UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => chuffing => Topic started by: user deactivated on January 16, 2019, 11:00:58 am
-
Flicked onto the other channel yesterday to see fiend getting a load of shit for having a solid opinion about it. I was surprised to see people are still seeing their arse about this really, I mean headpointing is a bit cheaty isn’t it, but good fun sometimes too. I loved the ‘imagine all the climbers’ mock response though. I mean how much headpointing really goes on anyway? I’ve spent a year mooching around deserted crags with a mix of styles and pretty much the only people I’ve bumped into are out bouldering.
-
I'm sure we can have a more interesting discussion on this channel,
I agree - who really cares, everyone considers it to be a lesser style than onsighting, same in sport climbing or bouldering.
Why is it so different because there is natural gear? It really just changes how it is approached...
Whether a route gets worked or not is purely logistical. I've headpointed like 5 routes ever yet redpointed hundreds. Summary - its loads more faff than sport climbing so i can't be arsed & just go sport climbing...
-
I've not read the article but I'm amazed they've published something so lengthy. Doesn't 'Gen Z' have the attention span to read 3 bullet points at most?!
-
I'm sure we can have a more interesting discussion on this channel,
I agree - who really cares, everyone considers it to be a lesser style than onsighting, same in sport climbing or bouldering.
Why is it so different because there is natural gear? It really just changes how it is approached...
Whether a route gets worked or not is purely logistical. I've headpointed like 5 routes ever yet redpointed hundreds. Summary - its loads more faff than sport climbing so i can't be arsed & just go sport climbing...
Wow, you must have saved the interesting bit for your posts on ukc :bow:
-
I've not read the article but I'm amazed they've published something so lengthy. Doesn't 'Gen Z' have the attention span to read 3 bullet points at most?!
think how many adverts you have to scroll past (and maybe see) with something that long - even if all you want to do is read the comments section
-
Edlinger headpointed quite a few of his more wackily bolted routes, and look what happened to him.
-
Edlinger headpointed quite a few of his more wackily bolted routes, and look what happened to him.
after he stopped headpointing?
-
haha, the lesson is the opposite of what I thought! Keep on headpointing kids!
-
Worth noting that I didn't read the article - I'm not interested in the Franco/TheMoors/H10/whatever publicity machine - and I certainly will never read any replies to my comment on it (my modus operandi these days), although I did take care to make sure my comment was palatable and straightforward.
The more I think about it, the more I dislike the whole thing, especially promoting the exact opposite direction to how climbing progression should be going. Franco may or may not be talking about his own precious new routes, but given they're a limited resource and too hard for most people, stylistic progression further down the difficulty levels is obvious and natural.
-
I'm sure we can have a more interesting discussion on this channel,
I agree - who really cares, everyone considers it to be a lesser style than onsighting, same in sport climbing or bouldering.
Why is it so different because there is natural gear? It really just changes how it is approached...
Whether a route gets worked or not is purely logistical. I've headpointed like 5 routes ever yet redpointed hundreds. Summary - its loads more faff than sport climbing so i can't be arsed & just go sport climbing...
Wow, you must have saved the interesting bit for your posts on ukc :bow:
Haha sorry, that forum really winds me up, I do wonder why I go on there.
However, if said person goes fishing, he must expect to catch some fish.
Have a look at my punters too.
It's a long term beef. :shrug:
-
Since that refers to me: No - I can neither remember nor care less what the puntering was about, in fact the stray wad point at the time indicates it was hardly of any interest even then.
-
I've not read the article but I'm amazed they've published something so lengthy. Doesn't 'Gen Z' have the attention span to read 3 bullet points at most?!
Read about half, but alternative was even more boring.
-
Edlinger headpointed quite a few of his more wackily bolted routes, and look what happened to him.
He gave up and soloed Orange Mécanique instead?
Dangerous, thin end of the wedge, this headpointing business ..
-
thin end of the wedge
Isn’t that a boulder problem at Burnage south where the a block was crowbarred out to make room for a bum start :spank:
-
Burnage south ahahhah get the Gallagher’s to spot 😂
-
The few goes on toprope followed by a lead, aka 'The Cheetham', seems like a good option on grit for people who need their ankles intact to go into work the next day.
-
By name and nature apparently Tim - have a wad point!
-
Worth noting that I didn't read the article - I'm not interested in the Franco/TheMoors/H10/whatever publicity machine - and I certainly will never read any replies to my comment on it (my modus operandi these days), although I did take care to make sure my comment was palatable and straightforward.
The more I think about it, the more I dislike the whole thing, especially promoting the exact opposite direction to how climbing progression should be going. Franco may or may not be talking about his own precious new routes, but given they're a limited resource and too hard for most people, stylistic progression further down the difficulty levels is obvious and natural.
Your comments on Franco entertain me immensely. I was so glad to see you were the first to post about in on the other channel.
-
Wasn’t this covered in the Glue gate thread.
Franco top roping stuff to death then head pointing, where as Dan V and gang minimal practice the work from the ground.
-
Since that refers to me: No - I can neither remember nor care less what the puntering was about, in fact the stray wad point at the time indicates it was hardly of any interest even then.
Was talking to Dan. Hence the quote, to Dan.
-
Don’t let me get in the way of a good scrap lads 😂
But seriously tho, cmon fiend we all love your posts man. Good on ya. Ad away n shite with yer headpointing article whatever ya name is....
-
I read Francos Article. And it made a pleasant change from the usual crampon/leighweight jacket sponsored overviews etc...
But it didn’t half go off on one towards the end. Plus I would suggest that there are a whole range of objective dangers that come from dangling on a rope up high solo toproping something - than dangling 1m above a bouldering pad... that whole section seemed a bit weird and maybe a tad dangerous for them to print.
Anyway - I was always happy to toprope stuff when pushing your grade (when I did roped stuff). Who really cares apart from yourself?
Is this where I can talk about Cryogenics? 😂
-
Depends whether you top-roped it first.
-
there are a whole range of objective dangers that come from dangling on a rope up high solo toproping something - than dangling 1m above a bouldering pad... that whole section seemed a bit weird and maybe a tad dangerous for them to print.
It’s rock climbing Tom. It’s all a tad dangerous.
-
Anyway - I was always happy to toprope stuff when pushing your grade (when I did roped stuff). Who really cares apart from yourself?
I haven't read the article and I doubt I'll get around to it. However, just before leaving Sheffield I realised I'd been kidding myself thinking I'd get around to actually doing a lot of the grit routes I aspired to that included genuine risk (I wasn't overly fond of my Illizarov frame and don't fancy another!). Thus, I had a great time running around the Peak district with my knackered old fat sport rope and a micro-traxion 'blowing on-sights' for fun.
/punter
-
I recall having a dream about that Paul, grimer was there commentating on that shipwreck of a flake while seb traversed the tiger wearing a grey turtle neck and shouting up ‘you’re on a top rope’. In the distance half a dolphin climbed demon rib then Franco turned up in a big yellow T-shirt with a H printed on it, took hands with the cast of Hard Grit and they all skipped off up the yellow brick road. At this point a ukc zepllin passes overhead with the message remember kids, have fun, obey the rules and respect the rock.
Disappointingly I then woke up and took 3 aspirin, 2 paracetamol and went back to sleep. It’s really hard to re-access those fun dreams isn’t it.
-
Incidentally I have been banned for my post, despite it being non-insulting, moderately-languaged, and a fair criticism of a public article posted with publicly-accessible comments (as well as an attempt to stand up for and promote good ethics/style, rather than criticism for the sake of it).
I really don't think that is remotely acceptable TBH. And I hope no-one on here (or for that matter, there), does.
-
That's pathetic.
-
Looks like you actually got banned for this comment ;)
Worth noting that I didn't read the article - I'm not interested in the Franco/TheMoors/H10/whatever publicity machine - and I certainly will never read any replies to my comment on it (my modus operandi these days), although I did take care to make sure my comment was palatable and straightforward.
-
"Fiend has not been blocked just for his comment on this thread. The reasons are many and varied and go back over the last 11 years. This would be the 4th time he has been banned in that period for a variety of different indiscretions.
He was on borrowed time but the thing that tipped the balance was his public admission elsewhere that he had no intention of engaging in debate on this thread after his opening post. Most of his previous posts in the last few months have been characterised by single negative posts with no follow up. That is not engaging in debate but is a negative campaign and not one that I am not willing to fund.
Alan"
Comment from Alan James on the issue.
-
Fiend what are you doing? I can't believe you thought you could express an opinion without entering a debate or responding to responses. Come on you know the drill.
It also appears to be ok for Alan to have a "negative" view of your posts but not you to have a "negative" view of UKC articles.
Standard double standards.
-
Alan is not correct in that post.
Firstly my previous bannings are for actual reasons: a post that mocked an advertiser and a post that mildly insulted the news staff after a spoiler news item. That is different to being banned without a reason as in this case.
Secondly there isn't, and should not be, any obligation whatsoever to engage in debate after posting a comment. My comment was not intended to be inflammatory however I aware that people will overreact to criticism or posts they disagree with and often become personally abusive towards me, and I think it is within my rights to choose to not to view that.
Thirdly there is absolutely no negative campaign and that is a complete lie. As I said a few posts ago, my comment was a criticism of an article that highlighted and promoted weaker ethics, and "an attempt to stand up for and promote good ethics/style". I have posted occasional negative comments and occasional positive comments as well as other sparse posts, and there is no campaign either way. If Alan had been paying attention to my posts over the years he would know full well that I have a strong ethical standpoint and often express that - and have the right to continue expressing that on a public forum unless I cross the line into insults / abuse / advertiser detriment.
Edit:
Fourthly it does not seem appropriate to use (mis-)perceived intentions gleaned from elsewhere to make judgements on the merits of a critical but in-offensive post. Post should be judged on their own merits and acceptability, not what the moderator thinks of the person or their intention.
Fifthly, it was quite likely my intention to engage in civilised debate and discussion in due time, however when I see a warning like "fiend getting a load of shit", then it's natural that I am going to choose to avoid that discussion.
-
That's pathetic.
I don't think so.... it's supposedly Fiends 4th ban... If you keep playing on the edge of what's acceptable in the site rules it becomes almost inevitable. If he said he had read the article and just expressed his disagreement he wouldn't have been banned. It's maybe a bit unfair in a double jepody sense at the most.
I do think their rules (or application) need changing a bit. I think the pent up herd negativity epitomised by anonymous dislikes and passive aggressive behaviour (all within the rules) is hurting the site. Someone disagreed with me and did some data mining that was supposed to show me I was wrong but in fact found out the posting traffic has more than halved in the last few years (after being steady the previous decade).
-
Glad to see you’re creating a bit of controversy Fiend. It looks like my dream was more than symbolic 😂
-
I'm not glad. Controversy in something like this is just as undesirable as anything else Alan mis-attributes to me. I'd much rather be celebrating an article about a host of Caff E7 onsights. Actually I was going to post something generalised about onsighting ideas on here, just as part of normal discussion.
Offwidth: As I said above, my previous bans were for comprehensible reasons consistent with running a public but commercial site. The posts that caused them were again not made to provoke controversy or "play" on anything, and the response was heavy-handed, but the reasoning was clear and I did not attempt to repeat similar posts. If my post this time had been a similar actual transgression i.e. being directly mildly offensive to the author or mocking a commercial / advertising aspect (not feasible in this case of course), then yes your logic would apply. I do not believe I have to read the full article to express my disagreement with the introduction (which I did read), nor the concept of the article. It's an article about / promoting headpointing. I expressed a disagreement with promoting headpointing. The end.
-
Well controversy if that’s what we call it, has always been a healthy part of climbing. Just as if all that was ever there was Caff E7 articles it would soon become tedious to. Maybe I should say I’m glad you expressed your opinion which seems to be controversial 🙄
-
especially promoting the exact opposite direction to how climbing progression should be going.
Sorry but I find this sort of comment really annoying. I'm interested in onsight climbing, I enjoy it, and up until I gravitated more towards sport and Boulder recently, that was my main approach to climbing. I also occasionally toproped stuff.
Why are you allowed to declare what the sport "should" be doing? I feel a bit like banging my head against a wall saying this again, but each to their own, being honest, not damaging the rock blah blah blah. I find it very hard to believe that the odd bit of toproping is more damaging to rock than people flailing on well protected routes ground up.
I have lots of respect for people climbing hard stuff onsight, and I do agree that a route being onsighted is an improvement in style. But that's not to say that it doesn't have it's place in climbing, and people aren't entitle to do it if they want to. I find the idea that you think your opinion is the most correct bordering on arrogant.
-
That's a difference of opinion, but I can't ban you for saying it.
I have a strong opinion myself, and I express it strongly. :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:
-
I'm not saying you can't have a different opinion, I just object to you stating that opinion as fact!
-
After my own fallings out with him I view getting on the wrong side of Alan as a badge of honour (childish, I know, but I don't care).
But more seriously, I applaud you Fiend for standing up for an ethical position. I thought the article unbalanced, with a very heavy concentration on tactics/strategies etc. and very little discussion of psychology - motivations, rewards/returns (including the possibility that these might be negative rather than positive) - and effectively no discussion of history or ethics. I'm unashamedly elitist. The ideal in climbing should always be towards an improvement in style, particularly as gear improves, and the level at which headpointing is "acceptable" should be a moving target; it shouldn't sit today where it sat in the 1990s. The article had no discussion of standards and thus tacitly argues that headpointing can be appropriate at any grade.
-
I'm not glad. Controversy in something like this is just as undesirable as anything else Alan mis-attributes to me. I'd much rather be celebrating an article about a host of Caff E7 onsights. Actually I was going to post something generalised about onsighting ideas on here, just as part of normal discussion.
Offwidth: As I said above, my previous bans were for comprehensible reasons consistent with running a public but commercial site. The posts that caused them were again not made to provoke controversy or "play" on anything, and the response was heavy-handed, but the reasoning was clear and I did not attempt to repeat similar posts. If my post this time had been a similar actual transgression i.e. being directly mildly offensive to the author or mocking a commercial / advertising aspect (not feasible in this case of course), then yes your logic would apply. I do not believe I have to read the full article to express my disagreement with the introduction (which I did read), nor the concept of the article. It's an article about / promoting headpointing. I expressed a disagreement with promoting headpointing. The end.
You can argue with me all you like but you were banned and pretty unaware if you didn't see it coming. That is very much An End. You could have chosen to just deal with the issues. How did saying you didn't need to read the article help get over your ideas? Not picking fights IS one of the rules.
I'd absolutely rather you were not banned: the site needs more climbing discussion by people like you who actually know stuff and have climbed loads and very widely. As someone who has onsighted the vast majority of my routes I don't mind articles supporting headpointing but am concerned with headpointing on sensitive routes (on that subject Adam might need to talk to Cherry to hear his logic about TAS) and that people need to understand the safety properly of roped solos just using a shunt, as Franco was way too blase about that (in great contrast to Dave's video)
-
The biggest problem I had with the article was how dull it was. It should have hit all my sweet spots; cutting edge climbing, interesting author, ethical murkiness and lots of opportunity for anecdote and history. Instead, after the first paragraph, it descended into a wordy Haynes manual of how to top rope.
-
I was aware that you could get banned for insulting an article's author, or for threatening the commercial / advertising aspect of the site. I was not aware that it was remotely possible to get banned for expressing a criticism or disagreeing with an article, that simply wouldn't occur to me as an option.
I don't know what you mean by "chosen to deal with the issues". I dealt with the issues of my previously actually offensive / detrimental posts by not doing them. As before, I wasn't picking any fights. I think I am quite capable of being offensive / obnoxious / provocative enough for it to be clear when I am picking fights (which I don't bother with any more).
-
After my own fallings out with him I view getting on the wrong side of Alan as a badge of honour (childish, I know, but I don't care).
But more seriously, I applaud you Fiend for standing up for an ethical position. I thought the article unbalanced, with a very heavy concentration on tactics/strategies etc. and very little discussion of psychology - motivations, rewards/returns (including the possibility that these might be negative rather than positive) - and effectively no discussion of history or ethics. I'm unashamedly elitist. The ideal in climbing should always be towards an improvement in style, particularly as gear improves, and the level at which headpointing is "acceptable" should be a moving target; it shouldn't sit today where it sat in the 1990s. The article had no discussion of standards and thus tacitly argues that headpointing can be appropriate at any grade.
I agree with this entirely.
-
Why are you allowed to declare what the sport "should" be doing? I feel a bit like banging my head against a wall saying this again, but each to their own, being honest, not damaging the rock blah blah blah. I find it very hard to believe that the odd bit of toproping is more damaging to rock than people flailing on well protected routes ground up.
It's context.
I can understand the article. It's Franco enthusing about what he does and I don't have a big problem with that. What he misses is that his is a very niche pursuit. It's actually vanishingly rare that you get someone who is both talented and dedicated enough to be a top climber and also obsessed enough with scrubbing up mossy bits of rock in obscure places. There are much easier ways to raise your climbing profile nowadays. There's also the fact that potential for this barely exists in developed areas like the Peak.
The other point he swerves is that toproping that doesn't end in a successful headpoint is just toproping. So in presenting a piece like this to the UKC masses, the likely result is not a rash of quality new routes. It's punters spending all weekend thrashing about on a famous E8 they can't touch. These routes are fragile and are already showing wear. Despite what folk always raise about failed onsights also being potentially damaging (to the placements mainly) the barrier to entry is far, far higher. Any idiot can kick a pebble off on top-rope, just the thing for a wet weekend. Whereas you would be unlikely to get on damp rock onsight, and struggle to over-brush a hold during a sight lead.
I chose not to pursue headpointing because, in the Peak at least, it was obvious the quality lines had been done, but very few repeat ascents had even matched the original in style. It seemed a far more obvious challenge to onsight these classics than to ferret about unearthing crap new routes destined for obscurity.
-
Fiend the victim! Fiend the hard done by! I genuinely cannot believe what I am reading :clap2: :boohoo:
Regularly abusing random users on photo comments (which I cannot prove as he is blocked) & direct abusive emails via UKCs messaging tool.
& ethical position :lol: please give me a break, this is climbing a route from the top down, not genocide, deforestation or people trafficking
-
& ethical position :lol: please give me a break, this is climbing a route from the top down, not genocide, deforestation or people trafficking
eh.... we usually call following written and unwritten rules about sportsmanship, fairness, respect etc. in sport “ethics”? Is there another name for it? Or does anything go in sport because it is not as bad as genocide? (<- OMG, I can't believe this is not a strawman! You actually wrote that there cannot be ethical positions in sport because of deforestation!)
-
& ethical position :lol: please give me a break, this is climbing a route from the top down, not genocide, deforestation or people trafficking
eh.... we usually call following written and unwritten rules about sportsmanship, fairness, respect etc. in sport “ethics”? Is there another name for it? Or does anything go in sport because it is not as bad as genocide? (<- OMG, I can't believe this is not a strawman! You actually wrote that there cannot be ethical positions in sport because of deforestation!)
haha you are right, grade A strawman - sorry about that.
I just find it amusing in climbing
-
Fiend the victim! Fiend the hard done by! I genuinely cannot believe what I am reading :clap2: :boohoo:
Regularly abusing random users on photo comments (which I cannot prove as he is blocked) & direct abusive emails via UKCs messaging tool.
& ethical position :lol: please give me a break, this is climbing a route from the top down, not genocide, deforestation or people trafficking
Are you still bent out of shape because Fiend puntered you a couple of times a year ago? Get a grip. Fuck me, I ought to a sobbing wreck at that rate.
-
Fiend the victim! Fiend the hard done by! I genuinely cannot believe what I am reading :clap2: :boohoo:
Regularly abusing random users on photo comments (which I cannot prove as he is blocked) & direct abusive emails via UKCs messaging tool.
& ethical position :lol: please give me a break, this is climbing a route from the top down, not genocide, deforestation or people trafficking
Are you still bent out of shape because Fiend puntered you a couple of times a year ago? Get a grip. Fuck me, I ought to a sobbing wreck at that rate.
No, because I'm sick of seeing him abuse randoms & myself & find it off that no one sticks up for themselves to him.
Goes way back before the puntering, but thanks for the observation :beer2:
-
Goes way back before the puntering, but thanks for the observation :beer2:
It was actually you that pointed us to the punters.
Have a look at my punters too.
It's a long term beef. :shrug:
-
Goes way back before the puntering, but thanks for the observation :beer2:
It was actually you that pointed us to the punters.
Have a look at my punters too.
It's a long term beef. :shrug:
Don't think anyone wants a blow by blow account & it is hardly a secret that said person likes to gob off at randoms online :)
-
Fiend could have been caught cyber-bullying the entire GB youth climbing team (he hasn't yet afaik). That wouldn't make his specific points about headpointing and ethics any less valid, whether or not you agree with those points. As Will said GAFG.
-
Fiend could have been caught cyber-bullying the entire GB youth climbing team (he hasn't yet afaik). That wouldn't make his specific points about headpointing and ethics any less valid, whether or not you agree with those points. As Will said GAFG.
Man who abuses people regularly gets band and feels like a victim over it, please help me find sympathy :please:
-
Why are you allowed to declare what the sport "should" be doing? I feel a bit like banging my head against a wall saying this again, but each to their own, being honest, not damaging the rock blah blah blah. I find it very hard to believe that the odd bit of toproping is more damaging to rock than people flailing on well protected routes ground up.
It's context.
I can understand the article. It's Franco enthusing about what he does and I don't have a big problem with that. What he misses is that his is a very niche pursuit. It's actually vanishingly rare that you get someone who is both talented and dedicated enough to be a top climber and also obsessed enough with scrubbing up mossy bits of rock in obscure places. There are much easier ways to raise your climbing profile nowadays. There's also the fact that potential for this barely exists in developed areas like the Peak.
The other point he swerves is that toproping that doesn't end in a successful headpoint is just toproping. So in presenting a piece like this to the UKC masses, the likely result is not a rash of quality new routes. It's punters spending all weekend thrashing about on a famous E8 they can't touch. These routes are fragile and are already showing wear. Despite what folk always raise about failed onsights also being potentially damaging (to the placements mainly) the barrier to entry is far, far higher. Any idiot can kick a pebble off on top-rope, just the thing for a wet weekend. Whereas you would be unlikely to get on damp rock onsight, and struggle to over-brush a hold during a sight lead.
I chose not to pursue headpointing because, in the Peak at least, it was obvious the quality lines had been done, but very few repeat ascents had even matched the original in style. It seemed a far more obvious challenge to onsight these classics than to ferret about unearthing crap new routes destined for obscurity.
First, a declaration.
I haven't read the rest of this thread. (Edit. Good bloody job! Oops. Not a ref to your post TT) I hope this doesn't mean I've transgressed house rules.
Adam, agree with a lot of your points re potential damage to rock.
It's why I'm not a fan of what people call "ground up" above a stack of pads.
At my level, Crescent Arete was always a worthy challenge without pads ;) still is.
Loads of great, classic "easier" lines damaged.
Fiend, your post was (in my view) an expression of concern over the implications and consequences.
But we should put all that to one side.
You clearly hadn't learnt your lesson, and only have yourself to blame :shrug:
It's interesting to contrast the reaction to your post, with the level of criticism (of reporting) which is allowed in the HYS threads on the BBC Sport site.
I have a suggestion. Can UKB please produce a "Fiendish" squeezy stress ball? I'd like something that causes a bit less damage than my smartphone when I throw it.
-
Can UKB please produce a "Fiendish" squeezy stress ball?
In camo red please :)
-
Ashton, you seem very persistently focused on personal conflict, I'm really not sure that's helpful.
I have occasionally (not regularly) posted critical comments on people's photos when they have been obvious headpoints of easy routes, often with the onsight grades highlighted, because I don't believe these routes should be headpointed, highlighted as headpoints, nor have unsuitable grade claims for them. It should be obvious that these are critical of the actions people are choosing and the photos they are choosing to post.
AFAIK I have received some actual abuse in response. Maybe that is fair tit-for-tat.
I also have, over the years, received personal abuse and targetted downvoting on my photos, from different people. If you have big concerns about abusive photo comments, then it would be good to apply that to all equally.
I have not been banned for "abusing people regularly" (even the mistaken reasons Alan gives don't go that far), and I am not interested in "victimhood", I am interested in sensible moderation on a public site.
Dave, you can squeeze my balls any time.
This is a different lesson from previous comprehensible bannings: If, hypothetically, I was to be allowed back on UKC, then I would have learnt another rule I could not have predicted: "Users may not post critical posts in response to news items / articles (at all, or without partaking in further discussion)". I could probably abide by that but I couldn't agree with the principle of it!
-
This is a different lesson from previous comprehensible bannings: If, hypothetically, I was to be allowed back on UKC, then I would have learnt another rule I could not have predicted: "Users may not post critical posts in response to news items / articles (at all, or without partaking in further discussion)". I could probably abide by that but I couldn't agree with the principle of it!
I think you could adopt a grumpy teenager approach with this. Just randomly post "yeah", "fo-sho", "OUTRAGEOUS!", "Absolutely" every 5 responses. Then you are taking part in the conversation....
-
A while ago someone went through my photos (https://www.ukclimbing.com/photos/author.php?nstart=0&id=10178) on UKclimbing and gave every single photo a 1. Most pointless aggression ever as I have no idea why...
-
Ashton, you seem very persistently focused on personal conflict, I'm really not sure that's helpful.
I have occasionally (not regularly) posted critical comments on people's photos when they have been obvious headpoints of easy routes, often with the onsight grades highlighted, because I don't believe these routes should be headpointed, highlighted as headpoints, nor have unsuitable grade claims for them. It should be obvious that these are critical of the actions people are choosing and the photos they are choosing to post.
AFAIK I have received some actual abuse in response. Maybe that is fair tit-for-tat.
I also have, over the years, received personal abuse and targetted downvoting on my photos, from different people. If you have big concerns about abusive photo comments, then it would be good to apply that to all equally.
I have not been banned for "abusing people regularly" (even the mistaken reasons Alan gives don't go that far), and I am not interested in "victimhood", I am interested in sensible moderation on a public site.
Hello Fiend,
Fair & reasoned response - maybe you are mellowing with age. However don't delude yourself that you are simply discussing climbing styles with those randoms.
You enjoy trolling people, I just like to give you some back :jab:
-
I’d be curious to know what the beef is Ashton? You’re* alluding to insulting and offensive and personal posting / emails etc. What actually was the content? Otherwise your posts do seem a bit weird.
-
Why are you allowed to declare what the sport "should" be doing? I feel a bit like banging my head against a wall saying this again, but each to their own, being honest, not damaging the rock blah blah blah. I find it very hard to believe that the odd bit of toproping is more damaging to rock than people flailing on well protected routes ground up.
It's context.
I can understand the article. It's Franco enthusing about what he does and I don't have a big problem with that. What he misses is that his is a very niche pursuit. It's actually vanishingly rare that you get someone who is both talented and dedicated enough to be a top climber and also obsessed enough with scrubbing up mossy bits of rock in obscure places. There are much easier ways to raise your climbing profile nowadays. There's also the fact that potential for this barely exists in developed areas like the Peak.
The other point he swerves is that toproping that doesn't end in a successful headpoint is just toproping. So in presenting a piece like this to the UKC masses, the likely result is not a rash of quality new routes. It's punters spending all weekend thrashing about on a famous E8 they can't touch. These routes are fragile and are already showing wear. Despite what folk always raise about failed onsights also being potentially damaging (to the placements mainly) the barrier to entry is far, far higher. Any idiot can kick a pebble off on top-rope, just the thing for a wet weekend. Whereas you would be unlikely to get on damp rock onsight, and struggle to over-brush a hold during a sight lead.
I chose not to pursue headpointing because, in the Peak at least, it was obvious the quality lines had been done, but very few repeat ascents had even matched the original in style. It seemed a far more obvious challenge to onsight these classics than to ferret about unearthing crap new routes destined for obscurity.
I couldn't agree more..... It's an issue of particular relevance in Northumberland, and while Franco acknowledges this, it is worth reiterating that as a strategy it TR and 'headpointing' (A sexy name for top roping) almost certainly accelerate wear and tear on the rock. As do repeated, often futile attempts at a boulder problem. It's an approach that is all about the climber and not the rock. We don't have to be able to climb everything. It's OK to walk away.
-
I’d be curious to know what the beef is Ashton? You’re* alluding to insulting and offensive and personal posting / emails etc. What actually was the content? Otherwise your posts do seem a bit weird.
Haha, well it's nothing really, I was gonna park it.
It is no more than I've said above, he likes to abuse people for their methods of ascents for fun, publically sneering at their 'little' achievements etc
When I called him on it once or twice he bit big time.
Now I just enjoy winding up the wind upper, since i find it amusing that he likes to give it so much, but can't take it.
-
Ah ok cool. Yeah I’d probably leave it as was sounding quite bad when that actually isn’t the case. Fiend has been and continues to be a great contributor to climbing in the uk over the years which is most important here.
-
This is a different lesson from previous comprehensible bannings
- I'd suggest it isn't though, is it.
I hope my comment was read in the spirit intended! Fiend, it all just seems as though you've been banned for daring to return.
The more criticism/debate we have about these things the better. Not always comfortable, but important.
The responses do come across as being very much to the man - and not at all addressing the motives/concerns raised. So who is preventing the debate?
Sorry, I appreciate that's all very obvious.
Some great posts. Liked the one from JB about the Parthian Flake.
I feel it was really disappointing for Alan's post to be left as the "last word".
-
Why are you allowed to declare what the sport "should" be doing? I feel a bit like banging my head against a wall saying this again, but each to their own, being honest, not damaging the rock blah blah blah. I find it very hard to believe that the odd bit of toproping is more damaging to rock than people flailing on well protected routes ground up.
It's context.
I can understand the article. It's Franco enthusing about what he does and I don't have a big problem with that. What he misses is that his is a very niche pursuit. It's actually vanishingly rare that you get someone who is both talented and dedicated enough to be a top climber and also obsessed enough with scrubbing up mossy bits of rock in obscure places. There are much easier ways to raise your climbing profile nowadays. There's also the fact that potential for this barely exists in developed areas like the Peak.
The other point he swerves is that toproping that doesn't end in a successful headpoint is just toproping. So in presenting a piece like this to the UKC masses, the likely result is not a rash of quality new routes. It's punters spending all weekend thrashing about on a famous E8 they can't touch. These routes are fragile and are already showing wear. Despite what folk always raise about failed onsights also being potentially damaging (to the placements mainly) the barrier to entry is far, far higher. Any idiot can kick a pebble off on top-rope, just the thing for a wet weekend. Whereas you would be unlikely to get on damp rock onsight, and struggle to over-brush a hold during a sight lead.
I chose not to pursue headpointing because, in the Peak at least, it was obvious the quality lines had been done, but very few repeat ascents had even matched the original in style. It seemed a far more obvious challenge to onsight these classics than to ferret about unearthing crap new routes destined for obscurity.
In 27 years I’ve never seen a punter dangling around on an e8 not even on a wet weekend 😂. I have seen plenty of ‘top’ climbers doing that though, many of which pull off pebbles or crumble holds etc I’m sure. I’m totally unconvinced by the less damage ground up sentiment. Even a quick clean / de-scrittle and pull on the crux is certainly less taxing on the rock than multiple goes from the ground. I do agree that an improvement in style is important though, but again a very personal affair. Can’t really stand being told what to do in climbing by anyone taking a morally / ethically superior vantage point ppppffffttt
-
I have occasionally (not regularly) posted critical comments on people's photos when they have been obvious headpoints of easy routes, often with the onsight grades highlighted, because I don't believe these routes should be headpointed,
Again, this is BS. Surely you can't think it's ok to publicly have a pop at strangers for the style that they choose to attempt a route (assuming they haven't made big public claims about doing it in better style). It's quite simply none of your business, you don't own rock climbing. One of the reasons people love climbing is because there's no f*cker telling them what to do and how to do it.
I live in a relative climbing backwater, so there's no danger of any routes round me getting ruined by topropers, so maybe I'm missing something.
Like I said, I love onsight climbing. Last winter, I wanted a big goal for myself, and devoted quite a bit of time to a well known route on the N coast of Devon. It took me 5 sessions on mini traxion to link it, and needless to say in that time there was lots of scrabbling, flailing, a few holds snapped, and I almost certainly made some incremental wear on the holds. I started feeling ready to think about leading it after a couple more sessions, but ultimately weather, a knee injury, and then a baby have put it firmly on hold for now. So is this wrong? Are you telling me I should never have done that? It happens that this particular route has never been onsighted, but if it had would that be different? I don't have a blog, any social media, and have no interest in publicising it when I do it. Does that affect things? I am not attempting to further the sport in any way, I just like going climbing.
Sorry for the probably slightly inchoherent post, but it just makes me cross that you think you can tell other people what they should be doing.
-
Yeah the Parthian thing is bollcks. I applaud the GU ethic and have nothing but the highest respect for the protagonists involved in trying Parthian GU, but let’s be honest, falling repeatedly onto soft/brittle gritstone damages placements.
We’re all selfish bastards at the end of the day. I still have aspirations for routes that could be done by a better climber GU but personally that won’t stop me chucking a rope down :sorry:
-
I bet F****o* is loving this, getting to see his name on ukb every day! Shark should change the forum code like they did with over-caffeinated sugary drink company (r e d b u l l) so that every time 'Franco' is entered (so to speak...) it shows up 'Over-caffeinated attention seeking bouncy climbing troll'.
-
I'm unashamedly elitist. The ideal in climbing should always be towards an improvement in style, particularly as gear improves, and the level at which headpointing is "acceptable" should be a moving target; it shouldn't sit today where it sat in the 1990s.
I don't agree. The top percentiles of climbing ability have improved. The top precentile of onsight trad climbing has improved microscopically in the last 20-30 years. Regardless, the average onsight grade is probably about where it was. If we say now that the level at which headpointing becomes acceptable is to be raised in accordance with what the 1% are doing, that just limits opportunities for the average or merely better than average climber.
The ethics should be centred around what's best for the rock. The elitist approach works at Stanage and Froggatt where it protects the rock from being overclimbed; but there are heaps of climbs in Yorkshire that would benefit from traffic. There's really impressive 3 star lines at Eavestone and Guisecliff (and others) that are effectively not onsightable now without sending your mate to clean them first.
I would advocate ethical headpointing at any and all grades, permissable where the act of headpointing will rejuvenate or repeat a defunct or seldom climbed route.
Disclosure: I have neither read the article, nor headpointed anything (other than one FA).
-
Disclosure: I have neither read the article, nor headpointed anything (other than one FA).
Will, that's the rub though, isn't it.
Like the Brexit debate, this is presented as a binary do/don't top-rope/headpoint, but your post here says a great deal. We can all have feelings for/against many things.
It's the debate which informs what we do, for so many different reasons, in many different cases. I agree very much with the sentiment of Fiend's post, and yet I've climbed many routes with at least prior inspection - mostly new ones - the odd bit of top-rope practice etc.
-
A while ago someone went through my photos (https://www.ukclimbing.com/photos/author.php?nstart=0&id=10178) on UKclimbing and gave every single photo a 1. Most pointless aggression ever as I have no idea why...
Was it because you have a picture of Moby doing Midnight Lightning?
-
I'm unashamedly elitist. The ideal in climbing should always be towards an improvement in style, particularly as gear improves, and the level at which headpointing is "acceptable" should be a moving target; it shouldn't sit today where it sat in the 1990s.
I don't agree. The top percentiles of climbing ability have improved. The top precentile of onsight trad climbing has improved microscopically in the last 20-30 years. Regardless, the average onsight grade is probably about where it was. If we say now that the level at which headpointing becomes acceptable is to be raised in accordance with what the 1% are doing, that just limits opportunities for the average or merely better than average climber.
I was careful in framing my arguments in terms of ideals towards which we should move. So its about aspiration and progression rather than trying to impose rules on what others do (which neither I nor anyone else can do anyway). If onsight trad standards have stagnated so much (I've no idea where they stand today) then maybe we should ask why and what can be done to encourage progression again - a contextless advocacy effort on behalf of headpointing is definitely not the way, in my view. Franco's article needed some balance and history; a discussion of when headpointing was introduced, by whom, and for what purpose. That could highlight how headpointing has advanced standards in cutting edge trad first ascents but that onsighting standards have not kept up.
No-one is ever going to run out of routes to do so so there's no real limitation on opportunities. Unless we happen to be Caff we all have to accept there are thousands and thousands of routes we're never going to be good enough for.
-
in my view. Franco's article needed some balance and history; a discussion of when headpointing was introduced, by whom, and for what purpose. That could highlight how headpointing has advanced standards in cutting edge trad first ascents but that onsighting standards have not kept up.
Good points.
I think on an individual level the path into headpointing can equally be via sport climbing and bouldering (or a blend of the two) where standards have risen.
Harder onsight trad climbing these days is a relatively time consuming, faffy option for a day out compared to other attractive options which goes some way to explaining the discrepancy. Less travelled harder trad routes can become increasingly dirty and unattractive (not to mention harder) for onsighting too.
Also useful to make a distinction between route types. A boulderer looking for a challenging high E grade will naturally choose one of many options on grit whilst a fit sport climber will make a beeline for Stennis Ford.
-
Incidentally I have been banned for my post,
that does surprise me
no additional threatening communications?
-
Agree with everything Andy has said.
One reason trad standards haven't progressed is the variety of climbing 'games' on offer now. But climbers are undoubtedly stronger and fitter, so there should have been a lot more progress. I think motivation is driven by the wider scene a lot more than we realise.
I've never really had a problem with people headpointing new routes, or using it to making quick repeats efficiently. It does seem to have dropped off since the post-Hard Grit era where it became the default and there'd be someone in situ on Downhill Racer everytime you went to Froggatt. I'm not sure the Onsight film really helped either - it ended up being mainly about failing ground-up.
I totally acknowledge that the failing ground-up approach has the potential to hammer the gear. I'm not sure how fair it is to automatically conflate that with advocating onsighting. And I do think that in reality the potential is more than compensated by the massively increased barrier to entry.
-
I hope they remembered to remove all the oxygen bottles and tents, dead sherpas etc, afterwards:
https://vimeo.com/99134365
Isn't it all a bit absurd that on Himalayan giants there is a drive towards improving style, yet on 6m gritstone slabs, anything goes - including the right to question, out the window?
Isn't it just a case of more people wanting to be real, "worthy" climbers?
I was reading Classic Rock the other night, at a mates house. I still remember the complete sense of magic I had, looking at photos of routes like Tennis Shoe. Wonderful.
No offence towards Mr Wagner and team intended - or the brief image of Lance Armstrong grimacing, pre edit.
-
Massively generalised and presumptuous on my part, regarding possible motivations, but I hope the point wasn't lost.
-
Dave, if you're going to make the argument that the routes of previous decades shouldn't be done above pads, then you should also rule out other advances that have made yesterday's challenges into today's paths. Pads, cams, sticky rubber, tennis shoes, dynamic ropes, nuts, fingerboards, chalk. Where does it end? None of those things were available to Haskett-Smith when he shuffled up Napes Needle. Perhaps you think that climbs should be done in the style they were originally climbed in, which hands future ownership of climbing on a particular route over to the FA (and mandates the purchasing of a pair of rock-trashing hob nails and hawser-laid rope for 90% of the climbing population).
-
None of those things were available to Haskett-Smith when he shuffled up Napes Needle.
If he did. :worms:
-
Isn't it all a bit absurd that on Himalayan giants there is a drive towards improving style...
At the elite level perhaps but the vast queues of people jumaring up fixed lines with oxygen does not indicate any trickle down of this style improvement?
I’ve always assumed that most people’s motivations lie in wanting to climb the bit of rock with the appropriate gear available to them, and on <10m high routes these days, that’s going to mean mats, the number of which will be limited by the number of friends you can recruit!
-
None of those things were available to Haskett-Smith when he shuffled up Napes Needle.
If he did. :worms:
Photo but no uncut video. Back around, Walter.
(http://www.wasdale-mountain-rescue.org.uk/History~napes%20needle%20ascent02%20-%2030%20jan%2002.jpg)
-
Dave, if you're going to make the argument that the routes of previous decades shouldn't be done above pads, then you should also rule out other advances that have made yesterday's challenges into today's paths.
You're probably quite correct in your reasoning there Will, but your premise isn't.
At no point am I suggesting what people "should"/"shouldn't" do.
I feel very strongly about that, but the language we use has a bearing on how aware we are of what we are doing, and how it might be done differently.
I'll have you know we even use different names to avoid the catch all phrase "I have climbed Stanage"!
However, I do think it's worth asking how much each advancement in technology could be considered cheating in different scenarios.
It's up to everyone to define their own challenge. It's also easy to see when two things aren't the same.
Edit. My post on UKC "In Praise of Cheating" was simply that the concept seems to be disappearing from climbing.
-
At no point am I suggesting what people "should"/"shouldn't" do.
I don't think that's true. Your previous post patronised some people who'd highballed an old skool E6 and insinuated that their motivation was to be considered "real" or "worthy". We have no idea what their motivation was. I suspect it was to climb a beautiful looking route while minimising the risk, which is the bread and butter of most climbing.
You're a respected climber whose thoughts and opinions will be read and pondered upon by other climbers. They can ultimately make their own decision, but to publicly sneer at them is to suggest what they shouldn't do.
-
Fair & reasoned response - maybe you are mellowing with age. However don't delude yourself that you are simply discussing climbing styles with those randoms.
You enjoy trolling people, I just like to give you some back :jab:
More palatable, thanks.
I do sometimes troll people, and used to post / phrase posts for effect (even though they'd still be genuine). But when I'm standing up for good style and denigrating poor style (especially in the circumstances of clean easily onsightable classics), that's definitely not trolling. It's a position based on genuine beliefs and strong principles.
I also rejoice when people progress in good style and sometimes say as much (re: "Onsighting is goooood mmmkay" replies to onsight/flash news on here).
I've seen people also argue about bolts, and patios, and mass pad usage (including a UKC/UKB poster who has entitled many of his photos of headpointed Peak grit trade routes with "no mats, no cheating". Huh).
A while ago someone went through my photos (https://www.ukclimbing.com/photos/author.php?nstart=0&id=10178) on UKclimbing and gave every single photo a 1. Most pointless aggression ever as I have no idea why...
Been there regularly (subject to it, not doing it). Removing the voting breakdown was supposed to obscure that, but on lower votes it's very easy to calculate when someone has anti-voted a photo.
The ethics should be centred around what's best for the rock. The elitist approach works at Stanage and Froggatt where it protects the rock from being overclimbed; but there are heaps of climbs in Yorkshire that would benefit from traffic. There's really impressive 3 star lines at Eavestone and Guisecliff (and others) that are effectively not onsightable now without sending your mate to clean them first.
Now this is interesting. I agree there is a very good case* for laxer ethics and style at underused venues where the routes might be in poorer condition (spreading the load, exploring more, keeping more routes climbable - ANOTHER issue I am very enthusiastic about). But sending your mate down to clean them (while you do one for him) is of course a great option. I've done this for people a few times but will do it more in future (already planned, prior to this kerfuffle).
BTW I don't think good ethics are an elitist approach really. They're a great option for anyone irrespective of grade.
(* also great cases for new routes, unrepeated routes, routes beyond feasible current onsighting, etc - worlds apart from 1980s trade routes)
Dave, if you're going to make the argument that the routes of previous decades shouldn't be done above pads, then you should also rule out other advances that have made yesterday's challenges into today's paths. Pads, cams, sticky rubber, tennis shoes, dynamic ropes, nuts, fingerboards, chalk. Where does it end?
It ends up with all of those vastly increased advantages (let's also add better guidebook information, better public information, possible beta, better weather resources, sliders, rps, micro-cams, liquid chalk, quality brushes, and lots of potential supporting tactics) with people having more odds-in-their-favour and more reason than ever to improve style. Hopefully. Ground-up-above-pads has encouraged that, not a direct upwards improvement in style but a sort of diagonal improvement that reduces some of the challenge but maintains some of the commitment and adventure
-
Dave, I get that it's not quite the lone enraptured male having a deep flow experience. But it depends what your dreams are. I'd suggest that they are somewhat arbitrarily based on what was 'the game' when you were an adolescent.
Bouldering mats are here to stay. Six lads at the crag in this day and age are going to have a few between them. I don't really see what the beef is. For me not using the pads would be contrived, not using pads after pre-practice even more so. And both in that context and outside it highball style remains authentic to me - it's real height, you have to figure it out and hold it together, and it's great fun with your mates. Isn't that what it's all about? I don't know whether you've been lucky enough to do much of this, but if not I'd suggest it's more 'real' than you imagine.
Plus, agree with Fiend and the other posts above.
-
but if not I'd suggest it's more 'real' than you imagine.
I still started when the bloke popped off Art Nouveau. But he landed well on the pads and didn't break his legs, so can't really be an authentic fall...
-
I don't think that's true... We have no idea what their motivation was.
You berate Dave for ascribing motivations to others (even though he has said he wasn't) but you are quite happy to tell him what he is thinking!
-
I don't think that's true... We have no idea what their motivation was.
You berate Dave for ascribing motivations to others (even though he has said he wasn't) but you are quite happy to tell him what he is thinking!
Read Dave's two posts. He clearly implies their motivations, and then writes that he has presumed what their motivations were.
I've only pointed out what is implied by his own writing. You can't just write a load of stuff and then claim that none of it means what it says.
And I didn't berate him.
-
You can't just write a load of stuff and then claim that none of it means what it says.
Stop telling me what I can and can't do! :D
-
This seems to have degenerated into a bit of b..x with people redefining what other people say, with their own interpretations.
I haven't stated what others should do, or tried to imply it.
What I have tried to do is open the question of how people describe and define what they do.
What was once acknowledged as cheating, is still cheating now, if you accept that it's a compromise of what we might call "style of ascent" - except that people redefine the terms of the game to include it.
If you - Will, JB - can't consider the question of what could be considered improvement in style, potential aspirations to that end etc, then the whole basis of this thread is non-existent too.
I do loads of things in climbing which other people consider a "compromised style" - I use chalk, sticky boots, I clip bolts etc - but I make my own mind up, along with some consideration of the values of the day, to decide what I'll find a rewarding approach. I don't like using pads - especially where I've soloed before - liquid chalk, claiming boulder problems with night time ascents, climbing things I did years ago using "new" footholds etc. There are trad crags where I've removed bolts, but with killer lines that I've thought.. could just.. do.. with one small bolt. Etc.
I know my climbing well enough to be able to consider my own personal limits of the game. I also can't ignore the game that was previously loved by those who used to climb hard aid routes on the crags we now sport climb on.
It's perhaps nice in some ways to have someone suggest I'm a respected climber, so I don't want to dismiss the comment, but most of all I have just really loved it.
I'm still struck with the excitement I can remember feeling when I first went cragging. Nothing to do with lost dreams.
What I try to do is raise the question - to think about styles, motivations etc.
I think there is too much emphasis on "who" people are in climbing, and I really like to encourage those I introduce to the sport to really carefully think about what they enjoy about it - the simpler or more intrinsic enjoyment.
Styles get "pushed" in certain directions, and in my view (that's an opinion folks) a great deal is lost. My first impression of the Franco article was indeed "do we need this?", "what are the consequences?" etc. Are there other approaches to climbing which might be better promoted?
Fiend, in his post on UKC seemed to be raising that point too.
That's my view and consideration. It's nothing to do with what other people should do. It raises the question, and it would be nice to think that those new to the sport can be aware of different ways of engaging with it, that may be found more rewarding.
My second post above, was an open acknowledgement that I was using one example to make a point.
I wanted to ask how much extrinsic factors play a part in the choices that people make.
It doesn't invalidate what I personally view as being all a bit absurd - and neither is that patronising anyone.
I do acknowledge that the way I used and posted the video was really inconsiderate. I think that's probably indicative of how very far removed from that I feel. I certainly hadn't intended any offence.
-
Why don’t you like bouldering at night?
-
I don’t like bouldering at night because the ‘view’ is an important part of being out. Whatever that view is. Has become a bit nit picky this.
-
But that wouldn’t really be an ethical consideration.
-
Cheers Dave. Thats a nicely thoughtful and very useful post. As a lower grade punter I think in a very similar way albeit with slighty different rules (for instance I started pre mats, have few issues with them but won't use them to siege worn problems). I've tried my best to convince others with my views of putting the rock before ego but I guess the issue is how to encourage more new climbers to think in those ways, especially with the indoor masses ignorant of much of the history , ethics and the scale of damage on popular lines and neglect on the uncommonly climbed. We dont have to agree on all the details but we should all respect the rock.
It's one of the sad things about losing Fiend again from UKC. He did enable useful debate. I do wonder though if he is incompatible with what the site currently wants to be with its moderation... if he was better behaved in their terms would he stop being Fiend? I do think UKC need to think about this as even more potentially useful contributors might end up being banned or put off using the site. In contrast there are some pretty nasty regulars who are way more negative on average than Fiend but play the rhetorical games, sticking within the rules yet barely contribute anything useful to climbing discussions. I do think he shouldn't have been banned this time if the site was working as I think it should.
-
Styles get "pushed" in certain directions, and in my view (that's an opinion folks) a great deal is lost. My first impression of the Franco article was indeed "do we need this?", "what are the consequences?" etc. Are there other approaches to climbing which might be better promoted?
Fiend, in his post on UKC seemed to be raising that point too.
Absolutely 100% correct, that was exactly my intention. If there are articles influencing and promoting style, they should be towards better (purer, more in line with climbing norms, fully accepting the given challenge, etc) style, particularly given all the modern advantages climbers have. The indications, especially on UKC, are that style is at best stagnating, despite those advantages, and articles highlighting better style could be very beneficial (or indeed films like Ground Up Attempts as JB put it). Incidentally I had intended in the last couple of years to write that exact sort of article (promotion / tactical, not ranting), but didn't get round to it, my own fault.
Incidentally, I really like it when other people promote strong ethics even when I disagree or don't adhere to those: Dave (and Keen Youth) with their no pads, SB talking to me that there should never be bolts even in the grotties dankest quarries in the County, Ken Wilson disparaging sport climbing - I don't agree but I definitely respect people taking a stand like that, even if it can be demoralisingly King Canute like.
-
Canute is much maligned: he wasn't a pompous fool... he was cleverly providing a lesson that even kings can't stop tides.
Sometimes I wondered if Ken realised he was inadvertantly supporting his opposition, like when he was fighting to save rarely climbed and very bold lower grade Portland trad from the bolters. There is little community benefit in having ethics that won't convince most other climbers and trying to force ethics that make most believe the opposite is simply not sensible.
-
My first impression of the Franco article was indeed "do we need this?", "what are the consequences?" etc. Are there other approaches to climbing which might be better promoted?
My over-riding first impression was that this article is probably just another one of many examples of a climber wanting a hit of public online attention, and a website commercialising that craving. I might be wrong, I haven't read the article. But I suspect it's probably a bit forgettable and inconsequential in the grand scheme.
The only reason this article's garnering more conversation than it otherwise would is because in the fall-out Fiend got banned from cocktalk. Probably the most interesting thing about it. No serious climber in the world gives a hoot about a Franco article about headpointing. It's just clickbait.
Jumpers for goalposts.. but there was a time when climbers who were at the very top of the game wrote well-considered opinion pieces on topics they felt strongly about.
Now we have a media that serves climbers who can satisfy their predilection for being seen and heard by submitting clickbait to an online advertising business happy to use the content and its ensuing bollocks talked to service website visits stats.
Maybe Fiend should have written an article about why he thinks headpointing is facile. I'd read it.
-
I've not read the article
I didn't read the article... and I certainly will never read any replies to my comment on it
Read about half, but alternative was even more boring.
I haven't read the article and I doubt I'll get around to it.
I haven't read the rest of this thread.
I have neither read the article, nor headpointed anything
I haven't read the article.
:lol:
-
I'm going to top-rope it before I attempt to read it.
-
(and Keen Youth) with their no pads...
Didn’t he give up on this after realising how artificial it was as a position?
-
I still reckon I read more of that article than most leave voters read about Europe prior to the referendum. A fine and noble tradition we have of strong debate in the absence of informed views.
-
I still reckon I read more of that article than most leave voters read about Europe prior to the referendum. A fine and noble tradition we have of strong debate in the absence of informed views.
Fixed that for you.
Perhaps we should have a practice go at leaving.
-
(and Keen Youth) with their no pads...
Didn’t he give up on this after realising how artificial it was as a position?
I like the two pads max approach and sometimes will put a pad off to the side if I think it detracts from the experience I want. Pad parties are like a nightmare from the 7th level of climbing hell.
-
I don’t like bouldering at night because the ‘view’ is an important part of being out.
But that wouldn’t really be an ethical consideration.
Bouldering at night in forests is a big no-no over here because it frightens the wildlife. Which strikes me as a pretty important & valid ethical consideration involving actual ethics, as opposed to arbitrary rules regarding how we climb rocks.
-
I like the two pads max approach and sometimes will put a pad off to the side if I think it detracts from the experience I want. Pad parties are like a nightmare from the 7th level of climbing hell.
Is the pad sized standardised to a large Pod pad, so that you’d only be allowed 1.5 large Organic pads for example?
-
I've not read the article
I didn't read the article... and I certainly will never read any replies to my comment on it
Read about half, but alternative was even more boring.
I haven't read the article and I doubt I'll get around to it.
I haven't read the rest of this thread.
I have neither read the article, nor headpointed anything
I haven't read the article.
:lol:
I'd like to state publicly I've not read it either, nor do I intend to.
-
I like the two pads max approach and sometimes will put a pad off to the side if I think it detracts from the experience I want. Pad parties are like a nightmare from the 7th level of climbing hell.
Is the pad sized standardised to a large Pod pad, so that you’d only be allowed 1.5 large Organic pads for example?
Two franklin pads max. Only bell ends own organic pads
-
Pad parties are like a nightmare from the 7th level of climbing hell.
Were you once not invited to a pad party?
You're more than welcome to come along to my next one :)
-
No way man, unless there’s only 2 franklin pads involved. I’d actively choose lowballing in Lancashire over a pad party. The climbing equivalent of team sports :wank:
-
Fixed that for you.
Oh yeah, my mistake.
-
Pad parties are like a nightmare from the 7th level of climbing hell.
Were you once not invited to a pad party?
You're more than welcome to come along to my next one :)
Only bell ends own organic pads
An invite from the bell-end himself :lol:
-
I like the two pads max approach and sometimes will put a pad off to the side if I think it detracts from the experience I want.
(https://i.imgur.com/aSuYNM4m.jpg)
-
(and Keen Youth) with their no pads...
Didn’t he give up on this after realising how artificial it was as a position?
I like the two pads max approach and sometimes will put a pad off to the side if I think it detracts from the experience I want. Pad parties are like a nightmare from the 7th level of climbing hell.
how many pads are needed to party?
-
It’s the combination of pads and bellends that makes the party. But as a guesstimate more than 3 and less than 7. Usually involves platforms of some kind and the expression send train.
-
It’s the combination of pads and bellends that makes the party. But as a guesstimate more than 3 and less than 7. Usually involves platforms of some kind and the expression send train.
What's more than 7? A pad orgy?
-
It’s the combination of pads and bellends that makes the party. But as a guesstimate more than 3 and less than 7. Usually involves platforms of some kind and the expression send train.
What's more than 7? A pad orgy?
indoor climbing?
-
Seven pads under the Great Flake does not an indoor problem make!
-
Send train bellends is a phrase I’d like to see more
-
Most send trains I’ve been involved with are decidedly more northern rail than orient express 😃
Anyhoo.. Outside of climbing vids I’ve never heard the phrase used non ironically..
-
It’s the combination of pads and bellends that makes the party. But as a guesstimate more than 3 and less than 7. Usually involves platforms of some kind and the expression send train.
What's more than 7? A pad orgy?
A sausage fest
-
Maybe Fiend should have written an article about why he thinks headpointing is facile. I'd read it.
Actually my planned article was going to be a fairly dry and theoretically uncontroversial exposition of all the tactics available to facilitate onsighting (and by implication avoid headpointing).
I forgot to mention before that I am aware that sometimes I post things that will unfortunately get a hostile / hysterical response, almost always I am posting DESPITE that, NOT because of that. Something which has flown so far above Alan's head it's almost in orbit.
P.S. Also it's pretty obvious that you can read the article title and intro and discover that amazingly the article about headpointing is an article about headpointing and criticise it on that basis. Unless the rest of the mighty tome contains lots of progressive ethical pointers and using headpointing as a new route / early repeat last resort in which case I apologise to all concerned apart from whomever wrote the article title and intro.
Anyway, back to the real issue "send train bellends"....
Last March I went down tradding in the Peak on the most perfect crisp bone dry winter grit day imaginable - everything form Black Rocks to Wimbery would have been parched and arid. Doing routes above the Plantation, we had a grandstand view of many roaming packs of send train bellends. Taking advantage of the immaculate weather and large teams with even larger numbers of pads, were they ground-upping Silk, highballing Fairy Groove, working the start of Unfamiliar?? Were they fuck.....instead carpetting the ground beneath Captain Hook and Zippies. More pads beneath those than actual moves on the problems.... Seven pads beneath Green Traverse does not a good use of large teams make.
Conversely I was trying some highball at Scout Hut the other month with 4 pads down and even though it wasn't hard we were both still too scared to go for the move and would have happily welcomed the extra 3 pads. Or in my case, a decent cam by my knees ;)
P.S.: Dan I love your grumpiness about the pad parties btw.
P.P.S. Yeah James gave up the no pads approach in the end. Artificial?? I'm not sure. The whole transformation of micro-routes into highballs was still fairly new, it's been a while since we've have such a protection/equipment transformation (like cams, sticky rubber, RPs, chalk) so it might not have been clear to him that highballing really would take over as the default, and the old way of routes-as-routes made more sense at the time.
-
Conversely I was trying some highball at Scout Hut the other month with 4 pads down
So you admit it. YOU'RE a send train-bellend too!?
And you went to Stanage on a day when you could have been at Wimberry or whatever counts as esoteric in the Peak? I'd thought more of you, Fiend.
-
I would have been a send train bellend if there had been any sending or the train had more than two carriages! As it was, just a bellend....
Also, I went to Stanage because it's a 4.5 hour drive and needed something convenient and reliable. As my mate Duncan Disorderly said when he popped in to take the piss out of me later, it was like half The Works were at the Plantation - as people who lived 4.5 miles away the onus might be on them to be a bit more explorative (just as if someone had travelled from Sheff to Dumby on a perfect spring weekend and could rightly query why I was loitering there rather than exploring Trossachs esoterica....). Anyway the point was a bit less about venue and more about lowball carpetting. There wasn't even anyone on Honorary Caley which was drier than a nun's snatch and one of the best problems there.
-
Bellends not withstanding, carpets of pads help prevent erosion to both the rock and the ground around it
-
Damn those people going out enjoying themselves bouldering with their friends, when they should only be trying highballs.
-
Damn them all, damn their oily hides!
-
Fiend you really should write withering articles for Climber mag. Except it's shit and they wouldn't publish you.
-
I’m enjoying Fiends semi rants.
Keep it up. I think this is all just a UkC test to try and break you into submitting to become some sort of UKC clone respondent droid. Which gets easier with age... Once broken you’ll be offered admin privileges and a chocolate gold coin/packet of Werthers.
-
I went ground up on Silk above a postage stamp in 1999, kicked my spotter in the face and my fuckin back’s still killing me
-
Fiend you really should write withering articles for Climber mag. Except it's shit and they wouldn't publish you.
Twitching With Twight becomes Frothing With Fiend
-
Fiend you really should write withering articles for Climber mag. Except it's shit and they wouldn't publish you.
He could make a YouTube series where he sits on an oversize armchair (wearing a vest perhaps) in the manner of Ronnie Corbett and tells extended anecdotes about toproping incidents, which then opens out into a discussion with various invited guests along the lines of the Moral Maze. Maybe a philosopher, politician, scientist with an interest in geological erosion, etc.
I would enjoy that very much.
-
Fiend you really should write withering articles for Climber mag. Except it's shit and they wouldn't publish you.
He could make a YouTube series where he sits on an oversize armchair (wearing a vest perhaps) in the manner of Ronnie Corbett and tells extended anecdotes about toproping incidents, which then opens out into a discussion with various invited guests along the lines of the Moral Maze. Maybe a philosopher, politician, scientist with an interest in geological erosion, etc.
I would enjoy that very much.
In Alan Bennett's voice.
-
Can’t bear that awful Clare person in the moral maze.
-
I liked it better when Richard O’Brien was on it.
-
Hair today, gone tomorrow
-
Getting back to Fiend’s point, I’d still advocate the one or two pad max approach. I spent a couple of sessions cleaning up an old e6 / 7 at stoney in the summer. Worked it and then climbed it in redpoint style. No problems there right? This thing was filthy. So I was about to set off and a friendly chap wanders over and pops his chunky organic pad under the route. Might as well he says, why not right? While saying thanks, I really wish he hadn’t bothered. It actually meant something important to me to do it without. So I said no I didn’t want it but cheers, everyone looked surprised and convinced me it was cool. But it wasn’t 😎
-
At least you weren't using skyhooks.
:tease:
-
The motivation behind this article was very much one of fear and excitement. There are loads of absolutely mind-blowing lines left to do - even for those of us with what constitutes pretty average levels of strength and fitness these days. I've abed countless lines that would be beyond even these in quality, beauty and difficulty and would be possible for the many incredibly strong folk around these days. That's the excitement part. The fear is that the vibrant scene that I came into as a teenager has largely been moth-balled. Why is that? Other things are cool these days (bouldering, sport climbing etc), but I think a really large part of the reason we're not seeing the huge leaps forward in Trad is because of the attitude displayed by Fiend.
The logic of the strong young-guns goes, "Trad looks fun. It looks pretty scary though. I can't top rope stuff because I'll get loads of stick for it. Onsighting hard stuff isn't really an option as it's so dangerous. Might as well stick to bouldering/sport." One of the major reasons for the article was to try and break this myth down. Balance in what kinds of climbing people do is great, but at the moment headpointing is massively under-represented.
If you believe the world of Trad climbing is a healthier place without headpointing, you must be happy with how things have gone in the past 10 years. It's more than a decade since Macleod pushed standards on the Echo Wall and the last significant grit route was Sleepy Hollow (more than 5 years ago). So we're definitely living in an age of minimal hard headpoints taking place. How's this working out for the ground-up scene? The honeypots like Pembroke and the Peak are doing okay, but we're not exactly seeing a dawn of new standards, particularly when you factor in how massively more fit everyone is. The reality is that progression in ground-up achievements follow progression in headpointing. This makes sense - without headpointing, there aren't any routes to onsight - the only person I know who has claimed an E7 onsight new route is Mark Edwards.
10 years ago I'd have totally agreed with Fiend. What a magical place it would be if there was no top roping and all new routes were climbed ground-up. A land of John Redheads. Would that actually work though? Or would we just see everyone abandon Trad for a few decades until they returned to the hills with a Hilti? Trad is such a finely balanced thing that even an air of criticism can destroy the whole thing.
As for wear on the rock. This is a massive problem in areas that are very busy or that have soft rock. I'd certainly not recommend a protracted siege in Northumberland or most of the Peak these days. Most of the UK isn't in these areas though. Most of Yorkshire, the Lakes, the Moors and Scotland could actually do with a bit of a shunt and clean (I'd imagine this is the case with Wales and the SW too). And who knows? It could actually help ground up ascents.
The article was admittedly a bit confused. It tried to talk about headpoint tactics, whilst also inspire the next generation and didn't do either thing very well. It perhaps should have been split into two articles, but I didn't think there'd be appetite for that. Ultimately, I don't care if 99.9% of the people reading the article thought it was rubbish, so long as there are 10 strong youths getting inspired for the future of Scotland/ Moors/ the SW.
-
As someone who actually read the article beyond the title, that's an interesting angle and I appreciate you taking the time to engage with UKB.
It'll be great if you do inspire a few youths to do cutting edge new routes.
I think a really large part of the reason we're not seeing the huge leaps forward in Trad is because of the attitude displayed by Fiend.
Much as I'd like to take credit for almost single-handedly changing the direction of British climbing, I think this is bollocks.
The main, longer running, reason which is a lack of viable new routes in the major areas. Most top climbers live in the Peak and Snowdonia; these areas are pretty much climbed out.
Plus what has changed in the twenty years since Hard Grit? 1. The internet. 2. Bouldering walls. It used to be that the best way to promote yourself was to do a Hard new route and get it in the mags. It isn't any more.
-
From where I'm sitting, the Franco/Fiend positions look like different sides of the same coin. Arbitrary notions about progression, and whether more or less people should be headpointing...*personally* I'm really not bothered what people do, as long as care for the environment and honesty is front-and-centre.
Does it really matter that the young beasts of the world are really not interested in headpointing? By the same token, I don't think it would matter if those beasts were instead hugely into it. I get the sense that concern about damage to rock is too often a trojan horse for an underlying ethical position. It should be clear to anyone who's been paying attention that the main driving factor for erosion and damage is raw numbers of climbers at certain fragile crags as the sport's popularity balloons. How people climb at the crag does matter, but it's not clear to me that damaging behaviours map onto specific forms of climbing--it's perfectly possible to trash rock whatever your discipline or style of choice is.
At bottom, positions on headpointing and padded ground-upping, etc., boil down to what you want to be doing with your own climbing. Once you extend that to what other people should be doing with their climbing I'm happy to listen--interested in your perspective, even--but justifying that position via arbitrary notions of style, the requirement for progression, and specific overuse or underuse arguments seems a bit disingenuous.
-
All Franco's amphasis seems to be about headpointing new routes, all Fiends ire is about headpointing established trade routes for the gratuitous tick. Two very different situations. Just sayin.
-
Franco that post was bollocks.
I've abed countless lines that would be beyond even these in quality, beauty and difficulty and would be possible for the many incredibly strong folk around these days. That's the excitement part...
That was the only bit which made sense to me. And I think when it comes to new routes then headpointing/ab inspection is a pretty legitimate thing to do, in fact I would say it is the norm.
The fear is that the vibrant scene that I came into as a teenager has largely been moth-balled. Why is that? Other things are cool these days (bouldering, sport climbing etc), but I think a really large part of the reason we're not seeing the huge leaps forward in Trad is because of the attitude displayed by Fiend.
Scenes come and go - that's the way of it. Has sport or bouldering seen much of a leap forward in the last 10 years? Most of the UKs top trad climbers a perfectly happy to headpoint stuff - Caff has no issues with chucking a rope down things and neither does Emma T and I doubt either would give a fuck about what Fiend might say or think.
The logic of the strong young-guns goes, "Trad looks fun. It looks pretty scary though. I can't top rope stuff because I'll get loads of stick for it. Onsighting hard stuff isn't really an option as it's so dangerous. Might as well stick to bouldering/sport."
Two things. If the young guns are only inspired by the hard trad stuff (onsight or headpoint) then maybe they should stick to sport and bouldering, trad climbing has a whole different set of skills which need to be learnt and I would say going out top roping/headpointing is actually detrimental in that learning process. 2ndly there are plenty of safe and hard trad routes to go and onsight.
...the only person I know who has claimed an E7 onsight new route is Mark Edwards.
Ground up but off the top of my head: Indian Rope trick and Broughton Power - E8s, Vickers
Monkey Journey to the West - E7, Me and Pete
Them other things at the same crag - E7, Arran, Mayers
Caffs high point on sight on Moonrise Kingdom - E8
What I would say is interesting about that list is that everything except Moonrise is in Range West - an area where the ethic is no abseil/top roping. Given the chance of routes to make the FA of in good(ish) style then people are keen for it - the issue is most of the lines have already been FA'ed (in a headpoint style)
...Or would we just see everyone abandon Trad for a few decades until they returned to the hills with a Hilti?
Are you really saying that it's only headpointing that is preventing all the trad crags being grid bolted by 2040?
In reply to a couple of post further back...
"In 27 years I’ve never seen a punter dangling around on an e8 not even on a wet weekend 😂. I have seen plenty of ‘top’ climbers doing that though, many of which pull off pebbles or crumble holds etc I’m sure. I’m totally unconvinced by the less damage ground up sentiment. Even a quick clean / de-scrittle and pull on the crux is certainly less taxing on the rock than multiple goes from the ground."
In 34 years I've seen plenty of 'punters' top roping E3s in the wet yet I've never seen anyone doing that on an E8. I agree though a quick top rope and clean is no more damaging than a quick GU, a multi year top rope seige and repeted falls is more damaging than a 1st go onsight ascent and vise versa.
"Yeah the Parthian thing is bollcks. I applaud the GU ethic and have nothing but the highest respect for the protagonists involved in trying Parthian GU, but let’s be honest, falling repeatedly onto soft/brittle gritstone damages placements."
I guess this is a slightly touchy topic for me as I'm the person who tried it GU the most and have probably (definately) taken more falls onto that flake than anyone (and do feel a bit guilty about it all!)
I bet there were a pretty similar total number of falls from headpointers as from GU folk and remember it was a headpointer who broke the flake - aproaching that route GU was pretty scarey - we viewed the route with a lot of respect (for our lives) and did all we could to minimise the chance of the gear or flake ripping - skinny ropes, dynamic belay, carefully placed gear. Between me and Pete we had over 50 years of trad climbing experience. When the flake got broken it was by someone with very minimal UK trad experience (Will) someone who obviously didn't think about it enough (Tim - belayer) and they placed a cam behind the flake.
GU ascents don't have to take multiple falls and headpoint ascents don't have to take multiple years but when this is the case (like when you are pushing the limits in either discipline) then you are more likely to damage the rock.
From reading through my own post I realise I haven't really added anything to the discussion. I kinda prefer GU/onsight but am happy enough to headpoint stuff. I think GU/onsight is a better ethical style and should be encouraged but I don't have an issue with folk headpointing in principle. In both cases the style can be taken too far (on the Parthian example I stopped trying it as I felt I had reached (or passed) the point where I felt going GU was good ( and also because I stopped enjoying it)) Especially in the Peak there are limited quality new routes to do - the obvious gaps are likely to be really hard - so the majority of folk at the more elite level are having to either try stuff GU or focus on bouldering or highball. Maybe having someone like Franco in the Peak, someone with the vision and willigness to put the time into something really hard might revitalise top end headpointing...
-
Franco that post was bollocks.
That's a bollocks in a nice way ;)
-
Trad climbing hasn’t been in vogue in years. It’s great having the crags to yourself. I never really remember a time when everyone was headpointing. Just a few groups going out and doing stuff this way. Nesscliffe is pretty popular for that style though. As JB says most young strong climbers or just most new to the sport seem to have little interest dangling around on a rope in mid winter. Which is great in a way because a lot of the crags are so peaceful. Why not keep it that way Franco? Why the desire to see things driven forward in this way? If I was living near the moors with hundreds of unclimbed aesthetic lines I’d certainly be keeping it close to my chest. Climbing is climbing man, there’s no real dichotomy to be had, headpointers aren’t an unrepresented minority. Keep on doing what you’re doing, it was more interesting before the article and spiel above.
-
Tangential (sorry) but about new routing. France is seeing much lower development of cutting edge sport climbing now then before. There are between one and two elite french climbers who are interested in putting up new sport routes even though France is not exactly climbed out. Times changes, the strongest and fittest climbers are into posting instagram videos of finger boarding, not developing new routes.
-
Its great that Franco came and explained. The trouble is that that isn't the way the article was presented. If it had made the argument that cutting edge trade new routing had stagnated and headpointing could be a way to revitalize it, that would have been one thing. But instead, without the necessary context, it just seemed to be saying here's a tactic that anyone can use to push their nominal trad grade.
ps. there must be GU/OS E7+ FAs on the Lleyn and Gogarth? Has it ever been done on grit?
-
In reply to a couple of post further back...
"In 27 years I’ve never seen a punter dangling around on an e8 not even on a wet weekend 😂. I have seen plenty of ‘top’ climbers doing that though, many of which pull off pebbles or crumble holds etc I’m sure. I’m totally unconvinced by the less damage ground up sentiment. Even a quick clean / de-scrittle and pull on the crux is certainly less taxing on the rock than multiple goes from the ground."
In 34 years I've seen plenty of 'punters' top roping E3s in the wet yet I've never seen anyone doing that on an E8. I agree though a quick top rope and clean is no more damaging than a quick GU, a multi year top rope seige and repeted falls is more damaging than a 1st go onsight ascent and vise versa.
That’s good. Seven more years to come to exactly the same conclusion :bow:
-
I also read Franco's article.
I don't think Fiend's post was about Headpointing, but whether we needed an article on UKC about it, promoting it - which in my view is an entirely legitimate and worthy thing to ask.
This has been turned into a polarized argument of "Them against us" etc, "How dare they tell us what we should/shouldn't do" etc, which it isn't.
Personally, I found it bizarre reading an article about something which is pretty much the norm when it comes to establishing any hard new trad route - to varying degrees - and has been for decades. I find it far more transparent when people climb new trad routes after preparation in this way, than claiming ascents of shorter grit routes above huge pad stacks etc. That's not the same thing as saying that this is the way to go though, as I think that any improvement in style is a good thing!
To Franco, I really can't imagine you getting stick for establishing any hard new trad routes in the Peak by headpointing! In fact, I can think of some great lines, that would be utter class, and will go. Drop me a line! Obviously, none of these were posted up in the Peak LGP thread!
-
I don't think Fiend's post was about Headpointing, but whether we needed an article on UKC about it, promoting it - which in my view is an entirely legitimate and worthy thing to ask.
Absolutely! And the point I've been trying to make all along.
-
ps. there must be GU/OS E7+ FAs on the Lleyn and Gogarth? Has it ever been done on grit?
On grit I climbed Responsible Parenting at Summit Quarry 'onsight' (E7? Unrepeated, unconfirmed...). If quarried grit counts??
I can see both Franco's and Fiend's points. The issue I had with the article (beyond it's unbelievable length...) is that it wasn't really a product of the argument that Franco has put forward. Rather a dummies guide to working things on a rope. Anybody with the strengths and skills to get on cutting edge new lines is undoubtedly going to also be equiped with the tech know how to work them on a rope, so the article contents appear redundant.
-
As someone who actually read the article beyond the title, that's an interesting angle and I appreciate you taking the time to engage with UKB.
It'll be great if you do inspire a few youths to do cutting edge new routes.
I think a really large part of the reason we're not seeing the huge leaps forward in Trad is because of the attitude displayed by Fiend.
Much as I'd like to take credit for almost single-handedly changing the direction of British climbing, I think this is bollocks.
The main, longer running, reason which is a lack of viable new routes in the major areas. Most top climbers live in the Peak and Snowdonia; these areas are pretty much climbed out.
Plus what has changed in the twenty years since Hard Grit? 1. The internet. 2. Bouldering walls. It used to be that the best way to promote yourself was to do a Hard new route and get it in the mags. It isn't any more.
I don't buy that last bit. There are quite a few pretty low-key humble youths about these days. Most people I know are either totally disinterested in courting publicity or do it a sport a means to an end. I really don't know anyone who really wants to be a well-known climber first and foremost. People are mostly inspired to climb inspiring stuff. Did anyone really ever do a death route to get in the mags?
You might be a bit right about there not being the right type of rock for proper hard routes in the major areas. Certainly the case in the Peak. I'd have thought N Wales would have tonnes though.. I've only spent a lot of time in the slate quarries, but there's stacks there to do.
-
As someone who actually read the article beyond the title, that's an interesting angle and I appreciate you taking the time to engage with UKB.
It'll be great if you do inspire a few youths to do cutting edge new routes.
I think a really large part of the reason we're not seeing the huge leaps forward in Trad is because of the attitude displayed by Fiend.
Much as I'd like to take credit for almost single-handedly changing the direction of British climbing, I think this is bollocks.
The main, longer running, reason which is a lack of viable new routes in the major areas. Most top climbers live in the Peak and Snowdonia; these areas are pretty much climbed out.
Plus what has changed in the twenty years since Hard Grit? 1. The internet. 2. Bouldering walls. It used to be that the best way to promote yourself was to do a Hard new route and get it in the mags. It isn't any more.
I don't buy that last bit. There are quite a few pretty low-key humble youths about these days. Most people I know are either totally disinterested in courting publicity or do it a sport a means to an end. I really don't know anyone who really wants to be a well-known climber first and foremost. People are mostly inspired to climb inspiring stuff. Did anyone really ever do a death route to get in the mags?
Is that supposed to be ironic. :-\
-
‘Young James’ was a great insight into headpointing and the various reasons why for a talented youth. That conflicts with a few of the points above.
https://youtu.be/A2bdROeVsH4
-
...the only person I know who has claimed an E7 onsight new route is Mark Edwards.
Ground up but off the top of my head: Indian Rope trick and Broughton Power - E8s, Vickers
Monkey Journey to the West - E7, Me and Pete
Them other things at the same crag - E7, Arran, Mayers
Caffs high point on sight on Moonrise Kingdom - E8
I’m pretty sure some of Shane Ohly’s E7 FAs in Cornwall were done onsight.
What about Dawes too? I imagine he must have done some new E7s onsight in Wales?
-
Hardback Thesaurus was GU but yoyoed so not onsight, if by the term you also mean flashed.
-
Yeah I meant onsight flash to give it the full old skool term.
I think Come to Mother, E7 6a qualifies.
-
I think that in this context, On-sight, meaning ground up without practice is important. Whether flashed or not, much less so.
Professor Whitaker?
From 1988:
Hardback Thesaurus E7 6b, Gogarth, North Wales, first ascent, French 7c climbing and skyhook protection in the upper part, climbed without pre-inspection. Dawes took a 70’ near ground fall on one of his numerous attempts.
Professor Whittaker E7 6b 6a, Lleyn Peninsula, North Wales, first ascent, climbed without pre-inspection. Long runouts off bodyweight gear placements.
Then there's The Scoop on Strone.
-
...the only person I know who has claimed an E7 onsight new route is Mark Edwards.
Ground up but off the top of my head: Indian Rope trick and Broughton Power - E8s, Vickers
Monkey Journey to the West - E7, Me and Pete
Them other things at the same crag - E7, Arran, Mayers
Caffs high point on sight on Moonrise Kingdom - E8
I’m pretty sure some of Shane Ohly’s E7 FAs in Cornwall were done onsight.
What about Dawes too? I imagine he must have done some new E7s onsight in Wales?
Would love to know more about the Cornish routes. Do you know which ones?
-
http://www.bluedome.co.uk/Climbing/climshan/climshan.html (http://www.bluedome.co.uk/Climbing/climshan/climshan.html)
-
Prof Whit was downgraded by repeat ascensionists to E5ish. Either Johnny was having a bad day or he missed something. The rock in this zawn is pretty good too. Birdy on the other hand...
Moonrise Kingdom was an extremely impressive demonstration of what Caff could do when the rock is available.
-
Then there's The Scoop on Strone.
Paul came clean on this that in fact they had a cheeky look at the top pitch on abseil. Still a stout effort when you consider the chopped rope incident.
-
http://www.bluedome.co.uk/Climbing/climshan/climshan.html (http://www.bluedome.co.uk/Climbing/climshan/climshan.html)
Interesting list, thanks. He's race director at Salomon Sky Races now and every time i see I wonder how much he actually did, other than write the "how to be a pro climber" article for OTE.
-
http://www.bluedome.co.uk/Climbing/climshan/climshan.html (http://www.bluedome.co.uk/Climbing/climshan/climshan.html)
Interesting list, thanks. He's race director at Salomon Sky Races now and every time i see I wonder how much he actually did, other than write the "how to be a pro climber" article for OTE.
He also run's Marmot Dark Mountains and has set up the new Scottish Mountain Marathon. As a runner he has won the OMM, LAMM and High Peak Marathon so not exactly a slouch.
-
Yep, he's the main man behind http://www.oureaevents.com/events/ so organises loads.
-
I think a really large part of the reason we're not seeing the huge leaps forward in Trad is because of the attitude displayed by Fiend.
That's wrong on many counts.
1. It's not my attitude. It's a general ethical standpoint supporting good style and not supporting widespread adherence to challenge-avoiding style. I happen to be a vocal defender of that standpoint but there are others, vocal or otherwise.
2. Leads forward in trad are not just ticking bigger numbers by extensive headpointing. Leaps forward also include broadening a trad base, and climbing existing or lower grade trad in increasingly good style. Focusing purely on bigger numbers by any means necessary as the benchmark of hard trad is a delusion (a nice counter-example is Ondra, using his skills gained by pushing the biggest numbers redpoint, to then attempt very hard sport and trad onsight - really inspiring).
3. The standpoint I support is very much pro-trad and pro-progress. It's about acknowledging the modern climbing advantages, acknowledging the challenges inherent in a climbing, and acknowledging the vast amounts of climbs where style can be progressed. Leaps forward in trad can be attained by using that standpoint and pushing hard with it (like people deciding hey we've got pads, we can shove them beneath Angel's Share / Darkside / whatever and have a progressive and exciting adventure going ground-up).
4. I have never, as part of that standpoint, dismissed headpointing for climbing new routes of any level (as much as I respect those who do onsight new routes), especially cutting edge ones, nor early repeats of harder, unconfirmed routes. I support that as a sensible necessity. So that absolutely DOES NOT prevent huge leaps forward.
5. Even if the "lack of huge leaps forward in [implicit hard headpointing] trad" is a real thing (E9/10 is well established, E11 is reasonably established), there are many far more obvious reasons, i.e. the rise of sport climbing, bouldering, indoor climbing - all far more convenient than pushing trad (although, ironically, giving the climbing scene far more strength and physical skill to do so).
Other comments:
If the young guns are only inspired by the hard trad stuff (onsight or headpoint) then maybe they should stick to sport and bouldering, trad climbing has a whole different set of skills which need to be learnt and I would say going out top roping/headpointing is actually detrimental in that learning process. 2ndly there are plenty of safe and hard trad routes to go and onsight.
I very much agree. There could be a lot more promotion of hard-but-desperate routes as viable onsight/ground-up goals.
I don't think Fiend's post was about Headpointing, but whether we needed an article on UKC about it, promoting it - which in my view is an entirely legitimate and worthy thing to ask.
Absolutely! And the point I've been trying to make all along.
A bit of both. I genuinely don't like mid-grade trade-route headpointing, but in this case, it's mostly disliking presenting an article promoting headpointing overall without much balance or context, particularly when the climbing scene doesn't seem to be progressing or improving style very fast.
-
That was Franco who said that btw. It makes it look like JB said it above.
-
[quote ]
I think a really large part of the reason we're not seeing the huge leaps forward in Trad is because of the attitude displayed by Fiend.
[/quote]
Oooops yes sorry I grabbed it from JB's post cos it caught my attention there. Too late to edit but I'm sure it's obvious.
-
http://www.bluedome.co.uk/Climbing/climshan/climshan.html (http://www.bluedome.co.uk/Climbing/climshan/climshan.html)
Interesting list, thanks. He's race director at Salomon Sky Races now and every time i see I wonder how much he actually did, other than write the "how to be a pro climber" article for OTE.
Slightly before my time (although I think he’s probably only around 5yrs older than me), but I think Shane was a bit of a local hero as a youth with lots of hard FAs and repeats in west penwith.
-
Genuinly trying to understand now... because I just don't.
Your ticklist is extremely impressive, plus I admire your commitment to onsighting & exploration or new or unpopular routes - I just really don't see why you care what everyone else is doing. It certainly doesn't make you more ethical, however you always do opt for good style.
Comments below.
1. It's not my attitude. It's a general ethical standpoint supporting good style and not supporting widespread adherence to challenge-avoiding style. I happen to be a vocal defender of that standpoint but there are others, vocal or otherwise.
Surely it's not ethics, but climbing style. Ethics would be not gardening rare plants or chipping, as examples.
2. Leads forward in trad are not just ticking bigger numbers by extensive headpointing. Leaps forward also include broadening a trad base, and climbing existing or lower grade trad in increasingly good style. Focusing purely on bigger numbers by any means necessary as the benchmark of hard trad is a delusion (a nice counter-example is Ondra, using his skills gained by pushing the biggest numbers redpoint, to then attempt very hard sport and trad onsight - really inspiring).
If it's about ticking big numbers, why is it OK in sport climbing, where extensive pre-practice is used to tick big numbers? Do little bolts really make that much of a difference? (again see ethics point). Is this because that's how it's always been or what?
3. The standpoint I support is very much pro-trad and pro-progress. It's about acknowledging the modern climbing advantages, acknowledging the challenges inherent in a climbing, and acknowledging the vast amounts of climbs where style can be progressed. Leaps forward in trad can be attained by using that standpoint and pushing hard with it (like people deciding hey we've got pads, we can shove them beneath Angel's Share / Darkside / whatever and have a progressive and exciting adventure going ground-up).
What if I don't give a shit about progress? I'll never push the boundaries. What benefit is achieved by mid graders not top roping something first?
Does it upset you that an E2 climber could reach your numbers even though they are not as good as you? They are clearly not.
4. I have never, as part of that standpoint, dismissed headpointing for climbing new routes of any level (as much as I respect those who do onsight new routes), especially cutting edge ones, nor early repeats of harder, unconfirmed routes. I support that as a sensible necessity. So that absolutely DOES NOT prevent huge leaps forward.
So headpointing IS acceptable to you, providing its a second or third ascent of say an E8 or above? so basically 8b/7C climbers or people with a death wish, with a drive for early repeats.
IMO you learn how to do runout hard wall climbing, whilst doing runout hard wall climbing. Doing 50 E4s IMO doesn't make you ready to climb E5, it makes you good at climbing E4. I learnt this the hard way.
I ab down stuff because:
1. I love climbing & after being injured for a long while, the thought of being injured & out again terrifies me.
2. If i break my legs, I probably lose my job (following this, house, etc)
3. I love the look of lines, however don't fancy getting up to the crux at the top & finding out its unprotected or v. run out.
Please don't just reply & say, climb something else. If that was the case, why is Malham bolted +1000 other examples.
-
I think Fiend is basically arguing for promoting a purer ethic -onsighting- and sees headpointing as a bit of a cop out. I know I do.
I’m old enough to remember what we used to call headpointing before some wag coined the term: toproping.
Toproping just the once - not so bad, but it’s still a cop out. I have done routes that way, single top rope and no return till I did them 12 months later. They were a buzz, but something in my head says I was cheating. Inferior routes done onsight were more satisfying.
Headpointing opens the door to working a route like redpointing does, and that should be repetitive, targeted and efficient. I’m sympathetic to cutting edge new routes being done that way but would be sad to see that become increasingly normalised as a way to do things.
Headpointing isn’t the devil’s work, but it’s an inferior ethic and I’m not enthusiastic about its wholesale adoption when onsighting has so much reward.
-
It's a cop out as much as dogging up a sport route is, yes.
Why would you be sad if lots do it? How does it affect your experience?/Why would you care?
It's an inferior style* not inferior ethic.
-
I largely agree with MrJ but the post does imply that onsighting something gives a greater reward than working it or doing it in a different way. I’d probably disagree with that.
-
http://www.bluedome.co.uk/Climbing/climshan/climshan.html (http://www.bluedome.co.uk/Climbing/climshan/climshan.html)
Interesting list, thanks. He's race director at Salomon Sky Races now and every time i see I wonder how much he actually did, other than write the "how to be a pro climber" article for OTE.
Slightly before my time (although I think he’s probably only around 5yrs older than me), but I think Shane was a bit of a local hero as a youth with lots of hard FAs and repeats in west penwith.
For the benefit/encouragement of the keen, I'll add some detail to that Bluedome webpage list which is not a complete list of Shane Ohly's harder routes in Penwith.
The Logan Rock route 'Phobia' is a fairly bold-looking one being a protection-less short slabby affair above a hard granite slopping ledge which you'd bounce off, eventually landing in the sea. Even if the moves on it are straightforward (they may well be) it looks scary to me. The next one listed as 'unnamed E5 6b' must be 'Beautiful Dream', which is actually E4 6a and has had at least one on-sight repeat. (The E5 6b on this slab, 'The Project', was led by Miles Gibson at a later date; I'm pretty sure it post-dates this Bluedome webpage.) Shane must have had some second thoughts about grades as 'Wet Dreams', listed as E8 on that page, is given E7 6b in all the guides and the article in OTE 80 that Gavin Slade wrote about their developments at the crag. I don't believe it's been repeat but this one might be a better proposition. It starts by stepping right off the bottom of a ramp just above the sea. Maybe not the cleanest of splashdowns but as far as I recall is mostly above water.
Another hard Logan Rock route not on this list is 'The Grassman' E7 6c the FA of which I think involved a fall. Although a photo of this was used in a HB advert at the time I've never been entirely sure where it goes. The topos and guides for the crag are all very unhelpful; I was hoping the recent CC guide would clear everything up but it hasn't.
In case it's misleading on the webpage 'Aero Dynamics' and 'Crash, Boom, Bang' are both at Chair Ladder.
'Manslaughter' at Coffin Cove (E7 6b) was described as an 'on-sight' in the 2000 guide for the area. So it may be that this and Phobia are the only E7s Shane ever claimed as on-sight first ascents. Neither of which have been repeated to the best of my knowledge.
Sadly the newest CC guide to the South Coast omits details of style of ascent that were in the earlier book - real shame not to encourage either a raising of the bar or a rising to the challenge. Worth noting too: there are daggers in the book indicating a lack of a second ascent on lots of routes that have been repeated numerous times - this is true for both Shane's routes and those of Mark Edwards.
Finally, I'd be very surprised if what Franco said earlier about lack of on-sight FAs of E7s is true although grade adjustment might rule some out.
Maybe Dave Thomas will know but wasn't Pat Littlejohn's Lazarus at Bass Point an on-sight? Granted the grade dropped to E6. Littlejohn must have done some in Pembroke and the Lleyn? How about Martin Crocker?
-
It's an inferior style* not inferior ethic.
Bless :lol:
-
1. It's not my attitude. It's a general ethical standpoint supporting good style and not supporting widespread adherence to challenge-avoiding style. I happen to be a vocal defender of that standpoint but there are others, vocal or otherwise.
Surely it's not ethics, but climbing style. Ethics would be not gardening rare plants or chipping, as examples.
No, its ethics.
-
1. It's not my attitude. It's a general ethical standpoint supporting good style and not supporting widespread adherence to challenge-avoiding style. I happen to be a vocal defender of that standpoint but there are others, vocal or otherwise.
Surely it's not ethics, but climbing style. Ethics would be not gardening rare plants or chipping, as examples.
No, its ethics.
Is it? I really struggle to understand where ethics come into it. Aesthetics would seem a more appropriate term. Rules might be better too.
-
1. It's not my attitude. It's a general ethical standpoint supporting good style and not supporting widespread adherence to challenge-avoiding style. I happen to be a vocal defender of that standpoint but there are others, vocal or otherwise.
Surely it's not ethics, but climbing style. Ethics would be not gardening rare plants or chipping, as examples.
No, its ethics.
No, it's style.
-
Ethics:
‘Moral principles that govern a person’s behaviour or the conducting of an activity’
I’d suggest that fits pretty well to what I understand to be ‘ethics’ in the context of climbing.
-
One persons style could be another’s ethic.
-
Ethics is the thinking; Style is the doing
-
That could be the basis of an Orbital style track with old voice samples from Ken and co.
-
Ethics:
‘Moral principles that govern a person’s behaviour or the conducting of an activity’
I’d suggest that fits pretty well to what I understand to be ‘ethics’ in the context of climbing.
The removal of 'moral' is a pretty big change to the meaning there e.g. your dietry principles might involve a well balanced diet including plenty of fruit and vegetables and preparing food from scratch but thats hardly ethics.
My ethics involve generally trying not to criticise people's approach to life and activities unless it direcly has a detrimental effect on other people etc , would I be breaching those ethics to say I find Fiends approach to this subject a bit sanctimoneous and overbearing ;)
-
A few points.
In very simple terms, most of us know when we're cheating.
If you don't, then you probably don't have great ethics anywhere else either.
So, you've seen a friend step up and solo Archangel at Stanage, climbing above nothing but his boot rag, and a few boulders.
Now, Ashton66, if you then decide to emulate your friend, but worried about the landing, you throw down two pads before setting off up the route, you're cheating - if you want to claim you both soloed the route.
That's not the same thing as saying you "should not" put down pads to protect your ascent.
Another part of your ethical stance might be that it's irresponsible to risk having to claim on depleted NHS resources (getting your ankles fixed) just because you want to experience/claim a purer style of ascent. As Shark very simply implies, ethics inform your choice of style.
These days, there is less acknowledgement of cheating - and with that, less impetus to improve style. It seems that increasingly, the emphasis is on claiming an ascent, rather than to question how it's done.
I feel irritated about the comments about Prof Whittaker (JB) and The Scoop (T_B) above. Why not emphasise the approach, and not the numbers? On The Scoop, there are a couple of pitches below the top pitch IIRC ;)
There are too many put down merchants in climbing. Re Prof W, maybe it was easier than Dawes felt it was on the FA, but there's a massive difference between setting off knowing the route's been climbed before at x grade, vs setting off without prior knowledge.
I've always felt that how you engage with the activity is far more important than the numbers.
In that respect, the first thing to acknowledge is Franco's enthusiasm and commitment :thumbsup: I really don't think you need to justify your tactics on the harder lines.
Re Lazarus above. I can't remember what Pat's style was on the FA, but there's a peg in it. Snapped a hold off on the second ascent, otherwise I doubt I'd have fallen off. Not especially hard.
Pat's contribution to SW climbing is of course immense!
-
1. It's not my attitude. It's a general ethical standpoint supporting good style and not supporting widespread adherence to challenge-avoiding style. I happen to be a vocal defender of that standpoint but there are others, vocal or otherwise.
Surely it's not ethics, but climbing style. Ethics would be not gardening rare plants or chipping, as examples.
No, its ethics.
Quite. Ethics has a well specified and clear meaning as a concept in sport in general. See e.g. https://www.amazon.com/Ethics-Sport-Essential-Readings/dp/0190210990 for a recent overview on ethical issues in sports (very NA-centric though...)
Marc Le Menestrel, who has a permanent position as a Professor in corporate governance and sustainability and has published several papers on ethics in Business Journals has written the following on ethics in climbing:
http://climbing-ethics.galactron.org/Charte-d-ethique-de-l-escalade.html
-
Re Lazarus above. I can't remember what Pat's style was on the FA, but there's a peg in it. Snapped a hold off on the second ascent, otherwise I doubt I'd have fallen off. Not especially hard.
Pat's contribution to SW climbing is of course immense!
Thanks Dave. After posting I remembered hearing him talking about the ascent and saying he had abseiled down to put the peg in, so no on-sight. Couldn't have counted it anyway as it's now given E6. An on-sight first ascent of a genuine E7 route must be very rare indeed.
-
Re Lazarus above. I can't remember what Pat's style was on the FA, but there's a peg in it. Snapped a hold off on the second ascent, otherwise I doubt I'd have fallen off. Not especially hard.
Pat's contribution to SW climbing is of course immense!
Thanks Dave. After posting I remembered hearing him talking about the ascent and saying he had abseiled down to put the peg in, so no on-sight. Couldn't have counted it anyway as it's now given E6. An on-sight first ascent of a genuine E7 route must be very rare indeed.
Some good climbing at Bass Point.
I was trying to say that what "counts" is the (for me) tremendously inspiring boldness of Pat's climbs, and not the number attached to one harder single pitch.
I remember reading the account of Pat's ascent of Painted Bird at Taff's Well quarry in South Wales.
"The fall, when it came, was quickly followed by a resounding crack, as the two high runners ripped .. incredibly, one of the friends held".
I used to love that stuff, and I always replay the opening lines when a "friend" is setting off up a bold pitch ;D
-
"Prof W, maybe it was easier than Dawes felt it was on the FA, but there's a massive difference between setting off knowing the route's been climbed before at x grade, vs setting off without prior knowledge.
I've always felt that how you engage with the activity is far more important than the numbers."
Exactly, its the mode of engagement that really matters, which is also why this is about ethics, which are much more than simply right/wrong, good/bad.
Edit: fucked up the quoting.
-
Pat's contribution to SW climbing is of course immense!
Off topic, but I think Pat has to be the single most competitive climber I've ever met; that's not a criticism, just an observation.
-
"Prof W, maybe it was easier than Dawes felt it was on the FA, but there's a massive difference between setting off knowing the route's been climbed before at x grade, vs setting off without prior knowledge.
I've always felt that how you engage with the activity is far more important than the numbers."
Exactly, its the mode of engagement that really matters, which is also why this is about ethics, which are much more than simply right/wrong, good/bad.
Edit: fucked up the quoting.
I'd agree with this.
-
Pat's contribution to SW climbing is of course immense!
If I could only climb one person’s routes for the rest of my life, there is no shadow of a doubt it would be Pat’s.
-
I tend to use "ethics" and "style" pretty interchangeably, although I admit "style" can be easily confused with the climber's actual personal physical / mental style - grace, composure, elegance, etc (or the lack thereof).
Ethics would cover a broad range of stuff from chipping and retro-bolting to lying about ascents to height of side-runners used etc. The current topic seems to be "style of ascent ethics", it's usually pretty obvious what we're all talking about.
I also think etiquette is a useful distinction, covering crag behaviour, interaction with other climbers and non-climbers, tickmarks to toiletting and what-have-you, etc.
-
"Prof W, maybe it was easier than Dawes felt it was on the FA, but there's a massive difference between setting off knowing the route's been climbed before at x grade, vs setting off without prior knowledge.
I've always felt that how you engage with the activity is far more important than the numbers."
Exactly, its the mode of engagement that really matters, which is also why this is about ethics, which are much more than simply right/wrong, good/bad.
This is the whole approach I very much agree with. I think there's something very special about being faced with a personal challenge, ideally having some burning curiosity about what will happens ("Doubt is an essential part of any meaningful endeavour"), and stepping off the ground and committing to that journey of discovery, whether it's terror-teetering up Birdie or terror-teetering along Sunset Slab or wondering whether the pump clock is ticking faster than you're climbing upwards on The Screamer or discovering all those positive crimps on The Golden Slipper....
Ethics OR STYLE are a way of quantifying that qualitative experience, giving some sort of guidelines as to how that will be normally and optimally and universally experienced.
This is always why I often espouse spirit of the law rather than letter of the law. All these UKC debates about "is it an onsight if you climb to the ground instead of a 2m wide ledge just above the ground?", "but my mate did it and said the good cam slot the guide mentions is actually bomber, surely I've blown it?", FFS will you be up there, above your gear, discovering the holds for the first time, working out the moves, will you be having that journey?? Of course you fucking will, it will still be a magical experience.
Conversely, some small things can make a big difference. I once happened to abseil down an E6 while stripping gear from a route I did right next to it (shares the same start), and knowing I'd never do it, just looked visually at the holds and the crucial mid-crux gear, fuck me that made such a massive difference to the whole concept of getting on it, it suddenly seemed so possible (as a completely undesirable headpoint) with that knowledge. Since then I've been extra-careful abbing near harder routes (6 times down Necromancer @ Earnsheugh with my eyes closed or swivelling chameleon like out to see, and bloody hell was it worth it, what an experience that was committing to that (and guessing the crucial cam first go!!)).
-
Ethic references a set of principles governing the acceptable conduct of an activity which implies value judgment about what is ‘correct’. It’s often but not always interpersonal. It’s the motive.
So dietary conduct is potentially an ethical matter, it depends on what you are talking about. Avoiding too much salt and fat? Not in itself ethical. Doing it so you don’t die early and leave your kids without your support? Ethical. Eating broccoli not steak because you don’t like the taste? Not ethical. Vegetarianism because you are motivated by animal welfare? Ethical.
There’s nothing moral about pulling on a peg or not, but it is an ethical matter as to whether you feel that is an acceptable action. That is a fundamentally aesthetic ethic, but it’s not style, because that’s a manner of performance, not the underpinning ethos which determines it.
Also ethical is whether you place one in the first place since it alters the environment; that’s a different sort of ethic, deciding what action we will permit based on its impact on others.
To think that ethic - like any word- has just a single simple meaning is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word implies.
So no Ashton, it’s not style, it’s ethic.
-
Ethic references a set of principles governing the acceptable conduct of an activity which implies value judgment about what is ‘correct’. It’s often but not always interpersonal. It’s the motive.
...
So no Ashton, it’s not style, it’s ethic.
Although you give a good explanation of why you favour the term ethics rather than style, I think that you've shown exactly what the problem is with using it. I actually prefer using the term style to differentiate between onsight / headpoint, GU etc, because ethics implies an interpersonal judgement - just like in your definition. I'm totally opposed to anyone judging someone else for how they are using their recreational time. I get it, that ethics might be personal ethics, but to me the word has too much baggage about moral judgement, and that is, for me, what gets my back up when people try to suggest that there's too much headpointing going on. I guess as long as someone is clear that their use of the term ethics is in "these are my personal ethics for how I prefer to approach climbing a rock" then fair enough - that clears up the ambiguity.
Where I would use the term ethics is in terms of not damaging the rock (overtly, like chipping, or subtly, like scrabbling around in the damp, or trying something GU which is going to require lots of falls onto fragile gear placements), not hogging popular routes with a top rope, etc. Obviously these are ethics, because I think it is fair to judge someone for doing these things and politely suggest to them that they think about their impact.
I have a sense - and I would be really interested in what anyone makes of this - that the 'anti-headpoint camp' aren't actually that judgemental of people who choose to headpoint (except you Fiend, I know you are), but instead would like to see a greater appreciation of the nuance of the style that someone climbed in. For example, the way that in magazines online news reports big numbers sell stories, so smaller numbers in a harder style seem to be under-reported. To my mind, wishing for a greater appreciation of the experience is still compatible with saying "people can climb how they want". Or, put another way, saying "people can climb how they want" ≠ "I can't see the aesthetic and stylistic difference, and the resulting difference in experience". On a tangent, I think any implication that someone headpointing inherently has a less personally valuable experience than someone onsighting is an arrogant judgement.
-
https://youtu.be/9vnmugDJDWU
-
I think the two key ethics are honesty and minimising damage to the rock and any rare insitu flora and fauna . After that I'd much prefer climbers 'give the rock a chance' but I've always been uneasy about pushing rules for the wads about headpoints, that differ from punters, up to a level with honesty and avoiding damage (it's completely impractical anyhow as some punters will watch the elite and ape them). I'm also worried that negative obsessions about headpointing can overlook its advantages on new (unknown rock ) or especially on dirty routes or routes reliant on probable dodgy pegs A lot of single pitch routes need traffic that low extreme headpointing would greatly benefit. I'd certainly like to see a practical pro-onsight ethic that is not disparaging to headpointing in such circumstances and so helps to avoid putting off adventurous exploratory aspirants early in their climbing careers.
I'm well below punter standard but still set my own rules when headpointing: once the route is clean and I know things like bold moves are not subject to scrittle, I'll go early. Some of my headpoints have only prepracticed the feel of a crux and then just the once. I can't think of a route I headpointed with practice more than twice. I also decided never to headpoint above my best onsight grade (I know from seconding them that several bold E3s and E4s suited me more than some E1 and E2 headpoints I'd done, but didn't need what felt like a cheat number tick to me). I've always actively encouraged the onsight game, partly as its given so much to me, but I don't want people hurting themselves when trying out-of-condition lines; or face so much fear from dirty routes they just get put off. I found guidebook work on dirty crags was sometimes too mentally gruelling just seconding onsights, despite climbing with some handy leaders.
So where is the damage... certainly on some delicate classic routes in the mid to high extremes that need less top-rope practice... especially from those clearly not up to it... but only a minority and so thats more route specific than style specific. It's also on Birchen classics below E1 when obsessions about unrealisticly 'going for it' onsight and not enough warnings about the problems of hanging around and moving after falling on placements (the worst type of dogging), that have led to severe cam damage in breaks... similar problems are starting to be visible in breaks near cruxy moves on Stanage VSs. There are routes of all grades where inappropriate cam use has cost us flakes. However in scale on Peak grit this all pales compared to the damage on classic lower grade peak boulder problems from climbing when wet or with dirty boots or overbrushing. Way too many problems have lost the hard surface layer. It would be good to hear even more support from the wads and punters on these issues, compared to worrying about how many angelic headpoints you can make to the tip of a needle.
Honesty is too often sadly lacking (especially in historic terms.. cheating has always happened but some would look to airbrush that out, to suit their 'golden age' views on ethics and style) but even when being honest, numbers can give the wrong signals. I've found some HS onsights much more of a challenge than my rare E2 headpoints. The comparative numbers being way off in the equivalent significance of onsights to headpoits means I welcome UKC raising the bar on what counts as a significant headpoint. Even for onsights, numbers can give the wrong impression: compare KK (for all but the short) versus TCH and this perfectly illustrates a problem in what counts as most significant .... I know where my greater respect for an onsight would be. I wish we had sorted more grade inconsistencies in the latest guides. I certainly see all the mid and lower grade changes we made as important to help keep the onsight 'game' healthy across the grades. I think the YMC hollow star system is brilliant as it signals where an inspection and likely clean (by a pal for the purist) is probably needed to obtain the best quality climbing.
-
I always assumed the headpoint cut off was e6, unless it’s e6 6c / 7a then it’s a ground up affair, unless you don’t do it in a session or two or it’s filthy / unknown quantity then abseil becomes acceptable. Them’s the rules of fair play, surely?
-
Ethic references a set of principles governing the acceptable conduct of an activity which implies value judgment about what is ‘correct’. It’s often but not always interpersonal. It’s the motive.
...
So no Ashton, it’s not style, it’s ethic.
On a tangent, I think any implication that someone headpointing inherently has a less personally valuable experience than someone onsighting is an arrogant judgement.
I'd like to think you'd find quite a few people here in agreement with you, including me.
However that's not really what is being suggested.
Dan, great to see your own inspiring ascents recently :thumbsup:
But I disagree with any idea of imposing rules on what "counts" or is valid - with ref to a "cut-off" grade.
-
Hi Dave. I'd like to think taht you're right that most people would agree that they have no right to judge what others do (so long as it isn't damaging the rock or anything similarly antisocial). But these quotes, all from this thread, do make me doubt that. Maybe I've misunderstood.
The more I think about it, the more I dislike the whole thing, especially promoting the exact opposite direction to how climbing progression should be going
The article had no discussion of standards and thus tacitly argues that headpointing can be appropriate at any grade.
Headpointing isn’t the devil’s work, but it’s an inferior ethic and I’m not enthusiastic about its wholesale adoption when onsighting has so much reward.
I always assumed the headpoint cut off was e6, unless it’s e6 6c / 7a then it’s a ground up affair, unless you don’t do it in a session or two or it’s filthy / unknown quantity then abseil becomes acceptable. Them’s the rules of fair play, surely?
Isn't it all a bit absurd that on Himalayan giants there is a drive towards improving style, yet on 6m gritstone slabs, anything goes - including the right to question, out the window?
Although to be fair to you Dave, you did also say "This has been turned into a polarized argument of "Them against us" etc, "How dare they tell us what we should/shouldn't do" etc, which it isn't." - although I think it has been!
For what it's worth, I think conversations such as what Fiend said about how minor things can change your experience - such as abseiling down an adjacent route and noticing that you have a jug to aim for, can make a massive difference to an experience. Things like this aren't well accounted for by blanket terms such as OS, flash etc.. I think conversations about these kind of aesthetics / stylistic (whatever I can call them) details, which encompasses whether you throw a rope down or not, is a better way of helping people to value the intricasies of their experiences rather than trying to promote supposed improvements in style.
This is on the money for me, but is distinct from the above quotes because it is about the personal importance, not about judging what others do. (even though I've quoted you saying two totally different things Dan - I'm confused)
I do agree that an improvement in style is important though, but again a very personal affair. Can’t really stand being told what to do in climbing by anyone taking a morally / ethically superior vantage point ppppffffttt
-
I always assumed the headpoint cut off was e6, unless it’s e6 6c / 7a then it’s a ground up affair, unless you don’t do it in a session or two or it’s filthy / unknown quantity then abseil becomes acceptable. Them’s the rules of fair play, surely?
Its not about rules, but aspirations. To take E6 (I'm not sure, but am assuming you're saying this is the grade at which headpointing becomes ok?). I think its reasonable to hope people will aspire to attempt E6s os/gu, something that was achieved probably at least 40 years ago (even as we recognize that we sometimes fall short of that aspiration).
-
I always assumed the headpoint cut off was e6, unless it’s e6 6c / 7a then it’s a ground up affair, unless you don’t do it in a session or two or it’s filthy / unknown quantity then abseil becomes acceptable. Them’s the rules of fair play, surely?
Now that's some proper nitty gritty ;) How much filth are we talking??
Pffft, surely it should be E7 by now, haven't Caff and Jordan and McNair and El Mocho / JB / Nik / Nige / Michele add-as-applicable and others done enough yet??
Aspirations....I would hope they'd be pretty high these days. What on earth are people using beastmakers for??
-
Sorry Reeve, guys, it was meant in an ironical sense in that thems my rules. But literally meaningless to anyone else unless they give it meaning of course. I agree with everything being said, apart from Fiend of course and maybe JB and Franco. Can’t bring myself to agree with those fellahs ;)
-
" I think its reasonable to hope people will aspire to attempt E6s os/gu"
Why? Why why why why why? Why do you think that? Again, I'm speaking as someone who attempts e6 ground up, and have attempted the odd e7 ground up, but why should I give a fuck if someone else top ropes it? I'm talking from an ethics view here rather than rock damage, but why should there be a standard on this? I get the whole thing about being part of a bunch of mates who have their own standards of what gets kudos and what gets you ridiculed, but beyond that, why does anyone think they can suggest to others what's cool and what's not? Again, this is not about pushing the sport, this is about recreational climbers going out and having a laugh. For reasons that are personal to them and them only.
-
Sorry Reeve, guys, it was meant in an ironical sense in that thems my rules. But literally meaningless to anyone else unless they give it meaning of course. I agree with everything being said, apart from Fiend of course and maybe JB and Franco. Can’t bring myself to agree with those fellahs ;)
A great example of Poe's law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law)in action
Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a fundamentalist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article.
-
A very wise person that Poe
Edit: a wise person I once knew said ‘there’s not much fun in fundamentalism’
There’s certainly not much satire and humour around in climbing these days. A lot of self serious intellectualisation though.
-
There’s certainly not much satire and humour around in climbing these days. A lot of self serious intellectualisation though.
That’s not my style... ;)
-
I'm worried about committing more intellectualizing if I answer Ged ...
-
I’m worried full stop but fuck it eh
-
I'm worried about committing more intellectualising if I answer Ged ...
Intellectualise to the max!
-
Hi Dave. I'd like to think taht you're right that most people would agree that they have no right to judge what others do
Isn't it all a bit absurd that on Himalayan giants there is a drive towards improving style, yet on 6m gritstone slabs, anything goes - including the right to question, out the window?
Although to be fair to you Dave, you did also say "This has been turned into a polarized argument of "Them against us" etc, "How dare they tell us what we should/shouldn't do" etc, which it isn't." - although I think it has been!
For what it's worth, I think conversations such as what Fiend said about how minor things can change your experience - such as abseiling down an adjacent route and noticing that you have a jug to aim for, can make a massive difference to an experience. Things like this aren't well accounted for by blanket terms such as OS, flash etc.. I think conversations about these kind of aesthetics / stylistic (whatever I can call them) details, which encompasses whether you throw a rope down or not, is a better way of helping people to value the intricasies of their experiences rather than trying to promote supposed improvements in style.
Reeve, I'm not making that claim above. You're misquoting me there, and out of context. In fact I would say anyone has the right to judge, if they want to, although I don't think it's particularly helpful.
I find your other comments interesting, because they suggest a clear awareness of the nuance of action and experience in climbing - and presumably then, your own thoughts about what you might find rewarding?
Isn't that the whole point of this dialogue?
Franco's article promotes a particular style of ascent, I would argue, with the emphasis on "getting up stuff". I'll make the claim that there is now perhaps more emphasis on getting to the top than the rewards of the experience.
I used the video of " Art Nouveau", because for me, that wasn't an ascent of Art Nouveau - although it climbs the same bit of rock. I like to consider climbs invitations of engagement and experience.
If you have considerations of style, then surely you also make choices about it. You decide. Why? What do you allow/disallow? What's your (personal) ethic? For you, what do you find more rewarding?
I think the important point you make above is exactly why there was such a reaction to Franco's article. As Andy P says above, it lacked balance; it didn't invite the question.
-
I'm worried about committing more intellectualizing if I answer Ged ...
That's ethics for you...
-
That’s a great point about it not being ‘art Nouveau’ Dave. Reminds me of the ‘can’t step in the same river twice’ philosophy. Sometimes particularly if a mate does a lesser ascent of something I’ll offer up a slight variation on the name, a couple from this year include ‘east woo’ traverse’ ‘and the stubbing’. Maybe that ascent could be called ‘fart Nouveau’?
-
Maybe that ascent could be called ‘fart Nouveau’?
I wanna climb that lovely feature :)
When I do, i will tie off 15 pads and bring 10 mates to spot :tease:
Because I wanna climb that lovely feature, but my legs aren't worth it.
I'll send the vid if I ever do it :yawn:
-
Why not use pre placed micro wires as per the original ascent?
-
Why not use pre placed micro wires as per the original ascent?
I thought they were blown out?
-
Interesting and seasoned debate.
Surely "style" is just a subset of "ethics".
-
I've always liked the option of looking at a climb and just saying:
"No, I'm not good enough....I'll train hard and try hard to improve, but if I never get that good I'll just accept I can't do it"
Having said that, pads and highballing are the new norm and do allow a good compromise and a good mini-adventure.
-
Ethics vs style: my take has always been style is how you climb, ethics is the thought process behind it.
I feel irritated about the comments about Prof Whittaker (JB) and The Scoop (T_B) above. Why not emphasise the approach, and not the numbers? On The Scoop, there are a couple of pitches below the top pitch IIRC ;)
There are too many put down merchants in climbing.
I don't think this is very fair Dave, particularly in the context of your comments on Art Nouveau which are about the only overt put-downs in this thread.
I wasn't trying to 'put Johnny down', I was just trying to add some context/ facts. There are few bigger Dawes fans than I. Professor Whittaker is a route that got a huge reputation from being selected for a special mention in a Paul Pritchard article. On Cilan (pre-Haston's and Bullock's recent exploits) ALL the routes were climbed onsight and in very adventurous style, and the passing of time has shown that PW did not deserve singling out. As I intimated, if you were to single one route on Cilan out Birdy should probably be the one, although some of Jack Street and Al Evans' exploits in the late sixties were perhaps even more impressive given the rudimentary equipment and knowledge of the time (cams are far more use on Cilan than wires).
Seriously then, if highballing Art Nouveau 'isn't an ascent' then what is? Headpointing on pre-placed wires presumably is? Have you done it? In what style? It's a bit of blind, knacky move at a height which is very ballsy ground-up, even with a lot of mats, but would be absolutely trivial after practice. It'd be interesting to know if anyone has managed it without either top-rope or mats - I haven't heard of any. I am absolutely convinced that the first time I did it, with maybe two or three mats, I took on a bigger challenge than headpointing it.
-
Why? Why why why why why?
No, of course its nothing to me what this or that individual person does to get up a route. But I've not really been talking about that, but rather the overall framework within which climbing takes place, which has always been about trying to maintain the proper degree of challenge, particularly as equipment improves. Climbing, which hardly makes any sense at all anyway, makes even less without that kind of overall framework.
Besides, hoping people will aspire to a particular style/ethic hardly seems very dictatorial.
-
It'd be interesting to know if anyone has managed it without either top-rope or mats - I haven't heard of any. I am absolutely convinced that the first time I did it, with maybe two or three mats, I took on a bigger challenge than headpointing it.
I did it on my own above a pad that kept blowing away (#lookatme) ;)
DT: As to my comments about The Scoop. Having done the route twice (#lookatme) I think I'm right in saying that the top hard pitch is very blind (as well as exposed/intimidating). It's fair to say that as a matter of record it was pre-inspected. Obviously the whole escapade of freeing this route by Dawes/Pritchard 90% GU was amazing (the ingenuity of the flying groove pitch in particular).
But, I stand by my comment. It's important to me that things are recorded truthfully (and to Pritchard presumably, or he wouldn't have put the record straight later). I was rather put out when quizzed by a well-known-climber after my on-sight of the flying groove pitch, whether or not it was a "Welsh on-sight"!
-
The other thing is the tree in the woods question - I've done Art Nouveau a few times and never fallen off (#lookatmetoo). Obviously pads are a psychological crutch to some extent but if that's all they are surely it's hard to argue you've castrated it?
-
I know that we disagree somewhat over pads.
As per my other post - about routes like the Scoop etc - I was trying to emphasise engagement.
So much of what occurs in debates reduces things to where they sit in league tables, and with it, what other people hold onto too - for reasons of their own benefit.
It's common that people want to Big up/put down, and yes I do imply that that's a significant part of what occurs in "debates".
Going back to the pads question, they make the difference.
I've never climbed Narcissus at Froggatt, because I've only wanted to do it when I'm ready to set off from the deck (ground) , when I'm willing and hopefully able.
I could stick three pads down, and then try it, but that wouldn't be Narcissus. (That would be Narccy Sis ;) )
For me, the route is the encounter, and not just the piece of rock. Going back to Dan's reference to rivers above, it would be like crossing the Rubicon by building a bridge over it!
So what I was trying to emphasise above was the approach.
There will always be indiscretions, and yes of course, they need to be recorded - hopefully as a bearing for aspiration.
Edit. Tom, great effort on The Scoop, among others.
-
I could stick three pads down, and then try it, but that wouldn't be Narcissus.
An easy solution for this would be to call the trad version "Narcissus E6 6b", the highball version "Narcissus 7A", and a headpoint ascent "Narcissus E-copout" :)
-
I could stick three pads down, and then try it, but that wouldn't be Narcissus.
An easy solution for this would be to call the trad version "Narcissus E6 6b", the highball version "Narcissus 7A (!)"
It's all pretty old hat now thanks to the clarity of the BMC/YMC grit guides, but this is still just a really nice obvious way (I've added in the NWB exclamation mark) of quantifying and describing what experience you're getting or indeed aspiring to, and highlights the choice available, even if everyone apart from Dave and sometimes I will go for the latter ;)
Dave, great comments, I really respect that. Although you're going to end up as outdated and oddball as Keen Youth when he started ;).
I've done the same thing, depending entirely on when / how my inspiration for a route / problem started. I was inspired by a lot of grit micros before pads existed (when I was even shitter at bouldering), and that inspiration remained after I started using pads regularly - I went to The Plantation a few times with pads but never tried NTBTA until I felt ready to do it without - old inspiration as a solo. DIY I left the few mats we had beneath my mate on Sithee and spent 15 mins committing to the crux. Conversely, Isle Of Dreams at Scout Hut I'd never even heard of let alone had an inclination to solo, so was happy trying it with lots of pads down. I'm getting increasingly into highballing as the level of fear for me (scary sketchy falls rather than broken limbs (as per Charlie's Overhang pre-pads, ooops)) feels similar to boldish trad, and I like that feel. There's stuff I'll do with, and stuff I'll try without. And I'll be keen to congratulate you when you do Narcissus old skool style, if you feel it was a great experience.
-
Definite waddage to you there Tom! Never mind the hash tag look at me bollocks. Nowt wrong with celebrating those amazing efforts.
Regards highballing above a sea of pads. It was a depressing day when I saw that photo of grand potato. It’s probably as much about the circus surrounding it as the climbing itself. This in no way is an attempt to denigrate anyone else’s style of ascent. I’d just rather not bother currently, the same goes for ‘snowballing’ an ultimately vacuous experience
-
Narcissus is a good example why I got over it. I first did it without pads. Why? They were new, previous ascents hadn't used them, it felt like the right thing to do. I was young, vain, wanted another E6 on my CV.
I was there with Steve Bancroft around that time, mentioned something about that early onsight. He shrugged, said the ground was higher and softer then, 'verdant green pasture youth' and pointed out the line where the lichen stops 18" up as proof. I've since done it with a few pads, and with a load of pads. It's still scary, it's still a massive fall, a big bang landing that makes you think about trying again. I've helped several people to hospital after similar falls onto similar pad stacks (e.g. Mint 400) ended badly. Its a 'cheat' that feels much bigger pontificating from behind a keyboard than when you look down at a creeping smear from twenty foot up.
I've talked to enough old-timers to know that this 'the landing is part of the route' is bollocks. Read the history sections of the guides. Rucksacs, ropes, shoes, pine branches, car-seats, mattresses etc have all been used to lessen the chance of injury. My school climbing instructor's big beefs were chalk and guidebooks. He hated both, said they removed all the adventure, would confiscate any he saw. That french lad doesn't use boots. My point is the ethical lines are arbitrary, and personal. My own ethics have evolved. I no longer place much value in grades, a bit like fiat currency they don't bear much scrutiny. I also had the experience of showing 'team america' around and seeing their bemusement that we considered any of it more than highballing. My main guiding feeling nowadays is avoiding contrivance. Sticky rubber, better boot design, better chalk, internet beta have all come along too. It seems highly contrived to me to single out pads as the one objectionable change, to awkwardly try to stop others throwing their pads down for you.
I agree ten pads doesn't earn you E6. But it sure as hell earns you Narcissus. To suggest otherwise seems to me the height of arrogance.
-
Surely time for the logpile...
(this thread is going around in circles)
-
No way man, I just learnt about Bancroft, team America and fiat currency, plus heard about Tom’s efforts and knowledge of strone ulladale, and JB has swayed me towards feeling ok about loads of pads..... (that last bit being a joke of course 😉)
Edit: actually it just struck me what the issue with pads is. It’s a projection of ones (my) personal desire to feel special in some way. Pads have made things much more accessible and climbing these routes common place. Therefore I feel less special QED :chair:
-
Good post, JB. Sums up my thoughts.
Dan and Dave can do as they please and create the experiences that they want, that's fine. Laughing at others as if not using pads has any logical imperative behind it is what gets me. If Dan/Dave (sorry, forgot who and cba to check) say that you should do a route in the style originally climbed, then they're undoubtedly a hypocrite, unless they scrupulously investigate FA records to see what gear was used. Are we supposed to ditch the cams to climb Hargreaves Original and any pre-70s routes?
I also don't get how Dan can be so dismissive of pads and at the same time employ a multitude of frigs to get up the routes he headpoints. I don't have a problem with it personally, but people in glass houses...
(i.e preplaced gear on a long extender. I don't know the route, but if that allows the gear to be clipped before doing a hard move which an onsighter would have to do without the gear, then it invalidates the ascent in my book).
As for the "circus" of a team of friends highballing something. What is it that makes a circus? A group of friends laughing at the crag, all trying the same thing? Heaven forfend!
-
Hey Will, Sorry I got your goat. See post above. It’s like being shit at footy all over again. Time for the log pile. Tom was right. I’m retiring from this ukb now anyway. Peace out ✌️
-
Still waiting for someone to tell me why on bolts it's normal and on wires it's bad...
:tumble:
Or is it just because that's how the old boys did it?
-
I've talked to enough old-timers to know that this 'the landing is part of the route' is bollocks. Read the history sections of the guides. Rucksacs, ropes, shoes, pine branches, car-seats, mattresses etc have all been used to lessen the chance of injury. My school climbing instructor's big beefs were chalk and guidebooks. He hated both, said they removed all the adventure, would confiscate any he saw. That french lad doesn't use boots. My point is the ethical lines are arbitrary, and personal. My own ethics have evolved. I no longer place much value in grades, a bit like fiat currency they don't bear much scrutiny. I also had the experience of showing 'team america' around and seeing their bemusement that we considered any of it more than highballing. My main guiding feeling nowadays is avoiding contrivance. Sticky rubber, better boot design, better chalk, internet beta have all come along too. It seems highly contrived to me to single out pads as the one objectionable change, to awkwardly try to stop others throwing their pads down for you.
I agree ten pads doesn't earn you E6. But it sure as hell earns you Narcissus. To suggest otherwise seems to me the height of arrogance.
Well said. Again, the real ethics are about honesty and rock damage. Ground up highballing above mats protects the climbers, the landings and prevents the rock-damaging 'sketching about' that's very possible on a tr. Its not the tr that is the issue, its the bad style it can lead to, and hence damage. For shorter classic easier bouldering the mats are part of the problem... alongside the sketchy sieging and overbrushing and chalk abuses they encourage... if you are not good enough to make attempts in good style... go away and improve before you try again. The encouragement of pushing hard onsight on safe routes when transfered down the grade scale to the likes of Orpheus Wall (with its now gouged out cam placements), is a similar ethical worry where style overtook real ethics.
Climbers making their own style rules for their own reasons is fine but pushing outlier positions as an serious ethical standard to others seems to me silly elitism, almost certainly doomed to failure (and contain risk of real ethical breaches) as ordinary climbers will just plain ignore unrealistic standards. We need pragmatic ethical advice, transferable to the climbing masses with a focus on honesty and avoiding rock damage.
-
I get it, that ethics might be personal ethics, but to me the word has too much baggage about moral judgement, and that is, for me, what gets my back up when people try to suggest that there's too much headpointing going on. I guess as long as someone is clear that their use of the term ethics is in "these are my personal ethics for how I prefer to approach climbing a rock" then fair enough - that clears up the ambiguity.
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? :shrug:
Secondly, I’d like to tell you a story - bear with me.
A long time ago Spanish had a synthetic grammar, where the role of a word was contained in its ending and it did not matter what order the words in a sentence came, the meaning would remain unchanged. Naturally enough, as originally Spanish was Latin.
Over time people lost clarity of understanding and reinforced it by various means - the word order, adding previously unnecessary details to clarify and so on. Consequently Spanish evolved into an analytic grammar which depended on the order of words in a sentence for meaning to be conveyed - just like modern English, although Spanish retains a greater degree of flexibility about word order to this day.
One curiosity this produced is ‘with me’, in current Spanish ‘conmigo’.
Originally this was ‘mecum’ me = me, cum = with, so mecum = with me. This became pronounced as ‘migo’. Losing sight of its compound meaning people started to add ‘con’ which means ‘with’ and so evolved modern ‘conmigo’ = with me.
Or more strictly, conmigo = with-me-with, a pretty unnecessary addition.
The word ‘ethic’ has a long established range of meaning. I haven’t, Humpty-Dumpty like, decided to use it in some obscure and specialised sense unique to me. Many writers, in climbing and elsewhere, have used ‘ethic’ to refer to the set of rules which people use to guide their behaviour in various contexts and for different purposes both off and on the crag. Sometimes moral, sometimes aesthetic.
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.
About the climbing, we broadly agree.
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.
In summary:
Do what you want, just don’t wreck the places you love. Take only photos, etc.
Edit- couldn’t find the shrug emoji.
-
Reeve's posts and JB's most recent post seem by far the most sensible in this thread.
-
Sorry this is all going to get a bit scrappy with reply orders. From the NQBVs thread:
Where's Ged and Ash? :popcorn:
All that moaning about headpointing and he's headpointed it! Class you couldn't make it up.
Perhaps fiend should put a ukc article together about how to ab a boulder problem? :worms:
Not sure what ethics/style this fits into?
Not that I give 2 shits but after all that on the other thread, really?
Imagining it the other way around....
So yeah here's a clip of me doing a cool little E4 prow at the very far end of Bamford. I thought it was new (nothing in the guides nor UKC nor local FB group) so I shunted it, scrubbed some green holds, pulled off a couple of scrittly pebbles. Turns out it was done ground up by The Dawes in the 80s, oh well.
Doh! Well good effort on your repeat, I hear Putrell had been scrambling over that bit a century ago anyway :P . At least it's clean now.
...
Still if someone genuinely wants to say, without all the popcorn and worms, "Hey, that's shoddy, it's not that hard, you should have gone for a ground up 'FA', at least given it a proper try before inspecting it", fair enough (although in my defence I knew from a previous visit it was a mild drainage line, and that the middle sidepull slot was lichenous, and the top break had some plants in, and in an ideal world I'd have asked a mate to go down it in return for reciprocal cleaning, but despite asking several friends and posting on a few FB groups, no-one was around).
-
Surely time for the logpile...
(this thread is going around in circles)
That reply should be logpiled and nothing else! Genuinely interesting exchange of views now it's settled down IMO.
Narcissus is a good example why I got over it. I first did it without pads. Why? They were new, previous ascents hadn't used them, it felt like the right thing to do. I was young, vain, wanted another E6 on my CV.
That, and you actually being good enough to do it....
It's still scary, it's still a massive fall, a big bang landing that makes you think about trying again. I've helped several people to hospital after similar falls onto similar pad stacks (e.g. Mint 400) ended badly. Its a 'cheat' that feels much bigger pontificating from behind a keyboard than when you look down at a creeping smear from twenty foot up.
....
I also had the experience of showing 'team america' around and seeing their bemusement that we considered any of it more than highballing.
A bit of a contrast there. On the one hand it's "just highballing". On the other falls onto pad stacks can lead to hospital. Falls onto piles of rucksacs even more so.... I think grit-style highballing can be pretty sketchy, but also old skool soloing is a lot more sketchy, it's a definitely more than just highballing. Even if it is generally outdated.
Still waiting for someone to tell me why on bolts it's normal and on wires it's bad...
Or is it just because that's how the old boys did it?
A bit of that yes. Normal climbing (onsight) seems to have been historically the norm for centuries for repeating routes, but right from the start of sport climbing working routes seems to have been the norm. Plus the large difference in feel and adventure and journey for trad and sport - route-reading and gear-placing and pacing being a lot more inherent to the former (even an obvious crack you have to pace yourself and space your gear in a different way). Slightly different games in both their origins and their feel.
If you want to bring the two closer together, more sport flashing / onsighting could be pretty damn cool.
Hey Will, Sorry I got your goat. See post above. It’s like being shit at footy all over again. Time for the log pile. Tom was right. I’m retiring from this ukb now anyway. Peace out ✌️
Noooooo!
-
But has Franco done Dangermouse yet?
-
Still waiting for someone to tell me why on bolts it's normal and on wires it's bad...
:tumble:
Or is it just because that's how the old boys did it?
Surely it's obvious that due to the safety of a row of bolts, and being able to push yourself to your physical limit, that the redpoint ethic has always been an intrinsic part of "sport climbing", whereas in naturally protected routes, an onsight ethic has generally prevailed.
That combined with the fact that the type of rock usually combined with outcrop sport climbing in the UK (limestone) is to a certain extent more resilient than the sandstone based outcrops and can tolerate thrashing and flailing on toprope a bit more.
-
I don't get the logpile comment, some really interesting input. It's only ten pages (and on UKB vs UKC) that you get genuine nitty-gritty introspection like this:
actually it just struck me what the issue with pads is. It’s a projection of ones (my) personal desire to feel special in some way.
My feelings on ethics have always arisen as feelings - gut instincts as to worth - and it's taken years to unpick and understand them. At least that's what I like to think I've done, from another perspective I'm sure it looks like a shonky tower of bullshit propping up my waffy emotions.
Generally I've got more respect for people who've given some thought to what they're doing, regardless of whether that aligns them with my own conclusions. It's a mark of respect for the rock and the activity more generally. So I don't have a problem with Dan doing neglected routes with limited practice. And I think a valid criticism of pad parties might be that some of the participants are just following the herd without any thought to the context. But that's always been the case - it was certainly so during the Hard Grit inspired headpointing era. In fact if pads hadn't come along I daresay Dan's approach might not offer the potential make you feel special.
I can't fathom the objection to snowballing though. In perhaps the most worked over and documented climbing area in the world we get a natural bounty that allows the slate to be temporarily wiped clean and ephemeral experiences to come and go. For a week or two guidebooks and grades cease to apply and you can go out and see what can be found for movement. The alternative being to grumpily sit indoors waiting for the snow to go away and restore the 'proper' routes and landings? Again, that's only a problem if you insist seeing as climbing up a rock as only having validity within a narrow set of parameters sort-of related to the first ascent and subsequent developments. I think I've stated my objections to that enough. But some of the snowballs - Snowblind mice/ Nine is Enough - climbed entirely new ground. What's the beef?
Still waiting for someone to tell me why on bolts it's normal and on wires it's bad...
Because there's is a pretty well agreed spectrum of style running from onsight naked solo to bolting an aid ladder on abseil. The game is generally that you aspire to the best style you can, and if you drop down the style ladder you compensate by upping the difficulty. So most people treat sport climbing as an opportunity to try to push their physical limit. This also works in tandem with the very real practical consideration that by dogging on gear you will damage the placements; in sport climbing you've pre-empted that by drilling holes.
-
@JB Re Logpile - just felt like the thread was going round in circles with people stating their views (sometimes repeatedly).
Anyway / pls ignore me - though I thought your post was excellent.
Edit was due to dribbling rubbish.
-
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.
Not wanted to go into the detail of everything you've said but I would say that it's pretty obvious that it isn't 'clear' at all. The definition of 'ethics' in sport is not straightforward or agreed and to suggest that your position is some sort self-evident truth seems an enormous leap.
See articles linked by JWI above, also this
http://philosophyofsport.org.uk/resources/ethics-sport/ (http://philosophyofsport.org.uk/resources/ethics-sport/)
What does seem clear is that that the definition of ethics in sport is not clear ;).
-
Just to comment on some of the more meta stuff:
Hi Dave. I'd like to think that you're right that most people would agree that they have no right to judge what others do
Isn't it all a bit absurd that on Himalayan giants there is a drive towards improving style, yet on 6m gritstone slabs, anything goes - including the right to question, out the window?
I do agree that an improvement in style is important though, but again a very personal affair. Can’t really stand being told what to do in climbing by anyone taking a morally / ethically superior vantage point ppppffffttt
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.
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'?
If you really feel that you're being 'told what to do' by an individual, I can only imagine you are projecting on that individual a lot more authority than they think they have. Has anyone actually got an example of this? I had a couple of robust conversations when I was younger but I don't feel any crossed any line beyond my 'right to question'. If you feel that being questioned is being judged then I'd suggest you weren't very sure of your position to start with.
-
Hi Ian, I read your article attempting to summarise the three current standpoints on sports ethics. It’s interesting, thanks. I don’t quite see its bearing though.
We can argue about how many angels can sit on the head of pin from deontological, teleological and Aristotelian perspectives for quite some time I suspect, although I’d have to learn more before I could talk in any depth.
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.
The idea hasn’t yet reached Eton and Ofqual, at least:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/public-school-cheating-exams-questions-papers-ofqual-eton-college-winchester-radley-charterhouse-a7922976.html
Do let me know if they change their minds ;)
Edit: added the word ‘although’
-
Hi JB, thanks, yes I do recognise that I’m an insecure person with a desire to be liked and an inherent distaste of authority which can manifest as a pisstaking or apparent contradictory or ambivalent views / attitudes with a genuine discomfort triggered by larger social groups of climbers. Hense the esoteric pursuits. Welcome the the human condition, I guess ‘they fuck you up’.
However on the flip side I do have a genuine love of climbing which for me has always been a complex experience, and have used this forum to experiment with expressing some of that. Overall it’s been pretty enlightening.
Ps Will, I don’t really agree with your post. I never particularly attacked anyones individual choice of climbing style, but do admit to attempting irony and humour. Pps: the gear you’re talking about was a tied off rusted to fuck old peg, bouldering height above the ground. I made the decision to clip it there as the hold had previously crumbled with the risk of depositing me on my friend and dog from 15 ft up. Go figure.
-
As for the "circus" of a team of friends highballing something. What is it that makes a circus? A group of friends laughing at the crag, all trying the same thing? Heaven forfend!
You didn't mention the six pads we had under the lowball on Saturday Will? With you bunch of jesters it was definitely a circus.
-
As for the "circus" of a team of friends highballing something. What is it that makes a circus? A group of friends laughing at the crag, all trying the same thing? Heaven forfend!
You didn't mention the six pads we had under the lowball on Saturday Will? With you bunch of jesters it was definitely a circus.
Now, to be fair, for Bojan and 36C Steve's Wall is a monolithic highball.
-
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.
Not wanted to go into the detail of everything you've said but I would say that it's pretty obvious that it isn't 'clear' at all. The definition of 'ethics' in sport is not straightforward or agreed and to suggest that your position is some sort self-evident truth seems an enormous leap.
See articles linked by JWI above, also this
http://philosophyofsport.org.uk/resources/ethics-sport/ (http://philosophyofsport.org.uk/resources/ethics-sport/)
What does seem clear is that that the definition of ethics in sport is not clear ;).
Very interesting thread. I think the word 'ethics' used in climbing isn't as transparent as made out in some of the posts above. My take on it is that when we're talking 'ethics' in climbing are we actually just talking about which is the most courageous/bravest mode of ascent.
That's why there is confusion as the morality of bravery isn't necessarily clear. Eg. They Came to Cordura is an interesting exploration of this in fiction https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10308318-they-came-to-cordura (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10308318-they-came-to-cordura)
Taking JBs example upthread, in climbing the highest valued ascent would be a naked onsight free solo as it's the bravest. But you could take a view that in 'life' this is a deeply unethical ascent, putting your life needlessly at risk ignoring all elements that might have made it safer. What about your family etc? It reminds me of the (perhaps apocryphal) story of Alain Robert soloing an 8a with his baby in his rucksack as an example where soloing seems the opposite of what most people would think of when they consider the word 'ethical'.
Style seems to me a better word. Reserving ethics for treatment of the environment, and each other.
-
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 (and 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 one 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 they take.
BTW do you believe than an onsight of a sport route is ethically superior to a redpoint?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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'?
-
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.
-
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'.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Bloody hell, and my missus says I'm sometimes patronising ;)
Mine frequently goes nuts at me for it. I can't see why :shrug:
Do what thou wilt, Lagers ;)
-
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? :shrug:
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.
-
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.
-
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 :shrug:
-
Another interesting piece of information, we maybe have 20-30 contributors in this thread but almost 10,000 views :w00t:
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?
-
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)
-
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
-
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.
-
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 :shrug:
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Or throwing a rope down it and giving it a good clean check out the holds then throw two pads underneath it?
-
https://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,29823.msg578404.html#msg578404 to save me answering a 3rd time.
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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 ;D 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 ;)
-
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’.
-
What he said.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FSV8w1UoZA
-
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).
-
- 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.
https://vimeo.com/125775981
-
What are we learning Will?
-
Newton's laws of motion and how not to land like a sack of shite.
-
Since we're now on the nuances of falling technique, behold my favourite piece of climbing footage. Best watched with sound.
https://vimeo.com/16566346
-
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.
-
This is how it's done. (https://www.instagram.com/p/_ZCL_1Nx7f/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet)
-
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?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn_EuLb_5Cc
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
Nor his! :)
-
::)
-
Nor his! :)
Good point :) as it certainly ain't ethics
-
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?
-
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.
-
I massively respect the ground up approach (hence my mention of Cal's impressive ground up onsight ascent).
However I am personally not that bothered about ground up ascents or hard onsights (albeit this is probably not that hard) or the consequences it could lead too..... not really in the position to break my leg or ankles. I personally see it as more of a very highball (bishopesque) boulder problem and in that way, I approached this as I do with every other very highball boulder (which to bolt is not).
Having climbed a lot of the boulders in Yorkshire, its always nice to climb on new terrain and a style I am not very comfortable with.
In terms of my platform, I would say its a very small platform and has little influence. I don't set out to tell people what to do, more hope to inspire and motivate people to get out and enjoy British rock climbing. (However, I am becoming more aware of the impact that filming all these boulders has on popularity and potential overuse)
-
Fair enough. I'd be fascinated to read some history of the Bishop highball scene and how it compares to grit, I know there's been plenty of cross-pollination but it's interesting to see that as your reference point.
I think you're being modest about your platform though, I appreciate it's a small pond but isn't it the biggest UK bouldering channel?
-
Lots of the big Bishop boulders have bolts on top for toproping. There’s been kudos for GU ascents (Evilution comes to mind) but I don’t think there’s anyone out there on a podium saying that boulders shouldn’t be toproped once they’ve been climbed GU.
-
I'm not sure there's anyone 'on a podium saying that boulders shouldn’t be toproped' here either.
As long as people (especially those with a profile) are 'giving kudos for GU ascents' then we're all good, I think.
-
Forgot my winky smiley face.
There’s deffo extra column inches for GU ascents, lots of spray around Ambrosia as a potential target (top wall ‘only’ French 7b+) but no-one has stepped up yet.
-
I think you're being modest about your platform though, I appreciate it's a small pond but isn't it the biggest UK bouldering channel?
Bouldering Bobat (https://www.youtube.com/user/omarbobat/featured) is probably the biggest UK bouldering channel, although their content is mostly indoors.
-
To sum up what I've already posted .. 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.
JB, it's a pretty good approximation of where some of us are coming from, especially "doing more with less" - which is pretty much my entire philosophy. Whether I think that "should be so" is not - it would be nice to see, and even better to see climbing express this, but as soon as you say "should" I think you're likely to put people on the defensive, and actually not consider the merits of different ways.
I think your other line polarises: "People are free to do what they want, others are free to criticise" - which is what this thread seems to have turned into. However that's not representative - or really makes sense, unless you mean that you can be in the "do what you want" camp, but not the criticise camp at the same time ;)
This started because of the article, and the influence that the UKC platform has - and the potential for people to not give things the thought you refer to above.
For me, it's not even about (climbing) ethics, as much as how much the media can push a certain fashion in climbing.
Lastly, re Marrowbone. By Ground Up, do you mean without pads? It would be good to see the term meaning what it says.
I think there is more wear and tear because of mats.
Ground up used to be a bit like the Gold Standard. With pads, it's a fiat system 😉
-
By all means say question if criticise seems confrontational. I doubt there's much difference to the person being questioned.
If it's not clear by now, for me it doesn't matter for me what you put on the ground, it's the direction of travel.
More wear and tear because of mats? I dont think so. You could argue that without mats bouldering wouldn't have got so popular. But I think that's specious, plus they aren't going away. More people means more erosion, but mats temper it somewhat.
-
I believe the big man JD did this onsight before mats( early 90’s) :worms:
-
By this I mean Marrowbone.
-
Off topic, but this comment from the same interview is quite funny:
Bouldering competitions used to test all sorts of skills and physical limits of climbers. Things like hand strength, power, power endurance and fitness really mattered. Now the complete list of boulder competition skills are:
Standing on volumes
Jumping off volumes
Jumping to volumes
Mantling off volumes
-
Off topic, but this comment from the same interview is quite funny:
Bouldering competitions used to test all sorts of skills and physical limits of climbers. Things like hand strength, power, power endurance and fitness really mattered. Now the complete list of boulder competition skills are:
Standing on volumes
Jumping off volumes
Jumping to volumes
Mantling off volumes
I don't know how comps are run in Canada, but that categorisation of contemporary comps is really stupid.
-
That looks like the categorisation of a ‘hater’!
-
Is that good or bad?
-
By all means say question if criticise seems confrontational. I doubt there's much difference to the person being questioned.
If it's not clear by now, for me it doesn't matter for me what you put on the ground, it's the direction of travel.
More wear and tear because of mats? I dont think so. You could argue that without mats bouldering wouldn't have got so popular. But I think that's specious, plus they aren't going away. More people means more erosion, but mats temper it somewhat.
I don't think you understand my post JB. Please don't be so ridiculous as to suggest it's the word I don't like! It's really nothing to do with "criticising/questioning" , but looking at the different approaches.
The wear and tear is a consequence of more people trying things they're possibly not ready for.
Pads make everything more accessible - and hence more popular. Often taking the gym outside of course.
I think you're just denying the effect of throwing a few pads down. It's a game changer, and absurd to say it isn't.
For you personally, it doesn't matter what's on the ground, but that really just denies the alternative. It's not suggesting you "should" care.
Again, if you think this is "criticising/questioning", it's not delivered in that way - although you seem to want to bear it that way. I boulder above pads, but often deliberately avoid it. It changes the engagement.
Often on limestone, a couple of pads can make the difference between being able to pull on or not - as we know.
I remember what DFS stands for now. Deep Foam Soloing 😉
-
Often on limestone, a couple of pads can make the difference between being able to pull on or not - as we know.
Probably putting you at a similar height to when the problems were first done prior to erosion of the landings!
-
:yawn:
-
I don't really care for this whole thing much, but a comedy word from the 1940's,
Alister Cowley on O.G. Jones essentially headpointing - "He used to go out with a couple of photographers and have himself lowered up and down a climb repeatedly until he had leant its peculiarities, and then make the "first ascent" before a crowd of admirers (sound like someone we know?). Now the essential difficulty of negotiating a pitch of any length is that one has to waste any amount of time and strength while one is finding where the holds are. There is no credit at all in repeating a climb..."
Alister Cowley from beyond the grave, didnt see that coming.
-
Excellent. If it's good enough for The Great Beast, it's good enough for me :devil-smiley: :devil-smiley: :devil-smiley:
-
So practise isn't fine for first ascents then?
-
Oh crap. I was skimming and mis-read. Down with The Great Beast! Death to the abominable heathen!
-
I don't think you understand my post JB. Please don't be so ridiculous as to suggest it's the word I don't like! It's really nothing to do with "criticising/questioning" , but looking at the different approaches.
No, I don't think I do then. Can you expand on your original comment on the Art Nouveau video? Who is the 'right to question' aimed at, you or them? I'd assumed no one needs the 'right' to question themselves, so presumed 'us' i.e. onlookers?
The wear and tear is a consequence of more people trying things they're possibly not ready for.
Pads make everything more accessible - and hence more popular. Often taking the gym outside of course.
For you personally, it doesn't matter what's on the ground, but that really just denies the alternative.
The alternative is the key word here isn't it? The genie isn't going back in the bottle. Pads are part of the reason bouldering got popular, but not the root cause - they didn't appear until there was a market for them. But there's also been indoors, videos, guidebooks etc and these factors all fed back into the mix. I think bouldering's growth is at heart due to the more session-based, individually flexible approach. You don't need a partner, you don't need to be physically tied into a series of lead/ second/ belay stints.
But that lightweight alternative falls down when you get into a typical grit ankle-breaker. Its way less hassle to shunt and solo something than assemble the team and pads for a ground-up - and the outcome is far more assured. Purists like us will continue to pop up and eschew this and that but I think history has taught us pretty well that most will go for the biggest number/ least hassle approach. As I keep saying, my experience is that the pad-up approach is far more protective of the rock than the headpoint. People facing a big fall climb carefully as best they can, not so on top-rope. Ground erosion is a different issue - it's due to footfall and most of the popular crags are far more eroded already than most realise. As I said, pads mitigate against erosion due to popularity.
I think you're just denying the effect of throwing a few pads down. It's a game changer, and absurd to say it isn't.
I'm not denying it, I think you're overstating it. Specific examples where the game was changed please? Another of mine: years before trying Angel's Share I fell off the topout of Velvet Silence (due to snow) with no pads at all - not ideal but no big deal, the main issue was trying to avoid my camera bag. If it's really just 'a few' it wasn't that dangerous to start with. What seems absurd to me is giving big trad grades to these overgrown boulder problems - Angel's Share got E9 remember. Lolle.
-
So practise isn't fine for first ascents then?
Do what thou wilt shall the whole of the law.
-
Do what thou wilt, but don’t expect big Aleister not to bitch about you to the media!
-
Oh crap. I was skimming and mis-read. Down with The Great Beast! Death to the abominable heathen!
:-\ :-\
Anti-authoritarian camo wearing connoisseur of choss and chief internet headpoint-baiter:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7e/Aleister_Crowley.jpg/220px-Aleister_Crowley.jpg)
Abominable sex magick practitioner and climbing heathen:
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KHFPZc5HJZU/W_P9S6d-NEI/AAAAAAAACcQ/qiUCKqUVqSET806mQDgLg427mRYIPN3WgCEwYBhgL/s1600/fiend_arete1.jpg)
-
Brilliant :lol: :devil-smiley: :2thumbsup:
-
Off topic here but this book is comedy gold. Crowley also allures to how First ascents should be done "I settled the point [that he could climb some choss on the south coast] by walking up, smoking my pipe with my dog; I had no woman available. In nine and a half minutes.."
As if on-sighting weren't enough, now we've got to get a dog up there and smoke a pipe :???:
-
Abominable sex magick practitioner and climbing heathen:
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KHFPZc5HJZU/W_P9S6d-NEI/AAAAAAAACcQ/qiUCKqUVqSET806mQDgLg427mRYIPN3WgCEwYBhgL/s1600/fiend_arete1.jpg)
He's even gone to such lengths as to position the mat so that, in the event of a fall, the rock below him will still be able to explore the deepest recesses of his anal passage.
#AuthenticAnalExperience
-
He's even gone to such lengths as to position the mat so that, in the event of a fall, the rock below him will still be able to explore the deepest recesses of his anal passage.
#AuthenticAnalExperience
He’s also gone to the lengths of buying two of the shittest bouldering mats on the market just to make sure he can’t be accused of being an Organic bouncy castle pad party twat, or whatever the specific insult was.
-
Wanker
-
No hang on it was Bellend
-
Brilliant above with the Fiend/Self styled wickedest man in the world look alike.
In quick reply to JB, I think your posts turns things into something self referential that you take personal injury from, and then defend.
I think any argument of the "genie ain't going back in the bottle" sort is particularly weak, and can be used to "justify" many things.
When I use the word "question", I use it very much in the sense that there are many different approaches, and it's very easy for fashionable trends to be accepted without being thought about - hence the significance of the original posts about the FC H point article.
This thread isn't really about what JB does with pads, but it comes across to me as though you're trying to defend some legitimacy.
You're presenting your argument as if using pads saves the rock from the damage caused from Headpointing. I think that's a load of rubbish, and a false dichotomy.
Pads aren't going to make much difference to me throwing a rope down something. I'd suggest that's probably also the case with the sort of routes Franco is referring to.
My personal preference is to work towards a simpler approach, and I do question my own motives, and especially whether I need to climb a particular route. I'd rather look to improve, than to start using pads to "open up more rock". There's a payoff there for me, when I go off to climb elsewhere.
I don't think it's overstating the case to consider the number of people who will throw themselves at things above a stack of pads, who wouldn't do otherwise.
I think Crescent Arete at Stanage is a great example. I think there are many people who will have climbed it above pads who wouldn't have done it otherwise - and neither would they have thrown a rope down it!
That's not the same thing as saying they shouldn't be doing it, but it's a small beautiful route which is getting trashed.
Then we have routes like Kaluza-Klein which are also getting trashed, but through head pointing. Using pads won't stop that.
The question of damage to the rock isn't answered by trying to claim that one approach damages /another approach saves.
We all damage the rock - and the environment. I think it's good to look at what we all do, and why.
Through the Internet, there is now so much more emphasis placed on "getting up stuff", than on approach/engagement.
-
In quick reply to JB, I think your posts turns things into something self referential that you take personal injury from, and then defend.
No, don't worry, that's not what going on. Nothing personal in this thread I've noticed.
This thread isn't really about what JB does with pads, but it comes across to me as though you're trying to defend some legitimacy.
No, again. I'm using examples to try to illustrate my thinking, and because I think it's important to remember climbing is grounded in the particular and ethics are very sensitive to this. I'm sure some may see it as trumpeting, ah well.
When I use the word "question", I use it very much in the sense that there are many different approaches, and it's very easy for fashionable trends to be accepted without being thought about
Okay, yes I agree entirely.
I think any argument of the "genie ain't going back in the bottle" sort is particularly weak, and can be used to "justify" many things.
It wasn't intended as an argument, just a statement of fact. It's nice to pontificate about different approaches, it's also important to engage with reality. Long, disappointing experience has taught me most people aren't interested in the pontificating.
You're presenting your argument as if using pads saves the rock from the damage caused from Headpointing. I think that's a load of rubbish, and a false dichotomy.
Well no, that's because you've over-simplified it. I think a more general ground-up mentality would raise the barrier to entry, result in less traffic, and also (ime) mean better experiences for the climber. Pads, in my experience, encourage a ground-up approach.
Pads aren't going to make much difference to me throwing a rope down something. I'd suggest that's probably also the case with the sort of routes Franco is referring to.
Not sure I understand. You're saying pads are irrelevant to many headpoints? Sure. Who would deny that?
I don't think it's overstating the case to consider the number of people who will throw themselves at things above a stack of pads, who wouldn't do otherwise.
I think Crescent Arete at Stanage is a great example. I think there are many people who will have climbed it above pads who wouldn't have done it otherwise - and neither would they have thrown a rope down it!
Maybe, I'm not sure. When I moved here in '96 there were a lot less boulderers in the Peak, less boulder problems, no mats. Crescent arete was absolutely top of our list to do, there were always people on it. In fact I'd say on the typical evening bouldering circuit it was more popular than it is now. Bouldering is a lot more popular yes, as I've said that's a complicated many-factored thing. But it's a beautiful piece of rock that climbs as well as it looks. To just point at pads seems facile to me.
That's not the same thing as saying they shouldn't be doing it, but it's a small beautiful route which is getting trashed
So what do you suggest? I don't think there are easy answers. I've done it, you've done it and I'm not about to deny others that experience. I do think pads are protecting the ground but long term it may need some work similar to that done around the Pebble etc. Unlike the ground, the rock can't recover. I don't see that a ban would achieve anything, and I don't think a pad ban would be understood or respected.
Then we have routes like Kaluza-Klein which are also getting trashed, but through head pointing. Using pads won't stop that.
No, but even on this route I think a more general ground-up mentality would result in less traffic. Yes you could argue the gear might get more hammer, but I suspect not.
question of damage to the rock isn't answered by trying to claim that one approach damages /another approach saves.
Climbing is popular. The rock is fragile. People aren't that interested in questioning their approach, unfortunately. What I think you can do is push a broad approach (ground-up) that tends to raise the barrier to entry. In other areas - the North York Moors perhaps - there might be a case to be made that what is needed is more headpoint E6-8s.
Through the Internet, there is now so much more emphasis placed on "getting up stuff", than on approach/engagement.
We're basically mostly agreed Dave. I just don't think that pads are the root problem, nor do I think to suggest they are really engages with our reality in a helpful way.
I would really like to see more people like Andy W pushing alternative approaches. And the Olympics are coming...
-
Well that's a very long reply JB.
If I can put my position as simply as I can.
I would like many things to be seen for what they are.
For example, I would like to see "Ground Up" mean exactly what it says.
I would like Headpointing seen as top-rope practice - along with anything else that compromises the style of ascent.
We all cheat to varying degrees.
I think you've given an interpretation of my points to support your position, in the same way that people tend to interpret other things to support what they do.
-
In quick reply...
417 words
very long reply.
519 words
It's good that we have these definitions.
-
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?
Johnny, thanks not really patronising and yes the W is for Whall and yes I was probably heading of on a tangent, another time maybe :)
-
I've been thinking about this for a little while, and prompted by a chance "meeting" with JB - well he walked past my window - now is probably an opportune time to comment.
I felt I was insensitive to JB's own motivations while trying to pick apart some of the things we were all saying about our different approaches and perspectives towards the game we call climbing.
At the same time, I think it's an important feature of - this esp. - forum, that we try to look a bit more closely at some of the things we say/do.
In his fine collection of essays "Deep Play", Paul Pritchard tries to explore some of the hidden/ulterior motives expressed through what we do on rock. Of course "Games Climbers Play" is a more humorous take on the same thing.
Dan Cheetham's recent threads also seem like a brave and important attempt to put things out there in the open - in a "no stone left unturned (patio-building ;D )" kind of way.
I'll start by saying that the ultimate motives for our climbing are, deep down, largely the same. That might seem like a bold claim, but it's something I've believed and tried to explore for a long time. That's not the same thing as saying that we all express what we do in the same way, or of course highlight the same things that we enjoy more overtly. Clearly.
Climbing is an ultimately selfish activity - in my view, and those of many others of course!
It's easy to take that as a negative judgement - as have a lot of the things I've said above. That's not intentional, or correct. Maybe the word "irrational" would be better, but again, that comes with it's own set of connotations.
I mean "selfish", in the way that drug taking is selfish. I have very little doubt that the comfort I get from clinging to bits of rock is little different from the comfort that any other addict seeks. We could say the same things about many other behaviours; I'd rather go to the rockface than have a heroin addiction, or suffer from anorexia. (I find all my meds in skips anyway.)
It's the going to which is significant. Reaching into the Darkness and finding a crimp ( ;D sorry, who is that? It's the best avatar subtitle on the site) is the dream; discovering that it isn't there, is the fear. That's what I believe we all share.
We play the game largely to be with the rock. Overly simplistic? Generalisation? Wrong?
The line I think we try to walk, is between defining our sport in ways that seem to be consistent or make sense - the words and definitions we use - and not wanting to question - or take a second look at - what we hold dearest. When we do the latter, sometimes what we say doesn't seem to add up, or it jars very strongly with the way that others want to say/do/play the game.
There's a tension between what we want, and how we talk about it.
I don't think I can say this without also referring to some of the disagreement in the posts above.
There are many things in climbing which I think change the game far more than is commonly acknowledged. I include things like bouldering pads (obviously), drop-testing skyhook placements, stick-clipping bolts (I mean!!), knee pads..
JB suggests that I overstate the difference that pads make for instance. We may not agree on that point, but it's a very good thing to talk about. Shit, I forgot to put stepping off a pad/cheat stack in my list :slap: But I very much think I share and understand the sense of meaning (That may not be the right word. Place?) that JB wants to derive - as I think we all do.
Going back to the point of the start of the thread, Franco very clearly wants to protect something very dear. His headpointing article seems to be a (completely unnecessary in my view) attempt to find a language to justify (and protect) what he does.
The conflict in the posts on this thread comes from the fact that we all understand, but we each want it to be our words that give it a name ;D
-
Back to the verrrry start of this malarkey.
I was chatting to a friend the other day, explaining how because I got tonsilitis and then focused on moving, I never got around to replying to Alan's email demanding that I justify why I should be allowed on the forums (although there's a sneaking suspicion in my mind that perhaps he needs to justify why I should be banned given that I'm not trolling, swearing, abusing anyone, offending advertisers etc - I've actually just checked the posting guidelines (copied below for my own reference) and of course my post doesn't contravene them), I'm still banned from UKC.
During a bit of discussion over this he implied it would be quite farcical for me to be banned for a post, but not actually have that post deleted. After all if the post is that offensive, the first measure is surely to remove it asap, rather than make a mockery of the poster, and still leave the post up......for what reason?? In return I speculated that despite the horror and trauma of posting a criticism of the topic of an article, a bit of controversy (NOT what I sought, I'd much rather be commenting very positively on Caff's guide to onsighting) might not be that problematic given the further discussion, page views, and all important advert views it brings in.
So I very briefly hopped back and checked. My original post, despite apparently being ban-worthy, is still up as the first post. It has a total of 200 likes+dislikes (far more than the original article), and a quick ctrl-f gives a further 40 results for the word Fiend. Thus suggesting that my honest and sincere, if un-extrapolated, input has not been the great detriment to discussion that a ban would imply.
:-\ ::) :-\ ::) :-\
That's all. Back to scouring the Churnet guide for anything I missed...
General Post Content
Which Forum? - We provide different forums for different types of discussion - please try to use the right one for your new topic, and don't post duplicates of your topic in more than one forum. Topics in the wrong forum will be moved to a different forum by the moderators. People who persistently post in the wrong forum will have their posts removed instead of moved.
Rude, abusive or politically offensive language - Messages which contain excessive and pointless swearing, or insults aimed at other people, or politically offensive language will be removed.
Mild bad language - Messages with bad language in the title or starter post will also be removed no matter how serious and relevant the topic is. This is done because thread titles are picked up more readily by search engines. This rule includes The Pub and also includes bad language where an ast*risk has been used to disguise it.
Political Propoganda - We don't allow people to use the forums to promote extreme political messages. Controversial topics are suitable for discussion, but people who persistently start posts on the same extreme political topic will be banned from posting.
Private information - Please don't post private/personal information about people you know without asking their permission first. This includes posting the contents of emails without getting permission of the sender.
FAO Threads - Please don't start threads with the title 'FAO xxxx'. If your post really is only "For the Attention of xxxx" then send them an email. If it isn't then title it something that fits in with the concept 'forum'.
Personal relationship issues - This is a public forum and not the place for discussing specific personal relationship issues. We will not tolerate the practice of starting a thread under the pretext that it is a general relationship discussion, yet in reality it refers to a specific issue between two or more individuals.
'Lads' Style Postings - The forum is read by both men and women. Please refrain from crude and sexist comments about other posters, profile photographs or people in the wider media.
Looking for a fight - Threads which set out to look for trouble, invariably create trouble. Don't start them, we don't want them on the forums.
Unqualified links - Posts of just a link can cause problems since the content isn't obvious and people can end up going places they don't expect to. Please state what the link is about and warn people if it contains something which might be undesirable eg. loud auto-playing sound files, unpleasant images or offensive language. Do not attach the words 'not work safe' to a post. If it isn't work safe, then don't post it.
Chatting with your mates - The UKClimbing.com forum has thousands of readers every day. Please don't waste up valuable space by posting your personal messages to your mates - use email for this type of communication.
Blank Discussion Posts - Please don't start posts with single short controversial statements followed by the word 'discuss', or blank except for a link to a controversial article on another site. If it is a topic for discussion then please add some 'discussion'. Topics like this will either be removed or closed to replies.
Dodgy links - Anyone posting links to pr0nographic, racist or other offensive web sites will be banned permanently from the forums without us issuing a warning. It is not acceptable to attach the words 'not work safe' to a post. If it isn't work safe, then don't post it.
'Clone Posts' - Please don't post repeat threads with subtle changes to the title. Although these can sometimes be humorous, they tend to spawn other people doing the same thing which rapidly overruns the forum lists and is a lot of work to moderate.
-
Back to scouring the Churnet guide for anything I missed...
Like I told you on FB, Patient Weaver.
-
A skim through those regs looks like they ‘don’t want’ half the internet on their forums. Why in Christ do you want back in Matt?
-
So I can post photos of me lowering off a cluster of tri-cams and tied off pebbles off Patient Weaver in blind panic, and reach a wider audience for my shame.
-
Terrible idea, there must be some equally shite internet based publication peddling conspicuously branded bs
-
There aren't enough threads with 'Franco' in them..
'Franco's Cookbook' next?
Franco's 5 Minute Workout Plan
Franco's Manual of Modern Rope Techniques
Franco's Good Pub Guide
Franco's Translation of the Holy Bible
-
Franco does a lettuce program and spontaneously combusts
-
There aren't enough threads with 'Franco' in them..
'Franco's Cookbook' next?
Franco's 5 Minute Workout Plan
Franco's Manual of Modern Rope Techniques
Franco's Good Pub Guide
Franco's Translation of the Holy Bible
'cos he's been busy working on Franco's Brexit Breakthrough :D
-
Haha now that would get my attention!
-
I'm truly sorry for bumping the thread, given the title :whatever: