[ashtond6]

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?

Badly explained by myself, apologies.
I meant THE boulder problem, Freerider.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

I've read a few of the more recent posts - including from JB and Will.

First of all, nice effort JB on the O/S of Narcissus.

However, you misunderstand my own point and position - as do a few others.

To set the record straight, especially for those who can't be arsed to read my own posts properly before extrapolating for their own purposes.

I have not said, or made a claim to what others "should" do.

I can repeat my earlier post; I clip bolts, headpoint occasionally and have even climbed above pads - very occasionally.

I generally find that those making the claim that things are going around in circles are in fact those in a spin because they don't want to hear the arguments presented.

My motive - that's a personal thing, in case anyone wonders - is to improve the sense of engagement that I get from climbing a route.

I have found that the more decisive the commitment, the more engaged and focused I am on the route. I have made a clearer decision before setting off.

Climbing above pads, it's easier to venture onto the route without the same level of commitment. You have a "shit out" option higher up the route.

Without pads - say on Ulyses, as Neil Foster sadly found out - you're pretty naked, and yet we know that routes like that get climbed above pads frequently now.

It can still be very scary, high up above pads, and I think most of us know people who've sadly injured themselves falling onto - or missing pads.

However, the question is, would people set off at all without pads? Very occasionally yes, but seldom.

Those ascents are notable and comparatively rare.

The important factor is what people don't do without pads. That is the difference.

I know that I can try a route above pads without feeling fully committed - and I find I climb comparatively poorly. I would rather not climb a route, than take away the opportunity of having the sort of experience I find rewarding. That's not the same thing as saying that people should not climb above pads, should not headpoint etc etc.

This thread started because of Fiend's comments about Franco Cookson's Headpoint article.

UKC is in a prime position to help people consider how they want to climb. There are different approaches, with far less emphasis on the tactics necessary to get up something, and it would have been good to see Franco's article presented with far more balance - including questions about whether one feels it's really necessary to do those routes where so much pre-practice is necessary. Personally, I like seeing bits of rock which seem unclimbable.

[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?

Badly explained by myself, apologies.
I meant THE boulder problem, Freerider.

Because harder grit routes are generally poorly protected, so the toproping is to familiaris yourself with the moves while safe, whereas the 2 other examples, the "difficulty" is the crux of the issue, and they are well protected, so succeeding in them is more akin to succeeding on a redpoint. Or maybe it's just that Americans don't use the word term headpoint.

[Johnny Brown]

I have found that the more decisive the commitment, the more engaged and focused I am on the route. I have made a clearer decision before setting off.

Climbing above pads, it's easier to venture onto the route without the same level of commitment. You have a "shit out" option higher up the route.

Without pads - say on Ulysses, as Neil Foster sadly found out - you're pretty naked, and yet we know that routes like that get climbed above pads frequently now.

It would be lovely to think that by upping the commitment you would step cleanly through the green door, and so focused, climb stylishly upward in a state of no-mind. From your podcast I can see how that would work for soloing Lord. But Ulysses is an example of how it didn't pan out like that for me.

I think the reason is because any route short enough to be tamed by pads isn't that dangerous to start with. Either way falling or jumping off is an option, the pads just decrease the likelihood of serious injury. So you probe at it, getting a bit higher, looking for clues, doing everything actually to avoid getting too committed until you're ready. On grit, people who 'make a clear decision before setting off' tend to be the ones who break their ankles in my experience. I did take some big ground falls without pads but was either lucky or good at it and never got hurt.

I was keen to do Ulysses without pads, so every time I was at the Plantation and going well I'd have a go. There's a big smear which is high and committing to reach but which you can reverse from, just. So not using pads mainly led to a lot of shaky reversing of this move. Narcissus was similar, although it was limited to a couple of sessions whereas on Ulysses for various reasons it dragged out over at least three seasons. In the end I did it above one small, fairly knackered mat mostly to keep my feet dry. I've since done it without, with lots and with a six-foot snowdrift. In the end, on these two routes and others, it was the lack of correlation between how engaged/ well I climbed I was with the likelihood of breaking it was my ankles that led me to get drop the puritan stance.

I don't think Ulysses does get done 'frequently' nowadays to be honest. It just doesn't seem to be on the youths' radar, pads or not. I did find it a bit sad when the other DT did Marrowbone Jelly the other week, he didn't appear to have given ethics any consideration and just threw everything at it.

[ashtond6]

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?

Badly explained by myself, apologies.
I meant THE boulder problem, Freerider.

Because harder grit routes are generally poorly protected, so the toproping is to familiaris yourself with the moves while safe, whereas the 2 other examples, the "difficulty" is the crux of the issue, and they are well protected, so succeeding in them is more akin to succeeding on a redpoint. Or maybe it's just that Americans don't use the word term headpoint.

Ok so I can redpoint janus but not knockin'? As janus is hard and safe?


***I can't do either, but still can't see the logic

[DAVETHOMAS90]

I have found that the more decisive the commitment, the more engaged and focused I am on the route. I have made a clearer decision before setting off.

Climbing above pads, it's easier to venture onto the route without the same level of commitment. You have a "shit out" option higher up the route.

Without pads - say on Ulysses, as Neil Foster sadly found out - you're pretty naked, and yet we know that routes like that get climbed above pads frequently now.

It would be lovely to think that by upping the commitment you would step cleanly through the green door, and so focused, climb stylishly upward in a state of no-mind. From your podcast I can see how that would work for soloing Lord. But Ulysses is an example of how it didn't pan out like that for me.

I think the reason is because any route short enough to be tamed by pads isn't that dangerous to start with. Either way falling or jumping off is an option, the pads just decrease the likelihood of serious injury. So you probe at it, getting a bit higher, looking for clues, doing everything actually to avoid getting too committed until you're ready. On grit, people who 'make a clear decision before setting off' tend to be the ones who break their ankles in my experience. I did take some big ground falls without pads but was either lucky or good at it and never got hurt.

I was keen to do Ulysses without pads, so every time I was at the Plantation and going well I'd have a go. There's a big smear which is high and committing to reach but which you can reverse from, just. So not using pads mainly led to a lot of shaky reversing of this move. Narcissus was similar, although it was limited to a couple of sessions whereas on Ulysses for various reasons it dragged out over at least three seasons. In the end I did it above one small, fairly knackered mat mostly to keep my feet dry. I've since done it without, with lots and with a six-foot snowdrift. In the end, on these two routes and others, it was the lack of correlation between how engaged/ well I climbed I was with the likelihood of breaking it was my ankles that led me to get drop the puritan stance.

I don't think Ulysses does get done 'frequently' nowadays to be honest. It just doesn't seem to be on the youths' radar, pads or not. I did find it a bit sad when the other DT did Marrowbone Jelly the other week, he didn't appear to have given ethics any consideration and just threw everything at it.

Hi Adam.

Some very good points there.

I used to talk about this stuff with Al Williams - the way that some people find the imminent short fall on the grit less scary - whereas I prefer the "can't afford to drop off scenario". Never been into DWS, and generally refer to it as "shallow grave soloing". (On a humorous take, Johnny referred to the pad mountains we sometimes see as DFS    Please, just take that as a bit of humour!)

He'd (Al) talk about some guy called Popp waltzing his way up Curved Arete on Cloggy in a way unfathomable for him, whilst being a technical master on the shorter technicalities of grit (and far far more besides, as you know).

You've established your own base over many years. I've had periods where I've spent enough time on the grit to develop a good feel for it.

It's not the case that I head off in a "shit or bust-ankles" kind of a way, it's that without pads, I only set off when I'm ready - as you probably will have done on Narcissus - and there is a point where you have to commit and surrender. It's that moment which is so, so, sweet for me.

The best example I can think of is the reach and step through to the arete on White Wand. I remember the last bit feeling such a joyful place to be!

You have gone through various different styles and approaches, (big presumption on my part) and are making your own very well informed choice about the way that you want to climb - as is the case for most of us here (?), and with that, I also presume that the drive to "get to the top" isn't quite the determining factor it may be for those who haven't considered different aspects of the climbing game.

Oh, and I was thinking, Bancroft's 18" may be shorter than you think 

[user deactivated]

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?

Badly explained by myself, apologies.
I meant THE boulder problem, Freerider.

Because harder grit routes are generally poorly protected, so the toproping is to familiaris yourself with the moves while safe, whereas the 2 other examples, the "difficulty" is the crux of the issue, and they are well protected, so succeeding in them is more akin to succeeding on a redpoint. Or maybe it's just that Americans don't use the word term headpoint.

Ok so I can redpoint janus but not knockin'? As janus is hard and safe?


***I can't do either, but still can't see the logic

That’s because you’re conflating style with ethics. Regardless we can all do what best suits us including toproping, onsighting, wearing knee pads, chipping, wire brushing, poffing, pegging, bolting, or just leaving it all alone. All part of the history. The constant need for people to remind us all what’s acceptable or not has become particularly grating. ‘It’s ok ......... you do what you like mate as long as you’re respecting the rock’. My take on this Ashton is, literally ‘do what you like’.

[SA Chris]

What he said.

[Fiend]

Ok so I can redpoint janus but not knockin'? As janus is hard and safe?

Or walk away and train for 5 years and get masses of E4/5 mileage and see what happens?? It could be amazing....Janus might be the best one to go for first...


On the pads subject...

- the way that some people find the imminent short fall on the grit less scary -

I find them terrifying and thoroughly dangerous (even though less likely to be fatal), and land like a sack of spuds even from the shortest of heights. I've always found it bewildering how people can bounce off grit solos quite merrily (but maybe they're using more car seats than i previously thought).

[Will Hunt]

- the way that some people find the imminent short fall on the grit less scary -

I find them terrifying and thoroughly dangerous (even though less likely to be fatal), and land like a sack of spuds even from the shortest of heights. I've always found it bewildering how people can bounce off grit solos quite merrily (but maybe they're using more car seats than i previously thought).

Watch n' learn, Matt.

[user deactivated]

What are we learning Will?

[Will Hunt]

Newton's laws of motion and how not to land like a sack of shite.

[36chambers]

Since we're now on the nuances of falling technique, behold my favourite piece of climbing footage. Best watched with sound.

[turnipturned]

I did find it a bit sad when the other DT did Marrowbone Jelly the other week, he didn't appear to have given ethics any consideration and just threw everything at it.

I feel really bad I made you sad.

[cheque]

This is how it's done.

[andy_e]

Remember that falling from low down can also be dangerous(ly funny)

(~6.30 for the good stuff. for some reason it won't embed and play at specified start time?)

[user deactivated]

Only the best fucking bouldering video ever made. I love the self serious comments as well. Haha.

Anyway while Dan’s crying into his coffee about JB’s melacholia over Marrowbone Jelly and Will is showing us educational videos of Will. Maybe there should be a thread name change as I keep thinking that (let’s face it pretty poor) article has got way to much mileage out of this. And there’s still no ascent of Danger Mouse (pooping self emoji) on the horizon

[Fiend]

Willackers is 17' tall (even more of a lankalope than Will H) so that's a normal boulder problem to him. Besides I was talking about the DT9000 way without pads.

I fell off Charlie's pre-pads (even tho that guys misses them anyway), with my heel hooked above my head. Luckily the momentum of my leg pinging off flicked me around in mid-air so I only landed on that heel and broke it badly in 2 places. Unlike that guy sitting there pensively I was crawling down to Frank The Decorator's cottage in agony. He was a real gent driving me to A&E and waiting with me distracting me with hours of ethical banter (this was about the time of the Harpur Hill debacle). If I hadn't flipped over in mid-air I'd probably be dictating this as speech-to-text having broken my spine at the neck and been quadraplegic for 20 years. Thankfully I'm a bit wiser these days so when I'm wanting a padless experience I've worked up to it a lot more and am much better prepared including a willingness to downclimb a lot. #coolstorybro #whatever #boring

I vote for a name change too.

[user deactivated]

I had a low wire in adrenaline rush. Shitty rock 1 or 2 maybe. The plan being the belayer would take in a load. Will’s error was he didn’t use the high right foot at the top. I climbed it o/s as I’m sure Will did, there’s very little chance I’d do that these days, but interestingly probably wouldn’t headpoint it, particularly as it’s french 6b+ slab climbing

[ashtond6]

Ok so I can redpoint janus but not knockin'? As janus is hard and safe?

Or walk away and train for 5 years and get masses of E4/5 mileage and see what happens?? It could be amazing....Janus might be the best one to go for first...

No thanks not my style

[macca7]

Nor his!

[Fiend]

    

[ashtond6]

Nor his!

Good point as it certainly ain't ethics

[Danny]

I did find it a bit sad when the other DT did Marrowbone Jelly the other week, he didn't appear to have given ethics any consideration and just threw everything at it.

Adam, a lot of what you've said here makes sense, but the above sentiment strikes me as potentially problematic. Of course you're entitled to be dissapointed, but you've gotta ask yourself why you care in particular about how someone else climbed a route? Likewise Dave re: Art Nouveau. Likewise Fiend. As much as you all claim these are personal preferences (OK, maybe Fiend has a wider agenda) it's comments like the above that imply these preferences are wider than that: there's a direction of travel you'd like to see in the wider climbing community. Actually, I think that's probably quite reasonable. Why wouldn't you want to see more folk having a better experience with their climbing, as you see it?         

[Johnny Brown]

Well yeah, I think you've already got there. To sum up what I've already posted, I see it like freedom of speech. People are free to do what they want, others are free to criticise. But given it is ethics not rules I'm less bothered by folk's approach as to whether they've given it any thought. But yeah, I think there should be a direction of travel which is doing more with less.

My own reasons for trying Marrowbone ground up would include the history, the footage of Mano trying to boulder it out 35 years ago, the fact that it's on a boulder not a crag, the fact that it longer now since the first ground-up than that ascent was after the first ascent. Clicking play on Dan's video - having seen him do To Bolt.. the other week - I just assumed he'd be approaching it in the same style, and that with his cv he'd have both ambition and the awareness of the context. And there's the wider issue that given the size of his platform (YouTube not pad stack ;-) there's a message going out that that's how it's done.