[JamieG]

Do people have a fourth term in mind to help subdivide the continuum, or would people say that "after abseil inspection" would group into "redpoint" if the big three is the highest level grouping and their view is this isn't a flash?

It's unlikely that there's ever a clear line, but if we're using OS, flash and RP as the three I'd have maybe gone for a wider flash bucket than some which starts somewhere where you have more beta than the guide gives you and ends when you've actually tried a move. That being said I'm entirely internally illogical since clipsticking up a route in trainers would feel a bit dodgy, lowering past a route with the clips already in I wouldn't think twice about, and on trad I suspect if I hung in front of a placement trying out which wire fitted I'd start to wonder whereas if someone told me it was an RP3 before I left the ground I wouldn't think twice about that being "flash compliant" beta.

I think it's actually worth coining a term for this sooner rather than later. It maybe seems pedantic now, but technology means this particular patch of water is only going to get muddier. By this I mean people flying drones up routes, or digital guide technology increasing the information available pre-ascent without any need to go near the route. Better that it has a name than worthy bits of climbing get obscured by wrangling over categorisation.

This is a good point, although rather than trying to come up with ever more categories, why not do away with the flash altogether? An ascent is then either onsight, or it's not. If you did it first go after watching drone footage and training on a replica, then by all means spray about it being first go on instagram, but without the title of 'flash', it will always demand a paragraph on how it went down.

How about 'splashed' i.e. flashed with inSPection of holds?

I'll get my coat!

[SA Chris]

Another UKB rabbit hole. Par for the course it seems after any notable ascent or non ascent as in this case.

I think Lexicon alone has been responsible for more forum inches than any other route. Except maybe Shadowplay.

[36chambers]

This is rather cynical of me, but there's only one clear solution for these unfortunate grey areas and that's to automatically assumed that anyone claiming a flash, or onsight, or whatever, has completely pushed the absolute limits of what is acceptable for the given term, and then some.

It's then up to the climber to add more detail to justify whether they've done anything more special than the worse stye of the term: abbing, brushing, fondling, replica-ing, climbing the start-middle-end beforehand but as part of different routes, reaching past the crux, etc, etc.

[36chambers]

Another UKB rabbit hole. Par for the course it seems after any notable ascent or non ascent as in this case.

I think Lexicon alone has been responsible for more forum inches than any other route. Except maybe Shadowplay.

The Oak would like a word

[SA Chris]

How could I forget!

[jwi]

Action Directe? Hubble!

[northern yob]

Fall looked casual 

It’s obviously one of the best E10’s in the country, at this rate it’ll soon be the most repeated…..

[Bonjoy]

Do people have a fourth term in mind to help subdivide the continuum, or would people say that "after abseil inspection" would group into "redpoint" if the big three is the highest level grouping and their view is this isn't a flash?

It's unlikely that there's ever a clear line, but if we're using OS, flash and RP as the three I'd have maybe gone for a wider flash bucket than some which starts somewhere where you have more beta than the guide gives you and ends when you've actually tried a move. That being said I'm entirely internally illogical since clipsticking up a route in trainers would feel a bit dodgy, lowering past a route with the clips already in I wouldn't think twice about, and on trad I suspect if I hung in front of a placement trying out which wire fitted I'd start to wonder whereas if someone told me it was an RP3 before I left the ground I wouldn't think twice about that being "flash compliant" beta.

I think it's actually worth coining a term for this sooner rather than later. It maybe seems pedantic now, but technology means this particular patch of water is only going to get muddier. By this I mean people flying drones up routes, or digital guide technology increasing the information available pre-ascent without any need to go near the route. Better that it has a name than worthy bits of climbing get obscured by wrangling over categorisation.

This is a good point, although rather than trying to come up with ever more categories, why not do away with the flash altogether? An ascent is then either onsight, or it's not. If you did it first go after watching drone footage and training on a replica, then by all means spray about it being first go on instagram, but without the title of 'flash', it will always demand a paragraph on how it went down.

In practice, regardless of what you think the most desirable solution would be, it's far easier to introduce and promote a new category then to successfully abolish an existing one.

[Moo]

I think that once you start adding terms to the list then it's like kicking off a stack of dominos i.e where would it end?. My opinion is that it'd be better to improve the definitions of what we have already as there's clearly many different understandings of the same terminology and as we've seen already in this thread people just end up arguing semantics.

Another can of worms is to maybe distinguish what we allow for a flash in bouldering versus what we'd allow for sport and trad ?

[ferret]

To me it's always been simple a flash is anything first go without trying the moves first.
If what you've done is significant enough that people might care just add a bit of honest detail so they can make their own minds up about how impressive a feat is.
Nowadays folks show up and watch a video of the moves on their mobile before setting off. How you rank that compared to touching the holds but not knowing the moves is personal opinion

[Moo]

I'd largely agree, where do people stand on touching holds before a flash go ?

[crimpinainteasy]

Sounds like another case of 36C's law

"Any grey area in climbing will always get abused" (36chambers' Law)

With bouldering, hold inspection on a flash is par for the course, is this different in trad then?

TBH I've never understood why hold inspection prior to a flash attempt is deemed ok for bouldering but is forbidden when trad or sport climbing. The way I see it either hold inspection should be allowed regardless of the circumstance, or touching of the start holds should never be allowed and result in an automatic forfeit of the flash attempt.

 Holds that are touchable from the ground for a 6'1 person might not be for someone who's 5'5 which gives them an unfair advantage when going for their "flash" attempt on a boulder problem since the shorter climber is basically onsighting the majority of the problem.

[Moo]

Unless they have a ladder.

I guess it's because traditionally the culture around trad climbing has been particularly obsessed with the style and purity of the ascent. Bouldering as a relative newcomer hasn't had to deal with the baggage of these kind of ethics in quite the same way.

[Bradders]

I can't decide whether this sort of debate takes all the fun out of climbing, or is part of what makes it the best sport ever.

For me it's very simple; a flash is defined as climbing something on your first attempt where you have some (however much you want) prior knowledge of the route / problem.

Emphasis on the climbing. Anything you might do beforehand which is demonstrably not climbing, including brushing holds, fondling holds without weighting them, looking at holds from any angle, watching other people, etc., is irrelevant. If you climb on it at all, e.g. in trainers or stick clipping up it, you invalidate the flash.

Nice and simple and applies to all genres of climbing. If people want to overthink and overcomplicate it thereafter they're welcome to for their own experience, but stop sucking the joy out of it for the rest of us!

[Moo]

And there it is the almost inevitable post which seeks to question the necessity of a discussion taking place about climbing on a forum which was set up by climbers for climbers to discuss ........ climbing.

[Duma]

It's funny, I immediately thought ab inspection wasn't ok, but then realised I wouldn't think twice about moving the clips over when lowering off an adjacent sport route, and then taking the flash. I guess it's more about feeling the holds for me, and also the intent - I've never deliberately done a neighbouring route to a flash target in order to glean beta or get the clips in, and would feel a bit weird if I did. Glad I don't have to worry about this stuff at my level!

BUT, also agree re vid beta - if you have a vid of someone similar size to you I'd consider that way more useful than abbing a route. Eg I had a working go on a route a couple of years ago, didn't manage any of the hard moves, lowered off the third bolt having written it off. This year, in no better shape, but armed with a vid, I went back to the route, did all the moves first time up, and linked through the crux second go.

[petekitso]

James' thoughts on the flash definition are now (as of 25 mins ago) set out in some detail on his IG account. Includes this extract:

FYI - I call my first attempt a “flash” because I used the same ethic as when “flashing boulders - Touching holds is ok, imagining positions, ok but don’t do any moves.

[JamieG]

Easy to see why official rule books for any sport (even relatively simple ones) end up as epic tomes covering almost every conceivable eventuality. And they still get argued about and revised almost annually.

[Bonjoy]

I can't decide whether this sort of debate takes all the fun out of climbing, or is part of what makes it the best sport ever.

For me it's very simple; a flash is defined as climbing something on your first attempt where you have some (however much you want) prior knowledge of the route / problem.

Emphasis on the climbing. Anything you might do beforehand which is demonstrably not climbing, including brushing holds, fondling holds without weighting them, looking at holds from any angle, watching other people, etc., is irrelevant. If you climb on it at all, e.g. in trainers or stick clipping up it, you invalidate the flash.

Nice and simple and applies to all genres of climbing. If people want to overthink and overcomplicate it thereafter they're welcome to for their own experience, but stop sucking the joy out of it for the rest of us!

Okay, great! Can't wait till a climbing wall builds the perfect replica of my projects so I can it flash later. Cheers.
Whatever your heuristic, someone will think of something to bypass it. It's human nature.

[Bradders]

And there it is the almost inevitable post which seeks to question the necessity of a discussion taking place about climbing on a forum which was set up by climbers for climbers to discuss ........ climbing.

Well hence why I said I can't decide if this is good or bad; on the one hand pub type setting the world to rights chat is great, especially when it's utterly meaningless! Snide comments along the lines of "well that's not a proper flash though is it", pissing all over someone's chips; not great.

I can't decide whether this sort of debate takes all the fun out of climbing, or is part of what makes it the best sport ever.

For me it's very simple; a flash is defined as climbing something on your first attempt where you have some (however much you want) prior knowledge of the route / problem.

Emphasis on the climbing. Anything you might do beforehand which is demonstrably not climbing, including brushing holds, fondling holds without weighting them, looking at holds from any angle, watching other people, etc., is irrelevant. If you climb on it at all, e.g. in trainers or stick clipping up it, you invalidate the flash.

Nice and simple and applies to all genres of climbing. If people want to overthink and overcomplicate it thereafter they're welcome to for their own experience, but stop sucking the joy out of it for the rest of us!

Okay, great! Can't wait till a climbing wall builds the perfect replica of my projects so I can it flash later. Cheers.
Whatever your heuristic, someone will think of something to bypass it. It's human nature.

No chance, and very much reductio ad absurdum. No indoor problem will ever be able to replicate all the little details of a specific outdoor rock climb, most particularly the atmospheric conditions of the actual thing. And even if they could, it'd still be a flash in my book.

[abarro81]

 

James' thoughts on the flash definition are now (as of 25 mins ago) set out in some detail on his IG account. Includes this extract:

FYI - I call my first attempt a “flash” because I used the same ethic as when “flashing boulders - Touching holds is ok, imagining positions, ok but don’t do any moves.

If you follow that as written, flashing 8c just got a whole lot easier since this implies I can stick clip up it fondling holds first.. which which is clearly bollocks.. I'm sure it's not what JP was meaning.

But that's part of the problem with abbing being 'allowed' for a flash - what's not allowed if that is? I still don't understand how people who think that abbing down something is ok square it with agreeing that sticking up it would not be, since they're almost the same thing (just that abbing is more faff).. you're really telling me I could abb something in Margalef and still take the flash? Maybe it's a trad v sport thing but it just doesn't compute for me.


Whether it can be harder or easier than something else isnt really fundamental to the definition and is conflating something different IMO - flash on a dirty route with no chalk is more impressive than onsighting a perfectly clipped and chalked route, but that's not really the question is it.

[jwi]

Abbing down something and touching the holds is absolutely not a flash. I cannot believe that there are people who think so.

I agree that we have to work on an honour system on some routes in Verdon, and that people who claim that they did not look at the holds really did not.

[Bradders]

Whether it can be harder or easier than something else isnt really fundamental to the definition and is conflating something different IMO - flash on a dirty route with no chalk is more impressive than onsighting a perfectly clipped and chalked route, but that's not really the question is it.

Surely the fundamental part of the definition is whether you climbed at all when inspecting it!

Stick clipping is clearly totally different to abbing as it always involves climbing up the route in one way or another.

Abbing down something and touching the holds is absolutely not a flash. I cannot believe that there are people who think so.

I agree that we have to work on an honour system on some routes in Verdon, and that people who claim that they did not look at the holds really did not.

It blows my mind that people think just looking at or touching the holds invalidates a flash. A flash is not a slightly unethical version of an onsight!

[Moo]

This is why I think the term Flash differs for bouldering and Trad/Sport. That seems to be the nub of the debate to me anyway.

[petejh]

I'm another one who thinks abbing a route isn't 'allowed' for a flash. For me a flash is gaining what beta that can be gained from the ground without being on the route - this simple definition precludes hanging on an ab rope on the route or stick-clipping up it. Fairly straightforward and it removes most of the grey areas, with some minor vagueness remaining around routes that require an ab to access, or lowering off next to a route etc.
So beta gained either from watching someone else climb it, listening to someone else's beta, watching vids, trying replicas - all legit flash methods imo with some going to extremes to use beta - I watched Ondra on Biographie have his girl methodically abb and film every hold and describe the hold and move via video link.  If a route involves abbing down it by necessity (sea cliffs etc.) then extra levels of contrivance are required to avoid invalidating the flash. Or standing at the top looking down at the moves (sea cliffs again - Pembroke especially) then fair enough - the context is fairly obvious in that case.  Climbing routes next to a route to have a look on the lower/get clips in etc... is one of the few grey areas remaining if you remove ab inspection from being legit. Contrived? No shit, it's a contrived pastime. People will always stretch boundaries if the boundaries are vague. 

Ultimately though I stopped caring long ago!