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.