Another useless ethics debate

So, here's a fun one we like to throw around every once in a while:

The general goal of an onsight or a redpoint is to climb a route clean from bottom to top. No consideration is given to how long it takes to climb said route, or how long one rests on said route.

Lets suppose that a route has a large rest ledge halfway, right below a crux move, protected by a bolt. Most people would probably agree that it is perfectly acceptable to boulder up, clip the bolt, then come back to the rest ledge under your own power to rest before firing the crux, and that you are still going for the onsight or whatever.

Now, say a route has a somewhat tough but downclimbable section close to the ground, with a crux coming after a few bolts. You boulder up, clipping the bolts to the crux, then downclimb back to the ground under your own power. Once back on the ground, you rest then go back up to send the crux without having to clip the bolts. Are you still on the onsight/redpoint? or have you negated your send? Keeping in mind that at no point have you weighted or used your pro to help you.

Now, the final scenario. Lets say a route has a rest ledge almost immediately after leaving the ground. How many times could you come back to this rest ledge (keeping in mind your belayer could probably reach you from the ground whilst on this ledge) while remaining on your onsight? Could you theoretically climb almost all of the route, placing the pro, then come back down, rest, and reclimb the route without the burden of placing the pro so that you can fire the exit crux?

Purely bored, semantic rambling

You can do whatever you want and call it anything you like as long as you're OK with it at the end of the day.

You must immediately post on MP what shenanigans you did to send the route. We will decide what to call it. Feel better now?

FrankPS wrote:You must immediately post on MP what shenanigans you did to send the route. We will decide what to call it. Feel better now?

You give me too much credit, I haven't sent anything ;)

P. A. wrote: You give me too much credit, I haven't sent anything ;)

Well, just in case you do, it's important to know the rules. :)

Ben Beckerich wrote:In the purest sense, it's not an onsight if you're climbing any of it with beta. The entire point of an onsight and why we respect an onsight is that you're figuring it out off the cuff, on the fly, as you go. The point of an onsight is NOT to get an onsight. It's to actually onsight the route. Backing off of the route and re-climbing areas you now have beta on positively kills your onsight. However, as mentioned, you can call it whatever the fuck you want.

Ok cool. So there is a line crossed when you go back to the ground. What would your stance be on climbing the route, backing down to a rest stance, then continuing back on? Does it make a difference if the rest ledge is half way or 4 feet off the deck? and does it make a difference how much of the route you've climbed before coming back to that rest?

This same thread already exists here. It will end the same. Things aren't black and white.

Ben Beckerich wrote:In the purest sense, it's not an onsight if you're climbing any of it with beta. The entire point of an onsight and why we respect an onsight is that you're figuring it out off the cuff, on the fly, as you go. The point of an onsight is NOT to get an onsight. It's to actually onsight the route. Backing off of the route and re-climbing areas you now have beta on positively kills your onsight. However, as mentioned, you can call it whatever the fuck you want.

Don't tell the brits.

I rarely type in all caps, since it is the internet equivalent of shouting, but shouting is needed here:

THIS IS NOT AN ETHICS DEBATE!

Please stop abusing the term "ethics" until it has no meaning. This is a debate of style, of terminology, and of wasting your climbing partners' time; it is not an ethical question.

As to your question of style/terminology: this somewhat unusual way of climbing a route probably deserves its own description, since the terms "redpoint" and "onsight" wouldn't really give a sense of what was going one. The issue here is not technicalities of what discredits and onsight, but rather the simple utility of using a word/phrase the gives the listener an idea of the style you are talking about. As a historical example, back in the day Peter Croft did a hard (13c) new (trad) route on the Rostrum in a similar style to that described by the OP. In general, it is not said the he onsighted the route, but rather that "he climbed the route without ever weighting the rope"

In this thread: Internet tuff dudes argue over semantics so as to not diminish the value of their wicked 5.7 onsights.

Let me lubricate the gum flapping a little:
wat ab0ut chock?
wat if boltz?
wat if kneebar pad?
wat if draws hung?
wat if red teh guide manual book?

P. A. wrote:You boulder up, clipping the bolts to the crux, then downclimb back to the ground under your own power. Are you still on the onsight/redpoint? or have you negated your send?

Google "yuji hirayama sphinx crack on sight"

JCM wrote:As a historical example, back in the day Peter Croft did a hard (13c) new (trad) route on the Rostrum in a similar style to that described by the OP. In general, it is not said the he onsighted the route, but rather that "he climbed the route without ever weighting the rope"

Which really only shows how contrived the definition has become. I'd have called that an onsight, as it is in line with the spirit of the definition: you can climb through something in the mountain w/o weighing the rope. Further more, I wouldn't have considered someone who didn't down climb to the ledge as an improvement to the style, because I don't see how that matters practically. Someone who did it faster? Sure, that's often consequential.

Ben Beckerich wrote: Did you not re-assess something, after a bit of additional beta was gleaned, and therefore re-do something you'd done... made it better, because the first time you did it wasn't the best way to do it? If you did that, and ratcheted me up, and were like, "dude, did you see me onsight the fuck outta that shit?" I wouldn't tell you, "that wasn't an onsight, you fake-ass gumby." But it's not an onsight.

If this is actually your opinion about how onsighting is done, then you must be an atrociously terrible onsighter. Knowing when to scurry back down to a rest is a key onsighting skill.

reboot wrote: Which really only shows how contrived the definition has become. I'd have called that an onsight, as it is in line with the spirit of the definition: you can climb through something in the mountain w/o weighing the rope. Further more, I wouldn't have considered someone who didn't down climb to the ledge as an improvement to the style, because I don't see how that matters practically. Someone who did it faster? Sure, that's often consequential.

I totally agree with you that the Croft example is within the spirit of traditional onsighting. Classifying it as an onsight would be legitimate, if you had to classify it for an 8a scorecard (yeah, black square is what I like to see). Fortunately, these sorts of classifications aren't mandatory, and the narrative description of what went in to the ascent is a lot more interesting. Just calling it an onsight and leaving out the rest of the details would leave out a really neat bit of history behind a unique style of ascent...and an impressive feat of downclimbing.

Addendum: I can't find any information on the intertubes to confirm/refute my (very shaky) memory of the story behind this FA. The name of the pitch is The Excellent Adventure, it is a variation pitch at the top of the Rostrum. If anyone knows the full story, I'd love to hear it.

A true onsight requires the following.
-Blindfolded by your partners the second you leave your house
-Being taken to the crag, but you must have no knowledge of which crag you are going to
-lead to the base of the climb, no knowledge of which climb (still blindfolded)
-Must rack up, no knowledge of route, grade, and gear (with blindfold still on, you are allowed to have a partner rack the gear you specify)
-positioned at the base of route
-blindfold removed, you then have 5 seconds to start climbing

Can you say it with a straight face? If yes, then ethical. Move on.

I actually think this is a cool topic to discuss, despite the fact that there is no right answer, and as others mentioned, in the end it doesn't really matter. It brings to light how interesting we climbers are in regards to breaking down tendencies and strategies into specific styles.

My 2 cents are: once you leave the ground on your onsight attempt, as long as you don't weight the rope or return to the ground before you get to the top of the pitch, you have successfully onsighted the route. Yes it can be this simple.

The idea of onsighting should be for fun (as should most if not all climbing endeavors eh?) and for the reward of realizing an ascent "on the fly".

Ben Beckerich wrote: But what if it's a bouldery start and I get my feet in the wrong spot on the first move and I plop my ass on the ground... but then I stick the start and sail through the rest of the route... you're telling me that's not an onsight? WTF dude.. you elitist basturd

Snow hikes dont have bouldery starts so you shouldnt have too much to worry about...

Does anyone really give a shit? honestly. why does it matter? are you sponsored? probably not. if you are you are one of the thousands who receive pro-deal. Unless you are trying to get sponsored in which case ask your potential sponsors what they believe.
That said... I would never go up and back down more than once as it simply wastes energy and therefore pointless. What, are you planning on standing there for an hour or so and have a meal and some beer?

Ben Beckerich wrote: No, I'm saying if you re-climb ANY part of the route, you're no longer on-sighting. If you get through a sequence of moves, you now know what the sequence of moves is to get through. If you back down even a few moves and then do them again, you're using beta to climb the route. It's one direction, ground up, or it's not an onsight. And again, let me reiterate- the point of "onsight" is to demonstrate that you climbed it ground up without any beta. There's no cheating your way into being able to label it an onsight if it wasn't. If any any point you have to explain anything about why you're calling it an onsight (aside from "I climbed it straight up with no beta"), it's not an onsight.

I'm participating in the discussion just for the fun of it. Ben, maybe you know what beta is. But it doesn't seem like it. I'm sure you know that beta stems from Beta Max. This is a video recorder that preceded vcr's. You know what that is right? So, beta means to watch a video or in climbing terms, to learn from someone else or get information from outside yourself.

Hence, if you climb up and learn the move, then climb down, then climb up again, it's not Beta because you discovered the moves on your own.

Now, to answer the op just for fun cause nobody cares about any body else's send.

For myself, there is an Onsight and there is a Tronsight.

An onsight is climbing from the ground to the finish of the route without falling having no prior info about the route other than route name and difficulty and there may be some chalk on the route that gives info. If there is a ledge on the route and you can down climb to it to rest, so be it. Down climbing the the ground after clipping would negate the onsight imo.

Tronsight. This is short for True Onsight. This is when you know nothing about the route, not even the name or difficulty. You see a possible line. You look up and assess it the best you can from the ground. You head up. You reach the end of the climb with no falls and no information from outside of yourself.

Tronsight.