Should folk really be headpointing routes that werre onsighted nearly ten years ago and are fairly safe to fall off? I don't think so.
Should people really be redpointing 8a's which were onsighted 15 years ago?What about 'each to their own' and all that?
Should folk really be headpointing routes that were onsighted nearly ten years ago and are fairly safe to fall off? I don't think so.It really is up to them I'm afraid.
I'm with JB on this one (in spades) if a route has been onsighted (esp. when it's relatively safe) then go for it onsight. Anything else is selling yourslef short.Harsh, but true.Why would you want to do KK as a 'headpoint'? To say you've done it (which wouldn't be true) or to claim an E7 (which wouldn't be true).JB you ask why there is this degradation of ethics, my answer is simpy this; climbing walls.
JB you ask why there is this degradation of ethics, my answer is simpy this; climbing walls.
Sport climbing is convenience climbing, ethics go out the window when the drill goes in. People climbing on grit should be looking to climb in the best style possible. As Idol eyes says, some of these routes are fragile and won't survive poor climbers flailing on them in topropes - look at Beau Geste. Headpointing, if it has a place, should be limited to new routes. Once a route is established the challenge is to improve on the style of ascent.
there had been a group top roping it for 3 hours, not only could they "not touch it!" but they snapped the primary pebble on the crux,
Correct me if i'm wrong but a lot (most?) of the top end repeats of routes have been in the same style as the first ascentionist, are you suggesting that these routes should sit unrepeated until people can improve on the style they were first climbed?
I bet no one has onsighted or flashed their first E7 ever (go on, prove me wrong