What are the widely accepted "rules" for starting and sending a sport climb?

fck your rulze

philip bone wrote:

Fishermen

Gamblers

Climbers

Liars

So... liars.    

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

there are no  holds off limits in outdoor climbing. the bolter can not dictate where the natural line is. they may try but the line of chalk will tell you where the climb actually goes. 

I guess you don't need topo's or route descriptions anymore then. GPS coordinates for the start, and follow the white line? Ok by me. 

actually I usually do not need all that stuff. don't even know how to use GPS numbers?  A route description is nice and a grade to help keep us within our comfort zone but often we just climb what looks doable. Most of the places we go don't have enough traffic for the holds to be chalked up so don't even have a white trail to follow.  Haveing someone tell you that you can't use that hold on an outdoors climb is just so much micky mouse bullshit... Don't need it. Just climb and have fun. Come to think of it the last time I climbed indoors several decads ago i used whatever holds i wanted to regardless of color. And yes I do stem off of trees or grab them if that seems like the best way to gain upward progress,

I am with you all the way Mr. Goldsmith. I don't know anything about using GPS. I can use UTM coordinates with map and compass. I have had to navigate multiple days in a row across icefields and glaciers in zero visibility by map, compass and altimeter,  and get to where I (we) were going. 

As for rock climbing,  some lichen/grass/dirt can be a treat. Even a little questionable rock quality. The path less traveled is a special place. 

Yeah Nicks GPS skills are lacking

J Westgate wrote:

Yeah Nicks GPS skills are lacking

Yeah, that's probably why he does so many new routes!!!!

It is pretty funny actually that it comes down to Semitics. Good grief it is a piece of rock. Climb it how you want if you are not adding or detracting from the route.

• K M wrote:

It is pretty funny actually that it comes down to Semitics. Good grief it is a piece of rock. Climb it how you want if you are not adding or detracting from the route.

Semantics? Semitic? Both are terms from linguistics but very different meanings…Having trouble figuring out what either one has to do with this discussion, though.

Nothing to see here, move along ...   

That's ok. It isn't aid climbing. I don't think. 

Group free climbing?

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

fck your rulze

That's not climbing. That person wouldn't even know what climbing is without the daring ascents by climbing pioneers of the south face of Marmolada.

https://www.thecrag.com/en/climbing/italy/dolomites/agordino/area/5101994994

The South Face of Marmolada has about 200 routes; the majority are works of art that represent the evolution in mountaineering and the maximum expression of difficulty, effort and beauty.

Big respect! 

I think it's a good quote above, "there's no cheating in climbing, only lying." A good axiom. 

But at risk of derailing things... Every time someone posts an inquiry or discussion point about style/ethics, and the participant isn't a "pro climber," we get at least one it doesn't matter and nobody cares argument. I cannot help but bristle at this. My rebuttal: 

Free climbing isn’t about reaching the top by any means necessary—it’s about how you get there, and this process has long been defined by certain practices and ethics. Traditions in climbing, such as the flash, onsight, or a legitimate start, aren’t arbitrary limitations, but rather part of the challenge; part of the game. They provide benchmarks of skill and discipline. Especially if someone is seeking clarification about how a climb is executed and what affects legitimacy, the topic is about participating in a shared cultural practice. Thus, waxing philosophical about how these traditions do not apply to the recreational climber is simply a red herring fallacy. 

The argument "climb it however you want" dismisses the aforementioned traditions, values, and "rules of the game" that have been shaped over generations. Climbing is, in many ways, a dialogue with those who have climbed before, and respecting the established rules is part of engaging with that history. One can just as easily choose not to participate in these traditions, but that isn't license to dismiss the practice and/or topic for others. 

TL;DR: the discussion is worth having and I think the Op is validated in their quest for shared insight on style and practice of free climbing. 

STFUAC

You don't know that person. She knows a thing or two about climbing.. my whole anti rulze stance is because climbing is rebel sport. We push the limits of what society thinks is normal. Don't put me in a box and try to dictate how I must behave. That being said I totally conduct myself by a code of what is fair play. Putting holds or vegetation off limits is most definitely not part of my code. 

Good lines don't need rules.

Victor. You are absolutely correct. Lots of restrictive rules come from places with small rocks where they over think while trying to maximize the challenges that can be obtained  by climbing on the small rocks, Gritstone is a perfect example of this. Places with really big rocks like the alps have much more relaxed rules. 

F r i t z wrote:

As a corollary, here's another oft-quoted maxim: "There's no cheating in climbing, only lying." So the only rule is to be transparent and accurate when communicating with others regarding how you climbed the route, especially if you are qualifying your ascent with terms like redpoint, flash or onsight.

Jump starts: totally under your human power, jumping is sometimes a part of climbing, all gouda.

Start cairns / "cheater blocks:" This is a bit of a grey area because some walls are more subject to erosion (such as the "Kentucky starts" at the Red) and the start becomes reachier over the years. Some people claim that starting blocks just help keep the route at its original grade. I've seen some real Tower of Babel starts in many different states. It all kind of depends on the route.

Re: what is laterally "off-route," you're right -- the general idea is that you stay within arm's length of the bolt line, unless the route is traversing.

Mostly, Sawyer, I just replied to commend you on asking this question in a well-written and well-thought-out way. It's a pleasure to engage with developing climbers who have obviously spent some time working through their question. Now if you could just get my middle school students to do the same ... ;-)

Come back soon, and climb on, friend!

"So the only rule is to be transparent and accurate when communicating with others regarding how you climbed the route, especially if you are qualifying your ascent with terms like redpoint, flash or onsight."

I know this is a wildly unpopular take, but its dishonest to call it a redpoint when the draws are prehung (with exception of routes that have permadraws installed). prehung draws are pink points. if we're going to call it a red point, then a top rope with slack should also be considered a redpoint.

Actually no. No one has given a shit about the difference between red and pink points since the 90s...