Redpoint?

[sk]

yep the definition in the smith guide is pussy

[sk]

isn't that what I said?

that's what you said the book said. i was just sharing what i found to highlight the original difference between pink and red.

 

"Redpoint" Originally there was a distinction between a redpoint style of ascent, and a pinkpoint. The former was used where the leader placed any protection (such as the clips) whilst leading, and the latter was reserved for ascents where all the protection was in place. The latter style became the norm, and became known as a redpoint.

will you site your resource here? and who decides anyway? is there some ssummit confrence of climbers that decide "oh we are going to change the rules now cuz climbing is too hard"? I still think that calling a pink point a redpoint is pussy

[thelawgoddess]

follow the hot links to find the resources of the quotes. (i'm not saying who decides what or that i agree; i'm just relaying some "historical insight" i found on the internet.)

[sk]

perhaps we should start calling a pink point a euro point

 

all the american dictionareys I found and quoted still distingushed between the two except the smith guide book. Smith is notoriously Eropean in climbing ethics.

 

I still stand by my defintions.

[RuMR]

notoriously european? HA! Have any of you folks climbed in france or spain??? Or england?

 

Might give you a new definition for euro-wussies...Ceuse would make most americans cry...as would Buoux and lets not even start talking english grit...

 

Get real folks, its all climbing and you are talking semantics here...

[texplorer]

Thanks for the input. For future reference I am with RuMR and Snoboy.

I have done many "onsites" where I climbed up, placed gear, downclimbed to the ground, rested, and then fired the route. In my opinion we use gear simply to save our ass in case of a fall. The onsite or redpoint occur when you would be able to solo the route but you have placed gear for the chance that you might fail.

 

So I guess my opinion to my original question is Yes,Yes, pink. Thanks for your input.

[sk]

and I thought you were so hard core

[texplorer]

No frontal nudity for me, Muffy.

I would say I am pretty much just soft core.

[RuMR]

[sk]

No frontal nudity for me, Muffy.

I would say I am pretty much just soft core.

I KNEW being "involved" would do that to you. you are going to have your dirt bag card revoked

[EWolfe]

Yes, Yes and pinkpoint.

 

Well put, Matt.

 

Part of being a good onsight climber is knowing when and how to downclimb to the last rest.

 

Even if it's the ground.

[J_Kirby]

No, no and pink/brownpoint.

[Mer]

Maybe these are all moot-points?

[EWolfe]

I thought a brownpoint was a toprope ascent where you grabbed draws, gear, pulled on the rope and all that "shit".

[dylan_taylor]

For many years it seems, an onsight meant that you had climbed a route successfully, with no beta, and no previous experience on the route. If you downclimb to the ground, rest, and fire it, thats a redpoint. There is no difference between doing that and falling, or saying take, then lowering to the ground, and firing it. You are succeeding on your second attempt . Your first attempt must be considered a preview, and thus precludes you from ever onsigting this route. This is what makes onsight climbing the purest form of roped ascent. If a climber climbed to the crux of some gritstone testpiece, and backed off by climbing to the ground before returning to climb it successfully, he has decreased the level of committment of the ascent by gaining knowledge (no matter how valuable or non-valuable) about the route. I hope that this definition remains the same for some years to come.

[RuMR]

I don't recall ever having that as a definition (19-20 years or so)...you don't fall and you downclimb, then you haven't blown an onsight...

[fern]

 

if you leave the gear in as you downclimb to the ground so that you have a TR to the highpoint when you get back on it's kinda whack to still call that an onsight even if you don't ever weight the rope or fall. And the more times you up and downclimb that bit of rock the less a vue your effort becomes. I've always used the def.n. that you can downclimb and preserve the onsight, but I recognize there is a whiff off dishonesty in that usage.

 

I think there's a gap in terminology between redpoint and onsight - since to me redpoint implies that you've worked the route and got to know it very well before you finally lead it no falls.

 

I've heard the tongue-in-cheek deja vue applied to those routes where you've been on the rock before, but never intensively worked the route ... for example if you TRed it once 5 years ago and now you lead it and only remember it a little.

 

If I was looking for a partner though I wouldn't ever say "I onsight X, redpoint Y etc." though - for one 'cause it sounds lame, and for two because as this thread illustrates people interpret those statements very differently.

[dylan_taylor]

RuMR,

In 20 years of climbing you've never heard that an onsight means climbing it first try?

 

Unfortuately, there's no webster's for climbing terminology

but if you do a search for climbing terminology and onsight, I think the definition is pretty consistent.

Edited April 6, 2004 by dylan_taylor

[Peter_Puget]

Once a long time ago I was belaying a friend on an 11c crack in the Valley. He climbed up past the crux decided he needed a piece or two he left on the ground. He then down climbed the route including the crux and climbed back up to finish it. I say it was an onsight and brilliant climbing to boot.

Edited April 6, 2004 by Peter_Puget

[RuMR]

RuMR,

In 20 years of climbing you've never heard that an onsight means climbing it first try?

 

Unfortuately, there's no webster's for climbing terminology

but if you do a search for climbing terminology and onsight, I think the definition is pretty consistent.

 

I consider climbing down to a rest or the ground still part of the first try...and its always been considered that way, in my memory...shoot, half of the reported onsights in literature involved downclimbing to rests or back to belay ledges...

 

And, FYI, onsight used to mean a description of the style the route was climbed in! and it meant no rehersal and no prior info/beta...it was only when it was combined w/ the word "flash"...as in "onsight flashed", that it meant a no-fall first try ascent...in fact, there was a huge description of a route that scott franklin did where he reported climbing it onsight, the mags report that and implied a no falls ascent, to which he wrote a letter back stating that, while he had climbed the route "onsight" he had fallen twice...get yer facts straight

 

Now, the term "onsight" has evolved much the same as the term redpoint has...onsight is now inclusive of a flash...

[sk]

QUICK call the climbingh committee we need governmental body to solve this for us I want to be on the board and I want beer to be served at all meetings

[Rodchester]

QUICK call the climbingh committee we need governmental body to solve this for us I want to be on the board and I want beer to be served at all meetings

 

There is a prestigious climbing organization that rules on similar disputes, a little different, but similar. Maybe we can get them to rule on this? This organization is totally independent and was organized to certify climbs. I seriously think it is an issue that they can handle.

 

Maybe someone here should pose the question to the MSC Organization

[dylan_taylor]

I don't think the definition of onsight has ever been based on one dubious ascent by Scott Franklin. I think my facts are straight. The climbing community I have involved myself in for nearly 15 years (colorado based - maybe the ethics are looser in the PNW? - just kidding!) has considered onsight climbing to be the purest form of ascent. That means "On Sight". NO prior info means not having been on the route before - i.e. no climbing halfway up and then backing off back to the ground because you didn't have the guns to fire it the first time.

You are right that semantics change over the years. Todd Skinner and Paul Piana's free ascent of the Salathe was poo-pooed by subsequent ascentionists and critics as being less pure because each climber only led half the pitches. Whatever. So later ascentionists have claimed "more pure" ascents by leading all the pitches.

I would hate to see the purity of an onsight become diluted because people think you can dink around on a route and take a break from it and then "onsight it" as long as you didn't say "take" or fall.

 

You have your definition, I have mine. Forgive me if I think mine more pure...

[sk]

QUICK call the climbingh committee we need governmental body to solve this for us I want to be on the board and I want beer to be served at all meetings

 

There is a prestigious climbing organization that rules on similar disputes, a little different, but similar. Maybe we can get them to rule on this? This organization is totally independent and was organized to certify climbs. I seriously think it is an issue that they can handle.

 

Maybe someone here should pose the question to the MSC Organization

TOO FUNNY

[RuMR]

You have your definition, I have mine. Forgive me if I think mine more pure...

 

and your poop prolly smells like roses too, huh? to each their own...