Another useless ethics debate

Ben Beckerich wrote: You didn't read everything I wrote.

I read three of your posts which clearly demonstrated you have an incorrect meaning of beta. Its not beat if you discover it yourself. No need to read any more of your post.

Again, this discussion is just for fun.

Greg D wrote:Tronsight. This is short for True Onsight. This is when you know nothing about the route, not even the name or difficulty.

I always thought that referred to top rope "onsight", lol.

reboot wrote: I always thought that referred to top rope "onsight", lol.

Yes, along with the "trash" (TR flash), "trend" (tr send) and the "tredpoint" (tr redpoint). Silly names for a silly sport.

There's no such thing as cheating; there's only lying.

I saw "ethics" in the thread titles so I clicked page 2 first and onsighted this post.

Matty H wrote:Does anyone really give a shit? honestly. why does it matter?

Actually yes, in the world of climbing some people do give a shit about onsighting. No, it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. But think about it this way, next time you onsight a route, you are allowed to reflect on the fact that it may/may not have been fun to do it first try. And that concept has been given a loose definition. That is all.

For my purposes at least the definitions of "onsight" and "red point" DO have importance aside from spray factor.

People like to pretend that discussing grades at all must be spraying but that's not always the case. Sometimes it's just useful to know what a partner is capable of climbing. For example I recently had a buddy from home come visit me in Boulder. He'd been to Eldo before but not with me. I asked him what he felt like climbing and he said he could "onsight Eldo 5.9 pretty consistently". So we did Yellow Spur. No falls, hangdogging, or other shenanigans required. Yes we had a guidebook. I may have even heard of the climb before (gasp!). But for the purposes I care about, that was an onsight (neither of us had ever been on the route before and we didnt get any spray-by-spray beta other than the book). He may have down climbed to the occasional rest (honestly don't remember) but the point is we weren't up there on a multi pitch trad route projecting it with parties in line behind us. Had he told me he could "red point" eldo 5.9, maybe we would have done something easier.

Was it technically a "flash" since we had a guidebook? I guess, but if you climb in Eldo much you'd know those routes wander so much you'd at least need some level of "beta" to actually stay on a route.

I don't sport climb much so red pointing is rarely something I would ask but I imagine if we were going sport climbing that would have been relevant. Point is a) sometimes it does matter and b) context (trad, sport, boulder, etc) is important.

All this IMO of course.

Mitch Musci wrote:I actually think this is a cool topic to discuss, despite the fact that there is no right answer

Clearly you haven't read the rest of the thread. Ben is right because he has gone the furthest and is clearly the most powerful and strictly disciplined of any of us.

Ben Beckerich wrote: Fun, indeed... and now we can get into another "useless debate" about the definition of "beta" I disagree with your definition. I think the word, as it's used by climbers now and for a long time, means really any pertinent information about a route, regardless of source.

By your definition, then, if you are climbing a route and see a hold before you use it, then you have beta.

these scenarios have absolutely nothing to do with ethics in any way shape or form.

the only thing I know for sure: aid climbing IS cheating

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0xGp3jWWUk

"ethics are for easy climbs"-unknown wise climber

how many of you guys actually keep track of "redpoints" and "onsites" or even climbs for that matter? most of the stuff I climb I don't even know the name of, I guess because I don't buy a lot of guide books. the few things I have listed on mp represent about 2% of the stuff I've actually climbed. I usually jump on a route because it looks interesting or challenging or just fun, if I can't make it I bail or aid the hard part without ever having an ethical conundrum. am I alone in this way of thinking?

No, George, you are not alone. I alway find it interesting how much some climbers seem to care about the minutiae of style and get so worried about how other folks climb. Seems to me that a lot of these folks would do really well as overbearing HOA board members.

is it ethical they took the one great gear discussion in a while and locked it down????

I need my raping glove

lmao - you use a glove while 'raping'?!

Here is why is matters.

If I were to put "onsight of Vegematic" on a college application, I would be sure to get in. If I put "rehearsed Penis Dimension" on the same application, well, I'd probably have to provide transcripts too.

Chalk, bolts, pin scars, etc all detract from a true 'onsight'.

Therefore, only a ground-up FA may be an onsight.

all right NICELEGS, I'm going to award you an official *ONSITE* to be applied to the route of your choice just for that hilarious comment.

If I truly onsight a climb but don't yell 'THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!' from the anchors can I still tick it on MP?

Drew Hayes wrote:If I truly onsight a climb but don't yell 'THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!' from the anchors can I still tick it on MP?

Many years ago I met Adrian Paul(the TV and newer movie Highlander)at a Star Trek convention. I was there with my my mom. I was dressed as the Green Power Ranger.

I defy anyone to beat that.

I declare this thread onsited.