rd time.

[Rocksteady]

Although the term "Ethic" is clearly used in climbing for behaviours that have no moral component, I'm struggling to find any other contexts where "Ethics" aren't essentially moral. Interesting that climbers have embraced a word that the rest of the world uses to mean a moral code, and applied it to mean the style in which you get up something.

I think it does have a kind of moral component though, linked to courage. In climbing the highest valued 'ethic' is the most courageous - onsight solo.

I suspect that climbing ethics are linked to the prevailing cultural ethics at the time when it was being developed as a pastime - physical bravery was at a premium in a world where you were often sent to war for your country.
I think the debate highlights that we now have different (and more diverse) cultural ethics and the traditional climbing ethics don't necessarily sit happily with that. 

If we remove the moral component, what we're actually looking for is a way of assessing what style of ascent demonstrates the highest level of climbing ability. In that we can agree doing the same route/problem first time without prior knowledge > doing it with beta but still first time > doing it after practice.
Then it comes down to grades doesn't it. But trad grades have the components of danger plus difficulty mixed together - oh dear!

Ultimately, no-one is going to want to feel that their preferred way of spending time is 'unethical' precisely because of the moral connotations of the word. The only way this could work IMO is if ethic was purely reserved for considerations of treatment of a particular natural environment eg. what style causes most rock damage, pad vs placement wear, bolting vs leaving for future generation tradders. Unethical to bolt gritstone or mountain rock. But local ethic at Malham is for sport and trad to coexist etc.

[reeve]

I'm pretty put out with how arrogant you came across to me, jonathanr, not least because being so closed to other perspectives risks stifling what is otherwise an engaging and enlightening debate (DT & JB, your comments in particular have got me thinking - so thanks).

You have a right to be, reeve, I am sorry,  that wasn’t nicely put. I apologise for offending you, I hope you can accept it. Apologies  to Ian too as he clearly felt he was being condescended to.

I find it frustrating to repeatedly have to defend an ordinary, unremarkable usage. Ethic is synonymous with ethos, philosophy, style/approach/manner of ascent.
Here’s Andy Cave reviewing Nanga Patbat Pilgrimage for the Guardian for example :

(Buhl’s).. tale of determination and commitment to the lightweight climbing ethic is stirring.

The word’s usage is well established and to be told that repeatedly it’s inappropriate I find frustrating - doubly so on a climbing thread which thoroughly deserves debate.

Exaspasperation is no excuse for coming across as an arrogant dick however and if that’s how you found it, I’m sorry.

Accepted - no problem.

For what it's worth, I can completely see your point that the word is in common usage to relate to the way that people approach a rock climb. I still don't think that it's the most appropriate word though. I'm happy for us to agree to disagree since I think we've both said what we think. I began writing out my thoughts again but then remembered that Rocksteady has done a good job of saying what I think so I'll save you all the repetition