[SA Chris]

Not that I'm a trad climber at all, but I've heard it said that headpointing is generally considered much more acceptable at the higher end of the grading scale/one's personal limit, like if you can say climb E3 you should really not be headpointing HVS, but it's okay for E2/E3.

Could it be similar with the ethics of a flash? Like if Pearson was on an E5 or E6 we'd expect his flash to not include an ab, but as it's E10 at least, he's allowed to inspect it first and it still counts? I.e what I acceptable for a flash differs for the seriousness of the route in both general and personal terms.

No. the discussion is not about  when it is acceptable to headpoint or flash, but that the tactics he used to pre-inspect the route could invalidate the claim of a flash*

(*- attempt, as he fell off this is all academic anyway).

[Wellsy]

That's sorta what I mean, is an ab okay for like a top end serious route at the limit of ability or close to, and it still counts as a flash?

I personally dunno I just think the idea of criteria for an ascent style changing depending on the relative difficulty is interesting. But not necessarily right. I'm just a bouldering peasant scrabbling on the odd low 7 I know my place lol

[SA Chris]

No. You can't flex ethics just because you are at the top end. I would say the opposite. If you are a low grade punter like me no-one cares if you say you flashed an E2 when you actually abbed it the day before, but if you are claiming something historically significant you should try be as "ethical" in your reporting as possible. A bit like no-one caring if I take PES to take 5 minutes off my woeful marathon time, but Kipchoge (for random example) will be getting a regular dope test.

[Potash]

The problem with allowing abseil inspection within the flash is that it's a movable feast.

Nobody really knows what you have done with this tactic. The attempt on Lexicon demonstrated this perfectly.

First it was an abseil inspection,
Then abseil inspection whilst fondling the holds,
Then abseil inspection whilst fondling the holds and feeling the body positions.

What about checking the movements. Ok if you still have your weight on the abseil rope?

[andy moles]

The problem with allowing abseil inspection within the flash is that it's a movable feast.

Isn't a flash a bit of a movable feast anyway?

i.e. the difference between being told 'take two yellow cams' and being given a detailed breakdown of the entire route?

Regardless, you want to know more detail.

[Wellsy]

No. You can't flex ethics just because you are at the top end. I would say the opposite. If you are a low grade punter like me no-one cares if you say you flashed an E2 when you actually abbed it the day before, but if you are claiming something historically significant you should try be as "ethical" in your reporting as possible. A bit like no-one caring if I take PES to take 5 minutes off my woeful marathon time, but Kipchoge (for random example) will be getting a regular dope test.

That's very reasonable and fair

[andy popp]

This is so interesting! There are all these well established climbers who 100% think their interpretation of the terms of style are correct, and yet their views are different. Who is the arbiter of this debate, the highest source of wisdom??

I generally took On The Edge to be the font of all knowledge when I was learning the ropes.

Indeed! And though I accept terms change their meaning, I think it's worth going back to the period when these terms were coined, when I happened to be around and involved. My understandings would be:

Flash - you didn't fall off or otherwise weight gear (I would allow down climbing). Implicitly suggests beta (or it would be an onsight) but doesn't necessarily say anything about inspection. Obviously this introduces a grey area, but at some point a line is crossed. The report on James' ascent of Lexicon says something about measuring body positions, which sounds a very like pulling on. Pulling on to any degree invalidates a flash immediately. What else you're willing to claim as a flash is slightly down to personal standards (whether or not you were wearing climbing or regular shoes when you abbed down could even make a big difference to the sense in which you know the route).

Ground up - you did fall off! But, by definition there was categorically no direct personal inspection. Doesn't necessarily say anything about beta however. Most ground up ascents are not deliberate but are flubbed flash or onsight attempts. Some of my proudest moments were ground ups where all the climbing was done "onsight" but not at the first attempt.

Onsight/redpoint/headpoint - we all know and agree what those mean. Right?

Anyway, very, very impressive ascent from James, whatever we call it and whether or not he should have called it a flash attempt. Reading the report it seems he actually led the crux headwall twice, which is pretty gobsmacking. It must have been psychologically pretty complex to go back on it. I once watched someone fall off the end of the traverse on Braille Trail, sit on the pegs, and then lead to the top - meaning they did all the scary/dangerous climbing without being able to take the tick. So far as I know they never went back.

[twoshoes]

This is so interesting! There are all these well established climbers who 100% think their interpretation of the terms of style are correct, and yet their views are different. Who is the arbiter of this debate, the highest source of wisdom??

I generally took On The Edge to be the font of all knowledge when I was learning the ropes. For all these years, I've understood the flash category (in the UK, not anywhere else like Verdon) to describe climbing something first go where you have more information than what you can see of the holds just with your own eyes (and the guidebook description). There is the subset of the 'beta flash', which means of course that there are other types of flash possible. I'd always thought that the line not to cross was pulling on the holds. So abbing down and feeling the positions would not be ok, but brushing and touching the holds would.

Having said that, I usually would only have chosen that method if it was an unloved route that needed debris brushing off or some such. And it would need to be specified if boasting about it later!

I'm willing to accept that my understanding is wrong, but I'm just saying that's what myself and many others have understood a flash to encompass for all these years.

+1 to all of this.

I've always gone with:
Onsight - turn up, see route, climb it.
Headpoint - work the route to whatever extent you see fit, climb it.
Flash - everything in the middle, i.e. first attempt but gaining whatever knowledge you can first.

I guess the debate is over what constitutes 'working' a route? Abbing and feeling the holds seems fine. Weighting them, checking 'positions', not so much.

Edit - pretty much exactly what Andy said.

[36chambers]

I've just realised that my friends and I have been using a term for years that sums this all up nicely.

#HuwFlash

which originates from our mate logging various climbs several times on UKC as Sent dnf, then eventually logging them as Sent β "3rd go today, soft".

I use it often myself on UKC to clarify that I absolutely did not flash a particular climb. Maybe that's what Pearson meant all along.

[Ged]

Clearly there'll ve no end to this as there seems to be 2 clear camps.

I think the easiest way to remove the "was it feeling holds or checking body positions or pulling on" debacle is simple, you don't ab the route and claim a flash! It's black and white. Gain as much info as you want without being on the route (whether on a top rope or lead rope or ab rope).

I happened to do point blank in the style described here. I abbed down it in my trainers, put some chalk in useful looking places, made sure I knew what the gear was, and then led it. There is no way on earth I'd claim that as a flash.

Edit: actually I'd done from a distance just before, so that probably invalidates the flash anyway as they share so much climbing. But even so! As it happens, I flashed FaD, with an absolute essay of beta texted to me by a friend. It was chalked, and the beta was absolutely perfect and thorough. It made it feel pretty straightforward. But it was definitely a flash.

[colin8ll]

you don't ab the route and claim a flash

What if you ab the route with your eyes closed? I'm sure there were stories about folk doing this back in the day so as not to invalidate their onsight.

I'm not sure how much value there is in reductive terms lile 'flash' when there's clearly no collective agreement on its meaning, and the medium of communication (IG in this case) allows sufficient space for detail.

Congratulations to James on committing to such a hard piece of climbing without having linked it on top rope; on taking the whip and going back for more; and for giving enough detail about the style of ascent to allow everyone to make up their own minds about how impressive it was.

[webbo]

you don't ab the route and claim a flash

What if you ab the route with your eyes closed? I'm sure there were stories about folk doing this back in the day so as not to invalidate their onsight.

You might do if you could only get to the bottom of the route by abseil. But this is hardly the case on Pavey unless you were walking in from Keswick.

[jwi]

for example

https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/2013/07/steve_mcclure_flashes_tom_et_je_ris_8b+_verdon-68218

[Aussiegav]

 I find this thread so refreshing. After 2.5years if fucking dreary topics on Covid posts, US politics, opinions on vaccinations and Death rates, we have 6 pages of debating on what a flash attempt is. That stems from a guy who didn’t even flash the route.

Chapeau, Chapeau   

I’m hoping we soon get a 10 page thread on the debate whether a send is valid where the boulderer has used a crouch/scrunch start is counted when a sit start has been specified.

[SA Chris]

of course it isn't. And I'm sure it's been discussed.

[hongkongstuey]

I’m hoping we soon get a 10 page thread on the debate whether a send is valid where the boulderer has used a crouch/scrunch start is counted when a sit start has been specified.

don't even get me started on that one... i'll give you a ten page rant on those cheating little buggers right away   

for me a Flash always was (and always will be), first go, whatever knowledge you can lay your hands on, but you've never touched a hold on the route. Personally i'd say an ab inspection is crossing the line but if they didn't touch the holds. Ultimately it all comes down to integrity...   

[jwi]

Since I don't do any bouldering anymore, I am OK with arguing that you can start however you want as long as you start from the same holds. And that since the pads are so thick anyway nowadays it makes no difference on classic problems.

I can also use analogies from roped climbing and cheating stones to support my position. No probs.

 (I might have a hard time arguing passionately about this though.)

[JJP]

I’m hoping we soon get a 10 page thread on the debate whether a send is valid where the boulderer has used a crouch/scrunch start is counted when a sit start has been specified.

Pretty sure that has been debated recently but cannot remember the context or thread it was on.

[duncan]

In Aiden Roberts' interview with Sam Prior (Careless Talk podcast; part 2 from around 1 hour 5 mins ) they talk about 3D scanning and printing holds for a Burden of Dreams replica.

Would practicing on a near-perfect copy before trying the real thing invalidate a flash?!

[SA Chris]

Covered a week ago! You must have been up a french crag.

[Wil]

for example

https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/2013/07/steve_mcclure_flashes_tom_et_je_ris_8b+_verdon-68218

From the article:


I think we often get tangled up in terms we assume are well defined when talking about high end ascents. I also think we get caught up in thinking about how ascents rank against each other, and we'd like to think a flash is higher than a redpoint/headpoint, but also we try climbs in certain styles because of the unseen cultural pressure to do things in certain ways because "that's how it's done". We're all guilty of doing climbs in ways that are clearly not the most enjoyable way for us, because there's a different reward of social validation to being able to make certain claims, even if we think of ourselves as modest.

Personally I would consider deliberately abbing down a line to inspect it to invalidate a flash. I'm less concerned if I've just abbed somewhere nearby and had a look across, I wouldn't consider this much different to scouting out a line from all the other available angles. Obviously you need a strict distance limit, so I carry a pole that is 7 foot 4 inches long (a foot more than my armspan) and use this at all times to ensure an appropriate distance is maintained. I'm happy to make these bespoke rosewood products for other people, I call it the "BetaLog".

Also, hats off to JP for a really ballsy ascent! I'm super impressed that anyone would want to be out on that headwall without having worked it properly.

[Nemo]

"That stems from a guy who didn’t even flash the route." - AussieGav

Not really.  This has happened before:

e,g: on Something's Burning:
"I decided to try to flash the route as opposed to attempt an onsight, as I figured I had a realistic chance of the former. There is a massive difference between two styles, especially on a route like Something’s Burning, which comes down to a very exact sequence, and rather specific gear. I decided to try the route after Caroline (Ciavaldini) checked it out on abseil rope and told me it looked easy. It seemed too good to be true, and it was.  Over the next couple of days she made a more detailed inspection of the route, figuring out the gear, and actually trying some of the moves.  She changed her original opinion, several times in fact, finally telling me it was going to be hard, and that there were a couple of moves that would rely mainly on luck. Just before I tried the route, I abseiled down the line with Caro to watch her try some of the moves, and more importantly place the crux gear. Caro is really aware of my climbing style, and she's become quite good at choosing a method that works for me. Basically she climbs things with big moves, and avoids using small, precise footholds."
https://www.climber.co.uk/news/pearson-flashes-e9-in-pembroke-short-interview-and-photograph/


Obviously he's been completely honest about exactly what he's done, which is great.

But clearly there's also something a bit off here.
If various other people had done Something's Burning in exactly the same style they'd have reported it as a headpoint.  Which would probably have barely made the news.

Admittedly I'm somewhat taken aback by the level of confusion around this on this thread.
But as far as I'm aware at least, the vast majority of other trad climbers making the news in the UK aren't defining flash this way. And if they were, then I think it's pretty clear that there would be various other people capable of "flashing" E9.

None of that makes the ascents in the stye he's done them in any less impressive.
It just stops ascents like Something's Burning being put on a pedestal above various others when he's not really playing the same game.

[Davo]

Initially I read that and thought: “ no way is that a flash”.

However having had a think about some of my own “flashes” of various routes I think if I had done as Pearson did I would count it personally as a flash. I have certainly lowered down off sport routes watched a mate on a route to the side, looked at all the moves, brushed some holds and put some draws in etc. I have always thought of those as flashes but I guess the difference is no one but me cares!

[shark]

I abseiled down the line with Caro to watch her try some of the moves

Thanks for that Nemo. He abbed the route so didn’t flash it. Surprised this didn’t get challenged at the time.

Also how does his ‘flash attempt’ on Lexicon compare to Steve Mac going for it after just 40 mins on a gri-gri the previous day when the consequences of a fall at that stage was untested? Unanswerable I know but there’s a case to be made that Steve’s go was comparable or maybe better - however you define that.

And Steve got further

[haydn jones]

It's just a matter of opinion though, no one is correct. For me what you've just described is100% a flash and not even in the grey zone. It just depends where you draw the line. I will admit that touching the holds on an ab enters the grey zone and I could be persuaded either way.

Again this isn't what is correct it's just my opinion.