UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => chuffing => Topic started by: Tris on November 09, 2009, 09:57:07 am
-
If you down-climb a route, can you still claim the onsight? (no weighting of gear)
I have read various threads going back over the years on here and UKC and there seems to be no clear answer so far... some people say it is, others not.
Personally I think if you down-climb a route, then you shouldn't be able to claim the onsight.
-
They will help here http://www.ukclimbing.com/ (http://www.ukclimbing.com/)
-
They will help here http://www.ukclimbing.com/ (http://www.ukclimbing.com/)
As I said - I have checked there...
Just thought that the more friendly bunch on UKB may give me better answers, maybe not....
-
(http://to55er.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/canofworms1.jpg)
-
They will help here http://www.ukclimbing.com/ (http://www.ukclimbing.com/)
As I said - I have checked there...
Just thought that the more friendly bunch on UKB may give me better answers, maybe not....
Watch James McHaffie on Masters Edge in the film "On Sight".
If you're going to say downclimbing isn't allowed, do you mean you're not allowed to downclimb to the ground or at all? If its only the former, then what about downclimbing back to a ledge or niche for a rest, why is that allowed and not to the ground, are you only allowed to downclimb 10% of the distance you have already climbed, or is there some other arbitrary rule that should be applied?
Onsight means that you've climbed from the ground to the top without pre-practice/top-rope inspection/weighting the ropes/being told significant beta. If you climb up so far, and then return to the ground under your own steam you still have no knowledge of the remainder of the route. I'm sure you could riposte that taken to absurdity you could do one move, climb down, rest do two moves, climb down rest and repeat ad nauseum, but I think we both know that thats a) absurd and b) now what you're getting at.
Watch On Sight, its a great film.
-
Nice one Slackers, that about covers it; lock this topic now!
-
Watch James McHaffie on Masters Edge in the film "On Sight".
If you're going to say downclimbing isn't allowed, do you mean you're not allowed to downclimb to the ground or at all? If its only the former, then what about downclimbing back to a ledge or niche for a rest, why is that allowed and not to the ground, are you only allowed to downclimb 10% of the distance you have already climbed, or is there some other arbitrary rule that should be applied?
Onsight means that you've climbed from the ground to the top without pre-practice/top-rope inspection/weighting the ropes/being told significant beta. If you climb up so far, and then return to the ground under your own steam you still have no knowledge of the remainder of the route. I'm sure you could riposte that taken to absurdity you could do one move, climb down, rest do two moves, climb down rest and repeat ad nauseum, but I think we both know that thats a) absurd and b) now what you're getting at.
Watch On Sight, its a great film.
I do have a copy of onsight, and it was watching it yesterday morning that made me think of this :)
I think onsight should mean climbed first go from bottom to top, not in as many attempts as you like.
For example say you have a route with easy moves and one hard move at the top, you can do the easy moves as many times as you want and down-climb, then do the hard move whenever. Surely this is onsighting a move, not a route?
-
Nice one Slackers, that about covers it; lock this topic now!
Why - can you give me a definite answer?
-
because its a shit topic, onsight has a meaning and thats what it means.
-
I do have a copy of onsight, and it was watching it yesterday morning that made me think of this :)
I think onsight should mean climbed first go from bottom to top, not in as many attempts as you like.
For example say you have a route with easy moves and one hard move at the top, you can do the easy moves as many times as you want and down-climb, then do the hard move whenever. Surely this is onsighting a move, not a route?
How do you reconcile this with...
If you're going to say downclimbing isn't allowed, do you mean you're not allowed to downclimb to the ground or at all? If its only the former, then what about downclimbing back to a ledge or niche for a rest, why is that allowed and not to the ground, are you only allowed to downclimb 10% of the distance you have already climbed, or is there some other arbitrary rule that should be applied?
You're never allowed to moved backwards!!! You've never pulled up, reached for what you thought was a good hold only to find its a shitty sloper and then lowered back down to have a better look, check you're gears good (again) and then gone for it? Thats (at an absurd extreme) downclimbing and therefore incommensurable with your assertion that downclimbing is not allowed.
Besides which I'd anticipated that with...
I'm sure you could riposte that taken to absurdity you could do one move, climb down, rest do two moves, climb down rest and repeat ad nauseum, but I think we both know that thats a) absurd and b) not what you're getting at.
:-*
-
Nice one Slackers, that about covers it; lock this topic now!
Why - can you give me a definite answer?
No-one can give you a definitive answer, because there isn't one.
For what it's worth, going on my own experience of messing about, my opinion is that if one downclimbs to the ground, without weighting the rope, then an eventual ascent is still an onsight.
BUT it's not such good style as an onsight with no downclimbing.
I'd be prouder of the latter, but I'd be happy with the former.
-
because its a shit topic, onsight has a meaning and thats what it means.
If it's such a shit topic, stop reading and posting on it then :)
-
LOG!
-
If you want to make life hard for yourself Tris, go right ahead. I’ll carry on applying common sense. Onsighting is plenty hard enough as it is without inventing stupid rules to make it even harder. Applying competition rules (which make total sense in a time limited competition setting) to rock climbing is a nonsense. Tactical down climbing is a totally sensible way to approach the fundamental problem of getting from bottom to top without falling off or otherwise weighting gear and requires skill and judgement.
-
Its all semantics. some people take "onsight" to mean done without prior knowledge or inspection. Some take "onsight" to mean done without prior knowledge or inspection at the first attempt. Personally I'd call this "onsight flash". What we need to do its stop hoping to condense all the details about any particular ascent into one or two words. It doesn't work, since you can't even get everyone to agree on the terminology, let alone enforce that terminology.
-
Ok - I guess what I'm saying is that if you down-climb, then it is the same as a ground up ascent. You may not have weighted the rope but it's not really 'Onsight' as you have seen and climbed the bottom moves before.
-
LOG-PILE!
-
Its all semantics. some people take "onsight" to mean done without prior knowledge or inspection. Some take "onsight" to mean done without prior knowledge or inspection at the first attempt. Personally I'd call this "onsight flash". What we need to do its stop hoping to condense all the details about any particular ascent into one or two words. It doesn't work, since you can't even get everyone to agree on the terminology, let alone enforce that terminology.
Good point dave... thanks
-
Ok - I guess what I'm saying is that if you down-climb, then it is the same as a ground up ascent. You may not have weighted the rope but it's not really 'Onsight' as you have seen and climbed the bottom moves before.
But you haven't seen the top moves, and you've therefore done all of the moves onsight, albeit repeating the bottom ones to access the top ones!
What dave said (esp wrt "Onsight flash") and what Bonjoy said
-
What dave said (esp wrt "Onsight flash") and what Bonjoy said
;D another what dave said....
I guess it's the repeating moves bit that bugs me, the onsight for me should be in one go...
-
Ok - I guess what I'm saying is that if you down-climb, then it is the same as a ground up ascent.
No, because a "ground up" ascent can still be with prior-knowledge.
You may not have weighted the rope but it's not really 'Onsight' as you have seen and climbed the bottom moves before.
This don't make any sense. So you're saying that any information you glean yourself in the course of an onsight attempt invalidates the onsight? So if you go for a hold, hold it, decide its no good then let go to find another hold then you've blown the onsight? This is becmoing a very odd definition of onsight.
Like what lovejoy said, to most people bothered about onsight what matters is turning up and getting yourself to the top of the route working everything out yourself. I don't recall meeting anyone who is bothered about doing a route where you're only allowed to progress upwards and you must use the first and only hold you hit straight away without hesitiation deviation or repetition - this is climbing not "just a minute".
-
Each individual knows what they did, and how they did it. It's then up to them to pick a word or two to describe, completely inadequately, their style of ascent from a list of half a dozen or so choices. None of these words have concensus definitions so it is all a bit irrelevant which actual words are picked.
-
Ok - I guess what I'm saying is that if you down-climb, then it is the same as a ground up ascent.
No, because a "ground up" ascent can still be with prior-knowledge.
You may not have weighted the rope but it's not really 'Onsight' as you have seen and climbed the bottom moves before.
This don't make any sense. So you're saying that any information you glean yourself in the course of an onsight attempt invalidates the onsight? So if you go for a hold, hold it, decide its no good then let go to find another hold then you've blown the onsight? This is becmoing a very odd definition of onsight.
Like what lovejoy said, to most people bothered about onsight what matters is turning up and getting yourself to the top of the route working everything out yourself. I don't recall meeting anyone who is bothered about doing a route where you're only allowed to progress upwards and you must use the first and only hold you hit straight away without hesitiation deviation or repetition - this is climbing not "just a minute".
No but in a ground up ascent, you can fall no?
I'm saying down-climbing to the ground should not be allowed for an onsight... not reversing some moves...
-
I just found this definition:
FLASH. To climb a route without practice (but perhaps with beta) without falls on the first viewing and first attempt. (This is very similiar to onsight, which is even purer: no beta.)
Now this says 'first attempt' so I guess down-climbing is not allowed in a flash ascent...
If you have climbed the bottom moves before then surely this is beta as you know how to do them and are most likely using less energy. I think we should have a new term, maybe yoyo-onsight? ;D
Sorry if this thread is pissing people off, I really did want some proper debate - maybe I should have asked in Rocktalk, sorry..
-
I just found this definition:
FLASH. To climb a route without practice (but perhaps with beta) without falls on the first viewing and first attempt. (This is very similiar to onsight, which is even purer: no beta.)
Now this says 'first attempt' so I guess down-climbing is not allowed in a flash ascent...
If you have climbed the bottom moves before then surely this is beta as you know how to do them and are most likely using less energy. I think we should have a new term, maybe yoyo-onsight? ;D
You've already agreed with dave's "Onsight-flash" term for this!!!
Again I ask you about moving up trying a hold, not liking it coming down for a reassessment, or even after having done a few moves coming back down to a ledge for a rest, how do you reconcile this with your assertion that downclimbing is not allowed under your definition of "On-Sight"?
-
I just found this definition:
FLASH. To climb a route without practice (but perhaps with beta) without falls on the first viewing and first attempt. (This is very similiar to onsight, which is even purer: no beta.)
Now this says 'first attempt' so I guess down-climbing is not allowed in a flash ascent...
If you have climbed the bottom moves before then surely this is beta as you know how to do them and are most likely using less energy. I think we should have a new term, maybe yoyo-onsight? ;D
You've already agreed with dave's "Onsight-flash" term for this!!!
Again I ask you about moving up trying a hold, not liking it coming down for a reassessment, or even after having done a few moves coming back down to a ledge for a rest, how do you reconcile this with your assertion that downclimbing is not allowed under your definition of "On-Sight"?
Sorry slack---line, I wasn't 100% sure what flash meant - I googled and found the definition... now it's clear as mud :)
As I said to dave - I think that down-climbing to the ground should not be allowed, just reversing some moves to a ledge etc.. should be allowed
BTW the onsight film should have been called 'Ground Up' or 'Onsight Attempts' - didn't seem to be much of it in it to me. Lots of falls going on there... ;D
-
We're not talking eliminates at minus 10 or pinches wall here - there's a time and a place for arbitrary rules, and it aint' trad onsighting.
-
As I said to dave - I think that down-climbing to the ground should not be allowed, just reversing some moves to a ledge etc.. should be allowed
but downclimbing to a ledge is no different. There's routes with ledges that are more spacious and comfy than the ground at the bottom of some routes!
-
We're not talking eliminates at minus 10 or pinches wall here - there's a time and a place for arbitrary rules, and it aint' trad onsighting.
Thank you for your useful comments.
-
As I said to dave - I think that down-climbing to the ground should not be allowed, just reversing some moves to a ledge etc.. should be allowed
See dave's point, but where are you going to draw your arbitrary line to say "Well you've downclimbed more than 10/20/30% of the route to the ground/ledge so thats not an Onsight"? The basic premise of Onsight is no beta, getting to the top yourself without weighting the rope. Simple eh?
BTW the onsight film should have been called 'Ground Up' or 'Onsight Attempts' - didn't seem to be much of it in it to me. Lots of falls going on there... ;D
True, but the point is that they were tyring to on-sight the routes, compare and contrast to Hard Grit and you'll see the difference.
-
As I said to dave - I think that down-climbing to the ground should not be allowed, just reversing some moves to a ledge etc.. should be allowed
You’ve not thought this through have you? What if the ledge is six feet wide and one foot above the ground? What if the ledge tapers into the ground at one end? What if a hold you use mid-route widens out and tapers into the ground at one side? What if the pitch in question is half way up a multi-pitch?
There is no sensible way to apply this daft rule outside of an indoor competition environment.
-
No need to get all sarcastic because I puntered you.
I can just see the scene now: half way up Fairhead, my mate leaves the belay, then realises he's fogotten to get the RPs off me. Of course, he's not allowed to reverse to the belay or he'll blow the onsight so he perches 1cm away from what might be defined as the belay ledge whilst I throw them to him. Phew! Onsight saved. Glad with bothered with that bollocks.
Or how about: I decide to reverse from a tricky section as I've worked out what to do but have got pumped. Of course I can't reverse to the ground, so I reverse to the spacious ledge a few inches off the ground and have my mate pass me a cup of tea whilst I depump. But it's a ledge so that's cool. Just don't slip whilst drinking the tea - if that foot touches the ground you've blown it!
-
@Tris : check this out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_moia-oVI#) :)
-
Of course you can f#cking downclimb you morons!
-
:yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn:
Jesus, I thought I'd stumbled on cocktalk by mistake...
-
Of course you can f#cking downclimb you morons!
Fixed. :)
-
log pile?
-
Of course you can f#cking downclimb you morons!
Damn you Sharpe!
-
40 seconds too slow!
-
Of course you can f#cking downclimb you morons!
Thanks for all your comments, I am not saying 'I think this so this is how it should be'.
As I said before, I wanted to get some views on this - and it is obvious down-climbing is accepted as part of an onsight ascent.
That's fine - I have my personal opinion which I'm entitled to (and it's obvious it's different to the majority of people).
There's no need to slag me off.. I am not a witch..
-
No one called you a witch, just a moron :P :-* :hug: :kiss2:
-
No one called you a witch, just a moron :P :-* :hug: :kiss2:
:lol:
-
I apologise to everyone for talking about climbing related topics in the chuffing forum, it will not happen again...
-
Whilst we're at it can we also outlaw matching, heelhooks and egyptians - so that only real climbers can claim the onsight?
Shitheap...?
-
Mahogany jibs only for feet.
-
It's bloody obvious.
Think about the intrisic qualities of the climbing (onsighting experience) rather than just the semantics of the ethical guidelines, and remember that the former dictates the latter, not vice-versa.
-
:please: even if you dont touch the ground surely you reverse moves to get back to rest positions / re-assess etc? whats the difference between this and reversing to the ground?
-
You fool, Tris.
You should have gone to 8a.nu - where the real climbers go for all their information.
http://www.8a.nu/?IncPage=http%3A//web.8a.nu/articles/ShowArticle.aspx%3FArticleId%3D981 (http://www.8a.nu/?IncPage=http%3A//web.8a.nu/articles/ShowArticle.aspx%3FArticleId%3D981)
well reviewed here (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,8325.20.html) too
-
Cheers for pointing that out Lager's. I can now go and make some quality routes like Ulysses Right Hand and Wizard Ridge and only have to deal with an "Ethical Dilemma" with the official backing of 8a.nu.
Create a new hold to
make a superb route possible. - Ethical Dilemma
:jaw: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank:
-
We're not talking eliminates at minus 10 or pinches wall here - there's a time and a place for arbitrary rules, and it aint' trad onsighting.
I've been unsettled by the (mis)use of the word arbitrary on this thread. All climbing ethics are arbitrary. I think. I've suddenly become confused between ethics and rules. Help.
Lagers ?
-
I've become a tad worried whilst reading this thread. I went for a walk up a hill the other day, and although it was lovely, I made a minor navigational error and had to reverse a short way down the path to take a different path. Tris, can you clarify, does this invalidate my hike?
-
does this invalidate my hike?
Had you claimed it as an onsight ?
-
does this invalidate my hike?
Had you claimed it as an onsight ?
I thought so. Although I did reverse, it was only to a large plateau, not to the bottom. Do I need to bring out the tippex in my walking guide?
-
I've become a tad worried whilst reading this thread. I went for a walk up a hill the other day, and although it was lovely, I made a minor navigational error and had to reverse a short way down the path to take a different path. Tris, can you clarify, does this invalidate my hike?
not if you didn't go right back to the car.
-
Was it a completely new walk, or an extension to a walk you'd already done in the past?
-
We're not talking eliminates at minus 10 or pinches wall here - there's a time and a place for arbitrary rules, and it aint' trad onsighting.
I've been unsettled by the (mis)use of the word arbitrary on this thread. All climbing ethics are arbitrary. I think. I've suddenly become confused between ethics and rules. Help.
Lagers ?
You are right.
One should be confused about the difference between ethics and rules in climbing.
A maths/climbing analogy... (possibly a direct route to a month on Burbage ward)...
Climbing rules are like axioms - starting points that everyone agrees on
Claimed ascents are like theorems (proof is needed/sought of the style claimed)
Ethics are like conjectures - the main essence of which is that they make one's climbing life somehow more satisfying - no logical proof of this is available usually, but much anecdotal evidence may be found in the pub or on the internet.
As to the difficulty posed by Reeve, all that matters is whether anyone has challenged his claimed walk on 8a.nu - if not, then just take the points.
Simples
-
Was it a completely new walk, or an extension to a walk you'd already done in the past?
It's true that I had pre-practiced the walk numerous times, but not for a few weeks at least. I was claiming the new-boot-retro-day-onsight. Now don't tell me that isn't allowed too!
-
Straying off topic a little again...
My maths/climbing analogy as regards ethics and that was inspired by Keats' Ode On A Gritstone Problem which finishes
O Attic shape! Fair attitude! with brede
Of smears and slopers overwrought,
With forest branches and the trodden weed;
Thou, silent form, dost tease us out of thought
As doth eternity: Cold Pastoral!
When old age shall this generation waste,
Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say'st,
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty," - that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
I've underlined the important bit. The beauty of finding a clean proof in maths or logic is comparable with the beauty of climbing a route in good style (as it is experienced by the climber/prover). Which brings us nicely back to downclimbing.
1. climbing goes up mostly
1.1 climbing that goes across is acceptable because it is not-down
2. it is the not-downness of climbing that is important
2.1 downclimbing is anti-climbing
3. when climbing is achieved by enough downclimbing as to be worth mentioning, then it is no longer proper climbing.
Now, I've successfully put 8a.nu into bed with Keats and Wittgenstein. All that remains is to get Simon Cowell a job as a route setter and the apocalypse can begin as planned.
-
However, beautiful your hypotheisis it is not the truth despite what Keats says and we know he was speaking of poetic truth rather than logic which has a different beauty.
The best way I can think of illustrating the flaws is to replace 'downclimbing' for movement and non-movement or to use the vernacular - 'shaking-out'.
1. climbing involves movement mostly
1.1 climbing that goes slowly is acceptable because it is not non-movement
2. it is the not non-movement of climbing that is important
2.1 non-movement is anti-climbing
3. when climbing is achieved by enough non-movement (shaking-out) as to be worth mentioning, then it is no longer proper climbing.
-
Or, put another way, stamina routes are shit. :)
-
Or, put another way, stamina routes are shit. :)
1. climbing is good
1.1. more climbing is more good
2. long climbs have more climbing
2.1 quantity has a quality of its own
3. stamina routes ain't shit
-
4. Stamina is justified by the weak :whistle:
-
1. climbing is good
1.1 finishing a climb is the best bit
1.2 more of a good thing is better
2. stamina routes take longer to finish
2.1 some people can't do more than 3 moves in a row anyway
3. stamina routes involve more climbing if they are completed
4. some people will get more enjoyment from stamina routes
5. VAT is due to go back up
5.1 there is no VAT on routes of whatever length
5.2 you will save more by getting more routes done unless youare going to pass on the cost to your customers
6. it's nice that weak people can feel that they are having a good time too
Of course if we look at Montchausse's theorem that climbing is about moving between points of balance we might start to value the more satisfying stages between movement more than the movement itself. This teleological interpretation of movement being only worth as much as the stability of the point at its end makes stamina routes look more appealing.
Only a fool would think that standing/hanging still to place gear is a good use of ones time. This is the ultimate non-movement of the type mentioned by S.Lee (10/11/09)
-
despite what Keats says and we know he was speaking of poetic truth rather than logic which has a different beauty.
I would argue that the feeling that a person experiences on comprehending either type of truth is very similar and that is what is important - and, indeed, what I was on about to start with; hence the maths/climbing analogy.
Next week's discussion will focus on the balance between personal relationships, climbing goals and spiritual fulfilment. Substance use will be discussed in a separate module.
I note with some satisfaction that everyone has submitted their first essay in way ahead of schedule. Marking will begin in march 2012 as detailed on page 57 of the course handbook. Anybody being offered a job on the basis of their UKB Ba hons will be given a priority appointment with Job Centre Plus within three weeks.
-
god I love you guys
-
despite what Keats says and we know he was speaking of poetic truth rather than logic which has a different beauty.
I would argue that the feeling that a person experiences on comprehending either type of truth is very similar and that is what is important - and, indeed, what I was on about to start with; hence the maths/climbing analogy.
Next week's discussion will focus on the balance between personal relationships, climbing goals and spiritual fulfilment. Substance use will be discussed in a separate module.
I note with some satisfaction that everyone has submitted their first essay in way ahead of schedule. Marking will begin in march 2012 as detailed on page 57 of the course handbook. Anybody being offered a job on the basis of their UKB Ba hons will be given a priority appointment with Job Centre Plus within three weeks.
Looking forward to the substance use module, does it include a practical component?
-
I've become a tad worried whilst reading this thread. I went for a walk up a hill the other day, and although it was lovely, I made a minor navigational error and had to reverse a short way down the path to take a different path. Tris, can you clarify, does this invalidate my hike?
:lol:
that's dynamite Reeve.
I think you still get the beta-pinkpoint-prairiedog-retro-flash though, so it's all ok.
To briefly return to the thread's tawdry beginnings, i think if Tris doesn't want to downclimb when onsighting then he shouldn't. I fortunately, signed up for rock climbing and not cricket, don't much care about what anyone else else thinks of my efforts, and will continue to do what the hell i like. As should everyone else, as long as they are honest.
-
god I love you guys
Word. It's shit like this that gets me through the day.
-
I hope it is allowed, other wise I have never onsighted a hard trad route.
-
Has anyone quoted Heraclitus yet?
You can't climb the same moves twice because neither you nor the moves are the same.
PS, can you claim an os wank if you use a stuffed marigold on a stick? (C) Stalloni
-
Has anyone quoted Heraclitus yet?
You can't climb the same moves twice because neither you nor the moves are the same.
PS, can you claim an os wank if you use a stuffed marigold on a stick? (C) Stalloni
Only if you have no proir knowledge of the recipient.
And has this thread been resurrected to inform of some hard trad route onsight/s?
I thought not.
-
Has anyone quoted Heraclitus yet?
I just like the clit in his name.
-
Has anyone quoted Heraclitus yet?
You can't climb the same moves twice because neither you nor the moves are the same.
PS, can you claim an os wank if you use a stuffed marigold on a stick? (C) Stalloni
Only if you have no proir knowledge of the recipient.
And has this thread been resurrected to inform of some hard trad route onsight/s?
I thought not.
http://davemacleod.blogspot.com/2010/03/tempest-in-teacup.html (http://davemacleod.blogspot.com/2010/03/tempest-in-teacup.html)
Dave does Tempest, "on-sight". Specifically notes that he downclimbed on first go from 6m below the top because he'd run out gear, and wanted to keep the onsight alive.
Obviously, downclimbing a route given X,9 deserves a lot of kudos...
(P.S. I'm cool with his definition. Who am I to argue with Dave's definition of onsight? Only brought it up because I saw this thread right after reading the blog entry... please don't punter me...)
-
Has anyone quoted Heraclitus yet?
You can't climb the same moves twice because neither you nor the moves are the same.
No need to as he was superseded by Zeno and his 'dynamics of onsight' theory viz that you can know either which move is being attempted onsight or its theoretical font grade but not both at the same time.
This is not to be confused with the 'sit down start' paradox which states that before reaching the original standing start point you must first cover half the distance from the ground, prior to which you must first have covered a quarter of the distance, and so on ad infinitum thus rendering the sit down start a logical impossibility, a theorem proved many times over at Minus Ten by myself and others.
For discussion of this and many other conundrums of the early Greek pioneers a good starting place is Jacky Godoffe's 'Nicomachean Ethics'.
-
I take your Zeno and raise you Kuhn and the new onsite paradigm which infers that if you've seen the route on the internet it doesn't blow the onsight.
-
I thought Kuhn's view would be that as long as you approach the onsight from a new set of fundamental principles then you are free to claim the onsight, but the validity of your whole ascent may be questioned by later generations :shrug:
-
It will be anyway, especially if you leave the first three bolts preclipped.
-
I thought Kuhn's view would be that as long as you approach the onsight from a new set of fundamental principles then you are free to claim the onsight, but the validity of your whole ascent may be questioned by later generations :shrug:
Kuhn was a filthy relevistic top roper who'd claim the onsight of a neighbouring line on the basis that he recognised the fundamental principles and how their were understood and from that the inference was that he'd climbed the route.
Si O'Connor basically followed a similar approach, although his swans were photoshopped into black and white.
Anyway Kuhn's premise was that the move toward web based media and the consumpion of it is different from a real experience hence the 'onsite' (sic) not blowing the onsight.
PS I hated reading and applying Kuhn etc with a passion so this might all be total bollocks
-
Correctly using the term 'onsite' gives you an immediate 'pedant point' - congratulations !(Sadly UKB has a binary option only - as befits t'interweb I suppose, so you got a 'wad point' instead.)
Kuhn - go on don't keep me guessing: Alfred or Thomas?
Although Escher can be helpful in examining the 'Si O'Conner Fallacy' the usual point of reference in this case, 'The Scott O'Connor Postulate' [viz 'if some really big numbers are said to be pulled down in a plantation when there is no-one there to witness, can we believe the event occurred in fact?'] is perhaps more illuminating:
"…For as to what is said of the absolute existence of unthinking things first ascents without any relation to their being perceived, that is to me perfectly unintelligible. Their esse [to be] is percipi [to be perceived] " [ Berkeley, A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Bouldering Knowledge, 1710 ]
Subsequently re-articulated by Husserl as 'No witness no [wad-] point' in Logische Untersuchungen following his fabulous 1900/01 winter season in the Frankenjura, although regrettably the rigour of his methodology has been woefully abandoned by later devotees, notably Bocke, M....blah blah blah....