So I have been saving a bunch of routes for onsights in what I consider to be the best grade in the Gunks....5.10. Over the past 8-10 years I have turned down partners requests to follow up certain routes, in the hopes of someday being strong enough to lead them onsight.

Today I got on one of my "saved" routes, Doubleissima. I knew it was going to be sustained and pumpy, and tried to climb with a philosophy of put gear in quickly and committ to climbing well above gear. Man was I schooled hard! Sometimes the difference between the onsight and coming back to try to redpoint is one mistake. One fumbled gear placement. One wrong sequence. From there it is just a domino effect. I missed my treasured onsight of the route by mere fractions.

Oh well, it was still a great route to try to lead without any knowledge of. I felt like I wanted to puke when I topped out. I love that feeling.

So what routes are you saving for onsights? For me they are all in the 5.10 range. I haven't followed many 5.11's, so that grade isn't a big deal. Here's what I have left in the 5.10's to onsight:

Elder Cleavage
Ridiculissima
Erect Direction
Nurses Aid
Any 5.10 at Millbrook with the exception of Time Eraser
Tough Shift
Graveyard Shift
Interstice

What do you have, in any grade that you are climbing?

RR

where did you get pumped out Rob?

Sometimes I really think that saving routes just puts too much pressure on something that's supposed to be fun - I get too worked up just about the idea of them, and fussing over whether I'm really feeling good enough and whether I'm being too fussy about under exactly what conditions I'll try them and then oh, the pressure, what if all that saving up was just for nothing and I was fooling myself to think I'd ever be able to ....

But yeah, I do it too. Bonnie's and Roseland, guilty.

Let's not forget that if you've ever seen/watched someone on the route, or done routes to either side where you had a good view of the route in question, it's really not an "on sight".

Leading on sight trad is what climbing is all about.

tip:Erect Direction (my favorite on sight) is every bit as sustained as Doubleissima.

I think the modern definition of "onsight" is a silly adaptation of the rules for climbing competitions.

The old-fashioned idea ("trad onsight?"), was that whatever knowledge you acquired was obtained from the ground up and without weighting any gear. You could climb up, look around, downclimb and reclimb to your heart's content as long as you started at the bottom (no traversing in from the side or climbing down from the top to inspect) and didn't weight any gear.

Downclimbing out of trouble before falling is one of the great (and perhaps now fading) trad arts. The current sport-influenced definition of onsight misses the boat and encourages rushing upwards before you blow it.

I've tested the patience of many a partner running obligatory downclimbing laps.

I have a lousy memory, so everything is an onsight.

There are a lot of routes I've been saving for a lead. Funny thing is that by the time I was confident enough to lead them, there was something else I wanted to lead, so there's just a lot of classic, three star routes I've never been on and just haven't gotten around to climbing. Like Horseman, I got on it on TR for the first time last season to clean it; seemed a bit silly at that point to say "no, I want to onsight it".

Hey Rob, if you feel like you would try Doubleissima again you might as well give Ridiculissima a shot. It might be a little pumpier but the gear is mindless. I can never figure out which pitch I like better. I imagine you've done Stirrup Trouble if it's not on your list. Personally I think thats the best ten in the Gunks.(if only it were off the gt ledge)If Skytop were open I'd recommend October Country to you too. If Skytop were still open I'd really like to onsite No Comment.

I'm not sure what you think onsight now means? Your definition of what it "used to" mean is exactly what everyone I know considers it to mean. Unless I'm missing something.

What's the "sport influenced" version? By this do you mean that the climber always continues to either move up or fall? That's silly - that's just an onsight attempt with poor tactical skills. Milking rests and up and down-climbing to suss out a crux is just part of climbing, neither old- nor new-school.

Regarding the original topic - at the Gunks I preferred to attempt to onsight every climb that was challenging to me. This wasn't difficult logistically, since I consistently climbed with either people much weaker than I - who could at best follow the stuff I could lead, or people much stronger than I - who's leads I could at best follow.

These days, sadly, my only trad partners are weaker than I, and mostly less knowledgeable. So every hard climb I get on is an onsight attempt.

GO

Makes sense to me man, there are a ton of routes I'm saving coast to coast. For me onsite climbing is the pinnacle of ownership at a grade. Sure I can get on things a bit out of my pay grade and send after rehearsal and that is what it takes for me to climb harder routes, but all that work keeps pushing my onsite standard higher and higher. And the higher it goes the more options I have when I travel, it is very nice getting on whatever you want because you can onsite well. You also get more pitches in (barring some sort of 45 minute on wall battle to bag that onsite).

Hope all is well out in the east!

Rob,
I had the same experience on Doubleissima last year. I "tried" to onsight it & my performance was miserable: falling, hanging, and all the other questionable tactics. It was a reality check after "onsighting" prizes in New Hampshire like Last Unicorn the month before. I went back the next week and redpointed Doubleissima but knowing the moves and the gear made all the difference. Upon reaching the GT I veritably collapsed in a combination of exuberant laughter and terrible elbow pain.

On Erect Direction: way less sustained than Doubleissima. The belay atop p. 2 is a nice break in the action. I'll follow you up that any time, my partners were nice enough to me to let me take both pitches.

DL

Gabe, I've been told that if I climb up to a spot, look around, place some gear, climb down to the ground and rest, and then go back up, it isn't an onsight. Even more so if I climb down, removing gear as I go, and come back another day. No onsight.

But this is just what other people have said to me; I'm not sure there is a "rule book" anywhere anyway.

I think you're climbing with some awfully fussy (and mis-informed) people, Rich. I'm with Gabe, and you - so long as you haven't climbed the route yourself yet, it's an onsight so long as you don't weight the rope (and place the gear yourself, sad as it is that that needs to be said).

I can hardly avoid seeing other people climb Bonnie's, but I know that it will feel and climb new to me when I do it.

RG's sense of what on-sight means, and apparently RR's, has been around for a while and has been repeatedly published.

On-sight: when a route is climbed first try and with absolutely no prior information of any kind. E. Horst, How to Climb 5.12, 1997.

On-sighting: No beta (information) at all, except for the grade. The minute you start milking any information, you've blown your on-sight and are looking to do a good flash ascent. J. Long, Sport Climbing, 3rd ed. 1997.

Make up your own rules, of course, but there you go.

how about a "mostly onsight?"


http://www.climbing.com/news/hotflashes/free_rider_mostly_onsight/

Can a blind person climb anything onsight?

Technically, if you even know of the existence of the route and it's grade...then it isn't. We could be as pure as we wanted until we entered the realm of absurdity. I have looked at Doubleissima a hundred times as I rapped down the High E rap. I knew how hard it was, I knew generally how long it was, where it went. I still consider it an insight attempt. But whatever. If your ethics call for more stringency than that....good for you! As long as you are honest when you gtalk to people abouit how you climbed it. I put the rope up on it. I fell twice, hung once, didn't hurt myself, and had a blast. As far as I'm concerned, I was successful.

Unfortunately, I have already toproped Stirrup Trouble, so I know exactly what I am in for when I try to lead it.

Sounds like a proud day, RR. Keep it fun or go home.

There is a Brit video dedicated to the topic of the onsight.
It drives home the point that different climbers play different games.

I don't save routes. Most routes are easier onsight, at least that's been the way the numbers have shaken out for me. So saving routes means thwarting your partner's desires in order to selfishly reserve a clean ascent for yourself. Man up and follow what your partner wants to lead.

Sorry Dalguard, I'm too selfish for that.

Onsight is easier? Hmm... only way that I'd buy that is if your onsights were a self-selected pool. Working out the correct sequences, onsight, is often half the difficulty on hard routes.

RG - now that you mention it, I think I may have once thought exactly that: that if you descend to the ground and then go back up, it invalidates your onsight. All I can say in my own defense is that I was at the time even younger and more ignorant than I am today.

GO

On sight trad often involves going up, placing gear and down climbing to rest after assessing the situation. This especially applies to long routes, where it's just you and your partner and a desire to climb, possibly an unknown 1000' extravaganza. Obviously, Gunks routes are relatively low commitment, but I have to say, if you sack up and decide to lead it, never having been on the thing, make it up without falling or hanging on gear, regardless of how many "go up and take a looks" you have, it's an on sight and go eat some more nails.

I generally find online polls a nuisance, but...

POLL
What's the greatest number of "go up, take a look/place gear, come down" laps you've taken on an onsight?

I think I did 6 or 7 on Ant's Line. On about #5 I got my hand sequence crossed up as I reversed the little layback up to the overhang, and had to work extra-extra hard to get back to the rest stance. Man, my abs ached for a couple days after that lead. But I got it!

Climbing was so much better when I didn't know sh!t and just had fun. Onsight, red point, head point, pink point and hang dog had no meaning then. When climbing upper levels people seem to care more on how you climb or yet you get to say "hey i just onsighted this climb". If you didn't onsight or get the climb clean some may even say "well you really didn't climb it then". This may matter to some and if you are having fun then great. For me all that matters is cool looking lines, getting to the top and hopefully the best thing a ski descent.
Now I'm going back to gumby land so overrated climbing terms like onsight and clean don't mean sh!t, while fun still has a meaning.

It's a good point John, and for the most part I do feel that way. As long I get the rope up a cool lookin gline I'm happy. That being said, it would be cool to be able to walk up to a Gunks 5.10 and send.

I'd agree that onsighting can be easier sometimes because often it's the only time I care enough to fire beyond my max because it's a one shot deal, that's what's so fun about onsight climbing, you only get one chance and then it's gone forever. If I send on try 2 (the most frustrating because it means you probably could and should have done it first go) or try 100 there is not as much pressure or drive so you often don't climb with the same gusto. Just my 2

Sorry, I'm in GO's camp on this one. If you think on-sight is easier, then you're either picking routes you're pretty certain you can indeed do on-sight (which would suggest some kind of prior knowledge, thus tainting the on-sight) or you're not climbing at a particularly difficult level.

I agree with Pazreal, motivation is everything, often one has the physical strength to send a route, but maybe not have the right incentive. Earlier this summer, I challenged someone to lead Country Roads (it being a bit beyond my limit)if I led City Streets. I promptly fired the route (not an onsight)after previously backing off the route. The guy walked away (still haven't been on CR)Later at the Brauhaus, I asked him about it, and he said I just needed the proper motivation. I'm not saying onsights are easier, definitely not, but perhaps the incentive to send it first try sometimes elevates your commitment to push your self further than usual. I know it has for me before.

talus...how dare you attach the word "fun" to a sport where success and failure is and should be measured by numbers, letters and other various existential attachments too numerous to mention here. Absolute sacrilege…

Fun is only be had by those who seek the mountains for their own selfish reasons while those married and dedicated to the aforementioned (and, by the way globally known) measurements should only be considered real climbers.

All Hail the High and Holy Benchmark!!!

(man, that was fun!)

I regularly go up and down to figure out a sequence. No idea what my record is, but it's probably around the same as your 6 or 7. Beyond that, unless it's a total no hands rest, I think you start getting into the realm of diminishing returns.

If I could add another spin to your question - how about the most times you've descended to the *ground* (or start of the pitch, for multi-pitch stuff) on an onsight?

I think the record for me is probably on Yellow Ridge in the Nears. I went up and down, trying the line DW describes, and then the one Swain describes. I couldn't find a way for either version to get me anywhere near the protection or difficulty level claimed in the two guidebooks we had. Then I finally tried something different (won't say what - don't want to spoil anyone else's onsight). And it turned out I actually did the line the way everyone else does!

There's a 5.10a in Eldo called Blind Faith. The FAist did the climb onsight, free solo. They went up and down many times, getting higher on the pitch each time, over several days, before committing and going all the way to the ledge. The scary part of the story is that the first 90% of the climb is waaaay easier than the last 10 feet.

GO

I think 3 or 4 times up and down is my max. This usually happens more when I'm trying to figure out gear rather than the moves. I think I was on my 3rd or 4th lap of third pitch Bombs Away Dream Baby before I found the gear I was happy enough with and was in a position to actually place it.

Beatle Brow Bulge did it for me. I think I moved into that roof half a dozen times at least befor I commited to it.

Obviously onsight isn't easier, but that's the way the numbers shake out for me. "Obviously" isn't always true.

Ranger Rob on BBB reminds me of me my first time on the last pitch roof of Maria. I climbed up into that roof at least three times, each time placing another piece of gear, before getting the guts to go for it!

GO

I call your 3 times up and place a piece on Maria roof and raise you another bomber nut before I went through. By far the toughest "6" I've lead.

That was Wisecrack for me. I think I went up and down about 7 times and was about to back off before putting in another crappy piece of gear and committing--and it still felt pretty desperate.

Wisecrack is such a great name for that line. If there is an elegant, graceful way to get through that crux, then I sure haven't found it.

there are quite a few routes where I have been up and down before sending or falling. The 2nd pitch of Erect Direction was probably about 15 times up and down. Graveyard Shift was about a dozen times up and down. The Stand took quite a few as well, at least 10. At those moments not only do you have to workout the moves but you also have to work it out with yourself how commited you are on a particular attempt. Somethings just won't go even if you think you have the moves worked out to a T unless you fully commit with no looking back.

Wisecrack: Crux at the bottom? Gym moves. Certainly the hardest 6 I've done, and climbing-wise one of the more fun ones too. Not as asthetic as some routes though.

Maria: Must be an end of the day route for me, IE lets see if we can get up this vbefore dark. I have only once gotten to the crux. Detoured that time due to the "unkown", darkness, and cold. Wasn't sure what I was getting into. Another time specifically to lead that pitch bailed again due darkness, cold, and a bit of snow. Given another chance I would continue knowing that I was not horribly off route.

Mark, I'll be glad to go along and tell you that you aren't off-route. Sometimes that extra confidence makes it all a lot easier.

Hmm...

So we agree it's not an onsight if you hang on your gear? What if, before the crux, you find yourself about to flail, so you build an anchor and bring up your second?

Ahh, the intricacies of the onsight. I think we all agree that if you hang or pull on your gear while climbing a pitch, then the true onsight is blown. However, I do believe during the FFA of Doubleissima a hanging belay was used under the roof and the pitch was split in two. The crux moves may still be the same, but it definitely makes the climb easier to onsight. But who says you have to belay where others have belayed? If you find yourself getting pumped, what's wrong with building an anchor and bringing your second up, then attacking it again? When the Witney Gilman Ridge was first climbed it was done in like 17 pitches. Granted, they didn't have any pro to speak of, and the rope was super short, but still, it was the valid first ascent.

How easy would Double Crack be if you climbed 30 feet at a time? It would take a lot longer, but no one can argue with you about doing it clean. How about the hanging belay on Erect Direction? Can that be reasonably bedone in one pitch with double rope technique? Surely the hanging belay makes it easier to do both pitches without pumping out.

What a great question Quanto

I think there is a distinction to be made between a hanging belay and one on a ledge. But it's not about onsighting, its really whether or not the climb has been done free. The hanging belay is a point of aid, and if done in the middle of an ordinary pitch, constitutes a point of aid on the climb. For this reason, I've never thought that the so-called first free ascent of Doubleissima was anything of the sort.

The hanging belay on Erect Direction is similar, although originally it was needed because of rope friction. With double ropes and intelligence the pitch can be done in a single lead, so the hanging belay is also a point of aid.

Belays on a ledge, where the belayer can stand without weighting the anchor, are another matter. Double Crack, for example, has such a stance, and using it does not mean the ascent is not free.

There ye go matey! Straight outta ye old seadog's mouth. Arrrrgghh!!

Sorry, I'm getting into role for later tonight.

I agree about the hanging belay becoming a point of aid. However, if the route is normally done (especially if as done by the FA) without the hanging belay, then doesn't using one also pretty much eliminate the onsight? Case in point: in Indian Creek, the original Swedin-Ringle (12-) ended at a set of chains where the crack pinched out. Air Swedin (13R) goes to the chains then busts out to highly technical moves on the arete to the left. If you go to the chains and belay there, then continue out to the arete on a second "pitch" (of maybe 20') up to the anchors on Air Swedin, you haven't done the route free nor have you on-sighted it. (In fact to do Air Swedin, you're not supposed to clip the chains, either - just slam in some cams.)

I meant to imply that a route done with one or more points of aid can't possibly have been onsighted---it hasn't even be free-climbed!

This is one of the things that surprises me about people doing routes with one or more hangs and then saying that they "haven't got it clean," when the reality is that they have aided the route and so, from a free-climbing perspective, have simply failed. Admitting to failure seems to me to be more accurate than merely confessing to some form of compromised hygiene.

Man RG, failed is such a strong word. I don't consider getting the rope up a beautiful line safely as a failure of anything. I climbed the route, that's it. I don't imply I climbed it free, or on aid. If I deem to elaborate on my effort further in the conversation with someone, I will tell them that I either fell, hung, or freed it. But I certainly didn't fail. The only failure as far as I'm concerned, is injury or death to myself or my partner.

RR

I don't know, Rich - if I say I didn't get something "clean", then the person I'm talking to probably still has a good idea of what happened.

I think it's agreed that the goal is a clean free ascent, and not getting it clean is falling short of the goal, ie, failing. Compromised hygiene depends on pant color ;-) But even if someone needs to save face by saying they didn't get it clean, we still know what happened.

That's the real underlying reason for these terms like onsight, yes? So that when we talk about it in the bar, or in the mag, we know what happened?

Whereas, I've noticed a trend over the last coupl'a years of people claiming a lead of some route; where what they really mean is that they got the rope to the top with a bunch of ugliness in between. In other words, what you might call failure. At any rate, it's a real failure of communication.

For those unfamiliar with the climb, here's Sara Watson fighting it out with Air Swedin*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t6bMB9WgJE\

*: Everyone seems to be spelling it Sweden now, but in the guide it's "Swedin" .

Aww, that's too bad, I thought I had something there, was about to start climbing with a 15m rope...

Marc- looks like a great climb, but that camerawork was making me nauseous, had to stop watching it.

I agree about the camerawork. There's a much longer segment on Air Swedin in the Parallojams portion of the film Return to Sender.

On Sight or A Vue as the French say are best saved for road trips. You should be getting on everything you can at your home crag, you will then be that much more prepared for when you might not have a second chance to send.

So Marc, since for most of us here on gunks.com that's not our home crag, why are you trying to blow our onsight attempts on Air Swedin by sending us betamax?
Given that the thread is [well, was] about saving routes for an onsight...

I TOTALLY woulda missed the heel hook...

I don't recall that clicking on the video link was a requirement....

The great thing about believing that you didn't "lead" a route unless you led it cleanly is that you can never take a lead fall, since as soon as you fall you've stopped leading. This logic will undoubtedly save many lives.

Over the years the word "failed" has come to mean a totally different thing to me.

I think I should never have started down this road. I'm well aware that my ideas on this are archaic and belong to a previous and rapidly fading generation.

But Dawn, if the quote above is in response to what I said, it contains a misunderstanding. My perspective is that aiding a route in order to obtain move and/or protection beta and calling that some sort of qualified success (I did it, but not cleanly) simply doesn't correspond to what I think of as having lead the route free. Hanging around on gear and getting rested is most definitely "aiding for information" in my book, and is quite different from falling off, which actually ends the beta stream rather than providing an opportunity to enhance it.

So if you take multiple falls but don't use them as opportunities to gain knowledge of what lies ahead and eventually succeed, you've "led the route" in my book. Whereas if you hung rested and inspected and went on and hung some more, then the eventual lead, or "redpoint," is tainted by the fact that the full set of difficulties was never encountered and resolved free. As for the degree of cleanliness, that isn't my term and I feel under no obligation to elaborate on it.

This is obviously a trad climbing perspective; sport climbing is another discipline with a different set of expectations---or perhaps the point is that there really is no difference in expectations any more, and trad climbing is just sport climbing with gear.

Rob, I suppose I should have used the term "...failed to do it free..." rather than just saying "failed." I've had many delightful days composed of almost nothing but failures, and am not aware of implying that failing to do a route free is cause for ruining anyone's day. In fact, one of the cornerstones of the Vulgarian tradition was the Fiasco, a multidimensional failure that was appreciated in direct proportion to the absence of any recognizable elements of success.

A tradition that I'm actively following.

Agreed Rich, and I'm all about the fiasco!!! Christ I had one yesterday on Obstacle Delusion.

Rob,
Were you doing the 5.9 version as described in the latest Williams or the version from his 'Select' that pushes thru the harder 10b roof? (I've done that on TR after leading the first) of course Teenie Face is great too while you're there. As I mentioned I had my own air show on Cheap Thrills the other day.........!

That's the sad part Mark, I was doing what is desrcibed as the 5.9. That whole 25 or 30 feet of climbing after the stance above the roof is full on no rest big move climbing. Way harder than LeTeton or Kepp On Struttin I thought. But hey, that's the joy of onsighting. I did spend some time hanging on my arms putting in gear going the wrong way, then having to reverse it, put in more gear, take out the other gear,then figure out the moves. If that's 5.9, then I am a 5.8 climber.

I would also put Beatle Brow Bulge below this in terms of leading difficulty.

RR

Whaaat?! I thought I saw you on Balrog while we were on Absurdland? Not that one can't get shut down going the wrong way and wasting energy, I think that's partly what happened on Cheap Thrills, another factor in the first time on a route. I love Ob Delus. great exposure, yup pretty sustained too. More climbing than Insuhlation IMO (no offense Claude!)

I think those moves from the stance to the belay are almost as hard as the 5.10 version of the roof section of the climb. Not as cruxy, but a lot of steep!

i forget which one goes where over there but my first trip up Obstacle D also involved some quite convoluted climbing resulting in impossible rope drag from too many right angles and eventually reversing. great fun, especially when the big snakes are on the ledge with your belayer

That's right, I forgot about the big black snake that lives in the hollow pine/rap tree!!

I had a similar disaster on Obstacle Delusion. I thought I was doing an 8 to warm up. After climbing every chunk of the face both vertically and horizontally and attempting to place every piece on my rack 2 or 3 times each, I arrived at the top a pumped and chastened climber. "Failed" on that one too. That's an appropriately named climb.

On my only attempt to do Insuhlation, I chickend out onto the face between it and Obstactle Delusion. Which is 5.10a/b according to various people and books, but I think is really a lot more technically straightforward than the "5.9" Insuhlation, or at least just suits my body type and climbing style better. Despite having done the allegedly harder variation onsight, I feel like I failed that day.

There are always those climbs that are perhaps physically harder/smaller holds etc, but are really technically easier & less scary & simpler to figure out... this was one of them for me.

I saw that black snake send the first pitch to get to the pine tree earlier this year.. It was quite impressive..
I love all of teh climbs on that section of the cliff.. They are all great quality climbs and are usually open even on busy days..
Anyone done the 5.11 finish to OD? It looks pretty fun..

Yes and Yes

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate!

What I mean when I say "I didn't get route X clean" is exactly what you're saying: I fell or hung - relying on a point of aid - before continuing up the climb. How is that in any way ambiguous, disingenuous, or otherwise morally compromised?

And when I do say that, it's usually immediately followed by a statement of intent, such as "I think I know what I did wrong, and I think I'll get it next time." In other words - an acknowledgment that I failed to get both the onsight and the free ascent, but came close, and learned some beta by attempting it, and would now like to try for the redpoint.

GO

That, indeed, isn't. But we've all heard ludicrous statements like "I was able to get the on-sight on my 3rd go, but I didn't get it clean."

As we were packing up one day last week in Red Rocks, we watched a guy hang on each bolt after the 2nd on a 9+, commenting on how nice and cool the moves were while his partner congratulated him on how well he did.

I think I just read something similar in Yankee Rock + Ice - 'he led it on sight with just one fall'.

Bizarre. In 11 years of climbing, I've never heard anything like either of these claims. Onsight simply means you led it cleanly on your first go, no beta. I thought that was pretty clear?

At least in Julie's quote it's obvious what's meant: he fell only once on his onsight attempt.

But RG's point seems to be a different one: that falling and continuing on on the onsight attempt is... is... I'm not entirely sure what he thinks it is.

I mean, from a purely traditional free-climbing mindset, it's pretty bad form since it's using sport/aid tactics to get up a route, as opposed to lowering, pulling the rope, and trying again. But there seems to be some objection to using the terminology of "not having gotten the route clean" which I don't understand.

Maybe the confusion is around the term "clean"? In free climbing, I understand the term to be used to mean the opposite of "hangdog". To climb a pitch clean means that while it's not clear whether it's a pink-point, redpoint, onsight, beta flash, or what have you - it is understood that you climbed from bottom to top without falling.

This is different from in aid climbing, in which I understand the term to mean clean versus hammered.

GO

In what I quoted - the slippery usage lends me to wonder whether there were also multiple hangs on gear that just weren't noted.

If the definitions of 'onsight' and even 'lead' become so ... generous .... that we still have to specify whether they were also clean or involved falls &/- hanging, then what's the point of such terms?

I'm very traditionalist in this: if you hang on gear at any point, you've aided the climb and did not do it free. If this happens during an on-sight attempt, you've forever lost the possibility of doing the route on-sight. You only get one chance at an on-sight. Let's be clear - we're talking about weighting the gear, not downclimbing to a rest stance.

Phraseology such as "I climbed it but not cleanly" is simply an ego-saving way of saying (and obscuring) "I used aid to get up the climb."

Look up Jim Erickson and his strict concept of "tainting" a climb for historical reference.

Right. That's clear as day to everyone I know and climb with. And it has nothing to do with "trad". If you hang or fall on an onsight attempt of a sport climb, you blew the onsight. Period.



Bullshit. There's nothing "ego-saving" about it. Ego-saving would be lying and claiming you accomplished something you didn't. Saying of an onsight attempt "I topped out, but didn't get it clean" is simply a clear and concise way of saying "I attempted to lead the climb cleanly onsight, but, failing that, continued up the route anyway."

GO

Which is being true to the origins of our sport i.e. to climb to the top of something. "The leader must not fall" philosophy notwithstanding, falls do happen from time to time. I see nothing wrong with taking one's lumps and bumps, then resuming the effort. As long as they are honest about it of course, in whatever tortured language they use. To suggest that the proper thing to do in the event of a fall is to pull the rope and start over, is simply elitist and contrived. One might climb this way (and many early Gunkies insisted on it) but c'mon, this is REALLY creating an artificial set of rules. I thought it was about getting to the top?

M. - who enjoys working the TR redpoint -

Agreed. By "traditionalist view" that's exactly what I meant, not this thing called "trad climbing" that we had to invent after someone* came up with the term "Sport climbing".


That's fine for those of us who get it. Unfortunately it seems many don't and that somehow you can have multiple on-sight attempts and you achieve the on-sight once you do it "cleanly".

*: was that someone Alan Watts at Smith? I don't remember.

So far, we have nobody contributing to the conversation who has ever suggested that one could have multiple on-sight attempts. I've never heard anyone suggest otherwise. You use the word "many." Where are they? If they do exist, then they are simply misusing the word. This is not the fault of the word, it is the fault of the speaker.

Also, saying that you didn't do something cleanly suggests something entirely different than aiding the route. One involves a failure to free climb the route, the other implies that the climber intended on using aid to ascend the route. Who's getting their ego saved? The person using the term is just succinctly describing their attempt to climb the route.

What are we arguing about here?

During the years I was climbing I was never asked how I performed on a climb. Not once. I think we all were out there just to have a great day on the rock.

I must be suboptimal. If this had been the atmosphere in the Gunks I would have been back in the Adirondacks in three months.

To each their own I guess.

I hear ya. When I usually talk about my day I generally just say I climbed something. Inevitably the person I am talking to will ask if I led it or toproped it, and if I did it "clean" meaning without falling or weighting gear. Of course I do understand why they ask this. They just want to understand the context of my climb. Perhaps they want to relate a bad gear placement experience, or a runout experience, or whatever. I don't mind it, but I have had people say that I haven't really climbed it unless I climbed it on lead. That's when I say what you say...to each their own

Rob, that's exactly right.

For me these terms are all about precision of communication - saying (and hearing) exactly what I'm trying to say - and and not a bit about judgment or measuring someone up.

It's only natural, of course, that when I fess up to hanging my way up something, *I* feel dirty; and when I brag about an onsight, I feel proud. But those are my feelings, and I won't assume they're shared by everyone.

But when I hear the same from someone else, I'm not judging them - I'm just getting a clearer picture of their context. I usually leave it up to them to (also) tell me how they felt about it. I'm just listening, but as any listener does, I prefer clear and specific terms as opposed to vague and less meaningful terms.

If someone feels compelled to inform you that you 'failed' ... well, that's another problem entirely.

Did someone just agree with me?? Wow, what a watershed moment in my Gunks.com career!

Don't start crying, RR, it might freeze your eyelids shut! Did that once in a biathlon race, hard to see the big turn coming up.

Yeah, you better watch out Rob, the mean ol' bogey man is out to ruin every one of yer gear grabbin' hang-doggin' got-it-but-not-clean days.

Major problem dude.

Bwahahahahaha...

Rich- You may have a job singing X-mas climbing carols, hmmm, I could see a Santa suit in your future........

"You better watch out,you better NOT SHOUT, you better not pout, I'm telling you why...."

I know the bogey man quite well. He haunts all of my golf games, as well as his brothers double and triple Bogey. The BOOGEY MAN on the other hand..I kick his ass whenever I see him.

A spelling smackdown! Here's what Wikipedia, that unimpeachable source of contemporary knowledge, has to say:

"The bogeyman (also spelled boogyman, bogyman, boogieman, boogey monster) is a legendary ghost-like monster. The bogeyman has no specific appearance and conceptions of the monster can vary drastically even from household to household within the same community; in many cases, he simply has no set appearance in the mind of a child, but is just an amorphous embodiment of terror. Bogeyman can be used metaphorically to denote a person or thing of which someone has an irrational fear."

Please also note that in my newly-assigned role of arbiter of accomplishments, I am the amorphous embodiment of terror, striking irrational fear of failure into the hearts of free-climbing cheaters everywhere.

Be very afraid.

[Linguistic aside: does anyone else find the term "amorphous embodiment" problematic?]

Linguistic thread drift continued:

It seems Rob's become so focused on his golf game that all he sees in "bogeyman" is a reminder of bad times on the links. But that's the spelling of terrorizing demons that I've been accustomed to since first seeing Laurel and Hardy's Babes in Toyland (Not in the original screening in theaters, but on an early TV airing.) Boogey men didn't show up until the 70's, as epitomized by KC and the Sunshine Band.

On to "amorphous embodiment". I like that. Sort of a shape-shifter metaphor. Vaguely defined, but corporal. No problem for me.

Not like I have with some of the routes I'm saving for an onsight. But at least now I know to do them without recourse to rope-hanging, gear tugging behavior. At least if my belayer or RG can see me.