UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => news => Topic started by: Adam Lincoln on June 09, 2022, 09:47:46 pm
-
Not a significant repeat but….
Pretty audacious flash attempt on Lexicon by Pearson. Didn't look far away to be fair.
-
flippin eck
-
flippin eck
https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cel8pZzoqt3/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
-
Yikes. Got to admire that effort.
-
He wasn't far away and there is little doubt in my mind he would have flashed it had he used the different sequence. But that's the game...
-
Obviously he didn’t get the flash so it’s a bit academic but ‘flash attempt’ would be better replaced with the old guidebook favourite “after abseil inspection” if the grapevine is correct.
-
Mat Wright has confirmed this on ukc I see:
James attempted a flash go after abseil inspection (brushing and feeling the holds on his way down). I’m not entirely sure if this is fitting with ethics but nevertheless, his attempt was very impressive.
-
He wasn't far away and there is little doubt in my mind he would have flashed it had he used the different sequence. But that's the game...
Also according to Mathew Wright:
James fell off 2 moves below where Steve fell from and you can see the way that he slammed into that lower wall only a few metres above the deck. He hadn’t even entered the crux.
-
Sounds like another case of 36C's law
"Any grey area in climbing will always get abused" (36chambers' Law)
With bouldering, hold inspection on a flash is par for the course, is this different in trad then?
-
the reason why standards are not increasing in trad is in my opinion, mostly due to the public response to hard grades being publicised.
If this is true it's a damning indictment of the fragile egos and motivations of trad climbers :lol: (For the avoidance of doubt, it strikes me as far more likely to be bollocks than to be true)
(RE the other point, I've always thought ab inspection was pretty dodgy for a flash - to the point of not really being a flash... but not really being a headpoint. Kinda the same as onsighting/flashing multiple lines that share a significant section - sits in a grey area so whatever you call it, it will need an asterisk next to it)
-
(RE the other point, I've always thought ab inspection was pretty dodgy for a flash - to the point of not really being a flash... but not really being a headpoint. Kinda the same as onsighting/flashing multiple lines that share a significant section - sits in a grey area so whatever you call it, it will need an asterisk next to it)
Yes. Saying “flash attempt” without any qualifier is very misleading.
If abseil inspection is acceptable to claim a ‘flash’ in Pearson’s mind it would be worth checking for the record books (Remus?) whether he abbed down ‘Something’s Burning’ first in addition to the extensive beta he got off Ciavaldini.
-
(RE the other point, I've always thought ab inspection was pretty dodgy for a flash - to the point of not really being a flash... but not really being a headpoint. Kinda the same as onsighting/flashing multiple lines that share a significant section - sits in a grey area so whatever you call it, it will need an asterisk next to it)
Yes. Saying “flash attempt” without any qualifier is very misleading.
Didn't realise he had abbed it when I posted above. I was just going off insta post.
-
Yeah, 'flash' has a big range. Can vary from someone telling you that a hold is good, all the way through to abbing, brushing and feeling (but not pulling on, even in trainers!). I think all flash ascents need a qualifying sentence afterwards.
-
Yeah, 'flash' has a big range. Can vary from someone telling you that a hold is good, all the way through to abbing, brushing and feeling (but not pulling on, even in trainers!).
I agree about the big range of flash, but that's also true for redpoint (everything from 2nd go to 10 year siege) and onsight (no chalk and dirty through to well chalked, well ticked, clips in on a sport route etc)... But the more I think about it, the more I don't think abbing things really - to me - counts as a flash. It feels a bit too close to stick clipping up a sport route, chalking it, feeling the holds etc... then "flashing" it. Even with my dodgy ethics I wouldn't even for a second think of that example as a flash, but if you can abb a route then why couldn't you do that? On a vert route it's the same thing... And a flash that's not ground up? I think for me it all breaks down a bit if abbing is "allowed" on a flash, though obviously others may have a different view...
-
Yeah, 'flash' has a big range. Can vary from someone telling you that a hold is good, all the way through to abbing, brushing and feeling (but not pulling on, even in trainers!). I think all flash ascents need a qualifying sentence afterwards.
Word.
Shark, Im only aware of James getting beta from Caro on the pembroke stuff, no idea whether he abbed anything.
Personally I think abseiling stuff first is stretching the definition of a flash. Even if you're only cleaning and feeling holds you get so much information it feels closer to the 'quick headpoint' end of the spectrum. Having said that I've got a lot of sympathy for the practicality of getting stuff done, especially on mountain crags and routes that don't get a lot of traffic, and I think quick ascents with minimal inspection on stuff like this are super impressive.
-
Sometimes seeing someone on the moves whilst belaying them is more useful than abbing the route and looking at the holds. So it’s not so cut and dried.
Presumably James abbed it to look at the gear as much as anything? I mean, he’s got kids right. He’s not stupid is he. He obviously thought a reasonable, not unjustifiable style would be to ab it and try a flash. Amazing effort.
Challenge is personal and a flash at the right personal level can be just as satisfying as an on sight in my experience as a redpoint might be.
So to be negative about James’ attempt - wherever the greyness lies with flashing - smacks of a lack of understanding of how audacious yet smart an effort it was.
But yeah, any flash attempt needs a footnote.
-
Challenge is personal and a flash at the right personal level can be just as satisfying as an on sight in my experience as a redpoint might be.
Headpointing skills are very close to those required for redpointing. In my view it’s a much ‘easier’ discipline to ‘learn’ than on sighting or flashing.
I definitely agree with the above
So to be negative about James’ attempt - wherever the greyness lies with flashing - smacks of a lack of understanding of how audacious yet smart an effort it was.
No-one's being negative about the attempt. IMO it's perfectly valid to try to define what "counts" as a flash, and someone trying something hard in this style is likely to bring up that discussion - it's not a slight on how fierce an effort it was, it's just natural that it brings it up as a topic. Whether it's a flash or a "pseudo flash" or "after abseil inspection", it's a very impressive effort. But that's kind of by the by with respect to defining climbing styles.
Having said that I've got a lot of sympathy for the practicality of getting stuff done,
That's half the challenge of flashing though isn't it - getting good beta from someone. Even at many sport crags, let alone on something like this! Doing it after ab inspection might be the most "natural" way to try to climb something like this "first try" - where beta and chalked holds are not easily available... but I'm still not sure that for me it makes sense to call it a "flash" attempt
-
Posted this in the other thread just as it split...
Having done the occasional hard flash over the last 30 years of trad climbing, and having hung out with a bunch of folk who do a lot of hard flashes I've never thought abbing a route would be allowed for this style. Abbing a route is pre inspection, therefore no longer a flash. I'd agree with Tom's post that watching someone on the moves, and giving you all the beta (a la some of James' stuff in Pembroke) would likely give you more useful info than just a quick ab in trainers but that's the same with many styles of climbing eg a quick first go redpoint could well be harder/better than a ground up ascent over 8 days (eg thinking of my multi fall, multi day failed ground up on Parthian) - there is overlap between what might be considered better style and what might actually be better style when the two named styles are at either end of the allowed spectrum.
Still a hugely impressive effort from James, just starting that run out with conviction to go for it would be pretty full on. Fall looked casual :worms:
-
Everyone surely thinks this is an amazing effort? And everyone who actually climbs or have actually climbed at some point approves of an attempt with as good ethics as is possible. But surely no one thinks that abseil inspections are ok for a flash?
That's half the challenge of flashing though isn't it - getting good beta from someone. Even at many sport crags, let alone on something like this!
Getting good beta is so rare that I find that it is often easier to onsight a well-chalked route than to go by someone else's methods.
-
Whilst I agree abseil inspections probably are pushing the envelope for flashing, from personal experience I can confirm that if you don’t pull on any moves it gives an experience pretty close to that of a flash.
I’ve abbed a few routes over the past few years that I have wanted to either check were clean (fairhead) or check there were other gear options due to demise of a peg (sharp nose)
The most recent fairhead experience I checked out the gear and then proceeded to barely remember anything (the placements were fiddly and weird small wires) and with it being a bridging corner couldn’t try any moves in my trainers even if I’d wanted to. I knew on occasion that a good hold or obvious bit of gear was coming up but nothing beyond that.
I think if you are strict with yourself, abseiling a route can give a really rich experience on a route that is a little outside of the days onsight reach.
But it’s obviously a grey area.
Flipping unbelievable effort from JP. He’s had some stick in the past but you can’t take anything away from his efforts 99% of the time!
-
Yes just in case anyone takes my dig about it not being a flash the wrong way it was a hugely impressive attempt in a great style. Same with James' Pembroke stuff (which is right at the limit of what I would allow as a flash) I thought they were hugely impressive ascents, maybe some of the most impressive bits of climbing to have happened in the UK.
-
Barrows, the thing about ground up is surely wrong. Surely you've done a route, moved the clips into the one next door as you lower off, had a look at the holds on the way down (but not pulled on) and then flashed it? I certainly have. To say that all flashes have to be ground up is very limiting. Taking that logic to its extreme, someone who does Cenotaph Corner and looks across at Right Wall as they ab off cant flash that either.
Agree with Naomi; flash is a wideranging field and almost always needs some explaining.
Edit; I agree with dunc too, if I were to ab a trad route to give it a brush and check gear, but not pull on, I would happily call that a flash.
-
So to be negative about James’ attempt - wherever the greyness lies with flashing - smacks of a lack of understanding of how audacious yet smart an effort it was.
No-one's being negative about the attempt.
[/quote]
I read Mat’s comments on the other channel as a bit negative tbh.
@ El Mocho as per Duncan’s post I guess I’ve done a few routes where I’ve abbed to check gear cos I don’t wanna die then gone from the ground having not really looked v closely at the holds. I’d call that a flash after pre-inspection. Sometimes not much easier than an ‘on-sight’ on a freshly chalked route.
-
I read Mat’s comments on the other channel as a bit negative tbh.
Also agree with this. Gave off 'methinks he doth protest too much' vibes.
-
The issue isn’t with the style of any one ascent, the issue is with trying to use three terms (flash, OS, RP) to describe all points on a continuum. I think we are all in agreement we just need a few words in the Insta post to describe what’s been done (for any ascent not this one in particular)
-
Barrows, the thing about ground up is surely wrong. Surely you've done a route, moved the clips into the one next door as you lower off, had a look at the holds on the way down (but not pulled on) and then flashed it?
I can safely say that I have never done that and counted it as a flash. Even though I have been known to do all kinds of shady stuff.
-
Call me naïve, but perhaps if he'd done it, then he might have provided the asterisk? Since he didn't do it, then 'not doing the flash go' is an easier throwaway statement to make without overthinking what qualifies as a flash.
-
Surely you've done a route, moved the clips into the one next door as you lower off, had a look at the holds on the way down (but not pulled on) and then flashed it? I certainly have.
Quite possibly, and I'm sure I would just log it as a flash with a note about what I did, but nowadays I wouldn't want to do that on something hard for me. And I have very dodgy ethics on this front - when two routes share a start/finish I have often done both versions "onsight" or "flash" and just noted the caveat in my comment (obviously if you fell off the shared bit you blew all variations)... but nowadays I don't really like to do that on hard things because, again, it feels a bit like "cheating" - so on something where I really cared about it I wouldn't want to lower down it putting clips in first. Perhaps that's partly because I know I wouldn't be able to resist rinsing it for all its worth if I did :lol:
Presumably we agree that it would not be acceptable to stick clip up a sport route to chalk it up and put clips in before having a "flash" attempt? Fundamentally, what's the difference vs abbing down? I think that's where it seems too easy to reduce abb inspection to absurdity for it to make sense to me as being within the "rules of the game" for flashing routes.
Anyway, it's interesting to see that there's quite a split on abbing things where I'd assumed naively that my view would be the default view!
I read Mat’s comments on the other channel as a bit negative tbh.
Ah yeah, fair point, I guess I was thinking about this thread not the other one.. I agree with your reading of those other comments.
I find the comments about not necessarily gaining much info to not make much sense - fine that might be the case if you deliberately don't get much info, but it's not necessarily the case. If you get beta from your mate but it's shit or limited it's still a flash not an onsight... If you abb it then, to my mind, it's not really a flash, partly because you could have got loads of info - not available from just talking to people and watching videos - from the rope. Flashing boulders is very different when they're low and you can fondle the holds first to find exactly how to hold them vs when you actually have to "properly" flash something!
-
Call me naïve, but perhaps if he'd done it, then he might have provided the asterisk? Since he didn't do it, then 'not doing the flash go' is an easier throwaway statement to make without overthinking what qualifies as a flash.
I could definitely believe this... but it's still interesting that we can't even agree on what counts as a flash!
-
@ El Mocho as per Duncan’s post I guess I’ve done a few routes where I’ve abbed to check gear cos I don’t wanna die then gone from the ground having not really looked v closely at the holds. I’d call that a flash after pre-inspection. Sometimes not much easier than an ‘on-sight’ on a freshly chalked route.
Oh I agree with that (except I'd maybe not call it a flash after pre inspection, although maybe I would, I'd def not call it a flash and on my ukc log book I'd tick the worked or RP box or whatever it is) and I fully agree this style could feel closer to an on sight than even a conventional flash might, again the definitions/styles can be stretched in either direction. For 99% of my/your climbs it's also not really going to matter. I've seconded some E5 then 20 years later climbed it again no one is really going to care if I record it as a flash (which it obviously technically isn't, even though it would very likely feel like an o.s.) or if I record it as an RP (which it def wouldn't feel like). I'd also say (I don't know all the details of James attempt on Lexicon) but if he has just abbed it in trainers, brushed holds and checked out the gear but not seen anyone on the moves then it would very likely feel/be/would have been had he done it a better style/harder style than the style he did some of the Pembroke routes (assuming they were done in the limits of flash style I remember them as). This would have been the hardest flash or flash after pre inspection ascent done in the UK so it would be great to get the terminology correct.
I'd agree with Liam as well that if he had done it I think there would have been more details given, but failed attempts at/above the current limit often go down in folk law as much as successes (get ready for look at me bit...) I also failed to flash a route next to Lexicon back in '98. A few people still bring this up, sometimes (at least in my memory!) calling it 'the most impressive bit of climbing I've heard of'. Caff often refers to it as an on sight attempt - I actually had some beta a few weeks before from Gaz, it was only for the middle wall not the crux and actually hindered me more than helped as I remembered it mirror image as I was facing him when he showed the sequence but I always cringe slightly when he says I nearly did it on sight.
It may not make such a catchy headline but if we are honest about the different styles of ascent, and how they might sit in the spectrum of styles it could actually be really positive for trad climbing and better style. If James had done Lexicon in this style it would have been hugely significant and a jump in both the style this route had been done and the hardest route ever done with minor pre inspected. People like James and most folk I know value their life, have kids etc so to pre inspect Lexicon from abb is a totally sensible thing to do and the attempt alone should be lauded for what it was.
-
I can safely say that I have never done that and counted it as a flash. Even though I have been known to do all kinds of shady stuff.
This amazes me, but fair dos. Flash to me clearly fits that type of ascent better than RP. Ultimately it doesn't matter at anything other than the cutting edge, but I would 100% call that a flash.
Barrows; I guarantee that if I ever manage to flash an 8a in that style it will be getting logged as such! :lol:
I do agree stickclipping up it wouldn't be acceptable though. I think for me though, thats mopre because it feels wrong to touch the holds before a flash go. I see hanging the draws, looking at holds etc, from whatever angle, as fair game. It is also 100% a tactic I;bve used trad climbing to do an adjacent easier route to get a look at the holds on a harder route on the same wall, even during the actual climbing. Have I blown the flash on that as well? Ultimately it comes back to the age old pub discussion about onsighting; some would say if you even see a guidebook photo of it its gone (not me).
I could definitely believe this... but it's still interesting that we can't even agree on what counts as a flash!
This is the nub of it eg. i didn't realise fondling the holds on a boulder problem was ok if you wanted to flash it. I thought you weren't allowed to touch it at all!
-
This is the nub of it eg. i didn't realise fondling the holds on a boulder problem was ok if you wanted to flash it. I thought you weren't allowed to touch it at all!
Huh... I've always assumed you can fondle what you want as long as your feet don't leave the floor (so no ladder inspection or inspection from a rope) (I think maybe this came from the old world cup rules from a long time ago?). I don't actually have a clue what most top-end boulderers do in that regard...
-
Do people have a fourth term in mind to help subdivide the continuum, or would people say that "after abseil inspection" would group into "redpoint" if the big three is the highest level grouping and their view is this isn't a flash?
It's unlikely that there's ever a clear line, but if we're using OS, flash and RP as the three I'd have maybe gone for a wider flash bucket than some which starts somewhere where you have more beta than the guide gives you and ends when you've actually tried a move. That being said I'm entirely internally illogical since clipsticking up a route in trainers would feel a bit dodgy, lowering past a route with the clips already in I wouldn't think twice about, and on trad I suspect if I hung in front of a placement trying out which wire fitted I'd start to wonder whereas if someone told me it was an RP3 before I left the ground I wouldn't think twice about that being "flash compliant" beta.
-
I think for me though, thats mopre because it feels wrong to touch the holds before a flash go. I see hanging the draws, looking at holds etc, from whatever angle, as fair game.
I think maybe we're more aligned that we think - for me it's largely the ability to touch the holds (and the equivalent with the gear) that means I wouldn't consider abbing a route to be "okay" for a flash. I guess I'm assuming that if I abbed a route I would be fondling, ticking etc...
-
I'd personally count this situation as being analogous to "big grades for bad beta".
Fundamentally:
Can you consider something to be a flash if you have just done a hurried effort at headpointing?
Can you consider something to be an onsight if you have just done a bad job at remembering beta?
Abseiling whilst fondling the holds, would in my opinion, just be an example of doing a really cursory attempt at headpointing. If its not, where do you draw the line between abseil inspection acceptable for a flash and working the route? Holding more than one hold at a time, bearing down on a hold, hanging on the rope but checking the distance between holds?
My understanding of the development of headpointing is that it helped codify and eliminate the many many shades of grey contained within abseil inspection and that hanging about on a rope whilst touching the holds was defiantly working the route.
-
I wouldn't put too much store in these big groupings for style of ascent in trad except where the style is really clear cut. There's so much room for frigging in some way that the asterisk and caveats approach is always going to be needed.
-
Flippin’ impressive setting off up a vertical 8b+ knowing how far you’re going to fall if you fluff it, however much beta you’ve got.
My initial instinct was ‘that’s not what I call a flash’. On reflection however, when multiple videos of a route are available without discounting the flash, does an abseil inspection really make much difference? The strategic could even commission their own private beta videos. Perhaps we just need a bigger bin as AJM suggests.
Or perhaps we should be adding a new term to climbing’s Lexicon: the P-flash. Standing for pre-inspected flash, Pearson-flash, or a nod to Bootsy Collins?… you choose!
-
Do people have a fourth term in mind to help subdivide the continuum, or would people say that "after abseil inspection" would group into "redpoint" if the big three is the highest level grouping and their view is this isn't a flash?
It's unlikely that there's ever a clear line, but if we're using OS, flash and RP as the three I'd have maybe gone for a wider flash bucket than some which starts somewhere where you have more beta than the guide gives you and ends when you've actually tried a move. That being said I'm entirely internally illogical since clipsticking up a route in trainers would feel a bit dodgy, lowering past a route with the clips already in I wouldn't think twice about, and on trad I suspect if I hung in front of a placement trying out which wire fitted I'd start to wonder whereas if someone told me it was an RP3 before I left the ground I wouldn't think twice about that being "flash compliant" beta.
I think it's actually worth coining a term for this sooner rather than later. It maybe seems pedantic now, but technology means this particular patch of water is only going to get muddier. By this I mean people flying drones up routes, or digital guide technology increasing the information available pre-ascent without any need to go near the route. Better that it has a name than worthy bits of climbing get obscured by wrangling over categorisation.
-
For me, the point is how I felt when i read the instagram post verses how I felt a bit differently when i heard about the pre inspection. The reality is still mega impressive but different from what i first thought.
But then maybe that is just down to my assumptions.
On a similar but different note, my friend was in Pembroke last year. I've not been for a few years but he described how, in the evening, the wads would come and shunt hard routes in the leap and Stennis etc. Then next day go and lead them.
These turned out to be ascents I had seen on Instagram, all with no asterisks. Again, my assumption was that the wads had flashed or ground upped them. Again, I was surprised, and again, perhaps my assumptions were to blame.
-
Do you lose the flash if someone else tries the route then makes a replica which you then use to train on prior to doing it?
-
Has everybody who pulled onto the El Cap Freerider "boulder problem" pitch replica which went on tour of bouldering gyms blown their flash of Freerider?
-
Flippin’ impressive setting off up a vertical 8b+ knowing how far you’re going to fall if you fluff it, however much beta you’ve got.
Is it only Gresh that has commented on the sport grade so far? Don’t recall the others confirming that or otherwise though Mat Wright did comment that where Pearson got to warranted 8a+
-
Do people have a fourth term in mind to help subdivide the continuum, or would people say that "after abseil inspection" would group into "redpoint" if the big three is the highest level grouping and their view is this isn't a flash?
It's unlikely that there's ever a clear line, but if we're using OS, flash and RP as the three I'd have maybe gone for a wider flash bucket than some which starts somewhere where you have more beta than the guide gives you and ends when you've actually tried a move. That being said I'm entirely internally illogical since clipsticking up a route in trainers would feel a bit dodgy, lowering past a route with the clips already in I wouldn't think twice about, and on trad I suspect if I hung in front of a placement trying out which wire fitted I'd start to wonder whereas if someone told me it was an RP3 before I left the ground I wouldn't think twice about that being "flash compliant" beta.
I think it's actually worth coining a term for this sooner rather than later. It maybe seems pedantic now, but technology means this particular patch of water is only going to get muddier. By this I mean people flying drones up routes, or digital guide technology increasing the information available pre-ascent without any need to go near the route. Better that it has a name than worthy bits of climbing get obscured by wrangling over categorisation.
This is a good point, although rather than trying to come up with ever more categories, why not do away with the flash altogether? An ascent is then either onsight, or it's not. If you did it first go after watching drone footage and training on a replica, then by all means spray about it being first go on instagram, but without the title of 'flash', it will always demand a paragraph on how it went down.
-
The strategic could even commission their own private beta videos. Perhaps we just need a bigger bin as AJM suggests.
Given how much Ondra got away with for his 9a+ flash (which isn't debated for ethics), the limit on allowed information is pretty high! However he did also make the choice not to ab down it. Trad and sport are different but there are certainly rules that crossover.
A related question to @ El Mocho - what did JP do in Pembroke that is pushing the limits of flashing? To my knowledge he had Caro show the sequence and gear in great detail, but that seems easily within the black and white of a flash, no grey area at all - he just did it very thoroughly. Would be interested if this is what you refer to, or if there are more dubious tactics at play?
Do you lose the flash if someone else tries the route then makes a replica which you then use to train on prior to doing it?
Has everybody who pulled onto the El Cap Freerider "boulder problem" pitch replica which went on tour of bouldering gyms blown their flash of Freerider?
Exactly the point I was about to make. Aidan came back from Finland with a 3D scan of the holds of Burden of Dreams - he now can build (has built?) a borderline perfect replica of it to work on. If someone was to work that until they had it dialled and then headed abroad and did it first go, I would be very uncomfortable about calling it a flash, despite the fact that it ticks all the usual boxes. Maybe a "flash with replica" is something we can expect to see in the next few years.
-
Do you lose the flash if someone else tries the route then makes a replica which you then use to train on prior to doing it?
Even better, attach your phone to a drone and use a 3d scanning app to make replicas of the holds to put on your replica problem (a la Aidan with the Burden of Dreams holds). Get that sweet flash while having spent months working that mm perfect replica.
ed: beaten to it!
-
Maybe a "flash with replica" is something we can expect to see in the next few years.
To a small extent this already exists - didn't JP flash one of the hard Swizz problems after training on (more approximate) replicas? Given that flash and onsight seem fairly unfashionable nowadays my guess is that this won't become a major issue. Especially given that it's hard enough to find people to give you good beta, let alone to build you 3D printed replicas!
rather than trying to come up with ever more categories, why not do away with the flash altogether?
That sounds very much like throwing the baby out with the bathwater
-
:popcorn:
Another UKB rabbit hole. Par for the course it seems after any notable ascent or non ascent as in this case.
I think the lob is very impressive. Contender for the best lob in the UK??
I have noticed that these discussions mainly arise when it’s domestic climbing or climber. Just an observation. Not meant in any negative way.
-
Do you lose the flash if someone else tries the route then makes a replica which you then use to train on prior to doing it?
Only if I'm allowed to tick the route if I link the full replica in a one-er...
-
Since this was after ab inspection, presumably Pearson decided that the gear was bomber and that the fall was OK? Almost no one can set up an 8b+ even after ab-inspection and be 100% sure they will not fall. Ondra, Ramon, Megos, and Bečan perhaps, but hardly Pearson?
-
Do you lose the flash if someone else tries the route then makes a replica which you then use to train on prior to doing it?
Even better, attach your phone to a drone and use a 3d scanning app to make replicas of the holds to put on your replica problem (a la Aidan with the Burden of Dreams holds). Get that sweet flash while having spent months working that mm perfect replica.
ed: beaten to it!
Ah semantics! Or taking it further.. climb the mm perfect replica and take the tick for the problem :fishing:
-
Do people have a fourth term in mind to help subdivide the continuum, or would people say that "after abseil inspection" would group into "redpoint" if the big three is the highest level grouping and their view is this isn't a flash?
It's unlikely that there's ever a clear line, but if we're using OS, flash and RP as the three I'd have maybe gone for a wider flash bucket than some which starts somewhere where you have more beta than the guide gives you and ends when you've actually tried a move. That being said I'm entirely internally illogical since clipsticking up a route in trainers would feel a bit dodgy, lowering past a route with the clips already in I wouldn't think twice about, and on trad I suspect if I hung in front of a placement trying out which wire fitted I'd start to wonder whereas if someone told me it was an RP3 before I left the ground I wouldn't think twice about that being "flash compliant" beta.
I think it's actually worth coining a term for this sooner rather than later. It maybe seems pedantic now, but technology means this particular patch of water is only going to get muddier. By this I mean people flying drones up routes, or digital guide technology increasing the information available pre-ascent without any need to go near the route. Better that it has a name than worthy bits of climbing get obscured by wrangling over categorisation.
This is a good point, although rather than trying to come up with ever more categories, why not do away with the flash altogether? An ascent is then either onsight, or it's not. If you did it first go after watching drone footage and training on a replica, then by all means spray about it being first go on instagram, but without the title of 'flash', it will always demand a paragraph on how it went down.
How about 'splashed' i.e. flashed with inSPection of holds?
I'll get my coat!
-
Another UKB rabbit hole. Par for the course it seems after any notable ascent or non ascent as in this case.
I think Lexicon alone has been responsible for more forum inches than any other route. Except maybe Shadowplay.
-
This is rather cynical of me, but there's only one clear solution for these unfortunate grey areas and that's to automatically assumed that anyone claiming a flash, or onsight, or whatever, has completely pushed the absolute limits of what is acceptable for the given term, and then some.
It's then up to the climber to add more detail to justify whether they've done anything more special than the worse stye of the term: abbing, brushing, fondling, replica-ing, climbing the start-middle-end beforehand but as part of different routes, reaching past the crux, etc, etc. ;)
-
Another UKB rabbit hole. Par for the course it seems after any notable ascent or non ascent as in this case.
I think Lexicon alone has been responsible for more forum inches than any other route. Except maybe Shadowplay.
The Oak would like a word
-
How could I forget!
-
Action Directe? Hubble!
-
Fall looked casual :worms:
It’s obviously one of the best E10’s in the country, at this rate it’ll soon be the most repeated….. ::)
-
Do people have a fourth term in mind to help subdivide the continuum, or would people say that "after abseil inspection" would group into "redpoint" if the big three is the highest level grouping and their view is this isn't a flash?
It's unlikely that there's ever a clear line, but if we're using OS, flash and RP as the three I'd have maybe gone for a wider flash bucket than some which starts somewhere where you have more beta than the guide gives you and ends when you've actually tried a move. That being said I'm entirely internally illogical since clipsticking up a route in trainers would feel a bit dodgy, lowering past a route with the clips already in I wouldn't think twice about, and on trad I suspect if I hung in front of a placement trying out which wire fitted I'd start to wonder whereas if someone told me it was an RP3 before I left the ground I wouldn't think twice about that being "flash compliant" beta.
I think it's actually worth coining a term for this sooner rather than later. It maybe seems pedantic now, but technology means this particular patch of water is only going to get muddier. By this I mean people flying drones up routes, or digital guide technology increasing the information available pre-ascent without any need to go near the route. Better that it has a name than worthy bits of climbing get obscured by wrangling over categorisation.
This is a good point, although rather than trying to come up with ever more categories, why not do away with the flash altogether? An ascent is then either onsight, or it's not. If you did it first go after watching drone footage and training on a replica, then by all means spray about it being first go on instagram, but without the title of 'flash', it will always demand a paragraph on how it went down.
In practice, regardless of what you think the most desirable solution would be, it's far easier to introduce and promote a new category then to successfully abolish an existing one.
-
I think that once you start adding terms to the list then it's like kicking off a stack of dominos i.e where would it end?. My opinion is that it'd be better to improve the definitions of what we have already as there's clearly many different understandings of the same terminology and as we've seen already in this thread people just end up arguing semantics.
Another can of worms is to maybe distinguish what we allow for a flash in bouldering versus what we'd allow for sport and trad ?
-
To me it's always been simple a flash is anything first go without trying the moves first.
If what you've done is significant enough that people might care just add a bit of honest detail so they can make their own minds up about how impressive a feat is.
Nowadays folks show up and watch a video of the moves on their mobile before setting off. How you rank that compared to touching the holds but not knowing the moves is personal opinion
-
I'd largely agree, where do people stand on touching holds before a flash go ?
-
Sounds like another case of 36C's law
"Any grey area in climbing will always get abused" (36chambers' Law)
With bouldering, hold inspection on a flash is par for the course, is this different in trad then?
TBH I've never understood why hold inspection prior to a flash attempt is deemed ok for bouldering but is forbidden when trad or sport climbing. The way I see it either hold inspection should be allowed regardless of the circumstance, or touching of the start holds should never be allowed and result in an automatic forfeit of the flash attempt.
Holds that are touchable from the ground for a 6'1 person might not be for someone who's 5'5 which gives them an unfair advantage when going for their "flash" attempt on a boulder problem since the shorter climber is basically onsighting the majority of the problem.
-
Unless they have a ladder.
I guess it's because traditionally the culture around trad climbing has been particularly obsessed with the style and purity of the ascent. Bouldering as a relative newcomer hasn't had to deal with the baggage of these kind of ethics in quite the same way.
-
I can't decide whether this sort of debate takes all the fun out of climbing, or is part of what makes it the best sport ever.
For me it's very simple; a flash is defined as climbing something on your first attempt where you have some (however much you want) prior knowledge of the route / problem.
Emphasis on the climbing. Anything you might do beforehand which is demonstrably not climbing, including brushing holds, fondling holds without weighting them, looking at holds from any angle, watching other people, etc., is irrelevant. If you climb on it at all, e.g. in trainers or stick clipping up it, you invalidate the flash.
Nice and simple and applies to all genres of climbing. If people want to overthink and overcomplicate it thereafter they're welcome to for their own experience, but stop sucking the joy out of it for the rest of us!
-
And there it is the almost inevitable post which seeks to question the necessity of a discussion taking place about climbing on a forum which was set up by climbers for climbers to discuss ........ climbing.
-
It's funny, I immediately thought ab inspection wasn't ok, but then realised I wouldn't think twice about moving the clips over when lowering off an adjacent sport route, and then taking the flash. I guess it's more about feeling the holds for me, and also the intent - I've never deliberately done a neighbouring route to a flash target in order to glean beta or get the clips in, and would feel a bit weird if I did. Glad I don't have to worry about this stuff at my level!
BUT, also agree re vid beta - if you have a vid of someone similar size to you I'd consider that way more useful than abbing a route. Eg I had a working go on a route a couple of years ago, didn't manage any of the hard moves, lowered off the third bolt having written it off. This year, in no better shape, but armed with a vid, I went back to the route, did all the moves first time up, and linked through the crux second go.
-
James' thoughts on the flash definition are now (as of 25 mins ago) set out in some detail on his IG account. Includes this extract:
FYI - I call my first attempt a “flash” because I used the same ethic as when “flashing boulders - Touching holds is ok, imagining positions, ok but don’t do any moves.
-
Easy to see why official rule books for any sport (even relatively simple ones) end up as epic tomes covering almost every conceivable eventuality. And they still get argued about and revised almost annually.
-
I can't decide whether this sort of debate takes all the fun out of climbing, or is part of what makes it the best sport ever.
For me it's very simple; a flash is defined as climbing something on your first attempt where you have some (however much you want) prior knowledge of the route / problem.
Emphasis on the climbing. Anything you might do beforehand which is demonstrably not climbing, including brushing holds, fondling holds without weighting them, looking at holds from any angle, watching other people, etc., is irrelevant. If you climb on it at all, e.g. in trainers or stick clipping up it, you invalidate the flash.
Nice and simple and applies to all genres of climbing. If people want to overthink and overcomplicate it thereafter they're welcome to for their own experience, but stop sucking the joy out of it for the rest of us!
Okay, great! Can't wait till a climbing wall builds the perfect replica of my projects so I can it flash later. Cheers. :great:
Whatever your heuristic, someone will think of something to bypass it. It's human nature.
-
And there it is the almost inevitable post which seeks to question the necessity of a discussion taking place about climbing on a forum which was set up by climbers for climbers to discuss ........ climbing.
Well hence why I said I can't decide if this is good or bad; on the one hand pub type setting the world to rights chat is great, especially when it's utterly meaningless! Snide comments along the lines of "well that's not a proper flash though is it", pissing all over someone's chips; not great.
I can't decide whether this sort of debate takes all the fun out of climbing, or is part of what makes it the best sport ever.
For me it's very simple; a flash is defined as climbing something on your first attempt where you have some (however much you want) prior knowledge of the route / problem.
Emphasis on the climbing. Anything you might do beforehand which is demonstrably not climbing, including brushing holds, fondling holds without weighting them, looking at holds from any angle, watching other people, etc., is irrelevant. If you climb on it at all, e.g. in trainers or stick clipping up it, you invalidate the flash.
Nice and simple and applies to all genres of climbing. If people want to overthink and overcomplicate it thereafter they're welcome to for their own experience, but stop sucking the joy out of it for the rest of us!
Okay, great! Can't wait till a climbing wall builds the perfect replica of my projects so I can it flash later. Cheers. :great:
Whatever your heuristic, someone will think of something to bypass it. It's human nature.
No chance, and very much reductio ad absurdum. No indoor problem will ever be able to replicate all the little details of a specific outdoor rock climb, most particularly the atmospheric conditions of the actual thing. And even if they could, it'd still be a flash in my book.
-
James' thoughts on the flash definition are now (as of 25 mins ago) set out in some detail on his IG account. Includes this extract:
FYI - I call my first attempt a “flash” because I used the same ethic as when “flashing boulders - Touching holds is ok, imagining positions, ok but don’t do any moves.
If you follow that as written, flashing 8c just got a whole lot easier since this implies I can stick clip up it fondling holds first.. which which is clearly bollocks.. I'm sure it's not what JP was meaning.
But that's part of the problem with abbing being 'allowed' for a flash - what's not allowed if that is? I still don't understand how people who think that abbing down something is ok square it with agreeing that sticking up it would not be, since they're almost the same thing (just that abbing is more faff).. you're really telling me I could abb something in Margalef and still take the flash? Maybe it's a trad v sport thing but it just doesn't compute for me.
Whether it can be harder or easier than something else isnt really fundamental to the definition and is conflating something different IMO - flash on a dirty route with no chalk is more impressive than onsighting a perfectly clipped and chalked route, but that's not really the question is it.
-
Abbing down something and touching the holds is absolutely not a flash. I cannot believe that there are people who think so.
I agree that we have to work on an honour system on some routes in Verdon, and that people who claim that they did not look at the holds really did not.
-
Whether it can be harder or easier than something else isnt really fundamental to the definition and is conflating something different IMO - flash on a dirty route with no chalk is more impressive than onsighting a perfectly clipped and chalked route, but that's not really the question is it.
Surely the fundamental part of the definition is whether you climbed at all when inspecting it!
Stick clipping is clearly totally different to abbing as it always involves climbing up the route in one way or another.
Abbing down something and touching the holds is absolutely not a flash. I cannot believe that there are people who think so.
I agree that we have to work on an honour system on some routes in Verdon, and that people who claim that they did not look at the holds really did not.
It blows my mind that people think just looking at or touching the holds invalidates a flash. A flash is not a slightly unethical version of an onsight!
-
This is why I think the term Flash differs for bouldering and Trad/Sport. That seems to be the nub of the debate to me anyway.
-
I'm another one who thinks abbing a route isn't 'allowed' for a flash. For me a flash is gaining what beta that can be gained from the ground without being on the route - this simple definition precludes hanging on an ab rope on the route or stick-clipping up it. Fairly straightforward and it removes most of the grey areas, with some minor vagueness remaining around routes that require an ab to access, or lowering off next to a route etc.
So beta gained either from watching someone else climb it, listening to someone else's beta, watching vids, trying replicas - all legit flash methods imo with some going to extremes to use beta - I watched Ondra on Biographie have his girl methodically abb and film every hold and describe the hold and move via video link. If a route involves abbing down it by necessity (sea cliffs etc.) then extra levels of contrivance are required to avoid invalidating the flash. Or standing at the top looking down at the moves (sea cliffs again - Pembroke especially) then fair enough - the context is fairly obvious in that case. Climbing routes next to a route to have a look on the lower/get clips in etc... is one of the few grey areas remaining if you remove ab inspection from being legit. Contrived? No shit, it's a contrived pastime. People will always stretch boundaries if the boundaries are vague.
Ultimately though I stopped caring long ago!
-
If you have a dream where you tick a route can you still claim the flash?
-
. IMO it's perfectly valid to try to define what "counts" as a flash, and someone trying something hard in this style is likely to bring up that discussion
A flash is doing it first time you pull on and attempt it, that much is obvious. That’s where the otiose term ‘onsight sight flash’ came from, to distinguish from an attempt with prior knowledge.
I agree, abseil inspection isn’t quite playing the game in respect of what people think when they hear ‘flash’ but it is one nonetheless if the moves haven’t been tried. We have ground up to clarify things further.
I’d have abbed it, if I had James’ talent and a modest desire to stay alive.
-
Seems like I’m swimming against the tide, but personally I would still call it a flash if you’ve abbed down it and looked at the holds and checked the gear, so long as you haven’t pulled on and tried the moves.
Obviously doing so gives you more insight than just being told some beta, but I then it is still short of head/redpointing.
Maybe my view is skewed by mostly being a trad climber, and often on sea cliffs where it feels natural to ab in and have a peek on the way.
Maybe I just have lax ethics - at my lowly level I’m happy to have a quick look on ab and this is still a more fulfilling experience, closer to the onsight/ground up end of the spectrum than pre-practising stuff.
-
Does any of this matter except to satisfy the demand for a shorthand way of quantifying how impressive an ascent is?
The spectrum of shenanigans that can take place can't be meaningfully contained by so few categories. If it matters, i.e. if it's an ascent that anyone but the climber cares about, then the facts of what happened should be stated and anyone who cares can decide for themselves which box to put it in.
-
Does any of this matter except to satisfy the demand for a shorthand way of quantifying how impressive an ascent is?
The spectrum of shenanigans that can take place can't be meaningfully contained by so few categories. If it matters, i.e. if it's an ascent that anyone but the climber cares about, then the facts of what happened should be stated and anyone who cares can decide for themselves which box to put it in.
Quite. The language is already there and commonly understood. If Pearson hadn’t mis-described his attempt we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
-
it is one nonetheless
Curiously definitive wording to use. If the whole thread shows anything it's that there's disagreement - between plenty of reasonable and experienced climbers - on whether it is one... Just because you write it doesn't make it so.
-
When I used to trad climb regularly in Pembroke and Gogarth back in the day, I used to avert my eyes on the abseil where there was a chance of glimpsing any of the route I intended to climb on the way back out. If I got a glimpse of any part of the climb I couldn't 'unsee' I used to feel guilty about claiming the onsight but then saw that others weren't so bothered.
I guess for a flash its perhaps a different, less strict yardstick and if the likes of Ondra are getting video link footage of holds then that is different. You wonder why Ondra didn't just ab Biographie himself? Seems a pretty fine distinction - his girlfriend giving hold detail from the route is OK but not for him to do the same? :-\
-
A flash is doing it first time you pull on and attempt it, that much is obvious.
I wish that much was true, for sport and trad aren't you allowed to reverse to the ground as many times as you like?
-
Can a moderator please change the thread title "James Pearson's abseil-inspected but un-practised attempt of Lexicon" as there was quite clearly no flash attempts on the go, ta :smartass:
-
. You wonder why Ondra didn't just ab Biographie himself?
Presumably because he's like those of us who think that's not cricket for a flash. I may be wrong, but I'd wager that most European sport climbers would also fall into that camp
-
A flash is doing it first time you pull on and attempt it, that much is obvious.
I wish that much was true, for sport and trad aren't you allowed to reverse to the ground as many times as you like?
Ha, I was going to say; reading James' Insta post about it he says that on day 1 he climbed to the break and downclimbed, then went for the "flash" on day 2! The fact that he'd climbed on the route beforehand invalidates the flash far more significantly to me than any abseil inspection even if it's relatively easy climbing and he didn't actually fall off on day 1.
-
When I used to trad climb regularly in Pembroke and Gogarth back in the day, I used to avert my eyes on the abseil where there was a chance of glimpsing any of the route I intended to climb on the way back out. If I got a glimpse of any part of the climb I couldn't 'unsee' I used to feel guilty about claiming the onsight but then saw that others weren't so bothered.
I did exactly this - 5 times on two occasions - abbing down Necromancer at Earnsheugh, always looking rigidly out to sea to not get the slightest glimpse of the route. Finally I led it - an amazing experience and intense challenge for me , and the last season (Autumn 2018) when I was climbing with regular trad confidence - and then afterwards abbed back down for another route and could finally look at what I'd just climbed in perfect detail, which was quite surreal.
From experience (that, and others, abbing down Judge Dread on Nth Cloud and seeing the RP and crimps to go for, for example) I've found that abseil inspecting makes an huge and often crucial difference in terms of gear and hold locations, sizes, feels, types, hidden or not, likely combinations of holds, where to place gear off, so much....
It's definitely not a flash, but it's equally definitely not pre-practised / headpointed. It's a grey area, but it's a grey area (just like JP's excellent "all the 2nd hand beta" flash attempt on Muy Caliente) that is a great and laudable attempt at ethical progression.
-
A flash is doing it first time you pull on and attempt it, that much is obvious.
I wish that much was true, for sport and trad aren't you allowed to reverse to the ground as many times as you like?
Ha, I was going to say; reading James' Insta post about it he says that on day 1 he climbed to the break and downclimbed, then went for the "flash" on day 2! The fact that he'd climbed on the route beforehand invalidates the flash far more significantly to me than any abseil inspection even if it's relatively easy climbing and he didn't actually fall off on day 1.
then he goes on to say...
FYI - I call my first attempt a “flash” because I used the same ethic as when “flashing boulders - Touching holds is ok, imagining positions, ok but don’t do any moves.
don't do any moves, unless you're planning on reversing them. Just do whatever you think you can get away with basically ;)
I think the new rule of flash should be you have to shout "flash!" just before you take off, regardless of how many times you're dogged the route previously, and that then is your one attempt to flash it.
-
Just do whatever you think you can get away with basically ;)
This is the fundamental unifying law of climbing.
-
I think the new rule of flash should be you have to shout "flash!" just before you take off, regardless of how many times you're dogged the route previously, and that then is your one attempt to flash it.
Like nominating which pocket you’re going to pot the black.
-
I think the new rule of flash should be you have to shout "flash!" just before you take off, regardless of how many times you're dogged the route previously, and that then is your one attempt to flash it.
Anyone know any deaf belayers? Asking for a friend
-
Could I politely ask the boulderers to butt out of a conversation that they don't understand? Thanks :)
-
Just do whatever you think you can get away with basically ;)
This is the fundamental unifying law of climbing.
Let’s also not forget that unless you’re climbing at the very highest level almost no-one else cares. You can “get away with” or “take” absolutely anything because you’re only lying to yourself.
-
it is one nonetheless
Curiously definitive wording to use. If the whole thread shows anything it's that there's disagreement - between plenty of reasonable and experienced climbers - on whether it is one... Just because you write it doesn't make it so.
Fair enough. The key is whether you think an abseil inspection invalidates a flash. If you do, there’s no need to debate the finer details of James’s attempt. What do you think?
-
Quite. The language is already there and commonly understood. If Pearson hadn’t mis-described his attempt we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Hmm, that's not quite what I said! To judge by this thread, the boundaries of these things are actually not commonly understood.
As soon as you have rigid 'rules' about this sort of thing people are going to game them. Compare a quick look on abseil on a different day to a meticulously studied purpose-made video showing close-ups of all the holds and moves. Just so it can be called a flash.
I wonder if James Pearson really thinks it's a flash if you've abseiled and felt the holds, or if his Insta agent has gone rogue?
-
Does seem to be stretching the flash term and also the ground up ethics from what is said..
https://www.instagram.com/p/CeoXl2Il10u/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
I've been doing it wrong all these years and it tweeks my interest in what other flashes i held up a touch up for that now I'm wondering what was involved..
-
Quite. The language is already there and commonly understood. If Pearson hadn’t mis-described his attempt we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Hmm, that's not quite what I said! To judge by this thread, the boundaries of these things are actually not commonly understood.
As soon as you have rigid 'rules' about this sort of thing people are going to game them. Compare a quick look on abseil on a different day to a meticulously studied purpose-made video showing close-ups of all the holds and moves. Just so it can be called a flash.
I wonder if James Pearson really thinks it's a flash if you've abseiled and felt the holds, or if his Insta agent has gone rogue?
A flash can never encompass inspection from above. This cannot be difficult to comprehend as climbing starts at the bottom of the mountain.
Baffled.
-
Does seem to be stretching the flash term and also the ground up ethics from what is said..
Whatever it is, it definitely isn't ground up!
What do you think?
I take it you've not read the thread :wall:
-
A flash can never encompass inspection from above. This cannot be difficult to comprehend as climbing starts at the bottom of the mountain.
To be clear, I agree that flash means no pre-inspection. I'm just saying that with enough shenanigans it's possible for a 'flash' to be further from an on-sight than a minimally pre-inspected ascent, which limits the shorthand utility of the term.
-
But it's always possible to create scenarios like that... A redpoint where you had an onsight go on an unchalked route, slipped or broke a hold low down, lowered off and then went straight back up and did it, effectively onsighting 90% of the route, is probably 'closer' to an onsight than is a flash after watching 5 videos and having the full spray down with your mate ticking all the holds... But they still are what they are.
-
I don't disagree, but don't you think examples like the one you give are slightly at odds with the amount of significance that's given to the terms?
We use them as a way of describing in brief how 'good' an ascent is, and loosely speaking that works, but not always.
-
I think the terms are like grades - many people use them as a proxy for how "good" or "impressive" an ascent is, but they're inherently quite poor at that... So yeah, like you say, it only works loosely
-
Bit chicken and egg though isn’t it - as the terms (and the grades) used to describe the significance of an ascent would hold a heck of a lot more meaning if people just stopped fucking them up to suit their own agendas! Often the ‘not always’ are people knowingly bending the limits of fairly commonly-understood definitions to suit their needs, as is the case here. If the definition of ‘flash’ explicitly excluded pre-inspection on a rope there’d be less scope for misuse of the definition.
Also +1 for having to audibly declare: ‘FLASH!’ with at least two witnesses of good standing in the community present for it to count - postmasters/mistress, bank manager, solicitor, magistrate, forum owner etc.
-
People are always gonna find a way to break the rules no matter how hard you try, so at the end of the day it comes down to climbing the routes by your own ethics.
You could ban rope inspection, friends giving detailed video spraydown, tickmarks and then someone would turn up to the crag with a pair of binoculars, stack 15 pads, fly a drone next to the problem, so they can see the crux holds "from the ground"
-
Doesn’t everyone use binoculars?
-
A flash can never encompass inspection from above. This cannot be difficult to comprehend as climbing starts at the bottom of the mountain.
Baffled.
Are we going to ban all photos/video taken from above, looking down from the top and adjacent hillsides etc. That would be consistent at least.
-
Here’s some old footage of me flashing Punks in the Gym. I’ve put a editing filter on it to ensure the sequences & holds used remains anonymous for others who wish to Onsight or flash it.
https://youtu.be/bWEGNe104To
-
Was thinking about this yesterday (whilst abbing three times down a crag and studiously avoiding looking at any lines I might want to climb at some point).
We could just have the term "pre-inspected flash" which would cover any sort of un-practised personal inspection on a rope or other artificial mechanism, up to and including cleaning and chalking holds and checking gear, but without actually pulling on. This would cover a lot of post-ab-cleaning ascents of course, so quite a useful category. Different from "beta-flash" (which JP took to the logical limit with Muy Caliente ofc).
Okay so the term is a bit wordy (but not quite as wordy as 5 pages of ethical munching) but I think it covers it well. YES there will still be grey areas but they'll be getting increasingly minor so the subsequent nitpicking will have diminishing returns...
-
Was thinking about this yesterday (whilst abbing three times down a crag and studiously avoiding looking at any lines I might want to climb at some point).
We could just have the term "pre-inspected flash" which would cover any sort of un-practised personal inspection on a rope or other artificial mechanism, up to and including cleaning and chalking holds and checking gear, but without actually pulling on. This would cover a lot of post-ab-cleaning ascents of course, so quite a useful category. Different from "beta-flash" (which JP took to the logical limit with Muy Caliente ofc).
Okay so the term is a bit wordy (but not quite as wordy as 5 pages of ethical munching) but I think it covers it well. YES there will still be grey areas but they'll be getting increasingly minor so the subsequent nitpicking will have diminishing returns...
Yep I like this. :-)
-
I've heard 'abseil-up' before for exactly this style, most commonly on things with abseil approaches eg Pembroke, Verdon.
-
We could just have the term "pre-inspected flash"
How about 'splashed' i.e. flashed with inSPection of holds?
Fiend, I had you covered two pages ago, with a less wordy and more 'witty' phrase! ;D
(Apparently this is my 1000 UKB post. I hope I didn't waste it! Also I don't know whether to be happy or slightly ashamed.)
-
Sorry Jamie! In a shocking turn of events I hadn't actually read most of the thread, despite it being a topic I'm usually a fan of...
-
Ab-solutely flashulous
-
https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/2022/06/james_pearson_climbs_lexicon_e11_7a-73070
Including thoughts on what defines a flash
-
E11 with no top rope practice, impressive
-
(RE the other point, I've always thought ab inspection was pretty dodgy for a flash - to the point of not really being a flash... but not really being a headpoint. Kinda the same as onsighting/flashing multiple lines that share a significant section - sits in a grey area so whatever you call it, it will need an asterisk next to it)
Yes. Saying “flash attempt” without any qualifier is very misleading.
If abseil inspection is acceptable to claim a ‘flash’ in Pearson’s mind it would be worth checking for the record books (Remus?) whether he abbed down ‘Something’s Burning’ first in addition to the extensive beta he got off Ciavaldini.
As far as I remember he abbed somethings burning whilst Caro was on it (on a top rope or abb rope I can't quite recall) demonstrating the moves and the fiddly gear placements.
-
Can't believe there's 5 pages discussing this.
If you've abbed it, you're headpointing. There really isn't anything to discuss.
Yes, boulderers define flash differently to sport / trad climbers. ie: for routes, it's always been ground up, first go (usually in UK trad climbing allowing returning to the ground without weighting gear as part of the first go). For bouldering first go without pulling on prior (which allows fondling holds).
And yes, the words we use to describe style are hugely overlapping segments of a continuous spectrum.
So it's easily possible that a great style headpoint can be better style than a poor style flash.
(Think abbing down a line that hasn't been climbed for years and brushing the lichen off a few holds and then headpointing first try, vs having watched dozens of people climb a route and dozens of videos, full beta on every gear placement, the route fully chalked up and then flashing it).
In general though, abbing something - feeling the holds, checking the gear placements, being on the wall knowing what you're in for, makes all the difference in the world. Often far more than any amount of videos or watching someone else on it can make. Abbing something in combination with lots of beta really makes it a fair way down the headpointing segment of the style spectrum, let alone a flash.
You might feel grumpy that your ascent is only a headpoint when it was actually a really good style ascent.
But doesn't mean you can just redefine the words that everyone else has used just fine for decades.
Just means that they are only very loose guidelines as to the style of the ascent, and if you want someone to realise it was a good style headpoint, then give some more details.
Anyways - someone should go and report a solo ascent. Having done it on a shunt and redefined solo to mean they were the only person at the crag. ;)
-
And yes, the words we use to describe style are hugely overlapping segments of a continuous spectrum.
I think all your points are reasonable, but this isn't quite right. There's nothing continuous about it. It's a pretty lumpy spectrum.
-
Can't believe there's 5 pages discussing this.
If you've abbed it, you're headpointing. There really isn't anything to discuss.
;)
I think the reason there is 4 pages is that's not true. I 100% disagree. I think you should be able to abb a line and brush the holds with chalk and look at all the gear placements and still call it a flash. I even thought that touching holds is fine
-
Can't believe there's 5 pages discussing this.
And yet it still took you 4 paragraphs to explain the apparently undebatable truth. Hardly cut-and-dried.
-
Doesn’t everyone use binoculars?
I remember doing this on a route in the Lakes once. Saw this decent pair of holds to aim for at the end of a spicy runout. Turns out binoculars magnify things - who knew? What followed is indelibly imprinted on my memory!
-
Can't believe there's 5 pages discussing this.
And yet it still took you 4 paragraphs to explain the apparently undebatable truth.
:lol: :slap: :2thumbsup:
-
Not that I'm a trad climber at all, but I've heard it said that headpointing is generally considered much more acceptable at the higher end of the grading scale/one's personal limit, like if you can say climb E3 you should really not be headpointing HVS, but it's okay for E2/E3.
Could it be similar with the ethics of a flash? Like if Pearson was on an E5 or E6 we'd expect his flash to not include an ab, but as it's E10 at least, he's allowed to inspect it first and it still counts? I.e what I acceptable for a flash differs for the seriousness of the route in both general and personal terms.
-
This is so interesting! There are all these well established climbers who 100% think their interpretation of the terms of style are correct, and yet their views are different. Who is the arbiter of this debate, the highest source of wisdom??
I generally took On The Edge to be the font of all knowledge when I was learning the ropes. For all these years, I've understood the flash category (in the UK, not anywhere else like Verdon) to describe climbing something first go where you have more information than what you can see of the holds just with your own eyes (and the guidebook description). There is the subset of the 'beta flash', which means of course that there are other types of flash possible. I'd always thought that the line not to cross was pulling on the holds. So abbing down and feeling the positions would not be ok, but brushing and touching the holds would.
Having said that, I usually would only have chosen that method if it was an unloved route that needed debris brushing off or some such. And it would need to be specified if boasting about it later!
I'm willing to accept that my understanding is wrong, but I'm just saying that's what myself and many others have understood a flash to encompass for all these years.
-
Doesn’t everyone use binoculars?
I remember doing this on a route in the Lakes once. Saw this decent pair of holds to aim for at the end of a spicy runout. Turns out binoculars magnify things - who knew? What followed is indelibly imprinted on my memory!
I've done that looking for potentially climbable boulders. A couple of miles of heather bashing to find it's waist height is also imprinted.
-
Not that I'm a trad climber at all, but I've heard it said that headpointing is generally considered much more acceptable at the higher end of the grading scale/one's personal limit, like if you can say climb E3 you should really not be headpointing HVS, but it's okay for E2/E3.
Could it be similar with the ethics of a flash? Like if Pearson was on an E5 or E6 we'd expect his flash to not include an ab, but as it's E10 at least, he's allowed to inspect it first and it still counts? I.e what I acceptable for a flash differs for the seriousness of the route in both general and personal terms.
No. the discussion is not about when it is acceptable to headpoint or flash, but that the tactics he used to pre-inspect the route could invalidate the claim of a flash*
(*- attempt, as he fell off this is all academic anyway).
-
That's sorta what I mean, is an ab okay for like a top end serious route at the limit of ability or close to, and it still counts as a flash?
I personally dunno I just think the idea of criteria for an ascent style changing depending on the relative difficulty is interesting. But not necessarily right. I'm just a bouldering peasant scrabbling on the odd low 7 I know my place lol
-
No. You can't flex ethics just because you are at the top end. I would say the opposite. If you are a low grade punter like me no-one cares if you say you flashed an E2 when you actually abbed it the day before, but if you are claiming something historically significant you should try be as "ethical" in your reporting as possible. A bit like no-one caring if I take PES to take 5 minutes off my woeful marathon time, but Kipchoge (for random example) will be getting a regular dope test.
-
The problem with allowing abseil inspection within the flash is that it's a movable feast.
Nobody really knows what you have done with this tactic. The attempt on Lexicon demonstrated this perfectly.
First it was an abseil inspection,
Then abseil inspection whilst fondling the holds,
Then abseil inspection whilst fondling the holds and feeling the body positions.
What about checking the movements. Ok if you still have your weight on the abseil rope?
-
The problem with allowing abseil inspection within the flash is that it's a movable feast.
Isn't a flash a bit of a movable feast anyway?
i.e. the difference between being told 'take two yellow cams' and being given a detailed breakdown of the entire route?
Regardless, you want to know more detail.
-
No. You can't flex ethics just because you are at the top end. I would say the opposite. If you are a low grade punter like me no-one cares if you say you flashed an E2 when you actually abbed it the day before, but if you are claiming something historically significant you should try be as "ethical" in your reporting as possible. A bit like no-one caring if I take PES to take 5 minutes off my woeful marathon time, but Kipchoge (for random example) will be getting a regular dope test.
That's very reasonable and fair
-
This is so interesting! There are all these well established climbers who 100% think their interpretation of the terms of style are correct, and yet their views are different. Who is the arbiter of this debate, the highest source of wisdom??
I generally took On The Edge to be the font of all knowledge when I was learning the ropes.
Indeed! And though I accept terms change their meaning, I think it's worth going back to the period when these terms were coined, when I happened to be around and involved. My understandings would be:
Flash - you didn't fall off or otherwise weight gear (I would allow down climbing). Implicitly suggests beta (or it would be an onsight) but doesn't necessarily say anything about inspection. Obviously this introduces a grey area, but at some point a line is crossed. The report on James' ascent of Lexicon says something about measuring body positions, which sounds a very like pulling on. Pulling on to any degree invalidates a flash immediately. What else you're willing to claim as a flash is slightly down to personal standards (whether or not you were wearing climbing or regular shoes when you abbed down could even make a big difference to the sense in which you know the route).
Ground up - you did fall off! But, by definition there was categorically no direct personal inspection. Doesn't necessarily say anything about beta however. Most ground up ascents are not deliberate but are flubbed flash or onsight attempts. Some of my proudest moments were ground ups where all the climbing was done "onsight" but not at the first attempt.
Onsight/redpoint/headpoint - we all know and agree what those mean. Right?
Anyway, very, very impressive ascent from James, whatever we call it and whether or not he should have called it a flash attempt. Reading the report it seems he actually led the crux headwall twice, which is pretty gobsmacking. It must have been psychologically pretty complex to go back on it. I once watched someone fall off the end of the traverse on Braille Trail, sit on the pegs, and then lead to the top - meaning they did all the scary/dangerous climbing without being able to take the tick. So far as I know they never went back.
-
This is so interesting! There are all these well established climbers who 100% think their interpretation of the terms of style are correct, and yet their views are different. Who is the arbiter of this debate, the highest source of wisdom??
I generally took On The Edge to be the font of all knowledge when I was learning the ropes. For all these years, I've understood the flash category (in the UK, not anywhere else like Verdon) to describe climbing something first go where you have more information than what you can see of the holds just with your own eyes (and the guidebook description). There is the subset of the 'beta flash', which means of course that there are other types of flash possible. I'd always thought that the line not to cross was pulling on the holds. So abbing down and feeling the positions would not be ok, but brushing and touching the holds would.
Having said that, I usually would only have chosen that method if it was an unloved route that needed debris brushing off or some such. And it would need to be specified if boasting about it later!
I'm willing to accept that my understanding is wrong, but I'm just saying that's what myself and many others have understood a flash to encompass for all these years.
+1 to all of this.
I've always gone with:
Onsight - turn up, see route, climb it.
Headpoint - work the route to whatever extent you see fit, climb it.
Flash - everything in the middle, i.e. first attempt but gaining whatever knowledge you can first.
I guess the debate is over what constitutes 'working' a route? Abbing and feeling the holds seems fine. Weighting them, checking 'positions', not so much.
Edit - pretty much exactly what Andy said.
-
I've just realised that my friends and I have been using a term for years that sums this all up nicely.
#HuwFlash
which originates from our mate logging various climbs several times on UKC as Sent dnf, then eventually logging them as Sent β "3rd go today, soft".
I use it often myself on UKC to clarify that I absolutely did not flash a particular climb. Maybe that's what Pearson meant all along.
-
Clearly there'll ve no end to this as there seems to be 2 clear camps.
I think the easiest way to remove the "was it feeling holds or checking body positions or pulling on" debacle is simple, you don't ab the route and claim a flash! It's black and white. Gain as much info as you want without being on the route (whether on a top rope or lead rope or ab rope).
I happened to do point blank in the style described here. I abbed down it in my trainers, put some chalk in useful looking places, made sure I knew what the gear was, and then led it. There is no way on earth I'd claim that as a flash.
Edit: actually I'd done from a distance just before, so that probably invalidates the flash anyway as they share so much climbing. But even so! As it happens, I flashed FaD, with an absolute essay of beta texted to me by a friend. It was chalked, and the beta was absolutely perfect and thorough. It made it feel pretty straightforward. But it was definitely a flash.
-
you don't ab the route and claim a flash
What if you ab the route with your eyes closed? I'm sure there were stories about folk doing this back in the day so as not to invalidate their onsight.
I'm not sure how much value there is in reductive terms lile 'flash' when there's clearly no collective agreement on its meaning, and the medium of communication (IG in this case) allows sufficient space for detail.
Congratulations to James on committing to such a hard piece of climbing without having linked it on top rope; on taking the whip and going back for more; and for giving enough detail about the style of ascent to allow everyone to make up their own minds about how impressive it was.
-
you don't ab the route and claim a flash
What if you ab the route with your eyes closed? I'm sure there were stories about folk doing this back in the day so as not to invalidate their onsight.
You might do if you could only get to the bottom of the route by abseil. But this is hardly the case on Pavey unless you were walking in from Keswick.
-
for example
https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/2013/07/steve_mcclure_flashes_tom_et_je_ris_8b+_verdon-68218
-
I find this thread so refreshing. After 2.5years if fucking dreary topics on Covid posts, US politics, opinions on vaccinations and Death rates, we have 6 pages of debating on what a flash attempt is. That stems from a guy who didn’t even flash the route.
Chapeau, Chapeau :clap2: :clap2: :clap2:
I’m hoping we soon get a 10 page thread on the debate whether a send is valid where the boulderer has used a crouch/scrunch start is counted when a sit start has been specified.
-
of course it isn't. And I'm sure it's been discussed.
-
I’m hoping we soon get a 10 page thread on the debate whether a send is valid where the boulderer has used a crouch/scrunch start is counted when a sit start has been specified.
don't even get me started on that one... i'll give you a ten page rant on those cheating little buggers right away >:(
for me a Flash always was (and always will be), first go, whatever knowledge you can lay your hands on, but you've never touched a hold on the route. Personally i'd say an ab inspection is crossing the line but if they didn't touch the holds. Ultimately it all comes down to integrity...
-
Since I don't do any bouldering anymore, I am OK with arguing that you can start however you want as long as you start from the same holds. And that since the pads are so thick anyway nowadays it makes no difference on classic problems.
I can also use analogies from roped climbing and cheating stones to support my position. No probs.
(I might have a hard time arguing passionately about this though.)
-
I’m hoping we soon get a 10 page thread on the debate whether a send is valid where the boulderer has used a crouch/scrunch start is counted when a sit start has been specified.
Pretty sure that has been debated recently but cannot remember the context or thread it was on.
-
In Aiden Roberts' interview with Sam Prior (Careless Talk podcast; part 2 from around 1 hour 5 mins (https://open.spotify.com/episode/3vKCEV0l6u8Z80XdQIGn0G) ) they talk about 3D scanning (https://poly.cam) and printing holds for a Burden of Dreams replica.
Would practicing on a near-perfect copy before trying the real thing invalidate a flash?!
-
Covered a week ago! You must have been up a french crag.
-
for example
https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/2013/07/steve_mcclure_flashes_tom_et_je_ris_8b+_verdon-68218
From the article:
(https://factortwo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Screenshot-2022-06-17-101440.png)
I think we often get tangled up in terms we assume are well defined when talking about high end ascents. I also think we get caught up in thinking about how ascents rank against each other, and we'd like to think a flash is higher than a redpoint/headpoint, but also we try climbs in certain styles because of the unseen cultural pressure to do things in certain ways because "that's how it's done". We're all guilty of doing climbs in ways that are clearly not the most enjoyable way for us, because there's a different reward of social validation to being able to make certain claims, even if we think of ourselves as modest.
Personally I would consider deliberately abbing down a line to inspect it to invalidate a flash. I'm less concerned if I've just abbed somewhere nearby and had a look across, I wouldn't consider this much different to scouting out a line from all the other available angles. Obviously you need a strict distance limit, so I carry a pole that is 7 foot 4 inches long (a foot more than my armspan) and use this at all times to ensure an appropriate distance is maintained. I'm happy to make these bespoke rosewood products for other people, I call it the "BetaLog".
Also, hats off to JP for a really ballsy ascent! I'm super impressed that anyone would want to be out on that headwall without having worked it properly.
-
"That stems from a guy who didn’t even flash the route." - AussieGav
Not really. This has happened before:
e,g: on Something's Burning:
"I decided to try to flash the route as opposed to attempt an onsight, as I figured I had a realistic chance of the former. There is a massive difference between two styles, especially on a route like Something’s Burning, which comes down to a very exact sequence, and rather specific gear. I decided to try the route after Caroline (Ciavaldini) checked it out on abseil rope and told me it looked easy. It seemed too good to be true, and it was. Over the next couple of days she made a more detailed inspection of the route, figuring out the gear, and actually trying some of the moves. She changed her original opinion, several times in fact, finally telling me it was going to be hard, and that there were a couple of moves that would rely mainly on luck. Just before I tried the route, I abseiled down the line with Caro to watch her try some of the moves, and more importantly place the crux gear. Caro is really aware of my climbing style, and she's become quite good at choosing a method that works for me. Basically she climbs things with big moves, and avoids using small, precise footholds."
https://www.climber.co.uk/news/pearson-flashes-e9-in-pembroke-short-interview-and-photograph/
Obviously he's been completely honest about exactly what he's done, which is great.
But clearly there's also something a bit off here.
If various other people had done Something's Burning in exactly the same style they'd have reported it as a headpoint. Which would probably have barely made the news.
Admittedly I'm somewhat taken aback by the level of confusion around this on this thread.
But as far as I'm aware at least, the vast majority of other trad climbers making the news in the UK aren't defining flash this way. And if they were, then I think it's pretty clear that there would be various other people capable of "flashing" E9.
None of that makes the ascents in the stye he's done them in any less impressive.
It just stops ascents like Something's Burning being put on a pedestal above various others when he's not really playing the same game.
-
Initially I read that and thought: “ no way is that a flash”.
However having had a think about some of my own “flashes” of various routes I think if I had done as Pearson did I would count it personally as a flash. I have certainly lowered down off sport routes watched a mate on a route to the side, looked at all the moves, brushed some holds and put some draws in etc. I have always thought of those as flashes but I guess the difference is no one but me cares!
-
I abseiled down the line with Caro to watch her try some of the moves
Thanks for that Nemo. He abbed the route so didn’t flash it. Surprised this didn’t get challenged at the time.
Also how does his ‘flash attempt’ on Lexicon compare to Steve Mac going for it after just 40 mins on a gri-gri the previous day when the consequences of a fall at that stage was untested? Unanswerable I know but there’s a case to be made that Steve’s go was comparable or maybe better - however you define that.
And Steve got further
-
It's just a matter of opinion though, no one is correct. For me what you've just described is100% a flash and not even in the grey zone. It just depends where you draw the line. I will admit that touching the holds on an ab enters the grey zone and I could be persuaded either way.
Again this isn't what is correct it's just my opinion.
-
It’s also historical, Haydn. I grew up with the term ‘flash’ simply meaning success on the first go, but not onsight because of prior knowledge. Nothing wrong with redefining something, but that’s my ‘curiously definitive’ view (to Alex’s mind).
That hardly addresses the grey areas though. Should it be ground up? Abseil past ok, but not fondling the holds? The term originates in a pre-video era, where most info would have been word of mouth- hidden pocket, filed-down RP2 etc so today’s avalanche of info was not a factor to take into account.
Today’s wads need to reach a consensus on what’s cricket and agree which terms correspond.
-
Do they have same set of terms with similar definitions in other languages? French, Spanish etc?
I imagine where you've not got the extensive trad ethics things might be defined differently?
I really like what James has done here. Feels like he's been sticking his neck out and going where no one else dares for a couple of decades now and no one is yet to catch up. I'm thinking E12, muy calianti flash, that weird film with Gaz parry, this. It's ground breaking stuff and that is really impressive not just for the act itself but because he's the first to do these things. It's great for climbing. Even if he gets it setting sometimes. Although, hopefully it doesn't attract anyone new to the sport :-\
I really like what he's done but I don't think I'd have called it's flash. But I can imagine his approach preserved that feeling of the flash. Which is an approach I'm down with.
-
I've always thought about the style of the ascent in a hierarchy. Onsight > Flash > Ground-up > Head-point > Top-rope, with each an improvement of the style of the one below. So for a flash to improve on a ground-up ascent, you wouldn't be allowed to abseil inspect, since this would obviously not be possible for ground-up.
-
Do they have same set of terms with similar definitions in other languages? French, Spanish etc? .
The French and Spanish climbers I know would use onsight and flash as per most Brits. I've never asked about abbing things but I'd be surprised if they thought it was legit for a flash
-
I've always thought about the style of the ascent in a hierarchy. Onsight > Flash > Ground-up > Head-point > Top-rope, with each an improvement of the style of the one below. So for a flash to improve on a ground-up ascent, you wouldn't be allowed to abseil inspect, since this would obviously not be possible for ground-up.
That's the first time anyone's offered an explanation of this way of thinking that makes sense! Thanks.