Defunct Climbing Terminology

Kevin Mokracek wrote:

“In direct” should be on the list of defunct terms since it serves zero practical purpose.   You are either on belay or off belay.  I watched a climber yell “in direct” at a local crag and the belayer took him off belay and went to grab some water.   Then the climber yelled “on you”.   The belayer had to yell up that he was off belay and sprint for the rope to get the climber back on belay.  

I don’t care if you are “in direct”.   I may go in direct when working a climb or aid climbing but there is no need to let my belayer know since it doesn’t mean they take me off belay.     Can we just stick to “on belay and off belay?

"In direct" (or some variation) is a command used daily by the majority of climbers projecting hard sport routes. It serves a useful purpose and it's widely understood in that context.

Just because you don't do that type of climbing doesn't make the term "defunct". It would be like a sport climber arguing that "rappel" and "ATC" are defunct and serve zero practical purpose.

Almost as silly as "in direct," is "safe."  I've heard that before and never understood it. Should I, as your belayer, do something? Is "safe" just commentary? Superfluous comment serving no real purpose.

However, I think if the climber and belayer agree upon the meaning of the terminology, you can use whatever you want.

With all due respect, Frank, I doubt that “in direct” would be a very useful command for the type of climbing I imagine you pursue.
I’m surprised you aren’t aware that “safe” is a British idiom.
I don’t know why they use it, but ukclimbing  is probably a better place to ask. 

Mark E Dixon wrote:

Strongly disagree on this one.
“In direct” is very useful if you are routinely spending 30-45 minutes working out moves on a route.

However, I would be careful about using the phrase in the unlikely event I was climbing with someone other than an experienced hang dogger. 

That’s why I said I sometimes go in direct when working a route.   Going “in direct” is a useful tool but it doesn’t mean the belayer takes you off belay.  I don’t care if I’m belaying and my partner is working a route for 30-45 minutes, he can go in direct all he wants, I’m not taking him off belay and it doesn’t change anything I do as a belayer.   As I said, the problem arises when a climber will get to the chains, yell “in direct” and begin to thread the chains or take a break and the belayer thinks he can relax or take the leader off belay as I witnessed.   If you are belaying nothing should change when he says he’s in direct, you should still have him on belay so why announce it because it changes nothing for the belayer and could cause confusion as I’ve seen before.   I’ve never used it and don’t see where I might be missing out on the benefit of using the phrase.   

Mark E Dixon wrote:

With all due respect, Frank, I doubt that “in direct” would be a very useful command for the type of climbing I imagine you pursue.
I’m surprised you aren’t aware that “safe” is a British idiom.
I don’t know why they use it, but ukclimbing  is probably a better place to ask. 

Does "safe" have a response? Is there an action to take? Is it the same as "off belay"? (I've heard it at my local US crag) I understand that you don't know why it's used. Like I said, if you and your belayer agree on it, that's fine.

You're right, "in direct" has no usefulness to my free climbing. And it's hard to imagine it being useful, even for hard sport climbs.

Kevin Mokracek wrote:

That’s why I said I sometimes go in direct when working a route.   Going “in direct” is a useful tool but it doesn’t mean the belayer takes you off belay.  I don’t care if I’m belaying and my partner is working a route for 30-45 minutes, he can go in direct all he wants, I’m not taking him off belay and it doesn’t change anything I do as a belayer.   As I said, the problem arises when a climber will get to the chains, yell “in direct” and begin to thread the chains or take a break and the belayer thinks he can relax or take the leader off belay as I witnessed.   If you are belaying nothing should change when he says he’s in direct, you should still have him on belay so why announce it because it changes nothing for the belayer and could cause confusion as I’ve seen before.   I’ve never used it and don’t see where I might be missing out on the benefit of using the phrase.   

As the belayer you should give a couple of feet of slack. This both gives you a break from the weight on your harness and allows the climber to swing freely about feeling holds.

As mentioned above it's also useful for when the climber has boinked up and the belayer is now standing/sitting way back and needs to reset themselves.

"In direct" to allow the belayer to walk back to a good stance under the first bolt, or for the belayer to give the rope a rest after a big fall.

"In direct" is not and should not be equivalent as "off belay."

"Safe" has too much vowel congruence with "take" or "belay" for my liking.

Daniel Joder wrote:

Haven’t read all the posts, but did see someone mention “stoner flash” for climbing a route you have done before but don’t remember. I know some used the term “Alzheimers onsight” for the same thing but when climbed by…uh… well… us more mature folks. Has the latter term become politically incorrect?

Stoner flash gives way to gomer flash once you get your AARP card.

slim wrote:

i think "flash" may be dying a sad death.  the other day i watched someone send a route after working it all day.  his girlfriend praised him for a "flash in a day".  i don't think she understood this word "flash".  or perhaps i don't?

Flash is very much still understood from its base roots, that girl was just an idiot. 

Wesley K wrote:

The term "questing" as in climbing up new territory was a flash in the pan. Came and went faster than YOLO or Fire in text message language. 

I use questing (only half in jest) usually on a multi-pitch trad climb that I haven't done before (even if it's fairly well-travelled and not really a quest). I'm awful at remembering what features I'm supposed to be looking for on my pitches, so I'm usually just climbing what's in front of my face. 

Kevin Mokracek wrote:

That’s why I said I sometimes go in direct when working a route.   Going “in direct” is a useful tool but it doesn’t mean the belayer takes you off belay.  I don’t care if I’m belaying and my partner is working a route for 30-45 minutes, he can go in direct all he wants, I’m not taking him off belay and it doesn’t change anything I do as a belayer.   As I said, the problem arises when a climber will get to the chains, yell “in direct” and begin to thread the chains or take a break and the belayer thinks he can relax or take the leader off belay as I witnessed.   If you are belaying nothing should change when he says he’s in direct, you should still have him on belay so why announce it because it changes nothing for the belayer and could cause confusion as I’ve seen before.   I’ve never used it and don’t see where I might be missing out on the benefit of using the phrase.   

The belayer can tie off the brake and go hands free for a while if he knows the leader is going to be in direct for a while to rest. This allows the belayer to drink, eat, adjust clothing and a bunch of other stuff.

Ol A Thousand Bananas wrote:

The belayer can tie off the brake and go hands free for a while if he knows the leader is going to be in direct for a while to rest. This allows the belayer to drink, eat, adjust clothing and a bunch of other stuff.

I can do all that without being told, he is still on belay.  The fewer commands the better.  I have witnessed on more than a few occasions confusion when the In Direct command is used that led to the leader being taken off belay.   I never saw or witnessed that with simple On Belay, Off Belay commands.

In Direct, great technique, lousy command.  

Kevin Mokracek wrote:

I can do all that without being told, he is still on belay.  The fewer commands the better.  I have witnessed on more than a few occasions confusion when the In Direct command is used that led to the leader being taken off belay.   I never saw or witnessed that with simple On Belay, Off Belay commands.

In Direct, great technique, lousy command.  

I’m gonna be pretty mad at you if I’m climbing and you randomly tie me off without warning.

Send

Its been appropriated by mountain bikers, slackliners, skiers, etc. It generally has become a cool way to say “went for it, pulled it off”. Which is rather different than a descriptive term that allowed us to say we led with no falls without descending into the red/pink/beta/flash/onsight but my uncle did the FA mess of our previous terms.

RandyLee wrote:

I’ve still had to show that I’m doubled back at gyms… with harnesses where it’s not necessary. The BD big gun also doubles back, we wear those at work. My climbing partner for Denali had some knock-off from Nepal that needs to be doubled back but he didn’t realize it was important and it was hard to do with gloves on… so he just didn’t. That could have been fun if he stepped into a crevasse.

Unless they’ve changed it recently, the BD Alpine Bod still needs to be doubled back, and I think it’s still the standard rental harness for glacier travel. I expect that at least some of the fancy butt floss skimo harnesses are the same, since it’s a real pita to rethread auto-double back buckles with gloves on.

FrankPS wrote:

Almost as silly as "in direct," is "safe."  I've heard that before and never understood it. Should I, as your belayer, do something? Is "safe" just commentary? Superfluous comment serving no real purpose.

However, I think if the climber and belayer agree upon the meaning of the terminology, you can use whatever you want.

The argument for "safe" is that it has a more unique sound the "off belay" - less likely to be misinterpreted.  It, or the equivalents, are much more commonly used in Europe.

highaltitudeflatulentexpulsion wrote:

Send

Its been appropriated by mountain bikers, slackliners, skiers, etc. It generally has become a cool way to say “went for it, pulled it off”. Which is rather different than a descriptive term that allowed us to say we led with no falls without descending into the red/pink/beta/flash/onsight but my uncle did the FA mess of our previous terms.

Climbers may have appropriated ""send" from elsewhere. 

How about "tension" - sort of replace by take although not exactly the same.  Still its very rare to hear "tension".  

"411" - which briefly replaced "beta" (which is appropriated from another context") but now has been re-replaced by "beta" for the most part.

"Fed-Ex" = send with authority.

"runner" - or "sling".  Now a days you are just going to hear "alpine draw" - which admitting implies a certain technique of racking it.  How about "shoulder length" or "standard" sling?

Eric Engberg wrote:

Climbers may have appropriated ""send" from elsewhere. 

A contraction of "ascend"?

Hson P wrote:

I’m gonna be pretty mad at you if I’m climbing and you randomly tie me off without warning.

What???? When did I say I randomly tie people off?