Calling route free on-sight?

[matt_warfield]

Well Dru pops off and so do you and so do I but rocks and mountains and ethics know no boundaries.

Edited October 5, 2012 by matt_warfield

[billcoe]

Don't know whos winning the debate, but looks like an awesome route - thanks for sharing the link Bob.

 

It looks like a 3rd party is doing the write up, and they simply might have meant to say "Ground up", instead of "onsight".

 

 

 

 

 

[olyclimber]

how would you score their climb on 8a.nu?

[matt_warfield]

In the end the person that has fun wins, whether they do A0, french free, a bolt ladder, hang dog, do redpoint, flash, or onsight. As long as they don't brag about it in the media with any deception . Then it is game on.

 

And ground up just muddies the waters so you can't see 2".

Edited October 5, 2012 by matt_warfield

[G-spotter]

And what the hell is a "legit UK onsight" anyway.

Must be a canadian thing, eh? Drew practices for "canadian redpoint". Give'r hoser, eh?

 

Your mom got a couple pinkpoints in quick succession.

[matt_warfield]

And what the hell is a "legit UK onsight" anyway.

Must be a canadian thing, eh? Drew practices for "canadian redpoint". Give'r hoser, eh?

 

Your mom got a couple pinkpoints in quick succession.

 

better than a redpoint.

[tvashtarkatena]

The web helps yet another climber overcome his shyness issues.

[matt_warfield]

Everybody needs to be christened to social media. If not us, who?

 

In the midst of the bullshit, we collectively have extensive climbing knowledge and there is wheat among the chaff.

Edited October 5, 2012 by matt_warfield

[cascadesdj]

You dumb Canadian, I guess you could read it like that if you really, really wanted to.

 

I don't know if I'd call a Canadian dumb. Did they start the Iraq war on lies? Did they elect Bush TWICE? Don't they have universal health care? ETC

[Off_White]

Hey, and don't forget that Ugly Canadian syndrome, you know, they turn right without signalling...

 

I think its funny the way the tone runs in this thread that started with a question compared to Blake's current thread of the same format.

[Tyson.g]

You dumb Canadian, I guess you could read it like that if you really, really wanted to.

 

I don't know if I'd call a Canadian dumb. Did they start the Iraq war on lies? Did they elect Bush TWICE? Don't they have universal health care? ETC

 

You're funny........

I don't think the Polish did those things either.

[glassgowkiss]

The whole OS and free is bullshit:

Read this:

http://mtnequipment.blogspot.com/2012/09/report-nw-greenland-expedition-2012.html

They bailed even before the rain, so the route was climbed on 3rd attempt.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

My takeaway: very cool objective in a spectacular setting.

[TeleRoss]

who gives a fuck? and why does it bother you so much?

[Matt Lemke]

who gives a fuck? and why does it bother you so much?

 

THANK YOU! Bout time someone asked

[glassgowkiss]

who gives a fuck? and why does it bother you so much?

Actually it does matter. like Donini said some time ago: "style matters". Climbing is a type of sport, where we don't have a bunch of referees watching what we really do. So honest reporting is a key. It used to be a golden standard, where after a writeup in Mountain Magazine, there used to be a 3 sentence summary. Now it's blogs and reporting garbage, where the reporting party will always claim "we were misunderstood". This leads to bullshit ascents, like "Golden Lunacy" in Greenland by Kaszlikowski and Kubarska in 2007. The description in magazines (Alpinist, AAJ) made it sound like a fucking unreal epic. The team travelled 80 km by sea kayaks with all the gear and then climbed 2000m route (1500 vertical terrain) on one of the largest cliffs on the planet. The route was graded 5.11d, with a lot of climbing in 5.10 range.This was the report they submitted. But there were enough inconsistencies to trigger Polish Climbing Federation investigation. They actually send a team to repeat the route.

First of all, there was no 80 km kayak odyssey. They chartered a boat and used sea kayaks to cross a 2 km bay to the base of the climb. The climb was indeed almost 2 km, but the crux was not 11d, but more like 10b/c, and the whole route had only 5 real pitches of climbing- the rest was low 5th class, which was either soloed or simul-climbed by the repeating party. No so big epic after all.

In the era of instant media, satellite phones, internet and blogs, we have more Maestries and fewer Doninis. I think pointing out liars is all we have left.

[tvashtarkatena]

If pointing out liars is all you have left, take stock.

[kevbone]

who gives a fuck? and why does it bother you so much?

Actually it does matter. like Donini said some time ago: "style matters". Climbing is a type of sport, where we don't have a bunch of referees watching what we really do. So honest reporting is a key. It used to be a golden standard, where after a writeup in Mountain Magazine, there used to be a 3 sentence summary. Now it's blogs and reporting garbage, where the reporting party will always claim "we were misunderstood". This leads to bullshit ascents, like "Golden Lunacy" in Greenland by Kaszlikowski and Kubarska in 2007. The description in magazines (Alpinist, AAJ) made it sound like a fucking unreal epic. The team travelled 80 km by sea kayaks with all the gear and then climbed 2000m route (1500 vertical terrain) on one of the largest cliffs on the planet. The route was graded 5.11d, with a lot of climbing in 5.10 range.This was the report they submitted. But there were enough inconsistencies to trigger Polish Climbing Federation investigation. They actually send a team to repeat the route.

First of all, there was no 80 km kayak odyssey. They chartered a boat and used sea kayaks to cross a 2 km bay to the base of the climb. The climb was indeed almost 2 km, but the crux was not 11d, but more like 10b/c, and the whole route had only 5 real pitches of climbing- the rest was low 5th class, which was either soloed or simul-climbed by the repeating party. No so big epic after all.

In the era of instant media, satellite phones, internet and blogs, we have more Maestries and fewer Doninis. I think pointing out liars is all we have left.

 

Agreed.

[ivan]

the day i find myself getting worked up over what a buncha folks i've never met claimed to do somewhere i've never been is the day i start doubling my meds

 

as long as there's honesty in bowling...

[G-spotter]

Mark a zero, Smokey

[boadman]

I read the report, and it seemed like their description and the media report matched up pretty well. It's not as if they were even claiming a ground-breaking ascent. I could see being a little disappointed if, for instance, the dawn-wall team reported a red-point but didn't place pro on lead.

[keenwesh]

I could see being a little disappointed if, for instance, the dawn-wall team reported a red-point but didn't place pro on lead.

 

Oh the horror!

[jordansahls]

You people do realize that the weather is still nice outside (at least for a few more days)? Jebus, can't we save these types of pointless, semantical arguments for that wonderful time of year when the weather turns a ghastly shade of grey and we all slowly go insane from vitamin D deficiency, cabin fever and slow drowning by rain?

[TeleRoss]

who gives a fuck? and why does it bother you so much?

Actually it does matter. like Donini said some time ago: "style matters". Climbing is a type of sport, where we don't have a bunch of referees watching what we really do. So honest reporting is a key. It used to be a golden standard, where after a writeup in Mountain Magazine, there used to be a 3 sentence summary. Now it's blogs and reporting garbage, where the reporting party will always claim "we were misunderstood". This leads to bullshit ascents, like "Golden Lunacy" in Greenland by Kaszlikowski and Kubarska in 2007. The description in magazines (Alpinist, AAJ) made it sound like a fucking unreal epic. The team travelled 80 km by sea kayaks with all the gear and then climbed 2000m route (1500 vertical terrain) on one of the largest cliffs on the planet. The route was graded 5.11d, with a lot of climbing in 5.10 range.This was the report they submitted. But there were enough inconsistencies to trigger Polish Climbing Federation investigation. They actually send a team to repeat the route.

First of all, there was no 80 km kayak odyssey. They chartered a boat and used sea kayaks to cross a 2 km bay to the base of the climb. The climb was indeed almost 2 km, but the crux was not 11d, but more like 10b/c, and the whole route had only 5 real pitches of climbing- the rest was low 5th class, which was either soloed or simul-climbed by the repeating party. No so big epic after all.

In the era of instant media, satellite phones, internet and blogs, we have more Maestries and fewer Doninis. I think pointing out liars is all we have left.

 

In the words of Chuck D...Don't believe the hype.

The posers, pretenders and hot air spewers will be found out in the end.

I suppose it comes down to why we climb...to what end? Money, quick fame, as a profession, or simply just for ourselves...

[TeleRoss]

ghastly weather? HA! It's always sunny here in SoCal